Oakland, Berkeley, And East Bay News, Events, Restaurants, Music, & Arts
The average increase for the 3 months ended Sept was 10.5pct, not 5-7pct as Days of asserts.
"limiting an owner to get a fair return on their investment."
That's just it. It's not merely an investment. It's my home. It's where I raise my kids. You want an unregulated investment, get into a hedge fund. You want to make money on residential real estate, you should have to negotiate tough regulations because your investment is providing a basic need to actual people. Regulations too tough for you? Good. More housing stock for those of us who want to buy an actual roof over our head and not just some investment to cash in on when a boom hits.
Who exactly determines what "fair" is? Rents have skyrocketed in the bay area 20 to 50% in the last 5 years. That's fair? So any time my landlord feels they need more money, they can just hit me up for it? That's what you call a racket. Alameda landlords are a mafia. Straight up.
Councilmember Daysog and East Bay Express readers: UC Berkeley's The Daily Californian did a series examining local Census results and their impact on the East Bay: http://archive.dailycal.org/article.php?id=5157. They found that the combination of high costs of living and the infusion of Latinos and Asians into Berkeley were most likely responsible for the decrease in Berkeley's Black population. There was also a large population movement during the recession of the early 1990s which hit California harder than other states. Regarding why South Berkeley specifically experienced a significant decrease in the Black population, UC Berkeley's Institute of Urban and Regional Development (IURD) has attributed this to skyrocketing housing prices and a lack of flexibility in the housing market, not the passage of rent control. Councilmember Daysog, you may want to revisit your hypothesis with this data and research from your alma mater.
In Alameda for Black History Month 2016, local historian, urban planning researcher, Rasheed Shabazz -- who grew up in Alameda's West End and graduated from UC Berkeley -- delivered a lecture at the Alameda Free Library titled, "Alameda is Our Home: A History of Black Alameda, 1860-present." The presentation demonstrated a historic pattern of housing discrimination against Blacks via racial restrictive covenants and "redlining" in Alameda. It also touched on how Black tenants of the Buena Vista Apartments had to sue the City of Alameda because of its discriminatory housing policies in the late 80's. For more context, you may want to check out the documentary,"Civic Unity: Five Years in the West End of Alameda" available at https://vimeo.com/12085156.
Thank you for this well-balanced, fair narrative of the situation in Alameda.
To be clear: I favor the local initiative called "L1", and do not support "M1", for the reason you accurately mentioned in the article, ie the formula results in an allowable rent increase that renders uneconomic especially smaller mom and pop landlords' units, which harms tenants and mom and pops equally.
I favor "L1" because it addresses the issue that brought us here in the first place, ie dealing with excessive rent increases, and does so (again, as you correctly wrote) through a mediation that (as a result of landmark ordinance Council adopted in March 2016) includes the power of binding arbitration (ie the ability to set a fair and reasonable rent increases case by case, ie mediation-based rent control).
Background: In March 2016, Alameda City Council adopted what many locally see as a landmark ordinance in an effort to address the crisis in excessive rent increases. Prior to this decision, Alameda has had for forty years a rent review advisory board who could only suggest a reasonable rent increase, when a tenant brought a matter before this board. With the March decision, Council finally gave that rent review advisory process the power of binding arbitration, ie the ability to establish a reasonable rent increase (ie mediation-based rent control on a case by case basis). Council adopted other provisions in the March ordinance, but the binding arbitration proviso is the hallmark of the ordinance.
Trends: There's been over 170 cases that have come before the rent review advisory board since adoption of the 2016 ordinance that "L1" would affirm and, of these, roughly 165 were settled between the tenant and landlord even before the actual hearing itself. The 11 remaining cases, it is my understanding, were settled during during the rent review board meeting itself, in a fashion mutually (heavy emphasis on mutually) agreed to by tenant and landlord, such that average rent increases have ranged from 5 to 7 percent. No cases have gone to the final level of binding arbitration as of yet, which indicates that mere presence of this level is acting like a cudgel forcing landlords to be reasonable with regard to rent increases. Check with the Alameda Housing Authority or Alameda Community Development Department for more info.
Summary: we are over with those days of en masse 30%, 20%, 15% excessive rent increases that characterized the rent crisis in the City of Alameda. In short, the landmark March 2016 rent ordinance that gave the rent review advisory board process the power of binding arbitration (ie the ability to set reasonable rent increase, ie mediation-based rent control) is solving the heady matter that brought us to this point in the first place (ie excessive rent increases). "L1" affirms that ordinance.
Request: we ask Alamedans to vote for "L1" as this has demonstrated itself to be a reasonable, practical, and non-ideological solution crafted with input from tenants, landlords, subject matter experts in housing law and operations, and city staff. Above all, it is working. Thank you.
/s/ Tony Daysog, Alameda City Councilmember
Postscript: many years ago while in grad school at Cal's City and Regional Planning (DCRP), I worked on a project with a Berkeley rental property outfit called St. John's and Associates, in a project funded by the Pacific Legal Foundation. It was I believe 1992 and, by then, Census 1990 was available, allowing for a comparison of 1980 Census (since Berkeley's rent control started in June 1980) and 1990 Census. What struck us was how South Berkeley over the decade of the 1980s lost en masse its African American population. I think out assessment was that this occurred not because landlords suddenly became racists but rather that for small mom and pop African American landlords in South Berkeley operating under the Berkeley style rent regime proved too difficult with the passage of time after 1980 -- hence the loss of African Americans in South Berkeley. That was a hypothesis. As Alameda seeks to emulate the Berkeley-style rent control via "M1", this is something to think about.
I totally agree with the all questions you raised. I also can share my experience in filling forms. I've forgotten the last time I filled out a form on paper. I mostly use PDFfiller to edit. You can easily fill NJ Garden State MLS Multiple Listing System Property Profile Sheet here http://pdf.ac/9h4ewU
I think we could all learn to enjoy earning money like a "tech bro"....just saying....and the title seems like a horrible attempt at being "tongue in cheek" if in fact that was the intention of the author. Otherwise the title just makes that writer sound like a class bigot who is envious long time residents who signed leases before she did...I'm not sure which it is...
While I understand the title was meant to be a joke. It almost twists the knife in the back of all the longtime residents who have been here for decades/generations. Working as a community ally in Oakland is tireless work. With the rapid influx of newcomers...its extremely difficult to try to keep, promote, and educate in a community based fashion, who the residents are, and how to preserve what this city represents historically.
I have seen no ads about prop 64 in California - why has this been kept so quiet?
Seriously? Why would anyone want to do anything "like a tech bro"?
The title is wasn't the smartest choice.
Because not being able to live and work in the city you grew up in is a laughing matter ...
I can't believe this is in the EAST Bay Express. What a rude title. If this is how you feel, please move to SF, we don't want you. Consider a revision.
4 to 6 is early bird.....
Happy hour is still illegal in Hayward for bars unless they serve food. The ban was lifted only for restaurants. Any bars caught serving a happy hour is fined by the HPD.
You are wrong Blake. Truth of the matter is that real liberals are about as bad as real republicans.
I'm sorry you are not getting the Holy Grail but in reality it doesn't exist. 64 is better than the current social situation and has built in structures to improve as others are convinced legal cannabis will not destroy the fabric of society.
Great article! I agree mistressmax that there is so much more corruption to be exposed. They also decriminalized prostitution in Australia because the police corruption had finally reached an unacceptable level.Coincidentally , people need to fill out a Parkchester Condominium Employment App , my business partner filled a template version here "https://goo.gl/kc3jTv".
We used this article in 360BayArea, a podcast that dives into headlines, hashtags and colorful voices from all around the Bay. Check it out at http://www.360bayarea.com/ep15
Congrats on an article well done. Since I was not living in the Bay Area at the time, much of what we read and saw on TV in LA was heavily biased. We knew it, but had no access. Your interview points that out and emphasizes the relevance of improved communications to #BlackLivesMatter and other activist groups. When I later became a social worker with the homeless in San Francisco, my mentor, Betty Crowder, always credited Willa Gray, her professor at San Francisco State and the Black Panthers for her training. Thanks for your hard work. See you at OMCA and Power to the People!
I have a medical marijuana cooperative that is mandated by the state and protected by the food and agriculture code. I was approve and was allowed to open by the county of Kern in Bakersfield California if this law passes does that mean I'm grandfather to grow hemp....Louie Santana147@yahoo.com. 6613765890
I can relate completely I was involved with Patrick for 7 years felt safe he was helping me with my daughter that was subjected to prostitution. I truly thought I had meet my soul mate he was loving attentive and caring but initially he told me we could not act on our feelings until 2 years after my daughter had been his client this time went and passed he contacted me we started meeting again he explained he had made someone pregnant during this time as and felt responsible so he explained there was love but he was not in love. We spent many times together over these years then suddenly he did not respond to any of my calls or texts when I saw this story I felt I really needed to respond he had me believe for years we would be one.If any of you ladies out there need more information please email me at email@example.com
East Bay Express All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation