Tony Daysog 
Member since Mar 27, 2008


Stats

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “How CalSTRS Investments Influenced Workers to Vote for Donald Trump

This is a must-read. Thanks.

Posted by Tony Daysog on 11/16/2016 at 5:28 PM

Re: “Raiders' Dominant Win Over Denver Last Night Proves Oakland Is For Real

I, too, was worried if the Raiders 2016 were\are real, since the defensive stats in the previous games paled in comparison to what the offense was accomplishing. But, with last night's game, the defense showed it is capable of delivering, so the Raiders are definitely play-off contenders. Too early to say if they're Super Bowl bound. Play-offs, yes. (I still think the Raiders are a stellar corner-back shy of being SB-ready: previous winning SB Raiders teams always had incredibly great corner-backs, or at least one).

Posted by Tony Daysog on 11/07/2016 at 3:42 PM

Re: “Tenant Activists in Alameda Test Progressive Rent-Control Waters with Measure M1

Ms Nader writes, "Tony Daysog would like to see the entire island gentrified. He stood by while 700 families were unjustly evicted from Harbor Island. " To see four hundred families evicted en masse on short notice in 2004 was, indeed, terribly tragic, the repercussions of which to this day affects the West End of town in the form of closed schools, some of which only recently re-opened as charter schools that attract youth from throughout the island. That mass eviction was indeed tragic . . . and contrary to what Ms. Nader says, I and the then-Council took the matter to court, all the way to Judge Alsop's court, where he ruled that the out of town property owner could displace 400 families en masse. As for gentrification, no, I don't want to see the entire island or parts of the island gentrified, and I see in Measure L1 a tool that council and the City finally has in slowing down the indicator of gentrification, ie excessive rent increases. While I believe the relocation benefit\penalty (a fee that the landlord must pay to tenants in instances of 'no cause' evictions) we, the Council, adopted in March 2016 is too high, there is, nonetheless, such a tool to stifle 'no cause' evictions, along with other tactics in the March ordinance (ie Measure L1). So I encourage residents to give L1 the chance to keep working, as it has in the form of the ordinance adopted in March. Thanks.

Posted by Tony Daysog on 11/02/2016 at 7:56 PM

Re: “Tenant Activists in Alameda Test Progressive Rent-Control Waters with Measure M1

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.

Posted by Tony Daysog on 11/02/2016 at 9:29 AM

Re: “Do Not Resist This Film

Food for thought indeed!

Posted by Tony Daysog on 10/19/2016 at 12:08 AM

Re: “Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016

Bummer! But . . . I do appreciate the line you included: "Councilmember Tony Daysog has served Alameda admirably over the years, but . . ." Of course, we might have our difference over the predicate following the "but" : ) But, regardless, I do appreciate what you wrote. All the best. (Still, I'll always be an avid reader of EBX!)

/s/ Tony Daysog
http://www.daysog.com

Posted by Tony Daysog on 10/12/2016 at 11:50 AM

Re: “Hapless Chargers Punt Win to First-Place Oakland Raiders

I honestly think it's great that EBX is following the Raiders on a weekly basis!

Posted by Tony Daysog on 10/10/2016 at 10:12 AM

All Comments »

Readers' Favorites

Most Popular Stories


© 2017 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation