16 15-1197 Subject: Renter Protection Act of 2016 (Rent and Eviction Ordinance Amendments Ballot Measure)
From: Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan
Recommendation: Adopt A Adopt A Resolution On The City Council's Own Motion Submitting To The Voters At The November 8, 2016 Statewide General Election Proposed Amendments To The Rent Adjustment
Ordinance (O.M.C. Chapter 8, Article I (8.22.100, Et Seq.) (1) To Require Owners Petition For Rent Increases In Excess Of An Annual Allowance; And Proposed Amendments To The Just Cause For Eviction Ordinance (Measure EE (2002), (O.M.C. Chapter 8, Article Ii (8.22.300, Et Seq.) To (2) Modify The New Construction Exemption To Apply To Units Constructed After January 1, 2002, (3) To Require Relocation Payments For Owner-Occupancy Evictions, (4) To Permit The City Council Limited Authority To Modify The Ordinances, And (5) Amending O.M.C. Chapter 8.22 (Rent And Evictions) To Increase Transparency, Including Regular Reports From The Rent Program To The City Council And (6) Removing The Requirement For Council Approval Of Regulations, And Directing The City Clerk To Fix The Date For
Submission Of Arguments And Provide For Notice And Publication In Accordance With The November 8, 2016 Statewide General Election
I urge the council to reject this item from Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan. Now, more than ever, this city needs to ensure the rights of its renters, and I strongly advocate to instead support the Protect Oakland Renters Act.
please reject this item in favor of the Protect Oakland Renter Act. This item and the way it is being moved to be put on the ballot is shameful. District 3 member
I have a great respect for the arduous and ethical work Dan Kalb and Rebecca Kaplan have undertaken during their incumbencies. That being mentioned, I can not support the amended alternate proposal drafted by city council.Private equity financing and private developers will build market rate housing. The prescribed density credits, fast tracking of planning review, permits, tax abatement programs etc, will support the feasibility of these developments acquisitions and dispositions. The role of city government is beyond revenue generation is to foster sustainable living settlements inclusive of cultural and income diversity. That being explicitly narrated, This proposal gives tenants a false since of protection. This does so by reversing the role of onus to property investors, but reversing amortization calculations for CI, excluding the formation of a TPO office and furthermore defining gold platting, but lacks the teeth to enforce these amended rules and regulations. Please vote no.
I urge the council to reject this item from Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan. Now, more than ever, this city needs to ensure the rights of its renters, and I strongly advocate to instead support the Protect Oakland Renters Act.
Please reject this, and support the Protect Oakland Renters Act.
I urge you to reject this item 15-1197, and I strongly support the people's Protect Oakland Renters Act. I am a member of District 1.
Please reject this item in favor of the Protect Oakland Renter Act. Member of District 1. Thank you.
please reject this item in favor of the Protect Oakland Renter Act. This item and the way it is being moved to be put on the ballot is shameful. District 3 member
Please reject this item in favor of the Protect Oakland Renters Act. Thank you.
I have a great respect for the arduous and ethical work Dan Kalb and Rebecca Kaplan have undertaken during their incumbencies. That being mentioned, I can not support the amended alternate proposal drafted by city council.Private equity financing and private developers will build market rate housing. The prescribed density credits, fast tracking of planning review, permits, tax abatement programs etc, will support the feasibility of these developments acquisitions and dispositions. The role of city government is beyond revenue generation is to foster sustainable living settlements inclusive of cultural and income diversity. That being explicitly narrated, This proposal gives tenants a false since of protection. This does so by reversing the role of onus to property investors, but reversing amortization calculations for CI, excluding the formation of a TPO office and furthermore defining gold platting, but lacks the teeth to enforce these amended rules and regulations. Please vote no.