2 20-0445 Subject: Equitable Business Tax Update
From: Councilmember Bas, Thao And President Pro Tem Kalb
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution On The City Council's Own Motion Submitting To The Voters At The November 3, 2020 General Municipal Election, An Ordinance Repealing And Replacing Chapter 5.04 Of The Oakland Municipal Code To Create An Progressive, Modern, And Equitable Business Tax Structure; And Directing The City Clerk To Take All Actions Necessary To Prepare For And Conduct A November 3, 2020 General Municipal Election.
Oakland should attract and support all businesses in our local community, especially now to help with the COVID-19 recovery. Increasing taxes just drives much business away, cause unemployment and decrease tax revenue. Small businesses including mom and pop housing providers should be encouraged with exemptions. Exemptions for people renting out rooms to get through this crisis. Exemptions for ADU's to make more housing units available. Exemption for small rental businesses to support Oakland residents who invest their retirement money in our local real estate instead of other places or in the stock market. Taxes shouldn't be 4-8 times more than San Francisco. That's not fair, just or equitable. And kills local business, jobs, and city revenue in the long run.
Small property owners in Oakland are small businesses also. We struggle and are barely keeping up with so much regulation you put on us. We have spent our lives here and have stuck by Oakland for much longer than many of the same people making the rules now. We have saved, invested, and have put our heart and sole into owning our properties in Oakland. Why discriminate against us. This is not fair leadership. Apply the taxes even to all small business.
I generally support a progressive Business Tax. However, small homeowners renting ADUs must be added to the proposed exemptions currently within the Measure. Given the lack of affordable housing in Oakland, the huge numbers of unsheltered citizens living on our streets, and the difficulty people face in paying for housing in the Bay Area, any small measure that can help alleviate burden for low income home owners, as well as create more affordable housing should be a no brainer.
Don’t let this piece of legislation be selective progressivism. It doesn’t matter that resolutions were made last year regarding rental properties, they can always be changed. Why not identify small owners(up to 16-20 units), ADUs, or owner occupied, as included in these changes? Who on CEDA has the fortitude to see that this needs to be brought forward? I oppose these changes without including small residential property owners in the mix- we are small businesses and often minorities. Strike a balance and show some thoughtfulness to this policy change, otherwise it seems to just be pushing a long list of agenda items to harm certain groups in Oakland.
I'm a District 1 resident with a 10-year history renting in Oakland and writing in support of the progressive business taxes.
While I understand that many opposing comments request additional exemptions for §5.04.210(D), i believe the current framework of exemptions to be sufficient for owner-occupied rental properties, including those for owners renting an ADU. I would urge the council to consider that the majority of residents in Oakland are renters and that their voices are often unheard in this type of forum. I urge the council to approve this measure and simply give the people an opportunity to determine this issue at the ballot box.
I don't know what all the fuss is about. Part D of the residential tax exemts owners who live on the same property as the ADUS. Those are the ones GAGA says need protection but they aready are protefted. The only owners who are taxed are owners of large multi-unit ADUs, absentee landlords, and short-term rentals like AirBnB.
This measure is not competitive with our neighboring cities. We need investment in housing and discriminating against small owners who have chosen to invest here will likely further discourage the future investment our city so desperately needs.
Though I thought the progressive business license tax was going to be an improvement, I learned that my small 4-unit rental property is not considered part of this progressive business tax! What I would have paid for having less than $250,000 / year gross receipts would be $100. But because my business doesn't qualify for some strange reason, I will now pay more than 8 times that amount per year! PLUS, I'm being hamstrung by rent control, eviction moratoriums, and am running at a very slim margin that can't be changed. I'm need to see ALL rental properties be treated fairly and not selectively. Gaming this tax revenue isn't going to help Oakland by hurting the very groups that need to be included in this progressive tax plan.
San Francisco's progressive tax rate is much less than what I'm paying right now - at $13.97/ $1,000 / year! Oakland's tax plan for small rentals is more than 8 times the rate of San Francisco's, and if we were to research other cities, I'm sure it's one of the highest in the state.
The city-wide Neighbors Defending our Homes Coalition/NDH generally supports the proposed Progressive, Equitable Business Tax Ballot Measure before the Council. However, small homeowners renting rooms or ADUs must be included in the proposed exemptions currently within the Measure, as they are generally low-income residents often facing loss of their home, especially during this drastic economic crisis. Meanwhile huge landlords/developers have NO CHANGE IN THEIR RATE in the current language! This is NOT progressive.
Current antiquated, counter-productive "Rental Business" Tax provisions serve to penalize & discourage homeowners from renting on their property, & requires extensive Finance Dept. staffing resources to implement. Renting rooms in a single family dwelling &/or in an ADU or 2 on the property assures more low-cost housing, helps stem homelessness/displacement/rampant gentrification, and complies with recent State laws.
Amending the Proposal to completely exclude such homeowners from the revised Business Tax IS THE equitable & progressive way forward.
Isn't it obvious that a homeowner renting a single room is a different case than a big business running a large apartment house? The same rate really shouldn't apply to ADUs.
Hello. I generally
support a progressive Business Tax *but* small homeowners renting ADUs
must be added to the proposed exemptions. They are generally lower income residents often facing loss of
their home, especially during this drastic economic crisis. Rent from a
basement in your home, even from a family member, will be taxed at over 4X the S.F. rate. Other cities exempt small landlords—Oakland must too.
after removing the owner occupied exemption from duplexes and triplexes... why not show a little compassion towards small OAKLAND RESIDENTS and rental housing providers, many of which kept rents under market (and who's generosity is now permanent) by lowering the rental tax? The new tax structure would still charge these, often low-income, homeowners a tax rate equal to retailers making $25M/year.
Oakland says it needs more rental units, yet continually punishes those most vulnerable who try to offer it. the end result is LESS units on the market if Oakland keeps attacking small mom and pop housing providers. it happened in San Francisco, the outcome will be absolutely the same in Oakland. less units on the market, higher rents. simple as that.
Small ADUs are the heart of the culture of Oakland. They must not be taxed at the same rate as big corporations. Please adjust the rates on this. Thanks
This Proposed Ballot Measure must include an exemption for ADUs to avoid harshly impacting lower income homeowners who rent rooms, basements, modest In-Laws and other ADUs in their homes or on the property where they live. Oakland is fast becoming a place where only wealthy people can afford to buy a house or rent an apartment and this is not good for our community. To tax these modest landlords like any other business is outrageous. I am a homeowner. I support a progressive business tax. But the net is too wide on this measure.
The city-wide Neighbors Defending our Homes Coalition/NDH generally supports a progressive Business Tax. But small homeowners renting ADUs must be added to the proposed exemptions currently within the Measure. They are generally lower income residents often facing loss of their home, especially during this drastic economic crisis. Rent from a basement in your home, even from a family member, will be taxed at over 4X the S.F. rate. Other cities exempt small landlords. This is NOT progressive. I AM A SENIOR ON A FIXED INCOME WHO DECIDED TO STAY IN MY HOUSE SO I COULD OFFER A LOW RENT OPTION TO A RENTER IN OAKLAND WHO WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE TO MOVE OUT OF OAKLAND.
Current antiquated, counter-productive "Rental Business" Tax provisions serve to penalize & discourage homeowners from renting on their property & requires extensive Finance Dept. staffing resources to implement. Renting an ADU or 2 on the property assures more low-cost housing, helps stem homelessness/displacement/ rampant gentrification, complies with recent State laws, cost the City nothing, & must be encouraged.
Amending the Proposal to completely exclude such homeowners from the revised Business Tax IS THE only equitable & progressive way forward.
I oppose the proposed Business Tax as presently written. While I support a progressive Business Tax, I urge the Council to add an ADU exemption to the Proposal. Small homeowners renting ADU's on their property are often lower-income individuals and can ill-afford to be taxed at more than 4 times the SF rate. Our city needs more low-income housing to stem the tide of homelessness and displacement; such rentals should be encouraged by the Council. The Proposal as written will instead penalize them.
Amending the Proposal to completely exclude such homeowners from the revised Business Tax is the only equitable and progressive way forward.
An Exemption for those who rent rooms or ADUs on their property must be included in the Proposed "Progressive" Business Tax Ballot Measure!
Please find your "Equity Lens" & apply it to this issue!
It is sad that this supposedly liberal Council characterizes the Proposed Business Tax overhaul as "progressive" when nothing is being done to correct the horribly regressive treatment of low-income homeowners renting rooms or ADUs at their residence. This Council purports to care about the skyrocketing displacement of low-income/elderly/people of color from their homes, some of which have been family owned for generations. The CC claims to be concerned about extremely high rents and the pressing need for lower cost rental units, does little to create them, and then punishes those that offer rooms and ADUs at low cost. Taxing at 4 times the rate of S.F. landlords, at the same tax rate as people making $25M in retail sales, and then placing liens if they can't pay is a terrible practice. Instead of unfair taxes that no other Bay Area City demands of ADU renters, the CC should establish a large fund to assist the development of more ADUs!
Your CC says it cares about the unsheltered & the impact on our City, but does little to solve the situation...& then discourages homeowners that might provide low-cost housing at NO COST to the City. This is the opportunity to correct this discriminatory practice!
NOW IS THE TIME TO CORRECT THIS INJUSTICE!
Item 2: Business Tax.
The city-wide Neighbors Defending our Homes Coalition/NDH generally supports a progressive Business Tax. But small homeowners renting ADUs must be added to the proposed exemptions currently within the Proposed Measure. They are generally lower income residents often facing loss of their home, especially during this drastic economic crisis. Rent from a basement in your home, even from a family member, will be taxed at over 4X the S.F. rate. Other cities exempt small landlords--they know ADUs help slow displacement & homelessness. This CC/Mayor SAYS ADUs are important but do little. This measure is NOT progressive without including the ADU exemption!
Current antiquated, counter-productive "Rental Business" Tax provisions serve to penalize & discourage homeowners from renting on their property & requires extensive Finance Dept. staffing resources to implement. Last year's changes in ADU taxes have NOT been implemented & the City refuses to even send a letter informing small landlords they may be exempt & due a refund!
Renting an ADU or 2 on their property assures more low-cost housing, helps stem homelessness/displacement/rampant gentrification, complies with recent State laws, costs the City nothing, & must be encouraged. Amending the Proposal to completely exclude such homeowners from the revised Business Tax IS THE only equitable & progressive way forward.
Why would you or anyone be against this?! FIND YOUR EQUITY LENS!
Oakland should attract and support all businesses in our local community, especially now to help with the COVID-19 recovery. Increasing taxes just drives much business away, cause unemployment and decrease tax revenue. Small businesses including mom and pop housing providers should be encouraged with exemptions. Exemptions for people renting out rooms to get through this crisis. Exemptions for ADU's to make more housing units available. Exemption for small rental businesses to support Oakland residents who invest their retirement money in our local real estate instead of other places or in the stock market. Taxes shouldn't be 4-8 times more than San Francisco. That's not fair, just or equitable. And kills local business, jobs, and city revenue in the long run.
Small property owners in Oakland are small businesses also. We struggle and are barely keeping up with so much regulation you put on us. We have spent our lives here and have stuck by Oakland for much longer than many of the same people making the rules now. We have saved, invested, and have put our heart and sole into owning our properties in Oakland. Why discriminate against us. This is not fair leadership. Apply the taxes even to all small business.
I generally support a progressive Business Tax. However, small homeowners renting ADUs must be added to the proposed exemptions currently within the Measure. Given the lack of affordable housing in Oakland, the huge numbers of unsheltered citizens living on our streets, and the difficulty people face in paying for housing in the Bay Area, any small measure that can help alleviate burden for low income home owners, as well as create more affordable housing should be a no brainer.
Don’t let this piece of legislation be selective progressivism. It doesn’t matter that resolutions were made last year regarding rental properties, they can always be changed. Why not identify small owners(up to 16-20 units), ADUs, or owner occupied, as included in these changes? Who on CEDA has the fortitude to see that this needs to be brought forward? I oppose these changes without including small residential property owners in the mix- we are small businesses and often minorities. Strike a balance and show some thoughtfulness to this policy change, otherwise it seems to just be pushing a long list of agenda items to harm certain groups in Oakland.
I'm a District 1 resident with a 10-year history renting in Oakland and writing in support of the progressive business taxes.
While I understand that many opposing comments request additional exemptions for §5.04.210(D), i believe the current framework of exemptions to be sufficient for owner-occupied rental properties, including those for owners renting an ADU. I would urge the council to consider that the majority of residents in Oakland are renters and that their voices are often unheard in this type of forum. I urge the council to approve this measure and simply give the people an opportunity to determine this issue at the ballot box.
I don't know what all the fuss is about. Part D of the residential tax exemts owners who live on the same property as the ADUS. Those are the ones GAGA says need protection but they aready are protefted. The only owners who are taxed are owners of large multi-unit ADUs, absentee landlords, and short-term rentals like AirBnB.
This measure is not competitive with our neighboring cities. We need investment in housing and discriminating against small owners who have chosen to invest here will likely further discourage the future investment our city so desperately needs.
Though I thought the progressive business license tax was going to be an improvement, I learned that my small 4-unit rental property is not considered part of this progressive business tax! What I would have paid for having less than $250,000 / year gross receipts would be $100. But because my business doesn't qualify for some strange reason, I will now pay more than 8 times that amount per year! PLUS, I'm being hamstrung by rent control, eviction moratoriums, and am running at a very slim margin that can't be changed. I'm need to see ALL rental properties be treated fairly and not selectively. Gaming this tax revenue isn't going to help Oakland by hurting the very groups that need to be included in this progressive tax plan.
San Francisco's progressive tax rate is much less than what I'm paying right now - at $13.97/ $1,000 / year! Oakland's tax plan for small rentals is more than 8 times the rate of San Francisco's, and if we were to research other cities, I'm sure it's one of the highest in the state.
The city-wide Neighbors Defending our Homes Coalition/NDH generally supports the proposed Progressive, Equitable Business Tax Ballot Measure before the Council. However, small homeowners renting rooms or ADUs must be included in the proposed exemptions currently within the Measure, as they are generally low-income residents often facing loss of their home, especially during this drastic economic crisis. Meanwhile huge landlords/developers have NO CHANGE IN THEIR RATE in the current language! This is NOT progressive.
Current antiquated, counter-productive "Rental Business" Tax provisions serve to penalize & discourage homeowners from renting on their property, & requires extensive Finance Dept. staffing resources to implement. Renting rooms in a single family dwelling &/or in an ADU or 2 on the property assures more low-cost housing, helps stem homelessness/displacement/rampant gentrification, and complies with recent State laws.
Amending the Proposal to completely exclude such homeowners from the revised Business Tax IS THE equitable & progressive way forward.
Isn't it obvious that a homeowner renting a single room is a different case than a big business running a large apartment house? The same rate really shouldn't apply to ADUs.
Hello. I generally
support a progressive Business Tax *but* small homeowners renting ADUs
must be added to the proposed exemptions. They are generally lower income residents often facing loss of
their home, especially during this drastic economic crisis. Rent from a
basement in your home, even from a family member, will be taxed at over 4X the S.F. rate. Other cities exempt small landlords—Oakland must too.
after removing the owner occupied exemption from duplexes and triplexes... why not show a little compassion towards small OAKLAND RESIDENTS and rental housing providers, many of which kept rents under market (and who's generosity is now permanent) by lowering the rental tax? The new tax structure would still charge these, often low-income, homeowners a tax rate equal to retailers making $25M/year.
Oakland says it needs more rental units, yet continually punishes those most vulnerable who try to offer it. the end result is LESS units on the market if Oakland keeps attacking small mom and pop housing providers. it happened in San Francisco, the outcome will be absolutely the same in Oakland. less units on the market, higher rents. simple as that.
Small ADUs are the heart of the culture of Oakland. They must not be taxed at the same rate as big corporations. Please adjust the rates on this. Thanks
This Proposed Ballot Measure must include an exemption for ADUs to avoid harshly impacting lower income homeowners who rent rooms, basements, modest In-Laws and other ADUs in their homes or on the property where they live. Oakland is fast becoming a place where only wealthy people can afford to buy a house or rent an apartment and this is not good for our community. To tax these modest landlords like any other business is outrageous. I am a homeowner. I support a progressive business tax. But the net is too wide on this measure.
The city-wide Neighbors Defending our Homes Coalition/NDH generally supports a progressive Business Tax. But small homeowners renting ADUs must be added to the proposed exemptions currently within the Measure. They are generally lower income residents often facing loss of their home, especially during this drastic economic crisis. Rent from a basement in your home, even from a family member, will be taxed at over 4X the S.F. rate. Other cities exempt small landlords. This is NOT progressive. I AM A SENIOR ON A FIXED INCOME WHO DECIDED TO STAY IN MY HOUSE SO I COULD OFFER A LOW RENT OPTION TO A RENTER IN OAKLAND WHO WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE TO MOVE OUT OF OAKLAND.
Current antiquated, counter-productive "Rental Business" Tax provisions serve to penalize & discourage homeowners from renting on their property & requires extensive Finance Dept. staffing resources to implement. Renting an ADU or 2 on the property assures more low-cost housing, helps stem homelessness/displacement/ rampant gentrification, complies with recent State laws, cost the City nothing, & must be encouraged.
Amending the Proposal to completely exclude such homeowners from the revised Business Tax IS THE only equitable & progressive way forward.
I oppose the proposed Business Tax as presently written. While I support a progressive Business Tax, I urge the Council to add an ADU exemption to the Proposal. Small homeowners renting ADU's on their property are often lower-income individuals and can ill-afford to be taxed at more than 4 times the SF rate. Our city needs more low-income housing to stem the tide of homelessness and displacement; such rentals should be encouraged by the Council. The Proposal as written will instead penalize them.
Amending the Proposal to completely exclude such homeowners from the revised Business Tax is the only equitable and progressive way forward.
Dear Oakland CC Member,
An Exemption for those who rent rooms or ADUs on their property must be included in the Proposed "Progressive" Business Tax Ballot Measure!
Please find your "Equity Lens" & apply it to this issue!
It is sad that this supposedly liberal Council characterizes the Proposed Business Tax overhaul as "progressive" when nothing is being done to correct the horribly regressive treatment of low-income homeowners renting rooms or ADUs at their residence. This Council purports to care about the skyrocketing displacement of low-income/elderly/people of color from their homes, some of which have been family owned for generations. The CC claims to be concerned about extremely high rents and the pressing need for lower cost rental units, does little to create them, and then punishes those that offer rooms and ADUs at low cost. Taxing at 4 times the rate of S.F. landlords, at the same tax rate as people making $25M in retail sales, and then placing liens if they can't pay is a terrible practice. Instead of unfair taxes that no other Bay Area City demands of ADU renters, the CC should establish a large fund to assist the development of more ADUs!
Your CC says it cares about the unsheltered & the impact on our City, but does little to solve the situation...& then discourages homeowners that might provide low-cost housing at NO COST to the City. This is the opportunity to correct this discriminatory practice!
NOW IS THE TIME TO CORRECT THIS INJUSTICE!
Item 2: Business Tax.
The city-wide Neighbors Defending our Homes Coalition/NDH generally supports a progressive Business Tax. But small homeowners renting ADUs must be added to the proposed exemptions currently within the Proposed Measure. They are generally lower income residents often facing loss of their home, especially during this drastic economic crisis. Rent from a basement in your home, even from a family member, will be taxed at over 4X the S.F. rate. Other cities exempt small landlords--they know ADUs help slow displacement & homelessness. This CC/Mayor SAYS ADUs are important but do little. This measure is NOT progressive without including the ADU exemption!
Current antiquated, counter-productive "Rental Business" Tax provisions serve to penalize & discourage homeowners from renting on their property & requires extensive Finance Dept. staffing resources to implement. Last year's changes in ADU taxes have NOT been implemented & the City refuses to even send a letter informing small landlords they may be exempt & due a refund!
Renting an ADU or 2 on their property assures more low-cost housing, helps stem homelessness/displacement/rampant gentrification, complies with recent State laws, costs the City nothing, & must be encouraged. Amending the Proposal to completely exclude such homeowners from the revised Business Tax IS THE only equitable & progressive way forward.
Why would you or anyone be against this?! FIND YOUR EQUITY LENS!
NDH Steering Committee