6 22-0542 Subject: Submit Amendments To The Just Cause For Eviction Ordinance To The November 8, 2022 General Election
From: Councilmembers Kalb And Fife
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution On The City Council's Own Motion Submitting To The Voters At The November 8, 2022, General Municipal Election, An Ordinance To Amend Oakland Municipal Code Section 8.22.300 Et Seq. (Just Cause For Eviction Ordinance) To: (1) Extend Eviction Protections To Tenants In Vehicular Residential Facilities And Newly Constructed Rental Units, Except Accessory Dwelling Units During The First Ten Years; (2) Remove Failure To Execute A Lease Extension As Grounds For Eviction; (3) Prohibit No-Fault Evictions Of Educators And Children During The School Year; And (4) Make Other Clarifying Amendments; And Directing The City Clerk To Fix The Date For Submission Of Arguments And Provide For Notice And Publication, And Take Any And All Actions Necessary Under Law To Prepare For And Conduct The November 8, 2022, General Municipal Election
These proposals should be separated out and voted on independently.
Not as a package.
As a package will obscure the proper debate in particular on the question of ADUs.
Not every unit has to be rent controlled in order to benefit rent-controlled renters. If magically 100,000 ADU appeared on the market, this would greatly reduce pressure on the rent-controlled housing stock, and lower initial rents.
ADU space, and any rental space in an owner-occupied home is inherently flexible space. Over time it will take different roles: kid’s bedroom, shop, business office, empty nester returns from college space, space for Uncle Joe or grandma. Unless the owner can sign fixed term or month to month leases, this sets up a conflict. Not every homeowner can afford to “pay off” or buy out every tenant.
To maximize occupied units, ADUs must remain free of Just Cause restrictions.
A number of @Laura Bixby 's conclusions are wrong, for a variety of reasons including that often ADU's are converted from existing space, which changes the rules regarding new construction. And builders of more dense multifamily must generally honor existing rent control entitlements.
For disclosure I do permit consulting on ADU and JADU projects. My favorite are JADU projects are for low income owners to help them stay in their homes. But it's a non-starter to tell them that each tenant has a lifetime right to stay, and insufficient to rely on owner move in evictions.
Yes! I'm an Oakland resident of District 2 for several years and support the submission of these amendments to the Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance for the Nov ballot. Oakland non-homeowners have needed these protections for years and the next best time to pass these amendments is now. The proposed amendments would greatly support Oaklanders in staying housed and resourced, especially children and educators. Our RV and tiny house neighbors deserve the protections that these amendments would provide. Please do the right thing and adopt this resolution so Oakland voters can have a direct say in the fall election. Thank you.
As a longtime resident of D3 in Oakland, I can see how crucial it is for us to continue strengthening our just cause eviction laws to stem the tide of displacement from Oakland and prevent more people from losing their housing. These updates to existing laws would be huge in terms of protecting families, teachers, and others from unjust evictions.
I strongly support the amendment to Oakland’s Just Cause Ordinance submitted by Councilmembers Dan Kalb & Carroll Fife. Oakland is currently in the grip of a housing crisis as increasing rents have made many tenants vulnerable to displacement and homelessness. These conditions threaten all the communities that make up Oakland, but especially residents of color who are disproportionality represented among the tenant population. The Council must take action to ensure that every tenant, including those living in ADUs, are protected by the Just Cause ordinance and cannot be evicted due to the arbitrary whims of their landlord. Evictions impose a great cost not only on tenants, but on the very fabric of our community – I hope the Council will take up this timely amendment to combat homelessness and involuntary displacement.
Tenant protections for these vulnerable classes are necessary for the healthy societal balance of any community. Low-income tenants being forced out of their homes contributes to homelessness, labor shortages, increased gas-prices as more and more people have to commute. It also exacerbates the necessity for social programs to aid these classes. If you are a landlord unhappy about tenant protections, then simply don't rent your property. If you cannot afford to own your property without renting it, then maybe you should consider selling so it can be bought by someone who actually intends to live there. It's time local politicians stop protecting speculative investors and instead foster an environment that allows our communities to thrive.
I oppose extending Just Cause Eviction Ordinance to VRF and ADU rentals where the owner lives on the same property/site as the rental. This will discourage rental or new construction of ADUs, and VRF, by local individual resident property owners.
Since the early 2000s, the City of Oakland passed the Just Cause Ordinance to address the involuntary displacement of tenants at that time. Now, with the ongoing pandemic, increasing inflation, and economic recession, it is time to strengthen those eviction protections and expand them to include all newly built housing, to help keep Oakland families housed and especially keep Black, Brown and indigenous tenants in their homes and within their communities. Involuntary displacement, on the other hand, severely and negatively impacts the community welfare systems and destabilizes our communities.
The state has incentivized the building of ADUs for landlords while the City of Oakland has allowed for more and more high rise housing to be built in Oakland. ADU's should not be exempt from these protections as the tenants in those units deserve the same protections as tenants in any other units in the rental market. This is about a just and fair equalizing just cause process, not about limiting a landlord's right to manage their rental properties.
As the pandemic rages on and more tenants find themselves at their landlord's mercy after months of uncertainty, it is important that this City Council responds adequately and with certainty to the needs of the community and supports tenant protections to help stabilize our communities in these times of instability.
The ever increasing rates of people being unhoused means we have to look for every opportunity to keep people housed. I support strengthening Just Cause eviction protections!
Including ADU's in this ordinance is a huge mistake Oakland can not afford given their increased demand for RHNA housing units. This will cut ADU applications in half or greater at a time the city is trying to find ways to scale up ADU's to assist in creating more affordable rental units. As one of the founders of the ADU industry over 17 years ago and ADU legislative activities to take down barriers, I see this as a big step backwards right when the state is offering financial assistance to help homeowners build ADU's.
Housing insecurity presents a health crisis in Oakland. According to OMC 8.22.300, "the right to occupancy of safe, decent, and sanitary housing is a human right". We need to codify that fully in law.
I strongly support these Just Cause eviction protections in order to maintain Oakland residents housed. This is a much deeper conversation where we need to see tenants’ journey of being forced to be homeless. No more displacement for our people from the Town.
Choosing to start your ballot language with the teacher/children provision demonizes small rental property owners. Voters won't read beyond that... We see that this is a political strategic move but its concerning that a city leader would choose to promulgate hate to win. You could have ordered the provisions as they appear in the ordinance starting with RV's - but that wouldn't grab the voter. For those families who have not received rent in two years - they may not be able to wait until school vacation to access the equity in their homes because they may have their own child who needs cancer treatment or pay for a child's college education?? Or pay for the care of an elderly parent? This is the wrong time to include this limitation.
I strongly support strengthing Just Cause eviction protections to slow displacement and rising rates of homelessness in Oakland. We need these amendments to defend our city.
Once again, council proposes a ballot measure that must be rushed through- before anyone gets a a real look at it. Why? Not submitted in a timely manner. I see that eviction for educators and children cannot be done during the school year. That leaves between 6 and 8 weeks depending on the school year. Have any of you ever seen an eviction process that went that quickly? It really seems like you simply should state that the City of Oakland prohibits eviction of these protected classes, rather than relying on the school year as a coverup of this intention. Tenants don't even have to execute a lease. Since the city council applies their rules to everyone, you have small housing providers who can no longer even rely on lease term. They can be required to house tenants perpetually and to accept additional occupants at the sole decision of the tenant. These are our homes. We have fewer rights over out property than our tenants do. I hope everyone considering an ADU realizes that they should have one any where else besides Oakland. In 10 years, besides all the rules that apply immediately your ADU will be subject to rent control. This is the council's method of "encouraging housing providers." No wonder Oakland hasn't been able to house its people with approach to housing. Advice- save money so you remove your unit under the Ellis Act when it becomes too much for too little.
Although I have grave doubts that the current council will read, comprehend and listen to what the opposition has said and written, I put in my Opposition to this unnecessary language as tenants have many protections already and there already are legislation and regulations in place to curb any wayward landlords. Don't villainize the majority of landlords who already follow these rules and Just Cause.
The language in the proposal does nothing and isn't needed.
Most new construction (post 1995) buildings are market rate and not occupied by “vulnerable” tenants, but instead by upper income tenants. There is no profit motivation for an owner to evict. The proposed measure would create unnecessary legal costs and only serve to drive rents upward in Oakland. The additional costs will also deter new investment from coming into the city for new construction projects. Not to mention it would end all new investments in new construction and it would no longer be any equitable reason for any owner to add a ADU and be subject to these onerous rules. As usual a solution offered where no problem exists.
I strongly support extending the protections of Just Cause. As a tenants' rights lawyer, I have seen how many of the most vulnerable tenants in our community still fall through the cracks and risk losing their homes. Just cause is essential to provide stable and safe housing to those in our community who most need it. I am very much in favor of extending just cause to newly constructed housing, and believe ADUs should not be exempted for the first ten years as those are an increasingly popular form of housing whose tenants need protection too. There is simply no evidence that bringing ADUs under just cause will disincentivize their construction--homeowners choose to add an ADU to their property for the rental income and allowing tenants to only be evicted for just cause does not have any effect on them receiving that income. Also, if just cause is not extended to new construction, eventually no properties in Oakland will ever be subject to just cause. Further, I support removing failure to extend a lease extension as grounds for eviction. This provision causes a lot of confusion for tenants and landlords alike, and I have seen how it has been used to coerce tenants into signing a materially different lease rather than risk getting evicted. Keeping people housed in their existing housing is the most important thing we can do to decrease the unhoused population, which everyone should support.
When the Council was considering the most recent amendments to the Just Cause ordinance one of the points emphasized by proponents was that new ADUs would be exempt. The Council acknowledged that if new ADUs were subject to just cause restrictions it was unlikely that home owners would use their savings to add an ADU to their property. If these amendments pass, they will undermine ADU construction in Oakland and exacerbate the housing shortage.
The proponents of Measure EE (Just Cause) left out new buildings because they knew it would discourage the building of more apartments and the voters didn't want that. Why now would we change and start to discourage the building of more apartments? This makes no sense.
These proposals should be separated out and voted on independently.
Not as a package.
As a package will obscure the proper debate in particular on the question of ADUs.
Not every unit has to be rent controlled in order to benefit rent-controlled renters. If magically 100,000 ADU appeared on the market, this would greatly reduce pressure on the rent-controlled housing stock, and lower initial rents.
ADU space, and any rental space in an owner-occupied home is inherently flexible space. Over time it will take different roles: kid’s bedroom, shop, business office, empty nester returns from college space, space for Uncle Joe or grandma. Unless the owner can sign fixed term or month to month leases, this sets up a conflict. Not every homeowner can afford to “pay off” or buy out every tenant.
To maximize occupied units, ADUs must remain free of Just Cause restrictions.
A number of @Laura Bixby 's conclusions are wrong, for a variety of reasons including that often ADU's are converted from existing space, which changes the rules regarding new construction. And builders of more dense multifamily must generally honor existing rent control entitlements.
For disclosure I do permit consulting on ADU and JADU projects. My favorite are JADU projects are for low income owners to help them stay in their homes. But it's a non-starter to tell them that each tenant has a lifetime right to stay, and insufficient to rely on owner move in evictions.
Yes! I'm an Oakland resident of District 2 for several years and support the submission of these amendments to the Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance for the Nov ballot. Oakland non-homeowners have needed these protections for years and the next best time to pass these amendments is now. The proposed amendments would greatly support Oaklanders in staying housed and resourced, especially children and educators. Our RV and tiny house neighbors deserve the protections that these amendments would provide. Please do the right thing and adopt this resolution so Oakland voters can have a direct say in the fall election. Thank you.
As a longtime resident of D3 in Oakland, I can see how crucial it is for us to continue strengthening our just cause eviction laws to stem the tide of displacement from Oakland and prevent more people from losing their housing. These updates to existing laws would be huge in terms of protecting families, teachers, and others from unjust evictions.
I strongly support the amendment to Oakland’s Just Cause Ordinance submitted by Councilmembers Dan Kalb & Carroll Fife. Oakland is currently in the grip of a housing crisis as increasing rents have made many tenants vulnerable to displacement and homelessness. These conditions threaten all the communities that make up Oakland, but especially residents of color who are disproportionality represented among the tenant population. The Council must take action to ensure that every tenant, including those living in ADUs, are protected by the Just Cause ordinance and cannot be evicted due to the arbitrary whims of their landlord. Evictions impose a great cost not only on tenants, but on the very fabric of our community – I hope the Council will take up this timely amendment to combat homelessness and involuntary displacement.
Tenant protections for these vulnerable classes are necessary for the healthy societal balance of any community. Low-income tenants being forced out of their homes contributes to homelessness, labor shortages, increased gas-prices as more and more people have to commute. It also exacerbates the necessity for social programs to aid these classes. If you are a landlord unhappy about tenant protections, then simply don't rent your property. If you cannot afford to own your property without renting it, then maybe you should consider selling so it can be bought by someone who actually intends to live there. It's time local politicians stop protecting speculative investors and instead foster an environment that allows our communities to thrive.
I oppose extending Just Cause Eviction Ordinance to VRF and ADU rentals where the owner lives on the same property/site as the rental. This will discourage rental or new construction of ADUs, and VRF, by local individual resident property owners.
Since the early 2000s, the City of Oakland passed the Just Cause Ordinance to address the involuntary displacement of tenants at that time. Now, with the ongoing pandemic, increasing inflation, and economic recession, it is time to strengthen those eviction protections and expand them to include all newly built housing, to help keep Oakland families housed and especially keep Black, Brown and indigenous tenants in their homes and within their communities. Involuntary displacement, on the other hand, severely and negatively impacts the community welfare systems and destabilizes our communities.
The state has incentivized the building of ADUs for landlords while the City of Oakland has allowed for more and more high rise housing to be built in Oakland. ADU's should not be exempt from these protections as the tenants in those units deserve the same protections as tenants in any other units in the rental market. This is about a just and fair equalizing just cause process, not about limiting a landlord's right to manage their rental properties.
As the pandemic rages on and more tenants find themselves at their landlord's mercy after months of uncertainty, it is important that this City Council responds adequately and with certainty to the needs of the community and supports tenant protections to help stabilize our communities in these times of instability.
The ever increasing rates of people being unhoused means we have to look for every opportunity to keep people housed. I support strengthening Just Cause eviction protections!
Just cause protections should be extended to all rental units in Oakland. All tenants deserve housing security.
Including ADU's in this ordinance is a huge mistake Oakland can not afford given their increased demand for RHNA housing units. This will cut ADU applications in half or greater at a time the city is trying to find ways to scale up ADU's to assist in creating more affordable rental units. As one of the founders of the ADU industry over 17 years ago and ADU legislative activities to take down barriers, I see this as a big step backwards right when the state is offering financial assistance to help homeowners build ADU's.
Housing insecurity presents a health crisis in Oakland. According to OMC 8.22.300, "the right to occupancy of safe, decent, and sanitary housing is a human right". We need to codify that fully in law.
I strongly support these Just Cause eviction protections in order to maintain Oakland residents housed. This is a much deeper conversation where we need to see tenants’ journey of being forced to be homeless. No more displacement for our people from the Town.
Choosing to start your ballot language with the teacher/children provision demonizes small rental property owners. Voters won't read beyond that... We see that this is a political strategic move but its concerning that a city leader would choose to promulgate hate to win. You could have ordered the provisions as they appear in the ordinance starting with RV's - but that wouldn't grab the voter. For those families who have not received rent in two years - they may not be able to wait until school vacation to access the equity in their homes because they may have their own child who needs cancer treatment or pay for a child's college education?? Or pay for the care of an elderly parent? This is the wrong time to include this limitation.
I strongly support strengthing Just Cause eviction protections to slow displacement and rising rates of homelessness in Oakland. We need these amendments to defend our city.
Once again, council proposes a ballot measure that must be rushed through- before anyone gets a a real look at it. Why? Not submitted in a timely manner. I see that eviction for educators and children cannot be done during the school year. That leaves between 6 and 8 weeks depending on the school year. Have any of you ever seen an eviction process that went that quickly? It really seems like you simply should state that the City of Oakland prohibits eviction of these protected classes, rather than relying on the school year as a coverup of this intention. Tenants don't even have to execute a lease. Since the city council applies their rules to everyone, you have small housing providers who can no longer even rely on lease term. They can be required to house tenants perpetually and to accept additional occupants at the sole decision of the tenant. These are our homes. We have fewer rights over out property than our tenants do. I hope everyone considering an ADU realizes that they should have one any where else besides Oakland. In 10 years, besides all the rules that apply immediately your ADU will be subject to rent control. This is the council's method of "encouraging housing providers." No wonder Oakland hasn't been able to house its people with approach to housing. Advice- save money so you remove your unit under the Ellis Act when it becomes too much for too little.
Although I have grave doubts that the current council will read, comprehend and listen to what the opposition has said and written, I put in my Opposition to this unnecessary language as tenants have many protections already and there already are legislation and regulations in place to curb any wayward landlords. Don't villainize the majority of landlords who already follow these rules and Just Cause.
The language in the proposal does nothing and isn't needed.
Most new construction (post 1995) buildings are market rate and not occupied by “vulnerable” tenants, but instead by upper income tenants. There is no profit motivation for an owner to evict. The proposed measure would create unnecessary legal costs and only serve to drive rents upward in Oakland. The additional costs will also deter new investment from coming into the city for new construction projects. Not to mention it would end all new investments in new construction and it would no longer be any equitable reason for any owner to add a ADU and be subject to these onerous rules. As usual a solution offered where no problem exists.
I strongly support extending the protections of Just Cause. As a tenants' rights lawyer, I have seen how many of the most vulnerable tenants in our community still fall through the cracks and risk losing their homes. Just cause is essential to provide stable and safe housing to those in our community who most need it. I am very much in favor of extending just cause to newly constructed housing, and believe ADUs should not be exempted for the first ten years as those are an increasingly popular form of housing whose tenants need protection too. There is simply no evidence that bringing ADUs under just cause will disincentivize their construction--homeowners choose to add an ADU to their property for the rental income and allowing tenants to only be evicted for just cause does not have any effect on them receiving that income. Also, if just cause is not extended to new construction, eventually no properties in Oakland will ever be subject to just cause. Further, I support removing failure to extend a lease extension as grounds for eviction. This provision causes a lot of confusion for tenants and landlords alike, and I have seen how it has been used to coerce tenants into signing a materially different lease rather than risk getting evicted. Keeping people housed in their existing housing is the most important thing we can do to decrease the unhoused population, which everyone should support.
When the Council was considering the most recent amendments to the Just Cause ordinance one of the points emphasized by proponents was that new ADUs would be exempt. The Council acknowledged that if new ADUs were subject to just cause restrictions it was unlikely that home owners would use their savings to add an ADU to their property. If these amendments pass, they will undermine ADU construction in Oakland and exacerbate the housing shortage.
The proponents of Measure EE (Just Cause) left out new buildings because they knew it would discourage the building of more apartments and the voters didn't want that. Why now would we change and start to discourage the building of more apartments? This makes no sense.