Note: The online Request to Speak window has expired.
The online Comment window has expired
Agenda Item
10 25-0185 Subject: Amendments To The Rent Adjustment And Just Cause For Eviction Ordinances
From: President Pro Tempore Kalb
Recommendation: Adopt An Ordinance (1) Amending The Rent Adjustment Ordinance To (A) Limit Banking Of CPI Rent Increases To Expire After Four Years And After Transfer Of Property; (B) Prohibit Rent Increases For Owners Delinquent On Business Taxes; (C) Extend Tenant Petition Deadlines From 90 Days To 180 Days And (2) Amending The Just Cause For Eviction Ordinance To Prohibit No Fault Evictions For Owners Delinquent On Business Taxes
Property owners who are delinquent on business taxes should not be able to increase their rents. In this time of fiscal stress for Oakland, it is concerning to learn that a large number of business owners who are delinquent on their business taxes are landlords. The proposed amendments create means for real accountability for landlords, in other words profit earning housing business owners, who are delinquent on their business taxes. If a landlord is not willing to uphold their own financial obligations, they should not profit off their tenants’ rents or be able evict tenants without fault, while failing to uphold their own business responsibilities. This will have a great impact in stabilizing tenant families and preventing their displacement, while ensuring that landlords continue to receive their rental income and avoid unnecessary costs associated with eviction lawsuits and litigation. Currently, in Oakland, landlords can bank up to ten years of rent increases and can even pass on those banked rent increases to a new landlord if the building is sold! This can result in potentially three years of the maximum possible rent increase, which is nearly 10%. These unaffordable rent hikes catch tenants by surprise. When there is a change in ownership and a landlord has recently bought a property, they often take the opportunity to issue these rent hikes as a means to an end: flipping these tenancies for more “desirable” tenants and bringing them to market rate
For nearly a decade, I've lived in the same apartment. Recently, my landlords have decided to sell the building, and we've learned that 10 years of banked rent increases would transfer to new owners, ie people with the funds to afford over $1 mil "investment opportunity," funds that we could only dream of. This would put our rent beyond a livable expense. My partner and I can not rely on hope and faith that our future landlords will have the good will to ensure we can continue to afford our home. We need legal protections. And for that reason, I hope you will support this bill's stricter policy regarding banked rent increases.
Please do not pass this. Landlord are struggling. Landlords need a voice and to be able to run their business like humans. Landlord tenant relationships are suffering due to not being able to help your fellow man because the laws are so one sided. There is no room in Oakland for a good Samaritan landlord and that should not be the case. A landlord should be able to help out a struggling tenant without being punished for it. There is a lack of outreach to poor landlords in this city. Please do not tell a poor disabled landlord that they cannot move into a ground floor unit of their rental property because a tax was not paid. Please create a landlord Task force so that you all will listen to the cries of landlords. Please do not continue to hurt the landlord tenant relationship. Please stop allowing these white lead tenant organizations to set the stage and say what they think tenants of color need. They are not tenants or landlords of color voices. All these tenant organizations want is to push out small landlords so the these so called tenant organizations can stay in business and keep the aged old narrative of landlord good tenant bad. They do not want to see people of color do well. They want us to stay co- dependent on them so that we will stay tenants for the rest of our lives and they can stay in business. They do not want us to own property and find ways to get out of poverty. Landlords are being targeted for no good reason.
Please pass these tenant protections, which are just common sense ways to keep residents housed. Banked rent increases, in practice, puts a huge burden on working renters trying to stay afloat, who don't have enough time, energy or money to keep our apartments. Increasing the amount of time a tenant has to combat illegal rent increases from 90 to 180 days is also crucial. We should not be protecting landlords over tenants. Everyone has a right to be housed. These tenant protections are a step in the right direction.
Any time limit on reporting illegal rent hikes is outrageous and an outlier among cities with rent control. Extending the limit from 3 months to 6 is not enough but is a start.
Tenant protections are essential to the health of our city Rent increases and evictions lead directly to crisis for most renters, often increasing the number of unhoused community members. As a lifelong renter hoping to be able to retire in the next 10 years, unstable housing threatens those plans.
I urge the council to pass the package of protections & incentives to pay taxes.
We need the tax revenue & tenants need the security which will allow them to spend more at local businesses
I urge you to pass these very basic tenant protections. There is no reason landlords should need to bank >4 years of rent increases other than subjecting the renter to unpredictably high rent increases. Landlords should pay their business taxes and these enforcement incentives are quite minimal. Also minimal is the extension of the tenant petition deadline to 180 days--rent increases are forever but not all renters learn which rent increases or other landlord actions within 90 or 80 days. Please pass at least these minimal protections.
I am in support of Council-member Kalb’s amendment to the ordinance. I'm 73 yrs old, since 2020 my "banked" increases alone total an additional $393.00 /mo. Both of these increases have caused anxiety in my life and the constant fear of eviction.
I am in support of Council-member Kalb’s amendment to the ordinance although 180 days is still too short of a time. Unlike landlords, tenants must work for a living to earn a living and pay their rent. It is not the tenants fault if they were taken advantage of and didn’t know what their legal rights were at the time. An illegal rent increase is illegal the moment it is passed to the tenant. It is wrong and that doesn’t change from day one to day infinity.
Frankly this should go even further. An illegal rent increase is an illegal rent increase — there shouldn't be a time limit of only 180 days to contest.
Property owners who are delinquent on business taxes should not be able to increase their rents. In this time of fiscal stress for Oakland, it is concerning to learn that a large number of business owners who are delinquent on their business taxes are landlords. The proposed amendments create means for real accountability for landlords, in other words profit earning housing business owners, who are delinquent on their business taxes. If a landlord is not willing to uphold their own financial obligations, they should not profit off their tenants’ rents or be able evict tenants without fault, while failing to uphold their own business responsibilities. This will have a great impact in stabilizing tenant families and preventing their displacement, while ensuring that landlords continue to receive their rental income and avoid unnecessary costs associated with eviction lawsuits and litigation. Currently, in Oakland, landlords can bank up to ten years of rent increases and can even pass on those banked rent increases to a new landlord if the building is sold! This can result in potentially three years of the maximum possible rent increase, which is nearly 10%. These unaffordable rent hikes catch tenants by surprise. When there is a change in ownership and a landlord has recently bought a property, they often take the opportunity to issue these rent hikes as a means to an end: flipping these tenancies for more “desirable” tenants and bringing them to market rate
For nearly a decade, I've lived in the same apartment. Recently, my landlords have decided to sell the building, and we've learned that 10 years of banked rent increases would transfer to new owners, ie people with the funds to afford over $1 mil "investment opportunity," funds that we could only dream of. This would put our rent beyond a livable expense. My partner and I can not rely on hope and faith that our future landlords will have the good will to ensure we can continue to afford our home. We need legal protections. And for that reason, I hope you will support this bill's stricter policy regarding banked rent increases.
I strongly oppose, legislation like this has long-term reverberating negative consequences
Please do not pass this. Landlord are struggling. Landlords need a voice and to be able to run their business like humans. Landlord tenant relationships are suffering due to not being able to help your fellow man because the laws are so one sided. There is no room in Oakland for a good Samaritan landlord and that should not be the case. A landlord should be able to help out a struggling tenant without being punished for it. There is a lack of outreach to poor landlords in this city. Please do not tell a poor disabled landlord that they cannot move into a ground floor unit of their rental property because a tax was not paid. Please create a landlord Task force so that you all will listen to the cries of landlords. Please do not continue to hurt the landlord tenant relationship. Please stop allowing these white lead tenant organizations to set the stage and say what they think tenants of color need. They are not tenants or landlords of color voices. All these tenant organizations want is to push out small landlords so the these so called tenant organizations can stay in business and keep the aged old narrative of landlord good tenant bad. They do not want to see people of color do well. They want us to stay co- dependent on them so that we will stay tenants for the rest of our lives and they can stay in business. They do not want us to own property and find ways to get out of poverty. Landlords are being targeted for no good reason.
Please pass these tenant protections, which are just common sense ways to keep residents housed. Banked rent increases, in practice, puts a huge burden on working renters trying to stay afloat, who don't have enough time, energy or money to keep our apartments. Increasing the amount of time a tenant has to combat illegal rent increases from 90 to 180 days is also crucial. We should not be protecting landlords over tenants. Everyone has a right to be housed. These tenant protections are a step in the right direction.
Any time limit on reporting illegal rent hikes is outrageous and an outlier among cities with rent control. Extending the limit from 3 months to 6 is not enough but is a start.
Tenant protections are essential to the health of our city Rent increases and evictions lead directly to crisis for most renters, often increasing the number of unhoused community members. As a lifelong renter hoping to be able to retire in the next 10 years, unstable housing threatens those plans.
I urge the council to pass the package of protections & incentives to pay taxes.
We need the tax revenue & tenants need the security which will allow them to spend more at local businesses
I urge you to pass these very basic tenant protections. There is no reason landlords should need to bank >4 years of rent increases other than subjecting the renter to unpredictably high rent increases. Landlords should pay their business taxes and these enforcement incentives are quite minimal. Also minimal is the extension of the tenant petition deadline to 180 days--rent increases are forever but not all renters learn which rent increases or other landlord actions within 90 or 80 days. Please pass at least these minimal protections.
I am in support of Council-member Kalb’s amendment to the ordinance. I'm 73 yrs old, since 2020 my "banked" increases alone total an additional $393.00 /mo. Both of these increases have caused anxiety in my life and the constant fear of eviction.
I am in support of Council-member Kalb’s amendment to the ordinance although 180 days is still too short of a time. Unlike landlords, tenants must work for a living to earn a living and pay their rent. It is not the tenants fault if they were taken advantage of and didn’t know what their legal rights were at the time. An illegal rent increase is illegal the moment it is passed to the tenant. It is wrong and that doesn’t change from day one to day infinity.
Frankly this should go even further. An illegal rent increase is an illegal rent increase — there shouldn't be a time limit of only 180 days to contest.