5 18-1398 Subject: Interim Emergency Ordinance For Owner-Occupied Duplexes And Triplexes
From: Councilmember Bas
Recommendation: Adopt An Interim Emergency Ordinance To: 1) Temporarily Eliminate The Exemptions From Rent Control For Owner-Occupied Duplexes And Triplexes: 2) Place A Moratorium On Rent Increases Above The Annual CPI Adjustment For Owner-Occupied Duplexes And Triplexes; 3) Affirm The City's Prohibition On Illegal Evictions; And 4) Affirm The City's Duty To Publicize City Policies Establishing Tenant Rights
While I do support Councilmember Bas' Recommendation, i believe we have to look at some sustainable long term solutions. Owner Occupiers are almost in the same boat as the renters. I do not believe that most owner occupiers are out to gouge their tenants. I currently live in an owner occupied unit and the owner has been more reasonable that all others I have rented from. I would like to see some data or factual information regarding owner occupied unreasonable rent increases. I think the bigger issue are vacant units. Why are units vacant and what can we do to get to capacity? In closing, this is a quick fix however I do not think it goes to the crux of the real issue which is speculative purchasing of real estate for the sake of pure profit.
As a volunteer at CJJC I listen to tenants getting huge increases. Their Just Cause protection is of no help when they can't afford the rent. Those of us with the privilege of being able to invest choose our investments. Landlords, you chose to be a person who controlled someone's housing. There is a responsibility that comes with that choice. When you look at your expectations for what the tenant should pay are you considering what you should be paying for your housing? When a non-landlord homeowner puts money into their home they have to wait until they sell to get a return on the investment. Are you expecting the tenant to cover everything and not have to wait at all until you sell? For those who said they bought into a duplex because that was the only way they could afford to buy, you had the option of buying with a co-owner. For those worried about bad neighbors, we all want good neighbors. Perhaps if we did a better job of living in community we would all be better neighbors.
Working with many low income Chinese immigrants who are living in this triplex/duplex units, I’ve seen the impacts of our community being forced to move because they can’t bear the costs anymore often accompanied by regular harassment to leave. These cases are numerous and often go unseen or unheard as many in our Chinese and asian immigrant broadly don’t know their rights or resources. It feels even more hopeless for these families and seniors who don’t have the rights at all simply because they chose to move into a triplex/duplex. One elderly couple we worked with had rented for 13 years and even had section 8, but their landlord explicitly and unabashedly told them they would stop accepting their section 8 voucher and wanted to raise their rent by $1000. With little to no protections we were only able to negotiate for more time, but ultimately the uncertainty of housing and fear of losing their section 8 voucher if they couldn't find another home forced them to move out of Oakland.
I support this interim emergency moratorium and want to thank CM Bas for authoring it. An emergency moratorium is needed because, even if a retroactive ordinance is passed in March, people who have been priced out of their homes in the meantime will have suffered needlessly and might have been forced into leaving the city. I don't think this ordinance puts undue burdens on landlords and I urge council to pass it.
I strongly support this ordinance, applaud Nikki's responsiveness, and urge all council members to approve this for their clients -- the people of Oakland. I don't even need to list the data or reasons because everyone knows.
I'm a landlord who shares their home with two families. A triplex was the only way I could put down roots in Oakland.
Lowest rung on the ladder. I'm basically a live-in-janitor. This ordinance change is being proposed as a "tenant protection" but actually I believe it was originally, and still is owner-occupier protection. We live together; closer than neighbors, but not quite housemates.
Measure Y already passed. I wasn't in favor of it. Now this.
I would actually be ok if I was covered by rent control, but if I was exempt from just cause for eviction. The basis for the desire being partially monetary (expensive evictions are expensive and bad tenants know it so they leverage it), the other part is my own piece of mind and security. I have to live with someone throughout a lengthy eviction.
Please consider, there are only 8,000 owner-occupiers in Oakland. We represent a mere half-percent of the housing inventory. Meanwhile, 10% of the units in Oakland are vacant.
We bought a triplex during the housing bubble in 2005 (Oaklanders since 2001). We were $250,000 underwater (based on a 2012 appraisal).
While MANY "walked away" from their mortgages, our civic pride and morals kept us in Oakland for the long haul. And during our entire ownership, the most we EVER raised a tenant was $50.
We live in the same building as our tenants. They are also our neighbors. Up until we were able to refinance in 2013, the rents covered about HALF of our PITI.
We luckily refinanced between 2013 and 2016. The building still doesn't cover the property taxes, but we felt a sense of relief. The tenants over the 14 years of ownership have been AWESOME!
We could have jacked up rents, but we didn't and we believe the VAST majority of owner occupied duplexes and triplexes respect their tenants.
If the owner occupied exemption becomes permanently abolished, we will be PERMANENTLY PUNISHED for keeping our rents not only below market, but not even raising them CPI.
Gotta Love that. The rules as they are have it so that I would never want to be a landlord on the Flats of Oakland. Market Rate in non Class "C" neighborhoods. Is a quagmire of regulations. If their is any profit to be made. This City WANTS, & must have it. I no longer buy soda in Oakland. I feel robbed when I could walk to Alameda & pay $2.40 less for that 20 pack. The point is . That shopper will wait, and change their shopping habit to shop for other Groceries outside of the City. It is a very small amount. But it adds up for the small retailer, or West Coast Bordello that needs that $. You Guys have priced out Major League Sports due to systematic Regulation & poor cost management. The Revenue had always been available to this City. The over regulation & poor use of revenues has come full Circle, as we have another Off Time City Council Meeting after the Cancellation of Committee to discuss.... No IMPOSE. The Ayes have already been Counted.
If no decision will be made anytime soon by Council then a moratorium on rent increases is needed because we are seeing rent increases of 100% or more. We need to provide some housing stability to tenants living in Owner occupied Duplexes and triplexes. As a resident in an Oakland duplex, that's soon to be owner occupied, I ask you to please support a moratorium.
If no decision will be made anytime soon by Council then a moratorium on rent increases is needed because the realtors are encouraging rent increases of 100% or more. We need to provide some housing stability to tenants living in Owner occupied Duplexes and triplexes
I am not opposed to rent control. No one would be eager to rent a space knowing that their rent can go up to any amount, (assuming there's no contract/lease, which is unlikely). Owner occupiers have had the right to raise rent to any amount in the past– so why is this an “emergency” issue now? Because Measure Y was an ill-planned, poorly executed measure.
As an owner-occupier of a duplex, I have the right to peace-of-mind in my own home. For most of my life, I was a primary lease-holder/renter with housemates. Often, someone is just downright creepy, perverted, reckless, has anger-issues, or lies about their lifestyle, and that it is not safe to live in extremely close proximity to that person. I had more rights as a lease-holder than I do now as a home OWNER.
Lastly, the flat has not been a rental unit since I purchased my home 15 years ago; I had planned to lease it on 1st Jan 2019. Sadly, due to Measure Y the flat will stay off of the market until I have control over my own home.
Socio-economic diversity is vital to Oakland, and we have many moderate and low(er) income residents who need rental assistance. There are ways to achieve this that won’t jeopardize socio-economic diversity of our property owners, something also vital to Oakland. First, make rent subsidies based on level of need. Second, spread financial responsibility onto the entire city population, not just landlords, and definitely not on small owner-occupied landlords, many of moderate income whom have invested heavily in renovating deferred maintenance properties and are struggling to make ends meet. Ways to spread financial responsibility: property tax breaks for landlords subsidizing tenant rentals through reduced rent, raising revenue for direct rent subsidies through parcel tax, business tax, and volunteer donations solicited from low Prop 13 assessed rate property owners who already aren’t paying their fair share. Prop 13 has created one inequitable system. Please don’t add to it.
Owner occupied duplexes aren’t owned by greedy corporations. We live in the neighborhood. We put in sweat equity and cope with stress and liability. We don’t do this bc we like it or make lots of extra money. We do this bc it allows us to afford to live here.
Property taxes rose significantly to pay for 2016 ballot measures. Renters vote on measures. In fact, there are more renters than owners. But, rent control limits the ability for owners to share the imposed costs. Also, legal fees are astronomical. Further, the rise in repair costs is unprecedented.
If an owner bought 10 yrs ago she can potentially absorb the new costs. If she bought 3 yrs ago she cannot. Any legislation should treat these situations differently.
Also, members say building new housing is key, but that it’s 3-5 yrs away and folks need relief now. So, why not write legislation that expires in 3-5 yrs?
Solving the crisis is important, but the details and true impact of this proposal are not thought through.
As someone who's lived in rent control units, I oppose this ordinance. From my experience, taking away landlord's freedom to set their prices and choose who they want to live with, causes animosity between tenant and landlord. It's a terrible not being able to evict someone who is disrespectful of your home. Or not being able to afford fixing your property because you can't raise rent. I experienced that while living in SF. Our landlord was kind and caring. Unfortunately, he couldn't evict one of the families he rented to. A family of 3 originally, who soon grew to 4 and then 6 members (they were not having kids), and who later leased the place to someone else for double the cost. Unfortunately, we, as the other tenants, got the short end of the stick, too, as our landlord couldn't maintain our unit to the level we wished he could. It was a sad to see this man, a Vietnamese immigrant, who was always eager to help, lose his trust in his tenants. I don't want that happening to us.
If no decision will be made anytime soon by Council then a moratorium on rent increases is needed because the realtors are encouraging rent increases of 100% or more. We need to provide some housing stability to tenants living in Owner occupied Duplexes and triplexes.
When I have been allowed to actually explain how Measure Y was going to work even the most progressive of my friends were against it. Sadly those who just went along with the idea that it was going to protect tenants and not how it actually would reduce housing didn't read nor understand the full ramifications. That measure only passed because it was on the face of it, the obvious progressive vote. However, since housing has already shrunk and people are scrambling, the city council calls for an "emergency moratorium" on rent increases. And then to follow with rent control for the .4% of OOs. The owners of these won't be able to stay. So THEY go. Who cares (according the tenant activist) they are just homeowners. Well, once they sell out, the NEW owner will have different set of numbers to get "FAIR RATE of RETURN" on his property. It creates a precarious position for the tenant. Oakland's future is upper middle-class. Have fun with your new friends!
Purchasing our duplex (from our previous landlord) was one of the only ways my girlfriend and I could afford to stay in Oakland. A couple points:
1) My current tenant's annual income is ~$25k per year higher than mine. Why is the city council dead set on subsidizing his housing costs at my expense when I'm the one who has made a decision to lay down roots in Oakland?
2) On my street, as far as I can tell, all of the owner occupied duplexes are owned by people of color. While the duplexes owned by absentee landlords (which already have rent control), are white owned. I actually see the owner occupied exemption from rent control as a backdoor affirmative action program for middle class black and Latino residents of Oakland. I don't know if this is the case city wide, but on my block owner occupants are overwhelmingly African American. Subjecting owner occupied properties to rent control will result in Oakland residents selling off their homes to investors. Oppose this ordinance!
We are .5% of the rental market
Taking away our exemption will not solve our homeless crisis
We are part of the communities w/ rental unit(s) in our homes
It takes away our safety to rent to people w/ reasons keeping them from qualifying for mainstream rental options
If tenants move in additional people, acquire additional pets, become destructive, cease being respectful or stop following rules laid out in the lease we have no recourse. Increased utilities or repair costs could put so much $ burden on a homeowner that they risk losing their home. It takes months for hearings to come before the ORB & in the meantime we have to continue to share our homes.
PLEASE press pause & look at the facts. This is going to have long term negative effects for both sides as Owners find ways to take units off the market or rent for top $ to the best applicants. This is not going to help the renters groups are advocating for.
There has to be a better compromise than all or nothing.
Thank you!
I was born and raised in Oakland and am proud to call the city home. My wife and I saved up to purchase a duplex. We live in one half and are able to afford the mortgage because of the rental income from our tenant in the other half. There is a very real housing crisis in Oakland and we have done what we can to help by keeping our tenant at below market rent and volunteering to host refugees for months at a time in our own home. But this proposal doesn't help solve that crisis. Instead of building new housing or reining in large property management firms squeezing out powerless tenants, it unfairly targets a small number of Oakland residents who are trying to make ends meet in order to live in the buildings they call home.
While I do support Councilmember Bas' Recommendation, i believe we have to look at some sustainable long term solutions. Owner Occupiers are almost in the same boat as the renters. I do not believe that most owner occupiers are out to gouge their tenants. I currently live in an owner occupied unit and the owner has been more reasonable that all others I have rented from. I would like to see some data or factual information regarding owner occupied unreasonable rent increases. I think the bigger issue are vacant units. Why are units vacant and what can we do to get to capacity? In closing, this is a quick fix however I do not think it goes to the crux of the real issue which is speculative purchasing of real estate for the sake of pure profit.
As a volunteer at CJJC I listen to tenants getting huge increases. Their Just Cause protection is of no help when they can't afford the rent. Those of us with the privilege of being able to invest choose our investments. Landlords, you chose to be a person who controlled someone's housing. There is a responsibility that comes with that choice. When you look at your expectations for what the tenant should pay are you considering what you should be paying for your housing? When a non-landlord homeowner puts money into their home they have to wait until they sell to get a return on the investment. Are you expecting the tenant to cover everything and not have to wait at all until you sell? For those who said they bought into a duplex because that was the only way they could afford to buy, you had the option of buying with a co-owner. For those worried about bad neighbors, we all want good neighbors. Perhaps if we did a better job of living in community we would all be better neighbors.
Working with many low income Chinese immigrants who are living in this triplex/duplex units, I’ve seen the impacts of our community being forced to move because they can’t bear the costs anymore often accompanied by regular harassment to leave. These cases are numerous and often go unseen or unheard as many in our Chinese and asian immigrant broadly don’t know their rights or resources. It feels even more hopeless for these families and seniors who don’t have the rights at all simply because they chose to move into a triplex/duplex. One elderly couple we worked with had rented for 13 years and even had section 8, but their landlord explicitly and unabashedly told them they would stop accepting their section 8 voucher and wanted to raise their rent by $1000. With little to no protections we were only able to negotiate for more time, but ultimately the uncertainty of housing and fear of losing their section 8 voucher if they couldn't find another home forced them to move out of Oakland.
I support this interim emergency moratorium and want to thank CM Bas for authoring it. An emergency moratorium is needed because, even if a retroactive ordinance is passed in March, people who have been priced out of their homes in the meantime will have suffered needlessly and might have been forced into leaving the city. I don't think this ordinance puts undue burdens on landlords and I urge council to pass it.
I strongly support this ordinance, applaud Nikki's responsiveness, and urge all council members to approve this for their clients -- the people of Oakland. I don't even need to list the data or reasons because everyone knows.
Housing precarity is devastating and unjust.
I'm a landlord who shares their home with two families. A triplex was the only way I could put down roots in Oakland.
Lowest rung on the ladder. I'm basically a live-in-janitor. This ordinance change is being proposed as a "tenant protection" but actually I believe it was originally, and still is owner-occupier protection. We live together; closer than neighbors, but not quite housemates.
Measure Y already passed. I wasn't in favor of it. Now this.
I would actually be ok if I was covered by rent control, but if I was exempt from just cause for eviction. The basis for the desire being partially monetary (expensive evictions are expensive and bad tenants know it so they leverage it), the other part is my own piece of mind and security. I have to live with someone throughout a lengthy eviction.
Please consider, there are only 8,000 owner-occupiers in Oakland. We represent a mere half-percent of the housing inventory. Meanwhile, 10% of the units in Oakland are vacant.
We bought a triplex during the housing bubble in 2005 (Oaklanders since 2001). We were $250,000 underwater (based on a 2012 appraisal).
While MANY "walked away" from their mortgages, our civic pride and morals kept us in Oakland for the long haul. And during our entire ownership, the most we EVER raised a tenant was $50.
We live in the same building as our tenants. They are also our neighbors. Up until we were able to refinance in 2013, the rents covered about HALF of our PITI.
We luckily refinanced between 2013 and 2016. The building still doesn't cover the property taxes, but we felt a sense of relief. The tenants over the 14 years of ownership have been AWESOME!
We could have jacked up rents, but we didn't and we believe the VAST majority of owner occupied duplexes and triplexes respect their tenants.
If the owner occupied exemption becomes permanently abolished, we will be PERMANENTLY PUNISHED for keeping our rents not only below market, but not even raising them CPI.
Gotta Love that. The rules as they are have it so that I would never want to be a landlord on the Flats of Oakland. Market Rate in non Class "C" neighborhoods. Is a quagmire of regulations. If their is any profit to be made. This City WANTS, & must have it. I no longer buy soda in Oakland. I feel robbed when I could walk to Alameda & pay $2.40 less for that 20 pack. The point is . That shopper will wait, and change their shopping habit to shop for other Groceries outside of the City. It is a very small amount. But it adds up for the small retailer, or West Coast Bordello that needs that $. You Guys have priced out Major League Sports due to systematic Regulation & poor cost management. The Revenue had always been available to this City. The over regulation & poor use of revenues has come full Circle, as we have another Off Time City Council Meeting after the Cancellation of Committee to discuss.... No IMPOSE. The Ayes have already been Counted.
If no decision will be made anytime soon by Council then a moratorium on rent increases is needed because we are seeing rent increases of 100% or more. We need to provide some housing stability to tenants living in Owner occupied Duplexes and triplexes. As a resident in an Oakland duplex, that's soon to be owner occupied, I ask you to please support a moratorium.
If no decision will be made anytime soon by Council then a moratorium on rent increases is needed because the realtors are encouraging rent increases of 100% or more. We need to provide some housing stability to tenants living in Owner occupied Duplexes and triplexes
I am not opposed to rent control. No one would be eager to rent a space knowing that their rent can go up to any amount, (assuming there's no contract/lease, which is unlikely). Owner occupiers have had the right to raise rent to any amount in the past– so why is this an “emergency” issue now? Because Measure Y was an ill-planned, poorly executed measure.
As an owner-occupier of a duplex, I have the right to peace-of-mind in my own home. For most of my life, I was a primary lease-holder/renter with housemates. Often, someone is just downright creepy, perverted, reckless, has anger-issues, or lies about their lifestyle, and that it is not safe to live in extremely close proximity to that person. I had more rights as a lease-holder than I do now as a home OWNER.
Lastly, the flat has not been a rental unit since I purchased my home 15 years ago; I had planned to lease it on 1st Jan 2019. Sadly, due to Measure Y the flat will stay off of the market until I have control over my own home.
Socio-economic diversity is vital to Oakland, and we have many moderate and low(er) income residents who need rental assistance. There are ways to achieve this that won’t jeopardize socio-economic diversity of our property owners, something also vital to Oakland. First, make rent subsidies based on level of need. Second, spread financial responsibility onto the entire city population, not just landlords, and definitely not on small owner-occupied landlords, many of moderate income whom have invested heavily in renovating deferred maintenance properties and are struggling to make ends meet. Ways to spread financial responsibility: property tax breaks for landlords subsidizing tenant rentals through reduced rent, raising revenue for direct rent subsidies through parcel tax, business tax, and volunteer donations solicited from low Prop 13 assessed rate property owners who already aren’t paying their fair share. Prop 13 has created one inequitable system. Please don’t add to it.
Owner occupied duplexes aren’t owned by greedy corporations. We live in the neighborhood. We put in sweat equity and cope with stress and liability. We don’t do this bc we like it or make lots of extra money. We do this bc it allows us to afford to live here.
Property taxes rose significantly to pay for 2016 ballot measures. Renters vote on measures. In fact, there are more renters than owners. But, rent control limits the ability for owners to share the imposed costs. Also, legal fees are astronomical. Further, the rise in repair costs is unprecedented.
If an owner bought 10 yrs ago she can potentially absorb the new costs. If she bought 3 yrs ago she cannot. Any legislation should treat these situations differently.
Also, members say building new housing is key, but that it’s 3-5 yrs away and folks need relief now. So, why not write legislation that expires in 3-5 yrs?
Solving the crisis is important, but the details and true impact of this proposal are not thought through.
As someone who's lived in rent control units, I oppose this ordinance. From my experience, taking away landlord's freedom to set their prices and choose who they want to live with, causes animosity between tenant and landlord. It's a terrible not being able to evict someone who is disrespectful of your home. Or not being able to afford fixing your property because you can't raise rent. I experienced that while living in SF. Our landlord was kind and caring. Unfortunately, he couldn't evict one of the families he rented to. A family of 3 originally, who soon grew to 4 and then 6 members (they were not having kids), and who later leased the place to someone else for double the cost. Unfortunately, we, as the other tenants, got the short end of the stick, too, as our landlord couldn't maintain our unit to the level we wished he could. It was a sad to see this man, a Vietnamese immigrant, who was always eager to help, lose his trust in his tenants. I don't want that happening to us.
If no decision will be made anytime soon by Council then a moratorium on rent increases is needed because the realtors are encouraging rent increases of 100% or more. We need to provide some housing stability to tenants living in Owner occupied Duplexes and triplexes.
When I have been allowed to actually explain how Measure Y was going to work even the most progressive of my friends were against it. Sadly those who just went along with the idea that it was going to protect tenants and not how it actually would reduce housing didn't read nor understand the full ramifications. That measure only passed because it was on the face of it, the obvious progressive vote. However, since housing has already shrunk and people are scrambling, the city council calls for an "emergency moratorium" on rent increases. And then to follow with rent control for the .4% of OOs. The owners of these won't be able to stay. So THEY go. Who cares (according the tenant activist) they are just homeowners. Well, once they sell out, the NEW owner will have different set of numbers to get "FAIR RATE of RETURN" on his property. It creates a precarious position for the tenant. Oakland's future is upper middle-class. Have fun with your new friends!
Purchasing our duplex (from our previous landlord) was one of the only ways my girlfriend and I could afford to stay in Oakland. A couple points:
1) My current tenant's annual income is ~$25k per year higher than mine. Why is the city council dead set on subsidizing his housing costs at my expense when I'm the one who has made a decision to lay down roots in Oakland?
2) On my street, as far as I can tell, all of the owner occupied duplexes are owned by people of color. While the duplexes owned by absentee landlords (which already have rent control), are white owned. I actually see the owner occupied exemption from rent control as a backdoor affirmative action program for middle class black and Latino residents of Oakland. I don't know if this is the case city wide, but on my block owner occupants are overwhelmingly African American. Subjecting owner occupied properties to rent control will result in Oakland residents selling off their homes to investors. Oppose this ordinance!
We are .5% of the rental market
Taking away our exemption will not solve our homeless crisis
We are part of the communities w/ rental unit(s) in our homes
It takes away our safety to rent to people w/ reasons keeping them from qualifying for mainstream rental options
If tenants move in additional people, acquire additional pets, become destructive, cease being respectful or stop following rules laid out in the lease we have no recourse. Increased utilities or repair costs could put so much $ burden on a homeowner that they risk losing their home. It takes months for hearings to come before the ORB & in the meantime we have to continue to share our homes.
PLEASE press pause & look at the facts. This is going to have long term negative effects for both sides as Owners find ways to take units off the market or rent for top $ to the best applicants. This is not going to help the renters groups are advocating for.
There has to be a better compromise than all or nothing.
Thank you!
I was born and raised in Oakland and am proud to call the city home. My wife and I saved up to purchase a duplex. We live in one half and are able to afford the mortgage because of the rental income from our tenant in the other half. There is a very real housing crisis in Oakland and we have done what we can to help by keeping our tenant at below market rent and volunteering to host refugees for months at a time in our own home. But this proposal doesn't help solve that crisis. Instead of building new housing or reining in large property management firms squeezing out powerless tenants, it unfairly targets a small number of Oakland residents who are trying to make ends meet in order to live in the buildings they call home.