7.5 18-1350 Subject: Elimination Of Substantial Rehabilitation Exemption
From: Housing And Community Development Department
Recommendation: Adopt An Ordinance To Remove The Substantial Rehabilitation Exemption From The Rent Adjustment Ordinance (O.M.C. 8.22.030.B.2)
I live in your district and urge you to vote NO on the ordinance to remove the substantial rehabilitation exemption.
The substantial rehabilitation exemptions incentivizes landlords to do major rehabilitation projects that improve all rental units in a building, in some cases bringing previously uninhabitable units into use.
According to the staff report: the exemption has been used on just 35 buildings in the last seven years, and there is no evidence that the exemption results in rent increases that displace Oakland residents.
Eliminating this incentive will not address Oakland's housing crisis.
Please don’t take away the incentive for people to rehab old building and make neighborhoods more livable and pleasant. My neighborhood needs this exemption in order to incentivize people to purchase and rebuild burned out drug dens and abaondoned buildings. Many of these buildings foster crime and violence and make our neighborhoods less livable.
This ordinance makes absolutely no sense. We are having a housing crisis and this will actually make the situation worse over time. There is no incentive for a landlord to make major improvements. The justification of the ordinance tries to fall back on the law of "fair return on investment", but looking at public data from the city's Rent Adjustment Program, over the past 23 years, ZERO cases of "fair return in investment" have been approved. It is clearly not a viable process. In fact, the policy analysis in the report, states that there is "NO collected data on the correlation between displacement and these substantial rehabilitation exemptions." WHAT!!! So why are we doing this then??? NO DATA. As elected council members, you have more of a responsibility to understand your actions with data than just what appears to be good public policy. I urge you to vote no on this ordinance. Please...we are acting so hastily with our housing policies which will have negative results.
If there is no innovation for the property, the city will become ugly in apperance and the property decrease value of living
As a property owner, I will try to move out my business from city of Oakland.
Let make Oaland more attractive to investors.
This elimination will guarantee that older housing stock is never renovated in Oakland and will deteriorate. Where is the data showing the distributon of homes by YEARS OLD so we can see how many 30,40,50,60, 100 year old buildings will be affected? Where is the data showing that this is a major contributor to displacement? By enacting this ordinance you are guaranteeing problems in housing today, 10 years from now 20, it will only get worse over time! DO NOT APPROVE THIS ORDINANCE! Focus on new construction and the ability to rehab old buildings.
I live in your district and urge you to vote NO on the ordinance to remove the substantial rehabilitation exemption.
The substantial rehabilitation exemptions incentivizes landlords to do major rehabilitation projects that improve all rental units in a building, in some cases bringing previously uninhabitable units into use.
According to the staff report: the exemption has been used on just 35 buildings in the last seven years, and there is no evidence that the exemption results in rent increases that displace Oakland residents.
Eliminating this incentive will not address Oakland's housing crisis.
We need fair solutions based on facts.
Thank you,
Cong Dang
Please don’t take away the incentive for people to rehab old building and make neighborhoods more livable and pleasant. My neighborhood needs this exemption in order to incentivize people to purchase and rebuild burned out drug dens and abaondoned buildings. Many of these buildings foster crime and violence and make our neighborhoods less livable.
This ordinance makes absolutely no sense. We are having a housing crisis and this will actually make the situation worse over time. There is no incentive for a landlord to make major improvements. The justification of the ordinance tries to fall back on the law of "fair return on investment", but looking at public data from the city's Rent Adjustment Program, over the past 23 years, ZERO cases of "fair return in investment" have been approved. It is clearly not a viable process. In fact, the policy analysis in the report, states that there is "NO collected data on the correlation between displacement and these substantial rehabilitation exemptions." WHAT!!! So why are we doing this then??? NO DATA. As elected council members, you have more of a responsibility to understand your actions with data than just what appears to be good public policy. I urge you to vote no on this ordinance. Please...we are acting so hastily with our housing policies which will have negative results.
If there is no innovation for the property, the city will become ugly in apperance and the property decrease value of living
As a property owner, I will try to move out my business from city of Oakland.
Let make Oaland more attractive to investors.
This elimination will guarantee that older housing stock is never renovated in Oakland and will deteriorate. Where is the data showing the distributon of homes by YEARS OLD so we can see how many 30,40,50,60, 100 year old buildings will be affected? Where is the data showing that this is a major contributor to displacement? By enacting this ordinance you are guaranteeing problems in housing today, 10 years from now 20, it will only get worse over time! DO NOT APPROVE THIS ORDINANCE! Focus on new construction and the ability to rehab old buildings.