Meeting Time: April 21, 2020 at 1:30pm PDT
Note: The online Request to Speak window has expired.
The online Comment window has expired

Agenda Item

F 20-0228 Subject: Tenant Protection, Just Cause, & Rent Ordinance Amendments From: City Attorney Parker, Councilmember Bas And Pro Tem Kalb Recommendation: Adopt An Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.22 Of The Oakland Municipal Code (Residential Rent Adjustments And Evictions) To (1) Limit The Maximum Rent Increase In Any One Year To Conform To State Law; (2) Make Failure To Pay Required Relocation Benefits An Affirmative Defense To Eviction; (3) Limit Late Fees; (4) Prohibit Unilaterally Imposed Changes To Terms Of Tenancy; (5) Add One-For-One Replacement Of Roommates To The Definition Of Housing Services; (6) Prohibit Eviction Based On Additional Occupants If Landlord Unreasonably Refused Tenant's Written Request To Add Occupant(S); And (7) Strengthen Tenants' Rights And Enforcement Of Tenants' Rights Under The Tenant Protection Ordinance [TITLE CHANGE]

  • Headshot_square
    Emily Wheeler over 3 years ago

    As an Oakland renter, I am writing to ask you to pass this item with no changes. These amendments have been thoroughly reviewed by owner lobbies and tenant advocacy organizations. Oakland's rent & eviction laws need updating to be consistent with the new state law, AB-1482 and to adapt to an increase in certain practices and bad behaviors under the Tenant Protection Ordinance. Because of loopholes in the existing laws, many tenants still face abuse and harassment by their landlords. Now, more than ever, we must assure the laws are adequate to combat the displacement of more Oakland residents from their homes.

  • Default_avatar
    Helen Duffy over 3 years ago

    I urge the passage of these tenant protections.

  • Default_avatar
    Phyllis Horneman over 3 years ago

    I am writing to oppose the changes in this agenda item.  No one has had sufficient time to look at these, unless they were among those invited to submit or write the changes.  I know already that I am opposed to the change in definition of tenants, and to the council forcing landlords to allow subleasing.  Particularly for ADU's, you are sharing personal living space with your tenants.  The State of California has recognized that this should be treated differently from a rental house or apartment, but the City of Oakland can't understand.  I request that you hold off on these changes until the COVID-19 crisis is over.  Government should be transparent, not stealthy and done in "back rooms."

  • Default_avatar
    Maya Clark over 3 years ago

    Thank you for taking this item off today's agenda. We already have a severe housing shortage in Oakland which will be worsened not improved by the proposed ALL-Tenant Rights changes. If small property owners are being punished for owning properties in which they have no rights they will undoubtedly stop maintaining the properties, remove them from the rental market, sell to owner occupants, and buy in other areas of the country (or state even) where their rights and interests matter as much as the renters' do. There are examples of "abuse" by renters and owners that require similar protections for both the renters and owners. For every argument in support of the need for renter protections, there is an equally important and significant need for owner protections. As a Renter, Property Manager, and Real Estate Broker I implore the Council to speak to community members, organizations, etc from ALL sides and amend the ordinances to be equally beneficial/burdensome to all sides.

  • Default_avatar
    John Peretti over 3 years ago

    This is bad policy, and bad political process. This does not respond to the public health emergency, and if anything, makes it worse by increasing occupancy limits, requiring approval of new roommates, etc.

    Using a public health emergency to pass more tenant-favorable laws and punish landlords is poor governance, and does not reflect well on this council, or the councilmembers pushing for these changes. I strongly oppose this measure on its merits, but I even more strongly oppose the political process that would circumvent public outreach, political engagement, and opportunity for public comment.

  • Default_avatar
    Stephanie Adraktas over 3 years ago

    I am writing to thank the Council for taking this item off the agenda. The proposed legislative findings have no factual basis and are contrary to the data in the Rent Board's most recent annual report. The proposed changes also have nothing to do with the pandemic and were written without any input from housing providers. It was inappropriate to try to by-pass the legislative process just to pander to some special interest groups.

  • Default_avatar
    Taylor Hines over 3 years ago

    It is absurd that you would consider these sweeping changes under the guise of an "emergency" meeting with only 48 hours notice. There is no way I could possibly comment on the implications of all 67 proposed changes in a mere 1,000 characters, exactly showing why this should go through the regular legislative process. Just to cite one obvious example, the prohibition against converting garages, sheds, or other common areas would prevent the construction of ADUs, in contradiction with both state and local policy. ADUs are the most cost effective way to produce additional housing. This would be deeply counterproductive and only exacerbate Oakland's housing shortage.

  • Default_avatar
    Carolyn Wright over 3 years ago

    This agenda item includes sweeping changes that need much more discussion. I am concerned with how one-sided these proposals are and how they represent only tenant special interests without consideration from property owners. They are without input from anyone from rental owner organizations or real estate organizations which is necessary to construct a fair and balanced legislation. Many of the items have nothing to do with the pandemic and yet that is their supposed reason for being proposed. And if that was the case there should be an expiration date to them, they should end when the pandemic ends. Instead the proposal looks very much like an attempt at a power grab for tenants under the guise of pandemic protection. Please do not take action on Agenda item F-20-028.

  • 10158119873017760
    Georgia Richardson over 3 years ago

    Thank you for NOT taking action on Agenda item F-20-022. There has not been sufficient dialogue with all stackholders on the many changes you are proposing to this ordinance. I encourage you to reach out the the grass roots property owner organzations and rental housing and real estate related organizations for input before putting this before the Council for a vote! For every argument on the Tenant's side, there is an equal and just as important Housing Provider argument that is just as valid. Abuse happens on both sides and blanket ordinances often have unnecessary, unintended consquences. The inequities in the TPO need to be corrected and should include protections for both sides and not one in favor of the other. As a senior, owner-occupied 4plex resident of oakland, I expect that my City Officials will look out for my interest, those of our community and not the interest of special interest . Thanks again for halting today's action on the TPO agenda item!

  • Default_avatar
    Reisa Jaffe over 3 years ago

    I am urging you to pass this without amendments that would weaken it. I volunteer on the tenant's rights hotline and hear many stories where the answer I have to give the person is sorry there are no laws to protect you. Help me be able to tell a person living in a 2 bedroom apartment who needs a roommate to help pay rent that the landlord is required to allow you to replace your roommate. Help me be able to tell a person who is working but whose wages aren't keeping up with rent increases that there is a limit on the amount the increase can be.