2.2 20-0377 Subject: Eviction Moratorium Emergency Ordinance Extension
From: Councilmember Bas, President Pro Tempore Kalb And City Attorney Parker
Recommendation: Adopt An Emergency Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 13589 C.M.S. To (1) Extend The Moratorium On Residential Evictions During The Local Emergency Proclaimed In Response To The Novel Coronavirus (Covid-19) Pandemic; And (2) Extend The Moratorium On Commercial Evictions Based On Nonpayment Of Rent That Became Due During The Local Emergency When Tenant Suffered A Substantial Loss Of Income Due To Covid-19
The eviction moratorium should be extended for a month or two but to extend it indefinitely will have dramatic unintended consequences. There is already a "free rent" movement in response to the first moratorium, where tenants who are able to pay their rent are refusing to do so. How do Council Members Kalb and Bas expect property owners to pay the taxes that support our schools and other public services? How will property owners be able to maintain buildings when tenants can refuse to pay rent with no consequences? The old buildings that make up much of Oakland's housing stock is very expensive to maintain and the owner cannot continue to pay plumbers, electricians and roofers without income.This is just another example of Kalb and Bas using this health crisis to pander to special interest groups at the expense of the larger community.
I am a member of the SMC Tenants Council, which is composed of tenants of Sullivan Management Company, a corporate landlord with over 300 properties across Oakland.
Our landlord has made it clear that as soon as the moratorium ends, they will begin enforcing our leases. Due to COVID-19 and the practical closing of the economy, our member households have faced loss of income, loss of residents, increase in expenses, and complete uncertainty about future employment.
Unlike many tech workers who can leave and continue working remotely, we are still here, in our homes in Oakland. We need to count on the protection of the law to be able to stay. Ultimately, our Council is ready to act to support our members, and the workload this would bring to RAP could easily be prevented by a stronger ordinance as proposed.
I have been a homeowner in Oakland for 3 years and a renter for 5 years in Oakland and 5 years in SF before that. I support extending the eviction moratorium for a month, maybe two. This ordinance effectively extends it indefinitely, which is dangerous and an overreach. I oppose it for several reasons:
1. No landlord in their right mind will take on new tenants who would not even have to pay their first rent payment (other than at move in). What about people who are searching for housing during this time?
2. This trampling of property rights is likely to expose the city to lawsuits.
3. Financial assistance for landlords does not seem to be forthcoming. Landlords do not typically have FHA-backed mortgages that qualify for deferred payments. Landlords provide a valuable service and rent is their income.
I am not a landlord and the City Council's willingness to constantly take property rights away means I would not become one. You are lowering the supply of rental property.
Dont do it. Mom and pop Landlords need help too. Figure out a way to help both sides. Do something like how Hayward did with the rent assistance
The eviction moratorium should be extended for a month or two but to extend it indefinitely will have dramatic unintended consequences. There is already a "free rent" movement in response to the first moratorium, where tenants who are able to pay their rent are refusing to do so. How do Council Members Kalb and Bas expect property owners to pay the taxes that support our schools and other public services? How will property owners be able to maintain buildings when tenants can refuse to pay rent with no consequences? The old buildings that make up much of Oakland's housing stock is very expensive to maintain and the owner cannot continue to pay plumbers, electricians and roofers without income.This is just another example of Kalb and Bas using this health crisis to pander to special interest groups at the expense of the larger community.
I am a member of the SMC Tenants Council, which is composed of tenants of Sullivan Management Company, a corporate landlord with over 300 properties across Oakland.
Our landlord has made it clear that as soon as the moratorium ends, they will begin enforcing our leases. Due to COVID-19 and the practical closing of the economy, our member households have faced loss of income, loss of residents, increase in expenses, and complete uncertainty about future employment.
Unlike many tech workers who can leave and continue working remotely, we are still here, in our homes in Oakland. We need to count on the protection of the law to be able to stay. Ultimately, our Council is ready to act to support our members, and the workload this would bring to RAP could easily be prevented by a stronger ordinance as proposed.
I support this extension.
I have been a homeowner in Oakland for 3 years and a renter for 5 years in Oakland and 5 years in SF before that. I support extending the eviction moratorium for a month, maybe two. This ordinance effectively extends it indefinitely, which is dangerous and an overreach. I oppose it for several reasons:
1. No landlord in their right mind will take on new tenants who would not even have to pay their first rent payment (other than at move in). What about people who are searching for housing during this time?
2. This trampling of property rights is likely to expose the city to lawsuits.
3. Financial assistance for landlords does not seem to be forthcoming. Landlords do not typically have FHA-backed mortgages that qualify for deferred payments. Landlords provide a valuable service and rent is their income.
I am not a landlord and the City Council's willingness to constantly take property rights away means I would not become one. You are lowering the supply of rental property.