I am a senior resident in Oakland and own a duplex. I rent the upstairs unit and live in the downstairs unit. I hear my tenants as they walk and talk and can't imagine my tenants moving additional people into the upstairs unit. Disregarding the noise, the wear and tear on the unit would be tremendous and there is no way that I could recover this cost. I still have a 30 yr mortgage and depend on the rent to pay that mortgage.I might add that my tenant's income is more than my retirement. If tenants were allowed to move more people into the unit, charge them rent and not bear any of the expense of the wear, tear and upkeep on the building, this could be a disaster waiting to happen.
Can you imagine what it would be like for you if you owned a building and had people living upstairs and there is nothing you could do it they were noisy or abusive. What about insurance, how would I explain to my insurance company that I have people living in my unit and I do not know who they are.
At one time I was seriously thinking of borrowing money and putting in another unit in my unfinished basement as housing is needed. Today I cannot even consider building that extra unit because of your unfair practices of punishing good and fair housing providers. Ironically I don't have problems with my tenants. I have problems with your proposals that are outrageous, abusive, illegal and unfair. I sincerely hope that you reconsider what is workable and fair for everyone who lives in Oakland.

this amendment will open the door for a current tenant to accept "key money" from an unvetted subtenant to move into a property without owner consent nor proper review. for example, an owner occupied situation where the owner and his family live in one unit... the tenant accepts money to move in a complete stranger into his unit (or room in case of roommates( before vacating. This stranger automatically becomes a legal primary tenant, locked into the previous tenant's rent controlled rate. and if this person has a questionable past, this landlord and his family will live in fear for their lives.

this is not that crazy a scenario.

As an Oakland homeowner for over 10 years I OPPOSE these radical changes to our already strongest in the country tenant protection laws. These changes are reckless and will result in unintended consequences of REDUCED housing as people realize they are giving away complete control of their homes to someone who can flip a rental agreement and rerent completely to someone new or airbnb a rent controlled rental. It's irresponsible - Councilmembers Gallo and Taylor and McElhaney and Reid you must stand up for what is right here please.

As a small owner in Oakland I'm continued to be stunned how this council could entertain legislation without actually talking to owners that this would affect in real time. The unintended consequence of all of this harsh and regressive rent control practices will continue to have owners of the older housing stock stay off the market. The small landlord who provides affordable housing and has meaningful relationships with their tenants are left with no choice but to either take their properties off the market or sell. Passing this legislation with the final nail in the coffin for affordable housing providers in Oakland. There will be no reason to take on the risks of tenancy when this council is determining that a rental contract is null and void.

I'm entirely for 1-for-1 replacement of tenants, and of course a landlord should allow a 3rd tenant to be added to a 3 bedroom unit (referring to the comment below). But these changes 1) deny a property owner the ability to vet new tenants using the same standards as the initial tenants, 2) force property owners to allow overcrowding of units, and 3) undermine lease agreements that prohibit subletting.

These changes would do a lot more than let a 3rd tenant into a 3 bedroom unit. They would force the property owner to accept 7 tenants total on a lease that originally allowed for 2.

Oakland’s laws are already hostile to small property owners and these changes would further deter people from renting out extra units in their homes. Who would do that under the constant threat that the original tenant could leave and rent out the unit at a profit to a rotating group of strangers? All it takes is one bad tenant to destroy the owner’s peace of mind in their home and under these rules the owner is stuck unless he or she is willing to endure an expensive lawsuit. Please vote no and draw up some rules that are not so one sided.

The comments in opposition are the usual talking points we hear from Oakland landlords -- And they are positions developed by well-funded power-brokers in the residential real property business whose intention is to rid Oakland of affordable housing.
It is unconscionable that some will claim the current state of our world is not material to the issue and the proposed amendments. The security of Oakland tenants in their housing must be certain now more than ever. Many tenants, like I, are high-risNk individuals; to leave our houses and go out in to the community puts us at risk of death from corona virus infection much greater than those who are not high-risk. Unscrupulous landlords must be controlled because so many Oakland tenants are virtual hostages in their houses. If such landlords wish to harass their tenants at this time, people are virtually imprisoned in their homes due to the prevailing circumstances. I speak not only as an attorney tenants' advocate in Oakland but also as a tenant. It must considered, in relation to the comments in opposition, that if these landlords are of good repute, then what is their concern? Failing to approve these TPO amendments at this time is tantamount to closing corona virus testing sites in the places where rates of transmission are skyrocketing. Don't Oakland residents and our Council care more about the safety and survival of our residents than the current White House cares about the country's populace.

The TPO amendments have 64 changes hiding some significant and drastic policies that will do irreversible Oakland.
1. For many Oaklanders who rely on renting out a room in their home to make the mortgage, the TPO amendments will stop them from having a say in who can move into their home or be around their kids. Part of our basic privacy and property rights should be who we keep company or commune with on a daily basis in our homes — these changes unreasonably go too far.
2. A housemate can add another housemate who turns out to be difficult and it’s basically impossible to ask them to leave your home — you are married for life and you have no say in screening!
3. The amendments allow for someone to move out, re-rent to a stranger without your vetting, and re-rent for a profit above and over original rent, including AirBNB to a string of strangers. The strangers could destroy the home, the original tenant can profit by charging higher market rent while the owner is stuck with original rent tied to inflation.
4. These extreme, radical and unbalanced approaches will displace many elderly and minority Oaklanders who are barely getting by and struggling to make ends meet in retirement, even renting out rooms in their homes.
Please be a voice of reason and basic fairness for struggling Oaklanders. The 64 changes have too many extreme consequences to list but & result in unsafe situations for all Oakland residents, both renters or owners, & displace many elderly people.

I oppose these changes. They were drafted without input from all stakeholders and are trying to be passed under the cover of a pandemic. As a city with a reputation for being inclusive and diverse, I find it extremely concerning that ordinances get drafted without including all stakeholders. We need laws that protect good owners from bad tenants and good tenants need to be protected from bad landlords. These changes fall short of that. These changes will also further the polarization of owner/ renter relations which is the last thing our city needs if it is to have solid long term solutions all parties can fell good about. Please consider going to back to the drawing board with more tenant protections and involve all parties with solutions that involve compromise. The state was able to do a good job with AB 1482. Oakland needs to to the same.

The commenter below addressed unintended consequences of passing these upgrades. However, there are many intended consequences of leaving tenants unprotected. I lived below an immigrant family that was afraid to contact the landlord because they had unauthorized people living there and because the property manager had failed to make repairs in the past. As a result, my ceiling leaked and had to be repaired 3 times. These tenants would have benefited from being able to legalize their occupants and being able to utilize the TPO to get the landlord to make repairs. The landlord would have saved thousands on repairs and the cost of putting us up in a hotel. The housing crisis is too severe to penalize people for doubling up. We must pass these protections now to legalize existing housing arrangements, protecting thousands of tenants from eviction, and increasing the availability of affordable housing for many more.

These amendments will potentially endanger the health and safety of current renters when tenants get final say in how a building is managed and who resides in that building. There will be many un intended consequences as a result of these changes and those need to be thoughtfully addressed. I strongly oppose making these changes.

I deeply hope that the City Council will pass the strongest member of the Tentant Protection Ordinance on Monday. These amendments are badly needed not only because of increased tenant vulnerability during the pandemic, but because we have been in a housing affordability crisis long before COVID-19. Corporate landlords are currently profiting off of the displacement of community members of color, and we need to pass the amendments to the Tenant Protection Ordinance to stop them. Please, please, please do the right thing to protect our people, and address the way systemic racism shows up in our city's housing practices.

Each member of the council been sent proposed changes to this proposed change in law. relating to homeowners who provide housing of no more than 3 units on their home parcel. They are in form as much as I am able, as requested by councilperson Dan Kalb at the last meeting on this issue, who said that would needed so changes could be considered. In main, these changes will allow homeowners to limit number of tenants, allow or deny subleasing, and have the right to approve any additional tenants prior to move in. Tenants rights are important, but where the tenant is sharing the same parcel, quality of life for the homeowner is important too. If the council wants people to add in-law units (and you say you do) don't make it so homeowners wonder why they would ever put themselves in that position.

I am a tenant and have lived in my 3 bedroom apartment since 2012. My landlord has denied my adding additional roommates in the past, citing Oakland's roommate replacement laws which only require him to allow two occupants, because there were two original co-signers on the lease/occupants at the beginning of my tenancy (myself and one additional roommate) This means that for the last several years a bedroom in my apartment has sat empty, with only two total occupants in my three-bedroom. If this ordinance passes I will be able to fill the vacant bedroom without fear of eviction. I can offer that bedroom at extremely affordable, below-market rates because of the length of my tenancy and rent control. It is absolutely absurd that one of the bedrooms in my apartment should sit empty when so many are in need of affordable housing. The city's laws should recognize that people's needs change over time, and sometimes taking in a displaced family member or adding an additional roommate to make rent more affordable is necessary to keep people housed. Making better use of our existing housing stock is key to solving our housing crisis. Allowing additional roommates just makes good sense. I urge you to pass this legislation from the committee. Thank you.