I strongly oppose the 64 TPO amendments. I believe the City Council is taking advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic that is affecting all of us not just renters and using emotion rather than data to drive their decisions. They have a vendetta against housing providers at the same time they say we need more housing!
In the long run all of these amendments which may seem great for tenant activists now will likely only make it worse for tenants in the long run. These new amendments will definitely hurt small landlords that are trying to provide good housing for tenants by pushing us out and causing even more housing shortages. In addition to reducing housing, it will reduce City Revenues via Real Estate Transfer Tax fees, Development fees for the homeless, Building Department fees and business tax revenue.

my wife i and i live in one unit of our triplex with our tenants. we've owned this property for 15 years (lived in Oakland for 20 years), stuck it out even when we were underwater $250,000 during the housing bust (i have the appraisal to prove it). our tenants are WAY under market. that good deed was made PERMANENT thanks to measure Y and the subsequent removal of the owner occupied exemption.

now you want to make it LEGAL for our tenants to move in COMPLETE STRANGERS into OUR HOME. no background check, nothing. and if our tenants leave, THESE STRANGERS will automatically become our tenants. and also thanks to your reckless laws, these STRANGERS can live rent free thanks to the covid ordinance. and they DO NOT even have to show prove they can not pay.

it goes without saying once our tenants leave, our units will be taken off the market. is there a point in villainizing small time owner occupied landlords? or is it just in teh name of general pandering?

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic reached California, Oakland faced a housing affordability crisis that threatened our public health, safety, and community stability. A wave of corporate landlords have bought up large parts of Oakland's rental housing stock. Their business model depends on displacing long-term black and brown tenants living in rent-controlled units so that they can rent out their units at higher, inflated prices. Despite our existing laws against tenant harassment, this behavior by bad actor landlords is still an effective way of removing tenants from their homes. We are seeing devastating impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic on our community. The aftermath of COVID-19 is only going to worsen Oakland’s housing crisis. Without strong protections, Oakland’s communities of color are on the verge of an avalanche of displacement from which they, and the city’s diversity, may never recover. While the city has taken steps to protect tenants by passing an eviction moratorium, some landlords are continuing to attempt to intimidate tenants into leaving. Now, and as we recover from this pandemic, City Council must act to keep Oakland residents safe and housed.

Oakland residents need our City Council to pass strong Tenant Protection upgrades NOW.

We are thankful that Councilmembers Dan Kalb and Nikki Fortunato Bas, and City Attorney Barbara Parker, have sponsored these important protections for Oakland tenants. We urge you and the other city councilmembers to join them.

This has nothing to do with Covid. Councilmembers/activist partners see an opportunity to push their agenda now.

The cut and paste message of “support” states that “corporate landlords have bought up large parts of Oakland's rental housing stock”- Some truth but BECAUSE long time independent owners did not want to deal with the imbalance of fairness anymore. Owners have seen the impact of the city’s harmful and in-your-business policies which force owners to have stressful relations w/tenants.

There is no racial issue with the owners/tenants as the cookie cutter message states. In fact, there are real numbers that prove many minority/elder OWNERS have sold the last 4 years. AND numbers DO prove that since Measure EE/ Just Cause the city has become more white & evictions are non-existent. This administration, and those of the past, have a hand in making this city less diversified. Tenant nonprofits, who have contracts with the city using tax dollars, should be providing hard data to back their points. Instead the same red/yellow shirt wearing rep, or attorney saying, “we are really seeing a lot of fill-in-the-blank, and owners are harassing and that’s why we want this change” BUT we really know that the same non-profit wrote the language, worked with council staff and city attorney and maybe even got a local media channel to cover their pushed narrative, so it all appears to have merit. House of cards legislation.

Do not move this forward. Have a real discussion with LLs

We want to make sure that every vulnerable tenant is not subject to eviction and protected, especially during a health emergency. However, the TPO amendments with its 60+ changes harms Oaklanders, including 60+ year old residents who are struggling and will likely losing their homes with these drastic changes. Why is City Attorney Barbara Parker authoring housing policy that hurts and targets Oakland residents?! We want to do away with outside speculators, but why are you harming OAKLAND residents who invested their entire life savings in our local communities? You are displacing elderly and minority multi-generation black owners. There are ways to do this without harming Oakland residents.

We have the moratorium and one of the strongest tenant protections across the country. Please defer council vote on this until the Rent Board has a chance to meet and provide input. Please be fair and respectful of the Rent Board and our citizens.

The TRUTH is:
Oakland needs an IMPARTIAL AND JUST City Attorney who understands the needs of every citizen and NOT one that desperately rush through harmful political policies for an upcoming election!

Biggest open shameful secret at City Hall. Oakland deserves a better!

Please support renters during this time!

Oakland already has some of the strongest tenant protections in the country. These proposed changes go too far. One for one replacement of roommates is already allowed, but this ordinance would take away property owners ability to vet new roommates using the same standards as the initial tenants. This is unfair even to corporate landlords, but it's an onerous imposition on owner occupants who have to live with tenants they weren't allowed to vet. These changes will allow abusers, criminals, and non-paying dead beat tenants to bully their way into the homes of elderly property owners who are often female, black, and lifelong Oakland residents.

This city council's disrespect for the remnants of Oakland's black property owning class is a travesty. Oakland was a majority black city until the 1980's, and there are many owner occupied duplexes and triplexes throughout the city owned by elderly black Oaklanders from that era. Shame on the council for opening up these longtime Oaklanders to abuse in the name of burnishing their progressive reputations.

On rereading this proposal, it is so win-lose for tenants and landlords, especially toward owner-occupied situations. I just went through an eviction of a tenant who did not pay for nine months! If that is what Oakland thinks is okay, then we need a new board that understands how a business - and a city - needs to run. This eviction was not only pre-COVID19, but followed the rules of the RAP as well as settled very much generously in favor of the tenant. We do not need MORE imposed upon picyune micro-management by the city.

Not only did I lose the nine months' of rent, but I had to pay more than the relocation fee amount AND bear the legal fees which were as much as the relocation fee OR the nine months' of UNPAID rent(!), whereas the tenant had no legal fees as she used the Tenant Rights group's pro bono attorney. I'm sorry but where is FAIR written here?

I am an Oakland resident in District 2, and I support these tenant protection upgrades. In the past as a tenant, I have been forbidden to move in a new roommate in a 1-to-1 replacement by my landlord and threatened with eviction if I moved in a new tenant.

Stop landlords from unilaterally changing the terms of tenants’ rental agreements, limit late fees & the maximum rent increase, allow tenants to add new occupants in 1-to-1 replacements w/o fear of eviction and without exclusionary credit and income checks, protect tenants from eviction if the landlord has not paid the relocation fees required by law, add special penalties for harming tenants who are elderly, disabled, or catastrophically ill, and prevent landlords from threatening to report a tenant’s family or friends to a government agency because of their immigration status.

We also need the eviction moratorium extended until the City can figure out rent forgiveness in total for tenants. Ithaca was able to make this happen. We need rent cancellation with no back rent required. Many of us struggled to make rent before the pandemic, how are we supposed to pay back rent on top of regular rent once the pandemic ends?

My household has lost half its income due to this pandemic and I honestly do not know how we will pay rent if the eviction moratorium is lifted or how we can pay back rent within the year deadline. My landlord is unwilling to work with us at all. Pass these protection upgrades & pass rent forgiveness.

In 2013 I managed to buy a property in Golden Gate, after a yearlong, grueling search. I was able to do this—and stay in Oakland after 25 years renting—because of its backyard cottage. I share the yard and utility bills with my tenants, and anyone in the yard can enter my back door, so having a tenant I trust is essential. Living here is much like having a housemate. I would have preferred to buy a single-family home, but I couldn't afford it.

Now my whole property—my home—is regulated as if I were a professional landlord, like the ones I endured as a tenant, or of the corporations that bought up foreclosed homes in the crisis.

By treating owners like me as if all landlords were Michael Marrs, you are destroying the lives of the people you say you intend to protect. If you paid attention to the speakers at the summer 2016 city council meetings, you saw that many of them were older, women, and African American. We are not the cause of the housing crisis. We could have been part of the solution, but many of us won't survive the onslaught of the changes wrought by all of you. One 2016 speaker described studies showing how rent control hurts tenants. No one on the council so much as acknowledged the information. Yet much has been made of anecdotes about realtors encouraging buyers to snap up duplexes and then take advantage of the OO exemption to kick them out. Why the double standard? Do you really think people like me are going to be able to survive what you are doing?

Oakland City Councilmembers,

You are proposing significant changes to the tenant/landlord relationship without any effort being made to look out for and incorporate the needs of the mom and pop landlords.
My husband and I are seniors who worked long and hard to become first time homeowners when eleven years ago we were able to purchase the duplex we were renting.

We provide housing to two tenants who live in the unit above us. Your rush to pass legislation will do us harm. We ask that you represent both the renter and the homeowner/landlord and allow time for the collaboration necessary to develop legislation so that we can together create stable, sustainable living situations.

The following proposed changes will be particularly harmful to my husband and me. It also is terribly unfair to make these one-sided significant changes to the terms of our leases:
(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);

We ask you to postpone the vote on Agenda Item 8: Subject: Tenant Protection, Just Cause, & Rent Ordinance Amendments and support a collaborative effort by tenants and mom and pop landlords to develop a stable, sustainable solution.

Unacceptable. Despite Council's lack of recognition for small landlord Oaklanders, a pandemic affects ALL.
Proposal:
*Allows roommates w/no additional rent&units can be transferred f/tenant to tenant, taking landlordship out of owner's hands but keeping responsibility&risk solely the owner's.
*1-sided harassment laws. 2 parties are in lease contract. Oakland increasingly represents only one set of Oaklanders &those of us Oaklanders on the other side are tired of 1-sidedness, attacks f/our own City, &lack of fairness&ethics.
*Owners restricted f/screening for credit-worthiness&ability to pay rent. Entire tenant/LL exchange rests on paying rent in exchange for housing. Prohibiting LLs f/ensuring a tenant will meet their part of the exchange is abusive, forcing LLs to risk losing their property unecessarily. Many of us live on our properties&risk not just our rentals but roof over our heads in such a case.
*Prevents owner f/lease changes. Again forcing LLs to carry all risk&responsibility with none of the decisionmaking.

We are tired of Council's 1-sided rules, absence of ethics&fairness, &using global crisis to strip Oaklanders of their rights especially mid-pandemic. We provide essential service yet are attacked for it. Oakland tenants are already protected, w/rent control, eviction control, &more. Recent proposals/changes are unethical, using global tragedy as a guise.
Also FYI https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/23/bay-area-high-earners-choice-made-for-them-rent-not-own/

As a public health worker living in Oakland, it is very clear to me that we need to prevent evictions, stop displacement, and support housing justice in order to advance health equity!

Tenants in Oakland already have the strongest eviction protections in the country. Dubious claims of rampant abuse are being leveled by some to leverage this pandemic to push through destructive unvetted ordinances. The city attorney, Ms. Parker and two extreme council members are pushing ordinances which will, predictably decrease the existing housing available and pit small landlords against the tenants who need the affordable housing the most. Moving these extremists out of office is the goal. Lawsuits are certain; lawyers are salivating.
The tipping point is being reached for small housing providers waking up to these relentless attacks. In the short term, it’s is now too risky and stressful to even consider having a long term house guest in one’s own home in Oakland.
Oakland needs smart and balanced solutions from business savvy city leaders to address its myriad challenges, not amatuer knee jerk actions guaranteed to produce ill will and lawsuits that this craziness promises to generate.
COVID 19 will end and when the smoke clears your name is going to be hitched to what you do today.

We are small owners and need fair regulations. We provide housing so stop punishing us at every turn !

I'm a resident and voter in District 2, and I wholeheartedly support this measure. It's imperative that Oakland residents are able to remain in their homes during this pandemic. Thank you to Councilmembers Bas and Kalb for sponsoring this. I truly hope the remaining members of City Council are able to understand that landlord profits are not, nor will they ever be, more important than human lives. The city cannot afford a surge in evictions.

My name is Jocelyn and I live in District 3. I strongly support the proposed Item 7, the Right to Recall ordinance, Item 8, Stronger Tenant Protections and Item 12, proposal for an equitable city businesses tax model that will bring millions in funding to Oakland. We need to ensure that as we move towards how to resolve and move towards just recovery, that our workers are protected, our tenants in precarious housing don’t end up homeless, and we have the funding revenue to help care of all Oakland residents. Thank you Councilmember Nikki Bas, Councilmember Sheng Thao, President Pro-tem Dan Kalb for much of your leadership on these items as well as the many community organizations that have worked to ensure our most communities are protected.

We are seeing devastating impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic on our community. The aftermath of COVID-19 is only going to worsen Oakland’s already bad housing crisis. Without strong protections, Oakland’s communities of color - key members of our diverse community and why I loved Oakland -
are on the verge of an avalanche of displacement from which they, and the city’s diversity, may never recover. While the city has taken steps to protect tenants by passing an eviction moratorium, some landlords are continuing to attempt to intimidate tenants into leaving. Now, and as we recover from this pandemic, City Council must act to keep Oakland residents safe and housed.

Oakland residents need our City Council to pass strong Tenant Protection upgrades NOW.

We are thankful that Councilmembers Dan Kalb and Nikki Fortunato Bas, and City Attorney Barbara Parker, have sponsored these important protections for Oakland tenants. We urge you and the other city councilmembers to join them.

These repeals and reenactments are vindictively using the coronavirus pandemic to rush through changes that do not meet the intention of voter-approved Measure Y in 2018. They have little to do with tenant stability or affordable housing, and no real understanding of the consequences of the long-term effects of these changes. This proposed Ordinance begins with recitations that are wholly prejudiced against landlords (e.g. “whereas some landlords” occurs throughout).

This Ordinance removes and replaces Measure Y. It’s shotgun-approach to a limited problem that the City Attorney has failed to effectively litigate in Court or in front of the Rent Board.

More regulations will lead to legal chaos like in SF; most landlords don’t want to hire lawyers either – this Ordinance only makes it more likely. To whit, “tenants”, “occupants” and “guests” are so narrowly defined in San Francisco, you can’t have a live-in girlfriend for over 15 days!

If Oakland wants its housing stock to remain affordable, it should aggressively develop property through OHA and compete in the free market (e.g. Mandela Gateway). OHA’s leases could include any of these excessive Tenant Protection Ordinance clauses if they want. In fairness to the market, if these clauses are no problem, OHA units should easily be the most desired rental units in the Oakland rental market.

Measure Y was passed in Nov. 6, 2018. This is not an attempt to vindicate renters but rather be vindictive to landlords.

This onerous piece of legislation has not been vetting or had input by the rent board nor rental housing providers. This legislation has not had appropriate and needed stakeholders' comments or given input to its crafting or its long term implications. This legislation is bad for tenants and owners. This legislation discriminates and displaces minority, elderly, disabled, and LGBTQI mom and pop landlords (who many rely on as their sole and limited source of income). We are the answer, not the enemy of affordable and dependable housing in Oakland. This legislation needs more input from housing providers such as EBRHA, In it Together, Committee on jobs, the Oakland Rent Board, and BRIDGE. Do not vote to move this legislation forward - this process has not been democratic and not involved key stakeholders. How can this be passed when the Rent Board has not met in 5 months?