Please do not impose more travesties on us senior, BIPOC homeowners by reducing the already low CPI by 62% and capping it at 3% unless you also reduce our expenses and our taxes to the same. For years the CPI was below 2 %. Although our expenses are escalating by as much as 50 - 100%, we cannot/do not pass them on to our tenants. Please consider the future impact of this proposal when the CPI drops again. With this measure, you are going after the most vulnerable among us long-time Oakland residents who can barely afford to live here ourselves. Norma Francisco, PhD (owner since 1977)

As a small property owner, a lifelong African American female resident. This is more activism on the part of the council. This was negotiated by the tenants union and owner stakeholders over 20 years ago. Council in there request to change has offered only platitudes as it relates to the affect on renters. If this is so necessary I would ask that the council do a impact study before pushing something this harmful to small owners on fixed incomes who have already went years with receiving rent. The only takeaway from this ordinance is that only rental constituents are represented by this council. Homeowners are not welcome here only our tax dollars.

I am a property owner and manager in Alameda County. This proposal is detrimental to property owners and if passed, the new policy would undo this year’s allowable increase of 6.7%, which is so desperately needed for Oakland landlords and property owners who are already struggling under the weight of the last two years of the pandemic. Many renters stopped paying the rent altogether and we are still waiting for the promised rental assistance funds from the state and local programs and there is still an ever-extending local moratorium on evictions with no end in sight. Meanwhile, landlords still have to pay the mortgage and the costs associated with operating housing have not remained stagnant and aren't capped. Everything has become more expensive: garbage, water, gas, electric, sewer, repair services, equipment, appliances, electrical, plumbing, building materials, supplies, and other fees. Passing this ordinance would be a slap in the face to landlords and property owners who have played by the rules of the agreed-upon CPI formula over the past two decades and the one time that the CPI increase would actually be beneficial for them, the City changes the rules of the game. This proposed ordinance is another example of a broken promise and social contract that further disadvantages rental property owners. It violates a 20+ year negotiated agreement between the city council, tenant groups, and rental property owners. I urge you to vote no on this proposal.

As a long term renter in Oakland, I urge you to pass this ordinance and bring Oakland's rent adjustment caps in line with the neighboring cities of Berkeley and San Francisco. The current inflation is unprecedented and predicted to increase and persist beyond 2023. The City of Oakland must utilize this opportunity to protect residents from bearing the disproportionate burden of record high increases to essential goods and services as well as substantially increased rents. As inflation continues to rise due to circumstances beyond our control, Oakland renters may see an even higher rent increase in 2023 and beyond. I urge the members of the Council to consider the uncertainty of the near future and utilize this opportunity to mitigate the financial strain being placed upon Oakland's most vulnerable residential population.

I support Councilmember Fife's ordinance to cap the CPI Rent Adjustment. Given the long-term impact of the pandemic and the significant inflation without compensatory increases in wages, capping rent increases is the right thing to do.

We bought a triplex during the housing bubble in 2005 (Oaklanders since 2001). We were $250,000 underwater (based on a 2012 appraisal).

While MANY "walked away" from their mortgages, our civic pride and morals kept us in Oakland for the long haul. And during our entire ownership, the most we EVER raised a tenant was $50. We NEVER raised a tenant 2 years in a row. We haven't raised our tents since the eviction moratorium for fear they may decide to just stop paying, being they are certainly under no obligation to do so, given the moratorium's guidelines.

We eventually were able to refinance refinance after 2013. The building still doesn't cover our costs, but we felt a sense of relief. The tenants over the 17+ years of ownership have been AWESOME!

To be clear, the building, even with the rental income is over $20,000 a year in the RED. Our property taxes are over $20,000/year... which are no longer a write off thanks to the Trump tax revisions capping the SALT tax at $10,000 married or single (state and local tax deductions - includes property taxes AND state income tax)

We could have jacked up rents when we KNEW measure Y would eventually lead to our loss of the owner occupied exemption, but we didn't and we believe the VAST majority of owner occupied duplexes and triplexes respected their tenants as well.

Since the inception of measure Y and now the proposed 60% CPI and 3% cap, we are being PERMANENTLY PUNISHED for being fair neighbors to our tenants.

Hi, my name is Rose. I have been living in Oakland Chinatown for more than 10 years. During the pandemic, my husband lost his stable job and I still need to struggle with the high rent. In these two years, the rent was still increased by the CPI, and more and more of my income had to go to the rent. We didn't have enough money to cover other living cost. I urged all council members support Fife's ordinance to modify the CPI rent adjustment, so that we can survive from the pandemic, and support our community to thrive again after pandemic! Thank you.

My name is Amalia, I am born and raised in the Bay Area, and am a staff member of Causa Justa::Just Cause. I am writing to support Council Member Fife's Measure, and ask to cap the rent increase! Any rent increase will disproportionally affect working-class Oakland tenants, who are still dealing with the effects of the pandemic and inflation. I also want to point out that Oakland renters were in a crisis even before the pandemic. 51% were spending more than we could afford on rent. More than a quarter of us were spending over half our paychecks on rent. For Black and Brown tenants like us, the difference between a 3% and a 6.7% rent increase is everything. But a 3% cap alone is not enough. We must bring Oakland’s rent stabilization policy in line with San Francisco and Berkeley’s. We need elected leaders with backbone who have the courage to address the affordability crisis and keep our communities housed.

PLEASE pass this! Why do landlord wages get to mirror CPI while our wages don't? We work harder and do more for society. Please support us!

I support council person Fifes measure. Housing as a human right. I am a public school teacher in OUSD and this proposed rent increase would make it infeasible for me to continue to live in Oakland. I should be able to afford to live in the city I teach in. It is so important to support current Oaklanders not the new money the Mayor seems to be prioritizing. I support this measure and ask you all to A) Increase funding to the Preservation Affordability Fund and fund “transitional age” youth housing B) Address homelessness and C) Increase funding for eviction defense and legal protections for renters and long-term residents. Your residents need support now more then ever.

I am an Oakland resident in District 1. I support CM Fife's proposal to cap rent increases to 3%, or 60% of the CPI. Renters, who are already disproportionately feeling the burden of inflation, should not be forced to recoup losses for property owners. We are currently in a housing crisis, with unprecedented amounts of people losing their homes in Oakland. Exorbitant rent increases will only exacerbate the problem.

Writing in from D4, I support protecting Oakland tenants and Councilmember Fife's proposal to cap the allowed increase. People are already getting priced out of Oakland everywhere you turn. We need housing for all.

I am an Oakland resident in District 1. I support CM Fife's proposal to cap rent increases to 3%, or 60% of the CPI. Renters in Oakland need relief from the ongoing pandemic. Many people are struggling to survive, and the city needs to prioritize its most marginalized communities. I support finding ways to ease the burden of small landlords as well, but not at the expense of all Oakland renters or through lining the pockets of large corporate landlords - particularly during an ongoing pandemic. Cap the rent increase!

As a renter, I 1,000,000% support Councilmember Fife's Ordinance To Modify The CPI Rent Adjustment. After all of the collective trauma, grief, and lost wages over the last few years, it's absolutely wild to me—but unsurprising—that Oakland could turn around and propose increasing rents up to a 10% threshold!! Doing that will lead only to more gentrification and displacement of families / neighborhoods (disproportionately affecting BIPOC neighborhoods), and greater instability and pain for our community overall. People in retail and restaurants wonder why they're having trouble hiring anyone? It's getting so that no one can afford to live here anymore, except the super rich. So if you can't be motivated by moral reasons, at LEAST be motivated by economic ones. Please don't do this, Oakland.

This is outrageous. Oakland is on its way to becoming one large slum. This is what happens when landlords/owners/housing providers lose all rights to control/manage/caretake their own properties. The CPI is a fair and reasonable annual benchmark by which to determine rent increases. It has worked very well for the 20 years I have invested in Oakland, with annual CPI ranges from 1+ percentage points to 3+ percentage points. Now, it is being perceived as a poor benchmark because it is doing exactly what it is designed to do --accurately reflecting rising inflation at 6.7% this year? How self-serving is it to simply do away with the CPI benchmark because inflation is currently high? Rules like these only create more slums, more Republicans, and more reasons for integritous hardworking fair-minded Californians to abandon the state.

Rent increases will lead to more families, low income, retirees, fixed income having difficulty making rent. Additionally this concept will lead to rent control being virtually eliminated.

There must be a way for landlords to make a living without it being off the backs of renters forcing them out of the Bay Area.

The cost of doing business has risen up - inflation at 8.7 % ! and property owners struggle to pay the costs that are involved. The garbage bill has increased, water, sewer, city registration fee, taxes, Covid compliance protocols, fire insurance - if available and maintenance to name a few. You're setting the stage for only large companies to come in and own properties because they are large enough to manage properties with economies of scale. Us little guys pay or we do the work ourselves like me on a ladder to cut trees back to comply with fire department regulations and at 70 years old it a sight to be seen. Please abide by the rules already set in place to allow 6.7 % CPI continue -its only fair.

Members of City Council, The covid pandemic has resulted in increased costs on most goods and services. We are all having a difficult time making ends meet due to these higher costs. Housing providers have seen dramatic increases in labor and maintenance costs and the protocols with covid safety have only added to these cost challenges. The current allowable increase of 6.7% does not come close to keeping up with this inflation but does help. It is not in the long term best interest for the city of Oakland to make it unaffordable for housing providers to maintain and operate their properties.

San Francisco and Berkeley already cap their rent increases at 60% and 65% of the yearly CPI. This is not a wild proposal. If this year wasn't a 250% increase from last year, I could maybe understand the arguments against. But a 6.7% increase is simply not in line with what has happened the past 20 years, and to act as if this is a reasonable and expected increase is illogical. I understand that operating costs are going up for landlords, because costs for everything are going up. The solution is not to pass the entirety of those costs on to renters. When wages are automatically raised according to the CPI, then a 6.7% increase may make sense. Until then, please vote to pass this critical ordinance.

I am writing to object to the proposed change in the CPI Adjustment for rent increase proposed by Councilmember Fife.
This proposed change only compounds the economic hurt, frustration, and injury small mom-and-pop landlords (housing providers), along with tenants, have been facing during this unprecedented time of COVID. No housing provider organizations or persons were contacted in the creation of this ordinance modification. The proposed legislation unfairly targets small struggling mom-and-pop landlords. No other business in Oakland is being asked/forced to cap their prices with the current rising inflation. This proposed law is not fair, equitable, or progressive - it is repressive and targeted to drive out small housing providers. There are active market forces from all directions that are making it difficult, to near impossible, to survive. Rising market costs in water, sewer, garbage, Home Depot, Ace Hardware, taxes, insurance, are attacking our basic income - which already has rent control. Housing providers by law are forced to pay for these above various costs regardless of having the funds to pay for them or not. Vote NO on the proposed Ordinance to Modify the CPI Rent Adjustment. Rising costs, just as in other businesses, should be fairly shared together.
Benjamin Scott