19 22-0376 Subject: Amend Rent Adjustment Ordinance To Establish Residential Rental Registry
From: Housing And Community Development Department
Recommendation: Adopt An Ordinance Amending The Rent Adjustment Ordinance (O.M.C. 8.22.010 Et Seq) And The Just Cause For Eviction Ordinance (O.M.C. 8.22.300 Et Seq) To (1) Create An Annual Requirement For Residential Rental Units In Which Rental Property Owners Of Units Subject To The Rent Program Service Fee Shall Be Required To Report Rent And Other Tenancy Information, As Set Forth In Section 8.22.520, (2) Require Owners To Provide Evidence Of Complying With Residential Rental Registration Requirement When Filing Rent Increase Petitions Or Responses To Tenant Petitions And (3) To Provide As A Tenant's Affirmative Defense In An Eviction Action The Property Owner's Failure To Comply With Registration Requirements Outlined In O.M.C. 8.22.510
If you really care about vulnerable tenants, you would not subject them to put up with a nuisance tenant for six months until the landlord is compliant with the rent registry.
We small mom and pop landlords have enough to contend with when we have problem tenants (non-paying, safety hazardous tenants, drug-related, noisy and slummy), but to add even MORE paperwork and requirements is taking Oakland to an ABSURD level and reputation! I thought at first this was a good idea until I realized that it was a setup for punative actions against landlords who already have enough on their plates being broadsided by proposed CPI increases, limitations for evictions, and not being represented by the very people we PAY to represent us in our districts. SHAME on the council members who ignore their housing providers in their districts and favor only those as tenants. WHERE is this council vitriol based? Certainly not from mom and pop landlords who are by no means RICH to battle against these odds being stacked up against them, and yet still provide housing at below market rates not because they can but because they're FORCED to do so. I say, "Away with the idea of Rent Registry!" No no no
It's dangerous to hamper a housing providers ability to evict a tenant who is threatening to other tenants under any circumstances. This ordinance must be amended or scrapped. Penalties for non-compliance threaten housing provider Just Cause rights by creating an "affirmative defense" for ANY valid Just Cause action. This means a tenant who us creating a severe disruption or safety hazard cannot be evicted until the provider completes this administrative task. Under these rules an unregistered owner could NOT move quickly to evict a tenant who is creating a dangerous situation like Ghost Ship. Linkage to Just Cause rights is dangerous and unnecessary. The most cursory research will show other cities have much more reasonable compliance incentives.
This will hurt small housing providers who lack the resources to navigate these regulations. Tenants are also unaware of the data that is required. Providers may not have information on roommates, undocumented or other occupants. This is not ready for a vot
This ordinance must be amended or scrapped. Penalties for non-compliance threaten housing provider Just Cause rights by creating an "affirmative defense" for ANY valid Just Cause action. This means a tenant who us creating a severe disruption or safety hazard cannot be evicted until the provider completes this administrative task. Under these rules an unregistered owner could NOT move quickly to evict a tenant who is creating a dangerous situation like Ghost Ship. Linkage to Just Cause rights is dangerous and unnecessary. The most cursory research will show other cities have much more reasonable compliance incentives.
This will hurt small housing providers who lack the resources to navigate these regulations. Tenants are also unaware of the data that is required. Providers may not have information on roommates, undocumented or other occupants. This is not ready for a vote.
RAP can, & has, sent notices out to renters in the past (e.g. re certain 2016-18 legislation). City, & county, records already include data re types, & ages, of multi-unit buildings. The annual RAP registration form ID's the number of units in a building, & that info matched up with the annual business tax report already gives rent data for a building.
RAP already gets copies of eviction notices. It already can penalize those providers who issue excessive rent increases. What really is the goal, here?
Buffy Wicks' counterpart state measure has failed repeatedly because a scheme like this is far too costly & too overreaching for what it purports to do.
Besides better enforcement of existing law, replace this in its entirety with an enhanced housing provider licensing scheme. The DMV requires tests before issuing drivers licenses. Surely competent, ethical Oakland housing providers can step up to help draft a functional equivalent, to better resolve problems at their "source."
In order to effectively run a program like RAP that covers some, but not all, of the housing in Oakland, there needs to be an accurate accounting of what housing is, in fact, covered by RAP. Currently, there is no way to determine beyond a reasonable doubt if a tenant is covered by RAP. Currently, RAP cannot even send notices to the tenants that it is supposed to help because it does not have a database of addresses for the units that it oversees! This is a basic and common sense piece of legislation and the arguments against it are based on misinformation.
If you really care about vulnerable tenants, you would not subject them to put up with a nuisance tenant for six months until the landlord is compliant with the rent registry.
We small mom and pop landlords have enough to contend with when we have problem tenants (non-paying, safety hazardous tenants, drug-related, noisy and slummy), but to add even MORE paperwork and requirements is taking Oakland to an ABSURD level and reputation! I thought at first this was a good idea until I realized that it was a setup for punative actions against landlords who already have enough on their plates being broadsided by proposed CPI increases, limitations for evictions, and not being represented by the very people we PAY to represent us in our districts. SHAME on the council members who ignore their housing providers in their districts and favor only those as tenants. WHERE is this council vitriol based? Certainly not from mom and pop landlords who are by no means RICH to battle against these odds being stacked up against them, and yet still provide housing at below market rates not because they can but because they're FORCED to do so. I say, "Away with the idea of Rent Registry!" No no no
It's dangerous to hamper a housing providers ability to evict a tenant who is threatening to other tenants under any circumstances. This ordinance must be amended or scrapped. Penalties for non-compliance threaten housing provider Just Cause rights by creating an "affirmative defense" for ANY valid Just Cause action. This means a tenant who us creating a severe disruption or safety hazard cannot be evicted until the provider completes this administrative task. Under these rules an unregistered owner could NOT move quickly to evict a tenant who is creating a dangerous situation like Ghost Ship. Linkage to Just Cause rights is dangerous and unnecessary. The most cursory research will show other cities have much more reasonable compliance incentives.
This will hurt small housing providers who lack the resources to navigate these regulations. Tenants are also unaware of the data that is required. Providers may not have information on roommates, undocumented or other occupants. This is not ready for a vot
This ordinance must be amended or scrapped. Penalties for non-compliance threaten housing provider Just Cause rights by creating an "affirmative defense" for ANY valid Just Cause action. This means a tenant who us creating a severe disruption or safety hazard cannot be evicted until the provider completes this administrative task. Under these rules an unregistered owner could NOT move quickly to evict a tenant who is creating a dangerous situation like Ghost Ship. Linkage to Just Cause rights is dangerous and unnecessary. The most cursory research will show other cities have much more reasonable compliance incentives.
This will hurt small housing providers who lack the resources to navigate these regulations. Tenants are also unaware of the data that is required. Providers may not have information on roommates, undocumented or other occupants. This is not ready for a vote.
This is an invasion of personal information privacy for many tenant who are undocumented are are afraid to allow their personal info be made public.
RAP can, & has, sent notices out to renters in the past (e.g. re certain 2016-18 legislation). City, & county, records already include data re types, & ages, of multi-unit buildings. The annual RAP registration form ID's the number of units in a building, & that info matched up with the annual business tax report already gives rent data for a building.
RAP already gets copies of eviction notices. It already can penalize those providers who issue excessive rent increases. What really is the goal, here?
Buffy Wicks' counterpart state measure has failed repeatedly because a scheme like this is far too costly & too overreaching for what it purports to do.
Besides better enforcement of existing law, replace this in its entirety with an enhanced housing provider licensing scheme. The DMV requires tests before issuing drivers licenses. Surely competent, ethical Oakland housing providers can step up to help draft a functional equivalent, to better resolve problems at their "source."
In order to effectively run a program like RAP that covers some, but not all, of the housing in Oakland, there needs to be an accurate accounting of what housing is, in fact, covered by RAP. Currently, there is no way to determine beyond a reasonable doubt if a tenant is covered by RAP. Currently, RAP cannot even send notices to the tenants that it is supposed to help because it does not have a database of addresses for the units that it oversees! This is a basic and common sense piece of legislation and the arguments against it are based on misinformation.