2.14 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
Linking Just Cause rights to compliance with rent registry does not fit the violation. It is dangerous, and makes both the tenants and landlord vulnerable. A policy that denies rent increases until registration is completed seems reasonable. Keeping in mind that the benign stated goal is to build a data base of information, not punishment, there should be allowances for extenuating circumstances. Where is the Council’s stated concern for the most vulnerable tenants who would have to put up with a nuisance tenant for 6 months? And It is extremely troubling that staff would not fully explain in the report the exposure to a negligence lawsuit with treble damages the 6 month prohibition places squarely on the unknowing landlord. A small property owner could lose hundreds of thousands of dollars or their property. This lack of transparency is appalling and tantamount to entrapment
Please do NOT cast a vote against PUBLIC SAFETY!
Please amend the Rent Registry (item 2.14) to keep ALL Just Cause Protections by removing clause (3) from the item.
Oakland has removed criminal background checks from housing applications so it is essential that we keep Just Cause to protect tenant victims when another tenant engages in wrongful behavior such as physically harming or threatening someone with violence, engaging in illegal activities or preventing necessary repairs etc.
As written, the Rental Registry compromises public safety by removing numerous Just Cause protections, endangering the lives of tenants.
We should not set up a system that puts innocent people at risk. If a rental unit is not registered timely, no rent increase should be allowed until the unit is registered. Safety concerns, however, should never be compromised and ALL the Just Cause protections should be preserved because they are long standing and exist for good reasons.
I understand the council is trying to increase rental housing with no cost to the city through having homeowners built accessory dwelling units. Just cause provisions alone discourage building ADUs since we have perpetual tenancy (no term set by the lease can be enforced) and no ability to limit occupants except by state maximums. I understand that the council will be considering brining all ADUs under these provisions?The bureaucracy of the rent registry will also discourage building those units. Some homeowners seem optimistic about using ADUs for B & B's to avoid the tenancy issues- easier to have a business than a rental where you live. Clearly. I have no idea why your ordinance "Require Owners to Provide Evidence of Complying With Residential Rental Registration Requirement" when the RAP board already HAS that information. They collect their their fees every year. They can't find the information? There are no penalties for those who violate the privacy of this information. There is no deterrent to disclosure. Was this written in such haste that this was not even considered? The old song from the council is "it can be fixed later," but later never happens. Like the perpetual eviction moratorium.
Bad idea - though it sounds good on a sound bite. Responsible City Council Members, please look at how much more bureaucracy this will create, and to what effect? There already are protections for tenants with Just Cause and Tenants' Unions fighting for them (if they have been justifiably violated), so what really would the registry add? More paperwork, burden on the taxpayer dollars to support an overburdened Rent Adjustment Program. Can we just get on with our business without the City of Oakland micromanaging and pretending to become owners of people's properties?
The safety of everyone on my owner occupied property is being further diminished by these intrusive and burdensome ordinances being churned out by this city council. The tipping point has been reached and getting out of the rental business in Oakland is sensible. These ordinances are driving out mom and pop providers and reduce housing opportunities and intimately drive up cost for those who remain.
I oppose setting in place even more draconian laws for housing providers.
Also I second another person's comment below:
This is a safety risk to owners and tenants, as it affects the ability to evict in a timely schedule. It removes Just Cause protections by preventing and delaying evictions that are necessary for safety or other serious lease breaches. Owners must be able to manage their properties, raise rents within legal threshold, and evict for legally allowed violations without constant micromanaging from the Council. Oakland owners are already bound by local and State law for rent increases and by Just Cause law for evictions along with the rest of the State of California. Oppose.
Has the city reached out to undocumented residents or their advocates? They and other tenants may not want to be registered.
The penanty of removing Just Cause rights for noncompliance is too severe, dangerous and can create safety hazards for other tenants. There are circumstances when eviction based on Just Cause are eminent for safety.
New data bases always have problems and Just Cause rights is too critical to be hung up by an administrative function.
Providers cannot be legally required to attest to tenant occupancy. With roommates we may not know who lives in the building other than original tenant. Providers' have no rights to require info on roommates and would have to rely on tenant's word on occupancy. Amend the ordinance to delink Just Cause from compliance. Why has Oakland chosen to be so punitive?
This is a safety risk to owners and tenants, as it affects the ability to evict in a timely schedule. It removes Just Cause protections by preventing and delaying evictions that are necessary for safety or other serious lease breaches. Owners must be able to manage their properties, raise rents within legal threshold, and evict for legally allowed violations without constant micromanaging from the Council. Oakland owners are already bound by local and State law for rent increases and by Just Cause law for evictions along with the rest of the State of California. Oppose.
Firstly this is privacy violation and yet another in an unfathomably long list of unnecessary and onerous policies targeting small providers with zero valid justification for its need. Secondly a rent increase and rent registry have nothing to do with each other and thus should not be arbitrarily correlated in this manner. Thirdly an eviction and rental registry again have nothing to do with each other and thus should not be arbitrarily correlated in this manner. I suggest the City Council find ways to improve the management of the city instead of spending all of its taxpayer-funded time needlessly and unjustly targeting small housing providers out of existence, which will ultimately harm the availability of quality rental housing in this city. When the only rental housing providers left in Oakland are the corporate, Wall Street providers, you'll know where to look for the cause.
Owner's, small ones especially do not know or do not care about ordnances in the city of Oakland. They have remodeled without permits, threatened tenants, to not abide by the implied agreement to keep common areas clean, sanitary and safe. Wast management adherence has been ignored and their property been stolen by workers. Maybe if we have a rent registry the so called mom and pop rental owners can be trained in acceptable and respectful property management.
we need more transparency and accountability, and we need the data going forward to make sound policies.
Linking Just Cause rights to compliance with rent registry does not fit the violation. It is dangerous, and makes both the tenants and landlord vulnerable. A policy that denies rent increases until registration is completed seems reasonable. Keeping in mind that the benign stated goal is to build a data base of information, not punishment, there should be allowances for extenuating circumstances. Where is the Council’s stated concern for the most vulnerable tenants who would have to put up with a nuisance tenant for 6 months? And It is extremely troubling that staff would not fully explain in the report the exposure to a negligence lawsuit with treble damages the 6 month prohibition places squarely on the unknowing landlord. A small property owner could lose hundreds of thousands of dollars or their property. This lack of transparency is appalling and tantamount to entrapment
Please do NOT cast a vote against PUBLIC SAFETY!
Please amend the Rent Registry (item 2.14) to keep ALL Just Cause Protections by removing clause (3) from the item.
Oakland has removed criminal background checks from housing applications so it is essential that we keep Just Cause to protect tenant victims when another tenant engages in wrongful behavior such as physically harming or threatening someone with violence, engaging in illegal activities or preventing necessary repairs etc.
As written, the Rental Registry compromises public safety by removing numerous Just Cause protections, endangering the lives of tenants.
We should not set up a system that puts innocent people at risk. If a rental unit is not registered timely, no rent increase should be allowed until the unit is registered. Safety concerns, however, should never be compromised and ALL the Just Cause protections should be preserved because they are long standing and exist for good reasons.
I understand the council is trying to increase rental housing with no cost to the city through having homeowners built accessory dwelling units. Just cause provisions alone discourage building ADUs since we have perpetual tenancy (no term set by the lease can be enforced) and no ability to limit occupants except by state maximums. I understand that the council will be considering brining all ADUs under these provisions?The bureaucracy of the rent registry will also discourage building those units. Some homeowners seem optimistic about using ADUs for B & B's to avoid the tenancy issues- easier to have a business than a rental where you live. Clearly. I have no idea why your ordinance "Require Owners to Provide Evidence of Complying With Residential Rental Registration Requirement" when the RAP board already HAS that information. They collect their their fees every year. They can't find the information? There are no penalties for those who violate the privacy of this information. There is no deterrent to disclosure. Was this written in such haste that this was not even considered? The old song from the council is "it can be fixed later," but later never happens. Like the perpetual eviction moratorium.
Bad idea - though it sounds good on a sound bite. Responsible City Council Members, please look at how much more bureaucracy this will create, and to what effect? There already are protections for tenants with Just Cause and Tenants' Unions fighting for them (if they have been justifiably violated), so what really would the registry add? More paperwork, burden on the taxpayer dollars to support an overburdened Rent Adjustment Program. Can we just get on with our business without the City of Oakland micromanaging and pretending to become owners of people's properties?
The safety of everyone on my owner occupied property is being further diminished by these intrusive and burdensome ordinances being churned out by this city council. The tipping point has been reached and getting out of the rental business in Oakland is sensible. These ordinances are driving out mom and pop providers and reduce housing opportunities and intimately drive up cost for those who remain.
I oppose setting in place even more draconian laws for housing providers.
Also I second another person's comment below:
This is a safety risk to owners and tenants, as it affects the ability to evict in a timely schedule. It removes Just Cause protections by preventing and delaying evictions that are necessary for safety or other serious lease breaches. Owners must be able to manage their properties, raise rents within legal threshold, and evict for legally allowed violations without constant micromanaging from the Council. Oakland owners are already bound by local and State law for rent increases and by Just Cause law for evictions along with the rest of the State of California. Oppose.
Has the city reached out to undocumented residents or their advocates? They and other tenants may not want to be registered.
The penanty of removing Just Cause rights for noncompliance is too severe, dangerous and can create safety hazards for other tenants. There are circumstances when eviction based on Just Cause are eminent for safety.
New data bases always have problems and Just Cause rights is too critical to be hung up by an administrative function.
Providers cannot be legally required to attest to tenant occupancy. With roommates we may not know who lives in the building other than original tenant. Providers' have no rights to require info on roommates and would have to rely on tenant's word on occupancy. Amend the ordinance to delink Just Cause from compliance. Why has Oakland chosen to be so punitive?
This is a safety risk to owners and tenants, as it affects the ability to evict in a timely schedule. It removes Just Cause protections by preventing and delaying evictions that are necessary for safety or other serious lease breaches. Owners must be able to manage their properties, raise rents within legal threshold, and evict for legally allowed violations without constant micromanaging from the Council. Oakland owners are already bound by local and State law for rent increases and by Just Cause law for evictions along with the rest of the State of California. Oppose.
Firstly this is privacy violation and yet another in an unfathomably long list of unnecessary and onerous policies targeting small providers with zero valid justification for its need. Secondly a rent increase and rent registry have nothing to do with each other and thus should not be arbitrarily correlated in this manner. Thirdly an eviction and rental registry again have nothing to do with each other and thus should not be arbitrarily correlated in this manner. I suggest the City Council find ways to improve the management of the city instead of spending all of its taxpayer-funded time needlessly and unjustly targeting small housing providers out of existence, which will ultimately harm the availability of quality rental housing in this city. When the only rental housing providers left in Oakland are the corporate, Wall Street providers, you'll know where to look for the cause.
Owner's, small ones especially do not know or do not care about ordnances in the city of Oakland. They have remodeled without permits, threatened tenants, to not abide by the implied agreement to keep common areas clean, sanitary and safe. Wast management adherence has been ignored and their property been stolen by workers. Maybe if we have a rent registry the so called mom and pop rental owners can be trained in acceptable and respectful property management.