3 22-0542 Subject: Submit Amendments To The Just Cause For Eviction Ordinance To The November 8, 2022 General Election
From: Councilmembers Kalb And Fife
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution On The City Council's Own Motion Submitting To The Voters At The November 8, 2022, General Municipal Election, An Ordinance To Amend Oakland Municipal Code Section 8.22.300 Et Seq. (Just Cause For Eviction Ordinance) To: (1) Extend Eviction Protections To Tenants In Vehicular Residential Facilities And Newly Constructed Rental Units, Except Accessory Dwelling Units During The First Ten Years; (2) Remove Failure To Execute A Lease Extension As Grounds For Eviction; (3) Prohibit No-Fault Evictions Of Educators And Children During The School Year; And (4) Make Other Clarifying Amendments; And Directing The City Clerk To Fix The Date For Submission Of Arguments And Provide For Notice And Publication, And Take Any And All Actions Necessary Under Law To Prepare For And Conduct The November 8, 2022, General Municipal Election
This proposal lumps large apartments with owner occupied "homes and castles".
I urge that all owner occupied one, two and three unit properties be covered by “tenancy-at-will” leases where either party can give notice. To apply “Just Cause” to owner occupied ADUs may be well intentioned, but in the end will be a modern version of racist deed restrictions written decades ago. The wealthy will forego renting, the less well off homeowners will be forced to accept whatever terms are in force. This will further concentrate rentals in less affluent areas of town.
Tenant advocates would likely retort “landlords often threaten to withhold units from the market, but they never do, they just want money”.
They frankly do not work with prospective ADU owner occupants; I do. I work as a permit consultant, helping property owners understand ADU laws and/or navigate the process of permitting and legalizing existing illegal units. We’re talking about people’s homes: profit is but one consideration.
An owner occupant’s need for space can change over time. Babies come and grow, businesses start and fail, kids leave (and maybe come back) from college. An owner may choose to change the space, offer it to a friend or whatever. Motivation to be a “landlord” can change. Flexibility is key. The owner occupants I’ve talked to are not against reasonable pricing for rentals; they’re against being FORCED to continue unworkable rental situations.
Apoyo las protecciones contra desalojo para inquilinos. Necesitamos estas protecciones para poder sobrevivir en un área que se convirtió en las más caras del mundo. Dónde quedamos nosotros la clase pobre y trabajadora que ha sostenido a este país sobre todo en crisis como la pandemia? Escuché que las uniones estás en desacuerdo con las protecciones. Recuerden que ustedes de alguna manera u otra tendrán trabajo, y en una hora buena. Pero nosotros, no tendremos la oportunidad de una vivienda digna si se enfocan primero en el desarrollo de crear edificios y nosotros quedamos en segundo plano. Primero somos nosotros y después propiedades. Gracias
My name is Jacqueline, and I fully support the expansion of just cause evictions protections. Our current housing crisis disproportionately affects Black and brown people, and further protections for tenants will directly impact people who are in danger of experiencing homelessness. Voters should be able to vote to keep this basic housing protection. I am particularly in support of the measure to ensure that students and educators do not have to move mid-school year. Such a protection will protect the wellbeing and stability of our children and allow for continuity of education. The wellbeing of our children should be a top priority, and again, voters should be able to express their voice and option regarding this measure.
I am a District 2 resident and a member of the Oakland Tenants Union. I am writing in support of agenda item #3, to Submit Amendments To The Just Cause For Eviction Ordinance To The November 8, 2022 General Election as proposed by Council Members Kalb and Fife.
If approved, rental units covered by the Oakland Just Cause Ordinance will be expanded to provide eviction protections to tenants who happen to reside in buildings built after 1995. Why shouldn’t they have the same protections as tenants who happen to reside in older buildings built in earlier years? And what’s the justification for ADUs being excluded?
I want to emphasize that the broadening of such protections would especially be welcome to senior citizen renters of which I am one and other vulnerable Oakland residents and protect us all from potential homelessness.
I urge you to vote to approve item #3 with an amendment to include ADUs in the expansive protections.
What better time than now to stand on the side of justice ? Oakland tenants need this necessary infrastructure to ensure safer and more secure housing. Which side are you on? Show up and stand with tenants. Support these amendments!
I support this resolution and urge the council to pass it and allow the voters to decide.
I appreciate that this resolution does away with an arbitrary cut-off date for just cause protections from arbitrary and capricious (and, sometimes, malicious) evictions. With all of these new constructions going up in Oakland, there is a growing community of residents without just cause protections. Nothing stops these new owners from charging market-rate rent to cover construction costs--this resolution modifies the Just Cause Ordinance. But, this will stop them from engaging in unfair business practices that leverage their unequal bargaining power at the expense of Oakland residents.
There is no reason that the City Council should not approve this resolution and put this proposal to the voting public. The public should be allowed to make its own informed judgment about the merits of this proposal.
In passing, I've heard stories about how landlords are attempting to rebrand themselves as "housing service providers." I applaud their efforts to relinquish their lordship over the Oakland community--they are no one's lords. And so, I encourage them to accept all the rules and regulations that come with the "service provider" moniker--rules and regulations that level the playing field for consumers and allow for real competition in the residential housing business.
More legislation from the City of Oakland that kills housing. As a resident of District 1 I talk to other homeowners all the time that have no interest in offering extra rooms to rent or are apprehensive about building a cottage b/c they don't trust (for good reason) the City Council. In Oakland, if you take in a tenant to your home and things don't work out... you are stuck in a long, painful, costly, and litigious process to ever get control of our own home back. What rational person would ever take that risk?
The report produced by Kalb/Fife use elective data to somehow suggest that these restrictions have no effect on housing. If they used the full RHNA data-set they would see that Cities with these restrictions greatly underperform in the production of housing. In fact looking at 2015-2021 data, Oakland would have seen 6,200 fewer units produced if this regulatory regime was in place.
I oppose the amendments listed because it halts new development, places more unnecessary restrictions on small property owners making it that much harder to own property in Oakland, and the data that Kalb and Fife are using does not represent the real picture of Just Cause. Small property owners are barely making it as it is and these new amendments kill any chances for new development and offer no help for the small Mom and Pop owners. If Council members are truly concerned about the housing shortage then they should focus on making it easier for developing new units instead of taking them away.
I fully support this measure. It makes no sense that people have a right to stable housing only based on which type of building they live in. All tenants have a right to stable and fair housing situations.
As a new homeowner who would like to build an ADU in the future, I find the arguments against ADU protections to be bogus. If you are building an ADU you are a landlord and should be subject to the rules just like anyone else. Your tenants help to pay your mortgage and for the financing of your ADU, they deserve just cause protections. If you are against basic protections for tenants you are not pro-housing. Please pass this measure.
As a native of Oakland, I have seen firsthand the impacts of the housing crisis in Black and Brown communities. I am here to support the ballot measure to expand the Just Cause For Eviction Ordinance, while calling for ADUs to be included in the expansive protections. We must not be the only city in the Bay Area with a building exemption date in their just cause ordinance! Other cities in the Bay Area have extended their tenant protections to all buildings. Oakland should do the same. I support an all-inclusive just cause ordinance! – Do not exempt ADUs for just cause. The State has encouraged the creation of ADUs to alleviate the housing crisis. Exempting ADUs for just cause undermines sustainable housing efforts. Oaklanders deserve stronger tenant protections that will prevent evictions and displacement. Let the voters decide!
I urge the full Council to support this proposal by councilmembers Dan Kalb and Carroll Fife, to strengthen tenant protections and amend the Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance. All of our residents deserve this protection, and the voters deserve the opportunity to decide in November. Thank you!
I strongly support they just cause protections for tenants in Oakland. We are at a point that we no longer only see adults in the streets, but now we see entire families with children. As a tenant counselor, I am currently helping a woman and a newborn who are homeless living in a shelter. She cannot afford her rent, and was harassed by her landlord while forced her to self evict herself and her newborn. This is cruel, and tenants like her, low income, black and brown folks in the town can’t be displaced no more. We need protections. Housing developments need to be managed, and if they happen, they need to happen for our low income and working class communities.
As a tenant of a rent-stabilized apartment in Oakland City Council District 1, I strongly support this measure to expand just cause eviction protections in Oakland. The housing crisis that existed when the Just Cause Ordinance was first approved by the City’s voters in 2002 has only gotten worse. Now is the time to protect more of our neighbors, not fewer. Don't exempt ADU's from this critical protection, as this will undercut efforts to make ADU's part of our sustainable housing future.
Just cause for eviction DOES NOT impact construction dates or the feasibility of new construction. Just cause eviction protection DOES stabilize newly constructed housing. Oakland should not be the only city in the Bay Area with a date of construction exemption in its just cause ordinance! Other cities in the Bay Area have extended their tenant protections to all buildings and Oakland should do the same. By eliminating the date of construction limitations, we ensure there will be a supply of protected households into the future. Right now, since units built after 1995 are not protected, every year there is a decrease in the percent of protected units and families. This does not benefit the community at large, as evictions result in increased burdens on the health care system, increased homelessness, trauma to displaced families and their neighbors, and disruptions to children's' educations. Just cause eviction protection keeps our communities safer and healthier!
I happy to see Dan Kalb do the right thing to protect his constituent tenants from eviction. Extending protections to New construction and Vehicles is great. But we also need to extend those protections to mobile homes and families living in their cars. We need to protect children and teachers from eviction year round because many are involved with summer school as well. It's good to see some major holes patched in the Tenant protection ordinance, but we need to develop ways to respect our unhoused members as well. It would be refreshing to see Gallo and others support this in order to stop letting developers displace their constituents. Today there was a massive fire on Woods street at the same time as an eviction of the camp over a mile away from the fire. Where are those residents supposed to go? what is the point of displacing them? so they can be more at risk and harder to provide services for. We need to establish safe housing that respects peoples autonomy and sometimes that is a mobile home or an encampment. Please vote in support of this legislation as well as further legislation to support all of your constituents.
My name is Anya, and I am a tenant in Oakland, CA, District 2. I fully support the Expansion of the Oakland Just Cause Ordinance because there’s a housing crisis in Oakland, and we’re in the same conditions that led to the need for the just cause ordinance to begin with, so expanding the ordinance to newly built housing is necessary to cover increasingly more tenants. The just cause ordinance helps the city council achieve its goals of reducing homelessness and preventing involuntary displacement. Involuntary displacement has detrimental impacts on individuals, families, communities, health systems, and care providers. We are all benefited from stronger and more expansive just cause protections. Additionally, I ask that ADUs be included in the expansion. People who live in ADUs are tenants just like in other kinds of housing, and they deserve the same protections as other tenants. Oakland needs more expansive and inclusive public policies that protect more tenants from evictions, we need to establish real solutions to address the ongoing housing and homelessness crisis.
I support expanding just cause protections and I think this measure should be put on the ballot for voters to decide. Oakland needs more expansive and inclusive public policies that protect tenants from evictions, we need to establish real, tangible solutions to address the ongoing housing and houselessness crisis. Including more community members and tenants in the protections of the just cause ordinance is a real solution to begin addressing this crisis.
Hurting desperately needed ADUs and new housing production would reduce housing supply and increase rent on tenants!
Analysis of issued permits from 2015 to 2021 shows that Bay Area cities with expanded Just Cause restrictions on new housing suffered a 37% loss in housing production. Beside costing local jobs for construction workers, this proposal would also cause Oakland to miss its state-mandated housing production RHNA target. Failure to meet its mandated housing target will cause Oakland to lose state funding as well as local control over city planning.
The solution to the housing shortage crisis is more housing, NOT less!
9 out of 10 Bay Area cities favor more housing and do NOT currently have these proposed harmful restrictions on new housing.
My name is Madison a law student intern with EBCLC’s housing unit. I support the Resolution for the Expansion of the Oakland Just Cause Ordinance. There is a serious housing crisis in Oakland. The situation that existed when the Just Cause Ordinance was first approved by the City’s voters in 2002 has not been abated-- it has gotten worse. We need to strengthen the Ordinance, expand the units to which it applies (including expansion to ADUs), and to provide its benefits to more tenants, not fewer. Just cause for eviction is a basic legal protection to make sure tenants are not arbitrarily evicted, harassed, and discriminated against. The ballot measure is important to prevent involuntary displacement and homelessness. Put this on the ballet and let the people of Oakland decide!
I strongly support expanding just cause protections in Oakland and believe this measure should be given to the voters to decide. The crisis of affordable housing in Oakland has only gotten worse, and just cause is one of the most important tools to ensure community members remain housed and are not kicked out of their homes without good cause. Other cities in our area with just cause protections have extended them to new construction, and it's important that Oakland do the same, or else eventually no housing will be protected by just cause. It's also important to extend these protections to ADUs, an increasingly common form of housing. I also strongly support ensuring that families with children in school do not have to move mid-school year, disrupting their children's education and welfare. This measure is NOT the same as rent control and does not mean that tenants can never be evicted or asked to move out--it just means that good tenants will not be displaced from their housing and risk becoming unhoused for no reason. That should be something that everyone can get behind.
Kalb/Fife Supplemental Report Analysis is INCOMPLETE AND FLAWED: EBRHA and the Jobs and Housing Coalition found after reviewing the Supplemental Report with other housing organizations, we have some serious concerns about the efficacy of the findings based on the data that was used. The report concluded that cities with Just Cause restrictions achieved 146% of RHNA goals – advising that these modifications would not have a material impact on Oakland’s housing production. In reviewing the data from the same sources, we discovered the following:
The Report excluded the most critical RHNA housing segment data most tied to affordability: very low, low, and moderate income housing. This distorts the report’s findings.
Communities with expanded Just Cause restrictions only achieve 71% of their RHNA targets. 146% was declared in the Supplemental Report.
On average, expanded Just Cause cities in the Bay Area fall more than 35% below RHNA targets compared to Non-Just Cause cities.
By including the full set of relevant data in the analysis, our results indicate very different findings, even though we know each city has a unique set of drivers that may impact housing development. We’ve concluded that if Oakland enacted the proposed Just Cause Ordinance modifications to include new construction, ADUs, and RVs, at the beginning of the RHNA cycle in 2015, the city could have approximately 6,218 fewer rental units today.
This proposal lumps large apartments with owner occupied "homes and castles".
I urge that all owner occupied one, two and three unit properties be covered by “tenancy-at-will” leases where either party can give notice. To apply “Just Cause” to owner occupied ADUs may be well intentioned, but in the end will be a modern version of racist deed restrictions written decades ago. The wealthy will forego renting, the less well off homeowners will be forced to accept whatever terms are in force. This will further concentrate rentals in less affluent areas of town.
Tenant advocates would likely retort “landlords often threaten to withhold units from the market, but they never do, they just want money”.
They frankly do not work with prospective ADU owner occupants; I do. I work as a permit consultant, helping property owners understand ADU laws and/or navigate the process of permitting and legalizing existing illegal units. We’re talking about people’s homes: profit is but one consideration.
An owner occupant’s need for space can change over time. Babies come and grow, businesses start and fail, kids leave (and maybe come back) from college. An owner may choose to change the space, offer it to a friend or whatever. Motivation to be a “landlord” can change. Flexibility is key. The owner occupants I’ve talked to are not against reasonable pricing for rentals; they’re against being FORCED to continue unworkable rental situations.
Just Cause for owner occupants kills housing.
Apoyo las protecciones contra desalojo para inquilinos. Necesitamos estas protecciones para poder sobrevivir en un área que se convirtió en las más caras del mundo. Dónde quedamos nosotros la clase pobre y trabajadora que ha sostenido a este país sobre todo en crisis como la pandemia? Escuché que las uniones estás en desacuerdo con las protecciones. Recuerden que ustedes de alguna manera u otra tendrán trabajo, y en una hora buena. Pero nosotros, no tendremos la oportunidad de una vivienda digna si se enfocan primero en el desarrollo de crear edificios y nosotros quedamos en segundo plano. Primero somos nosotros y después propiedades. Gracias
My name is Jacqueline, and I fully support the expansion of just cause evictions protections. Our current housing crisis disproportionately affects Black and brown people, and further protections for tenants will directly impact people who are in danger of experiencing homelessness. Voters should be able to vote to keep this basic housing protection. I am particularly in support of the measure to ensure that students and educators do not have to move mid-school year. Such a protection will protect the wellbeing and stability of our children and allow for continuity of education. The wellbeing of our children should be a top priority, and again, voters should be able to express their voice and option regarding this measure.
Dear Council Members ~
I am a District 2 resident and a member of the Oakland Tenants Union. I am writing in support of agenda item #3, to Submit Amendments To The Just Cause For Eviction Ordinance To The November 8, 2022 General Election as proposed by Council Members Kalb and Fife.
If approved, rental units covered by the Oakland Just Cause Ordinance will be expanded to provide eviction protections to tenants who happen to reside in buildings built after 1995. Why shouldn’t they have the same protections as tenants who happen to reside in older buildings built in earlier years? And what’s the justification for ADUs being excluded?
I want to emphasize that the broadening of such protections would especially be welcome to senior citizen renters of which I am one and other vulnerable Oakland residents and protect us all from potential homelessness.
I urge you to vote to approve item #3 with an amendment to include ADUs in the expansive protections.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
~ Janet Kobren
What better time than now to stand on the side of justice ? Oakland tenants need this necessary infrastructure to ensure safer and more secure housing. Which side are you on? Show up and stand with tenants. Support these amendments!
I support this resolution and urge the council to pass it and allow the voters to decide.
I appreciate that this resolution does away with an arbitrary cut-off date for just cause protections from arbitrary and capricious (and, sometimes, malicious) evictions. With all of these new constructions going up in Oakland, there is a growing community of residents without just cause protections. Nothing stops these new owners from charging market-rate rent to cover construction costs--this resolution modifies the Just Cause Ordinance. But, this will stop them from engaging in unfair business practices that leverage their unequal bargaining power at the expense of Oakland residents.
There is no reason that the City Council should not approve this resolution and put this proposal to the voting public. The public should be allowed to make its own informed judgment about the merits of this proposal.
In passing, I've heard stories about how landlords are attempting to rebrand themselves as "housing service providers." I applaud their efforts to relinquish their lordship over the Oakland community--they are no one's lords. And so, I encourage them to accept all the rules and regulations that come with the "service provider" moniker--rules and regulations that level the playing field for consumers and allow for real competition in the residential housing business.
More legislation from the City of Oakland that kills housing. As a resident of District 1 I talk to other homeowners all the time that have no interest in offering extra rooms to rent or are apprehensive about building a cottage b/c they don't trust (for good reason) the City Council. In Oakland, if you take in a tenant to your home and things don't work out... you are stuck in a long, painful, costly, and litigious process to ever get control of our own home back. What rational person would ever take that risk?
The report produced by Kalb/Fife use elective data to somehow suggest that these restrictions have no effect on housing. If they used the full RHNA data-set they would see that Cities with these restrictions greatly underperform in the production of housing. In fact looking at 2015-2021 data, Oakland would have seen 6,200 fewer units produced if this regulatory regime was in place.
I oppose the amendments listed because it halts new development, places more unnecessary restrictions on small property owners making it that much harder to own property in Oakland, and the data that Kalb and Fife are using does not represent the real picture of Just Cause. Small property owners are barely making it as it is and these new amendments kill any chances for new development and offer no help for the small Mom and Pop owners. If Council members are truly concerned about the housing shortage then they should focus on making it easier for developing new units instead of taking them away.
I fully support this measure. It makes no sense that people have a right to stable housing only based on which type of building they live in. All tenants have a right to stable and fair housing situations.
As a new homeowner who would like to build an ADU in the future, I find the arguments against ADU protections to be bogus. If you are building an ADU you are a landlord and should be subject to the rules just like anyone else. Your tenants help to pay your mortgage and for the financing of your ADU, they deserve just cause protections. If you are against basic protections for tenants you are not pro-housing. Please pass this measure.
As a native of Oakland, I have seen firsthand the impacts of the housing crisis in Black and Brown communities. I am here to support the ballot measure to expand the Just Cause For Eviction Ordinance, while calling for ADUs to be included in the expansive protections. We must not be the only city in the Bay Area with a building exemption date in their just cause ordinance! Other cities in the Bay Area have extended their tenant protections to all buildings. Oakland should do the same. I support an all-inclusive just cause ordinance! – Do not exempt ADUs for just cause. The State has encouraged the creation of ADUs to alleviate the housing crisis. Exempting ADUs for just cause undermines sustainable housing efforts. Oaklanders deserve stronger tenant protections that will prevent evictions and displacement. Let the voters decide!
I urge the full Council to support this proposal by councilmembers Dan Kalb and Carroll Fife, to strengthen tenant protections and amend the Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance. All of our residents deserve this protection, and the voters deserve the opportunity to decide in November. Thank you!
I strongly support they just cause protections for tenants in Oakland. We are at a point that we no longer only see adults in the streets, but now we see entire families with children. As a tenant counselor, I am currently helping a woman and a newborn who are homeless living in a shelter. She cannot afford her rent, and was harassed by her landlord while forced her to self evict herself and her newborn. This is cruel, and tenants like her, low income, black and brown folks in the town can’t be displaced no more. We need protections. Housing developments need to be managed, and if they happen, they need to happen for our low income and working class communities.
As a tenant of a rent-stabilized apartment in Oakland City Council District 1, I strongly support this measure to expand just cause eviction protections in Oakland. The housing crisis that existed when the Just Cause Ordinance was first approved by the City’s voters in 2002 has only gotten worse. Now is the time to protect more of our neighbors, not fewer. Don't exempt ADU's from this critical protection, as this will undercut efforts to make ADU's part of our sustainable housing future.
Just cause for eviction DOES NOT impact construction dates or the feasibility of new construction. Just cause eviction protection DOES stabilize newly constructed housing. Oakland should not be the only city in the Bay Area with a date of construction exemption in its just cause ordinance! Other cities in the Bay Area have extended their tenant protections to all buildings and Oakland should do the same. By eliminating the date of construction limitations, we ensure there will be a supply of protected households into the future. Right now, since units built after 1995 are not protected, every year there is a decrease in the percent of protected units and families. This does not benefit the community at large, as evictions result in increased burdens on the health care system, increased homelessness, trauma to displaced families and their neighbors, and disruptions to children's' educations. Just cause eviction protection keeps our communities safer and healthier!
I happy to see Dan Kalb do the right thing to protect his constituent tenants from eviction. Extending protections to New construction and Vehicles is great. But we also need to extend those protections to mobile homes and families living in their cars. We need to protect children and teachers from eviction year round because many are involved with summer school as well. It's good to see some major holes patched in the Tenant protection ordinance, but we need to develop ways to respect our unhoused members as well. It would be refreshing to see Gallo and others support this in order to stop letting developers displace their constituents. Today there was a massive fire on Woods street at the same time as an eviction of the camp over a mile away from the fire. Where are those residents supposed to go? what is the point of displacing them? so they can be more at risk and harder to provide services for. We need to establish safe housing that respects peoples autonomy and sometimes that is a mobile home or an encampment. Please vote in support of this legislation as well as further legislation to support all of your constituents.
My name is Anya, and I am a tenant in Oakland, CA, District 2. I fully support the Expansion of the Oakland Just Cause Ordinance because there’s a housing crisis in Oakland, and we’re in the same conditions that led to the need for the just cause ordinance to begin with, so expanding the ordinance to newly built housing is necessary to cover increasingly more tenants. The just cause ordinance helps the city council achieve its goals of reducing homelessness and preventing involuntary displacement. Involuntary displacement has detrimental impacts on individuals, families, communities, health systems, and care providers. We are all benefited from stronger and more expansive just cause protections. Additionally, I ask that ADUs be included in the expansion. People who live in ADUs are tenants just like in other kinds of housing, and they deserve the same protections as other tenants. Oakland needs more expansive and inclusive public policies that protect more tenants from evictions, we need to establish real solutions to address the ongoing housing and homelessness crisis.
I support expanding just cause protections and I think this measure should be put on the ballot for voters to decide. Oakland needs more expansive and inclusive public policies that protect tenants from evictions, we need to establish real, tangible solutions to address the ongoing housing and houselessness crisis. Including more community members and tenants in the protections of the just cause ordinance is a real solution to begin addressing this crisis.
Hurting desperately needed ADUs and new housing production would reduce housing supply and increase rent on tenants!
Analysis of issued permits from 2015 to 2021 shows that Bay Area cities with expanded Just Cause restrictions on new housing suffered a 37% loss in housing production. Beside costing local jobs for construction workers, this proposal would also cause Oakland to miss its state-mandated housing production RHNA target. Failure to meet its mandated housing target will cause Oakland to lose state funding as well as local control over city planning.
The solution to the housing shortage crisis is more housing, NOT less!
9 out of 10 Bay Area cities favor more housing and do NOT currently have these proposed harmful restrictions on new housing.
My name is Madison a law student intern with EBCLC’s housing unit. I support the Resolution for the Expansion of the Oakland Just Cause Ordinance. There is a serious housing crisis in Oakland. The situation that existed when the Just Cause Ordinance was first approved by the City’s voters in 2002 has not been abated-- it has gotten worse. We need to strengthen the Ordinance, expand the units to which it applies (including expansion to ADUs), and to provide its benefits to more tenants, not fewer. Just cause for eviction is a basic legal protection to make sure tenants are not arbitrarily evicted, harassed, and discriminated against. The ballot measure is important to prevent involuntary displacement and homelessness. Put this on the ballet and let the people of Oakland decide!
I strongly support expanding just cause protections in Oakland and believe this measure should be given to the voters to decide. The crisis of affordable housing in Oakland has only gotten worse, and just cause is one of the most important tools to ensure community members remain housed and are not kicked out of their homes without good cause. Other cities in our area with just cause protections have extended them to new construction, and it's important that Oakland do the same, or else eventually no housing will be protected by just cause. It's also important to extend these protections to ADUs, an increasingly common form of housing. I also strongly support ensuring that families with children in school do not have to move mid-school year, disrupting their children's education and welfare. This measure is NOT the same as rent control and does not mean that tenants can never be evicted or asked to move out--it just means that good tenants will not be displaced from their housing and risk becoming unhoused for no reason. That should be something that everyone can get behind.
Kalb/Fife Supplemental Report Analysis is INCOMPLETE AND FLAWED: EBRHA and the Jobs and Housing Coalition found after reviewing the Supplemental Report with other housing organizations, we have some serious concerns about the efficacy of the findings based on the data that was used. The report concluded that cities with Just Cause restrictions achieved 146% of RHNA goals – advising that these modifications would not have a material impact on Oakland’s housing production. In reviewing the data from the same sources, we discovered the following:
The Report excluded the most critical RHNA housing segment data most tied to affordability: very low, low, and moderate income housing. This distorts the report’s findings.
Communities with expanded Just Cause restrictions only achieve 71% of their RHNA targets. 146% was declared in the Supplemental Report.
On average, expanded Just Cause cities in the Bay Area fall more than 35% below RHNA targets compared to Non-Just Cause cities.
By including the full set of relevant data in the analysis, our results indicate very different findings, even though we know each city has a unique set of drivers that may impact housing development. We’ve concluded that if Oakland enacted the proposed Just Cause Ordinance modifications to include new construction, ADUs, and RVs, at the beginning of the RHNA cycle in 2015, the city could have approximately 6,218 fewer rental units today.