This is a reasonable request and should be passed. However a more sensible approach would have the RAP consider increases in garbage, water, sewer, gas and electric in setting the CPI. For example, the CPI is only .8% this year which does not cover the increased costs for utilities, interest rates, management, repair costs, etc. Owners should not have to petition for these increases, they should be weighted into the allowed CPI w/o having to petition.

Please approve the RAP’s recommendation. The City gives Waste Management the a ability to increase their rates at a much higher rate that the 60% of CPI that housing providers get.
Rents are down 15-20% since 2000 but garbage rates keep going up.

Insurance is also climbing exponentially, if you can even get it.

Please support the change to the ordinance.

I ask the Council to support RAP’s recommendation and vote to advance this matter to the full City Council for consideration.

Over the past six years, garbage rates in Oakland have increased by 25%, while RAP has only permitted a 13% rent increase during that same period. This disparity disproportionately impacts small housing providers, many of whom are already operating on thin margins. These waste fee increases—approved by the City Council—have averaged 4.2% annually.

To put it into perspective: effective July 2025, garbage rates increased by 3.08%, while RAP only allows a rent adjustment of 0.08%. That’s a direct 3% gap that housing providers are forced to absorb, with no path for cost recovery.

This imbalance not only places undue financial strain on property owners but also has broader implications. It devalues rental property, leading to lower property tax revenues and reduced transfer taxes—further undermining the City’s already fragile budget.

If Oakland is serious about preserving naturally affordable housing, we must stop punishing mom-and-pop landlords. Continued fee hikes without pass-through allowances will drive small property owners out, opening the door for large corporate investors to take their place.

Let’s protect the housing we already have. Support this recommendation—for affordability, fairness, and the future of Oakland.

As a small owner it has been almost impossible to keep up the the cost of water and garbage bills in Oakland. The garbage rates have went up almost 75% while we have no way to pass on cost as we are also hampered by the lowest CPI rental rate adjustment in the country. Many owners are ending up with unpaid bills which in turn become liens to the city that also go long periods of time without payment. It's only fair to allow owners the ability if necessary to pass on the cost. None of us want to have to do it but for many it's either this or it will go unpaid.

Please pass the recommendations of RAP to the city council for review. Costs of services for multi-unit properties have gone up exponentially over the last few years, and rents have not even come close to keeping up. A lot of owners are still trying to recover from 3 and 1/2 years of non-paying tenants from the eviction moratorium, and this just makes it more difficult. For once, represent both sides of your constituents. Thank you.

This settlement has been reached and is merely a cost of doing business for people who do not have to own property but CHOOSE to. Renters have no choice and this cost should not be passed on to them.

I urge the Council to support RAP’s recommendation and vote to advance this matter to the full City Council for consideration.

Over the past six years, garbage rates in Oakland have increased by 25%, while RAP has only permitted a 13% rent increase during that same period. This disparity disproportionately impacts small housing providers, many of whom are already operating on thin margins. These waste fee increases—approved by the City Council—have averaged 4.2% annually.

To put it into perspective: effective July 2025, garbage rates increased by 3.08%, while RAP only allows a rent adjustment of 0.08%. That’s a direct 3% gap that housing providers are forced to absorb, with no path for cost recovery.

This imbalance not only places undue financial strain on property owners but also has broader implications. It devalues rental property, leading to lower property tax revenues and reduced transfer taxes—further undermining the City’s already fragile budget.

If Oakland is serious about preserving naturally affordable housing, we must stop punishing mom-and-pop landlords. Continued fee hikes without pass-through allowances will drive small property owners out, opening the door for large corporate investors to take their place.

Let’s protect the housing we already have. Support this recommendation—for affordability, fairness, and the future of Oakland.

I urge council to reject this amendment. The terms of the settlement have already been met and current rent adjustment rules are adequate to protect both landlord and tenant.

Redundunt and unnecessary. Reject this amendment.

The settlement terms have been met and the rent is too darn high.

Now that the terms of this settlement agreement have been met (by being on the Agenda of the City Council), we urge the Committee to reject this proposal. The existing provisions of the Ordinance permit landlords to petition for rent increases based on increased costs. This amendment is unnecessary and will be used by landlords as a means to bypass Oakland’s Rent Adjustment Program and Just Cause protections, and will greatly increase displacement across our city.

I already struggle to pay my rent. I urge the Committee to reject this proposal. The terms of the settlement have already been met. If the landlords who sued the City had felt confident enough in their argument, they would have waited to settle until after their preferred amendment passed. The landlords knew in the end they would have likely lost, but it would’ve taken time and money, so they took this settlement agreement to save face. The terms of the Zolly Settlement Agreement have been met, Council can now reject this ridiculous amendment.

Now that the terms of this settlement agreement have been met, we urge the Committee to reject this proposal. The existing provisions of the Ordinance still allow landlords to petition for rent increases based on increased costs, and this amendment is unnecessary and will be used by landlords as a means to bypass Oakland’s Just Cause protections and will greatly increase displacement across our city.

5 25-0792 Subject: Rent Adjustment Ordinance Amendment — OPPOSE