Note: The online Request to Speak window has expired.
The online Comment window has expired
Agenda Item
4 26-0474 Subject: Amendments To Rent Adjustment Ordinance And Regulations
From: Housing And Community Development Department
Recommendation: Adopt The Following Pieces Of Legislation:
1) An Ordinance Amending The Rent Adjustment Ordinance (Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 8.22, Article I) To (A) Eliminate Tenant Petition Deadlines; (B) Require That An Owner Provide Evidence Of Possession Of A Current Business Tax Certificate, Payment Of Or Exemption From The RAP Service Fee, Service Of Written Notice Of The Rent Adjustment Program To Affected Tenants, And Registration With The Rent Adjustment Program In Order To File An Appeal Or A Response To A Tenant Appeal; And (C) Make Various Changes To The Remedies Section Including Increasing The Damages Remedy In Civil Actions Against Residential Rental Property Owners; And Making Appropriate California Environmental Quality Act Findings; And
My name is Maren Fox. I'm an Oakland tenant with an active RAP petition, and I strongly support this ordinance.
I want to speak to the deadline piece because it's personal. I've been going through a serious health crisis while my landlord made things significantly worse through neglect and bad faith. Tracking 90-day windows and POS requirements while you're sick, unemployed, and your housing is deteriorating...it's a lot. I've come close to missing deadlines not because I wasn't paying attention, but because I was barely keeping it together.
The tenants most likely to miss deadlines are those who most need this program: people who are sick, working multiple jobs, or trying to navigate a system that's hard even when everything else is fine.
Keeping the 3-year restitution cap is fair. But the filing deadline shouldn't be the thing that shuts people out.
The other two pieces matter too. Right now the consequences for non-compliance aren't serious enough to change behavior. There are no clear guidelines for how long a landlord must relocate a tenant during construction, and no enforcement when they get it wrong. Landlords decide how disruptive the work will be without accounting for your situation. I work from home. My landlord had me dealing with demolition outside my unit for a month. Reimbursement doesn't happen before relocation—or at all. Stronger remedies would give tenants real leverage when landlords treat relocation as an afterthought.
I strongly oppose Agenda Item 4 26-0474. While maintaining fair housing is important, these amendments create an unreasonably punitive environment for housing providers, particularly small, independent owners, and will ultimately harm Oakland's rental market.
Eliminating Tenant Petition Deadlines (Part A): Removing the statute of limitations creates indefinite, retroactive liability for property owners. Owners could face petitions for issues from years or even decades in the past. This makes it nearly impossible to maintain necessary records or mount a fair defense, especially if a property has changed hands.
Restricting the Right to Appeal (Part B): Conditioning an owner's right to appeal on flawless administrative compliance is a denial of basic due process. Stripping an owner of their right to defend themselves in a hearing simply due to a minor clerical error or a delayed RAP fee payment is disproportionate and unjust.
By drastically increasing the financial and legal risks of providing housing, these compounding burdens will force "mom-and-pop" landlords to sell or remove their units from the market entirely. This will only decrease Oakland's available rental supply and exacerbate the housing crisis. I urge the committee to reject these imbalanced amendments.
I strongly support this ordinance.
My name is Maren Fox. I'm an Oakland tenant with an active RAP petition, and I strongly support this ordinance.
I want to speak to the deadline piece because it's personal. I've been going through a serious health crisis while my landlord made things significantly worse through neglect and bad faith. Tracking 90-day windows and POS requirements while you're sick, unemployed, and your housing is deteriorating...it's a lot. I've come close to missing deadlines not because I wasn't paying attention, but because I was barely keeping it together.
The tenants most likely to miss deadlines are those who most need this program: people who are sick, working multiple jobs, or trying to navigate a system that's hard even when everything else is fine.
Keeping the 3-year restitution cap is fair. But the filing deadline shouldn't be the thing that shuts people out.
The other two pieces matter too. Right now the consequences for non-compliance aren't serious enough to change behavior. There are no clear guidelines for how long a landlord must relocate a tenant during construction, and no enforcement when they get it wrong. Landlords decide how disruptive the work will be without accounting for your situation. I work from home. My landlord had me dealing with demolition outside my unit for a month. Reimbursement doesn't happen before relocation—or at all. Stronger remedies would give tenants real leverage when landlords treat relocation as an afterthought.
Please support it. Thank you.
I strongly oppose Agenda Item 4 26-0474. While maintaining fair housing is important, these amendments create an unreasonably punitive environment for housing providers, particularly small, independent owners, and will ultimately harm Oakland's rental market.
Eliminating Tenant Petition Deadlines (Part A): Removing the statute of limitations creates indefinite, retroactive liability for property owners. Owners could face petitions for issues from years or even decades in the past. This makes it nearly impossible to maintain necessary records or mount a fair defense, especially if a property has changed hands.
Restricting the Right to Appeal (Part B): Conditioning an owner's right to appeal on flawless administrative compliance is a denial of basic due process. Stripping an owner of their right to defend themselves in a hearing simply due to a minor clerical error or a delayed RAP fee payment is disproportionate and unjust.
Increasing Damages Remedies (Part C): Amplifying financial penalties heavily incentivizes frivolous, profit-driven litigation against property owners.
By drastically increasing the financial and legal risks of providing housing, these compounding burdens will force "mom-and-pop" landlords to sell or remove their units from the market entirely. This will only decrease Oakland's available rental supply and exacerbate the housing crisis. I urge the committee to reject these imbalanced amendments.