Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Landlords Doublecross Oakland Activists
James Vann of the Oakland
Tenants Union, Charges That Landlords Doublecrossed Oaklands
Tenant Activists!
Tenants Union, Charges That Landlords Doublecrossed Oaklands
Tenant Activists!
Landlords Doublecross Oakland Activist\'s
By Lynda Carson--July 11, 2001
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
July 10 City Hall Council Meeting Agenda
(Forwarded with no recommendations by Committee) (Final Passage: July 24, 2001)
\"14-F\" A report and recommendation from the Director, Community and Economic Development Agency, regarding Residential Rent Arbitrations Ordinance revisions proposed by Oakland property owners and renters (Oakland MunicipalCode 8.22) (001423)
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Oakland, Ca--Once again, sparks flew during last nights Council Meeting in Oakland, as renters, landlords, Tenant Activists, and City Officials squared off at one another in trying to negotiate Oaklands New Rent Control Laws, and how to enforce them. At stake are millions of dollars in future rent increases signed off by Tenant Activists, in return for promises of strengthened Rent Control Laws, and a $1.5 million budget for Oaklands Rent Program. When the Agenda Item\"14 F\" came to the floor, it was not what the Tenant Activists were expecting, and at the least was full of recommendations never agreed upon in the Task Force by the Tenant Activists, sources say. As a result, the Tenant Activists claim that they have been double crossed, and that the landlords now want more than what was on the table during recent negotiations in a Task Force headed by Councilman Dick Spees.
During last nights Council Meeting, when the Agenda Item \"14 F\" came to the floor, one after another lined up at the podium to offer testimony from differing view points. Whats new in all of this are the recent proposals agreed upon behind closed doors by the Task Force of Landlords and Tenant Activists, spearheaded by Councilman (tricky) Dick Spees, also known as Oaklands notorius anti-tenant rights shill for the landlords. The agreed upon proposals this small select group of renters and landlords were the subject of the heated discussions for Agenda Item\"14 F\". During the Council Meeting, it quickly became apparent that the landlord lobby had some second thoughts about what was agreed upon recently in the Task Force, and during the past week have secretly lobbied hard through phone calls, mailing\'s, and e-mails, to pressure Council Members to weaken the agreements in favor of the landlords demands. Councilman (tricky) Dick Spees, saw no problem with the pleas of the landlord lobby, and immediately placed some of their concerns (landlords) back on the table as a motion for future discussion. This was done despite the protests of renters and Tenant Activists claiming foul.
According to sources, during the recent Task Force meetings, an agreement was made that the 2 Year Moratorium on rent increases after certain types of evictions was to remain in place. But, during last nights City Council Meeting, the landlord lobby reversed their original position and demanded that new discussions to end the 2 Year Moratorium should be on the table for future discussions, which is what Councilman (tricky) Dick Spees agreed to with a second on the motion coming quickly from Councilwoman Jane Brunner.
Confusing matters even more, the landlord lobby also reversed their position reached in the Task Force on the agreement that renters could make a claim for a return of \"Attorney\'s Fee\'s\" if the landlords lost an appeal in Superior Court when trying to overturn a decision of the Rent Board. At times, when landlords lose a fight to raise the rents due to Oaklands rent control laws, some seek to appeal that decision through the Superior Court in hopes of overturning it. To cut down on these frivilous lawsuits, an awarding of \"Attorneys fee\'s\" to the tenants was agreed upon in the Task Force, in the event that the landlord was to lose an appeal in Superior Court. As per the agreement, if the landlords were to lose their appeal\'s in Superior Court, the Attorney Fee\'s owed by the renters to their Lawyer\'s, would thus be picked up by the landlords that filed the appeals. It was Greg McConnell of the notorius Rental Housing Association, and his henchmen who were out in force at last nights Council Meeting, demanding that these agreements be nullified and overturned by the City Council. Instead, Councilman (tricky) Dick Spees made the motion for the above to be considered in future decisions, and to be decided upon during a Council Meeting coming up in September of 2001. Renters and Tenant Activists were shocked by what just occured, and wondered if the fix was in.
To explain what occured in further depth, during a July 11, 2001, interview with James Vann of the Oakland Tenants Union, Mr. Vann went on to elaborate that landlords recently failed to gain all they wanted during recent negotiations as part of a Task Force created by Councilman Dick Spees to revamp Oaklands Rent Control Ordinance. The Task Force spearheaded by Councilman (tricky) Dick Spees of the Montclair-Laurel District, was composed of Tenant Activist\'s and members of the Landlord Lobby, being created at the behest of greedy landlords seeking further rent increases, and an avenue to expedite the process of gaining the rent increases. Vann goes on to state that the agreements made within the Task Force were agreed upon by all parties involved. Vann now charges that the Landlord Lobby double crossed the Tenant Activists, and are out to break some of the agreements reached during recent meetings of the Task Force, and that this became very apparent at last nights Council Meeting.
Sources say, that Tenant Activists were lured into Councilman (tricky) Dick Spees \"Task Force\" because of alleged threats by Council Members to raise the cap on annual rent increases to 8 percent for units under rent control, and alleged threats to end the 2 Year Moratorium on rent increases after certain types of evictions. Council Members appear to be under the influence of the landlord lobby. Oakland presently has a 3% cap on annual rent hikes, which the landlords were out to destroy. Placed in a pressure cooker (Task Force), the Tenant Activists were pressured to agree to rent increases for Oakland renters that will cost millions down the road. They were lead to believe that if they signed off on these rent increases, Oakland renters would gain because the rent increases were not to be as severe as the landlord lobby demanded by City Officials. It was James Vann of the Oakland Tenants Union who headed the tenant side of the Task Force after being invited in by Councilman Dick Spees, and it was also James Vann who brought in others to go along with the Task Force proposals.
The proposals include higher rent increases for Oaklands renters and an end to the annual 3% percent rent cap, a Mediation Program to be placed in the Rent Program meant to speed up rent increases, and a new $1.5 million budget for the New Rent Program. Money for the $1.5 million budget is to come from an annual $24.00 fee to be split between landlords and renters. In addition, there were to be some tinkering around with the existing rent control ordinance meant to convince renters that they are to get something out of this deal in the form of protections. But as for the tinkering around, the landlord lobby wants to back pedal on that part of the agreement, and be able to run off with the money anyways, leaving renters worse off than ever before in Oakland.
Upon checking to see how others felt about what is going on, it became apparent that different opinions exist. According to Alex Salazar of Just Cause Oakland, on July 10, 2001, Salazar stated that he believes that the position of Just Cause Oakland at this point, is that they do not endorse rent increases for renters of Oakland.
In another statement from the viewpoint of a school teacher named Martha on July 11, 2001, she believes that many families fear evictions or rent increases, and that it doubles the stress for children in schools. She went on to state that many evictions lead to homelessness for many school children, and that many are forced to move to Stockton or other locations due to the lack of housing or because of high rents in the Bay Area. Martha, expressed surprise that Tenant Activists agreed to more rent increases for already stressed out renters of Oakland, no matter what the return was to be.
In a statement from a renter named Tim, who is also a maintenance man for a local landlord in Oakland; Tim claims that he did not know that Oakland had a rent control ordinance, in existance.
A comment from a woman on Alice Street, who\'s middle name is Martha, says that it\'s
extremely dissappointing to hear that more rent increases are on the way...
In one last quote for this story from a property owner by name of John Reimann who
rents out the bottom half of his house, states that; If Tenant Activists charge that landlords double crossed them--Were they born yesterday? Reimann goes on to say that
landlords worked in their own interest\'s on this one, and that none of this should be a surprise to Tenant Activists. If you hang out with snakes, you just might get bit!
According to Reimann, history reveals that people need to mobilize the masses of the working class to fight for their rights, and that to collaborate with the bosses is not the solution to societies problems created by the capitalist system. If necessary, Reimann goes on to say, sometimes the working class need\'s to choose their right to shut the system down when there is no other choice in a corrupt system. As a landlord, Reimann believes that he is one of the good one\'s, as he rents to low-income renters.
Oakland renters definitly need to take an active interest in whats going on here before
it\'s all a done deal, and they find theirselves on the short end of the stick. Contacting Oakland City Council Members would be a start. Contacting James Vann of the Oakland Tenants Union would also be a smart move for Oakland renters to ask what is going on.
The City Council Meets again in September to hash out the agreements.
As for Mayor Jerry Brown, you might want to ask him why the City of Oakland fails to
prosecute bad landlords that have been ignoring the 2 Year Moratorium on rent increases after certain types of evictions.
It\'s your money. The proposed $1.5 million budget for the New Rent Program is to be funded by an annual $24.00 fee to be split between landlords and renters, that fall under the guidelines of Oaklands rent control laws. Even so, if you ask renters where the landlords get their money from, this suddenly appears very different from what the rhetoric claims. Oakland has around 85,000 rental units, and if you multiply that times $24.00 the figure is, $2,040,000.00. So how you might ask did the Task Force come up with the $1.5 million figure? Oakland does not have rent registration in place, no one has the exact figures as to how many rental units are actualy under local rent control laws, and you as citizens of Oakland have the right to ask for a copy of the numbers the Task Force was working with. Who pays and who does not? How much guess work was done to come up with the $1.5 million figure? So far, no one has stepped forward yet with a copy of the numbers explaining how the $1.5 million figure was agreed upon as the yearly budget for the New Rent Program being proposed. Perhaps you may do better than I did, when seeking the answers to this mystery...
The Players:
1) JamesEVann [at] aol.com Oakland Tenants Union
2) Dick Spees--Oakland City Council 510/ 238-7004 or district4 [at] oaklandnet.com
3) Justin Horner/Aide To Jerry Mayor Brown 510/238-7257 or jhorner [at] oaklandnet.com
Justin Horner is also known as Jim Smarler on the Just Cause Oakland Message Boards.
4) Rick Phillips/President of the Rental Housing Association (Landlord Lobby)
2201 Broadway, Suite 311. Oakland Ca, 94612 Ph 510/ 893-9871 Fax 893-2906
5) Penelope Pahl/Director of the Rent Program, who\'s salary also gets a nice boost due to
the $1.5 million new budget. Sources say, that the numbers for the $1.5 million figure for the budget of the New Rent Program, were provided by Penelope Pahl. No one can deny that the City of Oakland lavishes huge salaries on those in the fold of the powers to be... 510/238-3721
By Lynda Carson--July 11, 2001
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
July 10 City Hall Council Meeting Agenda
(Forwarded with no recommendations by Committee) (Final Passage: July 24, 2001)
\"14-F\" A report and recommendation from the Director, Community and Economic Development Agency, regarding Residential Rent Arbitrations Ordinance revisions proposed by Oakland property owners and renters (Oakland MunicipalCode 8.22) (001423)
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Oakland, Ca--Once again, sparks flew during last nights Council Meeting in Oakland, as renters, landlords, Tenant Activists, and City Officials squared off at one another in trying to negotiate Oaklands New Rent Control Laws, and how to enforce them. At stake are millions of dollars in future rent increases signed off by Tenant Activists, in return for promises of strengthened Rent Control Laws, and a $1.5 million budget for Oaklands Rent Program. When the Agenda Item\"14 F\" came to the floor, it was not what the Tenant Activists were expecting, and at the least was full of recommendations never agreed upon in the Task Force by the Tenant Activists, sources say. As a result, the Tenant Activists claim that they have been double crossed, and that the landlords now want more than what was on the table during recent negotiations in a Task Force headed by Councilman Dick Spees.
During last nights Council Meeting, when the Agenda Item \"14 F\" came to the floor, one after another lined up at the podium to offer testimony from differing view points. Whats new in all of this are the recent proposals agreed upon behind closed doors by the Task Force of Landlords and Tenant Activists, spearheaded by Councilman (tricky) Dick Spees, also known as Oaklands notorius anti-tenant rights shill for the landlords. The agreed upon proposals this small select group of renters and landlords were the subject of the heated discussions for Agenda Item\"14 F\". During the Council Meeting, it quickly became apparent that the landlord lobby had some second thoughts about what was agreed upon recently in the Task Force, and during the past week have secretly lobbied hard through phone calls, mailing\'s, and e-mails, to pressure Council Members to weaken the agreements in favor of the landlords demands. Councilman (tricky) Dick Spees, saw no problem with the pleas of the landlord lobby, and immediately placed some of their concerns (landlords) back on the table as a motion for future discussion. This was done despite the protests of renters and Tenant Activists claiming foul.
According to sources, during the recent Task Force meetings, an agreement was made that the 2 Year Moratorium on rent increases after certain types of evictions was to remain in place. But, during last nights City Council Meeting, the landlord lobby reversed their original position and demanded that new discussions to end the 2 Year Moratorium should be on the table for future discussions, which is what Councilman (tricky) Dick Spees agreed to with a second on the motion coming quickly from Councilwoman Jane Brunner.
Confusing matters even more, the landlord lobby also reversed their position reached in the Task Force on the agreement that renters could make a claim for a return of \"Attorney\'s Fee\'s\" if the landlords lost an appeal in Superior Court when trying to overturn a decision of the Rent Board. At times, when landlords lose a fight to raise the rents due to Oaklands rent control laws, some seek to appeal that decision through the Superior Court in hopes of overturning it. To cut down on these frivilous lawsuits, an awarding of \"Attorneys fee\'s\" to the tenants was agreed upon in the Task Force, in the event that the landlord was to lose an appeal in Superior Court. As per the agreement, if the landlords were to lose their appeal\'s in Superior Court, the Attorney Fee\'s owed by the renters to their Lawyer\'s, would thus be picked up by the landlords that filed the appeals. It was Greg McConnell of the notorius Rental Housing Association, and his henchmen who were out in force at last nights Council Meeting, demanding that these agreements be nullified and overturned by the City Council. Instead, Councilman (tricky) Dick Spees made the motion for the above to be considered in future decisions, and to be decided upon during a Council Meeting coming up in September of 2001. Renters and Tenant Activists were shocked by what just occured, and wondered if the fix was in.
To explain what occured in further depth, during a July 11, 2001, interview with James Vann of the Oakland Tenants Union, Mr. Vann went on to elaborate that landlords recently failed to gain all they wanted during recent negotiations as part of a Task Force created by Councilman Dick Spees to revamp Oaklands Rent Control Ordinance. The Task Force spearheaded by Councilman (tricky) Dick Spees of the Montclair-Laurel District, was composed of Tenant Activist\'s and members of the Landlord Lobby, being created at the behest of greedy landlords seeking further rent increases, and an avenue to expedite the process of gaining the rent increases. Vann goes on to state that the agreements made within the Task Force were agreed upon by all parties involved. Vann now charges that the Landlord Lobby double crossed the Tenant Activists, and are out to break some of the agreements reached during recent meetings of the Task Force, and that this became very apparent at last nights Council Meeting.
Sources say, that Tenant Activists were lured into Councilman (tricky) Dick Spees \"Task Force\" because of alleged threats by Council Members to raise the cap on annual rent increases to 8 percent for units under rent control, and alleged threats to end the 2 Year Moratorium on rent increases after certain types of evictions. Council Members appear to be under the influence of the landlord lobby. Oakland presently has a 3% cap on annual rent hikes, which the landlords were out to destroy. Placed in a pressure cooker (Task Force), the Tenant Activists were pressured to agree to rent increases for Oakland renters that will cost millions down the road. They were lead to believe that if they signed off on these rent increases, Oakland renters would gain because the rent increases were not to be as severe as the landlord lobby demanded by City Officials. It was James Vann of the Oakland Tenants Union who headed the tenant side of the Task Force after being invited in by Councilman Dick Spees, and it was also James Vann who brought in others to go along with the Task Force proposals.
The proposals include higher rent increases for Oaklands renters and an end to the annual 3% percent rent cap, a Mediation Program to be placed in the Rent Program meant to speed up rent increases, and a new $1.5 million budget for the New Rent Program. Money for the $1.5 million budget is to come from an annual $24.00 fee to be split between landlords and renters. In addition, there were to be some tinkering around with the existing rent control ordinance meant to convince renters that they are to get something out of this deal in the form of protections. But as for the tinkering around, the landlord lobby wants to back pedal on that part of the agreement, and be able to run off with the money anyways, leaving renters worse off than ever before in Oakland.
Upon checking to see how others felt about what is going on, it became apparent that different opinions exist. According to Alex Salazar of Just Cause Oakland, on July 10, 2001, Salazar stated that he believes that the position of Just Cause Oakland at this point, is that they do not endorse rent increases for renters of Oakland.
In another statement from the viewpoint of a school teacher named Martha on July 11, 2001, she believes that many families fear evictions or rent increases, and that it doubles the stress for children in schools. She went on to state that many evictions lead to homelessness for many school children, and that many are forced to move to Stockton or other locations due to the lack of housing or because of high rents in the Bay Area. Martha, expressed surprise that Tenant Activists agreed to more rent increases for already stressed out renters of Oakland, no matter what the return was to be.
In a statement from a renter named Tim, who is also a maintenance man for a local landlord in Oakland; Tim claims that he did not know that Oakland had a rent control ordinance, in existance.
A comment from a woman on Alice Street, who\'s middle name is Martha, says that it\'s
extremely dissappointing to hear that more rent increases are on the way...
In one last quote for this story from a property owner by name of John Reimann who
rents out the bottom half of his house, states that; If Tenant Activists charge that landlords double crossed them--Were they born yesterday? Reimann goes on to say that
landlords worked in their own interest\'s on this one, and that none of this should be a surprise to Tenant Activists. If you hang out with snakes, you just might get bit!
According to Reimann, history reveals that people need to mobilize the masses of the working class to fight for their rights, and that to collaborate with the bosses is not the solution to societies problems created by the capitalist system. If necessary, Reimann goes on to say, sometimes the working class need\'s to choose their right to shut the system down when there is no other choice in a corrupt system. As a landlord, Reimann believes that he is one of the good one\'s, as he rents to low-income renters.
Oakland renters definitly need to take an active interest in whats going on here before
it\'s all a done deal, and they find theirselves on the short end of the stick. Contacting Oakland City Council Members would be a start. Contacting James Vann of the Oakland Tenants Union would also be a smart move for Oakland renters to ask what is going on.
The City Council Meets again in September to hash out the agreements.
As for Mayor Jerry Brown, you might want to ask him why the City of Oakland fails to
prosecute bad landlords that have been ignoring the 2 Year Moratorium on rent increases after certain types of evictions.
It\'s your money. The proposed $1.5 million budget for the New Rent Program is to be funded by an annual $24.00 fee to be split between landlords and renters, that fall under the guidelines of Oaklands rent control laws. Even so, if you ask renters where the landlords get their money from, this suddenly appears very different from what the rhetoric claims. Oakland has around 85,000 rental units, and if you multiply that times $24.00 the figure is, $2,040,000.00. So how you might ask did the Task Force come up with the $1.5 million figure? Oakland does not have rent registration in place, no one has the exact figures as to how many rental units are actualy under local rent control laws, and you as citizens of Oakland have the right to ask for a copy of the numbers the Task Force was working with. Who pays and who does not? How much guess work was done to come up with the $1.5 million figure? So far, no one has stepped forward yet with a copy of the numbers explaining how the $1.5 million figure was agreed upon as the yearly budget for the New Rent Program being proposed. Perhaps you may do better than I did, when seeking the answers to this mystery...
The Players:
1) JamesEVann [at] aol.com Oakland Tenants Union
2) Dick Spees--Oakland City Council 510/ 238-7004 or district4 [at] oaklandnet.com
3) Justin Horner/Aide To Jerry Mayor Brown 510/238-7257 or jhorner [at] oaklandnet.com
Justin Horner is also known as Jim Smarler on the Just Cause Oakland Message Boards.
4) Rick Phillips/President of the Rental Housing Association (Landlord Lobby)
2201 Broadway, Suite 311. Oakland Ca, 94612 Ph 510/ 893-9871 Fax 893-2906
5) Penelope Pahl/Director of the Rent Program, who\'s salary also gets a nice boost due to
the $1.5 million new budget. Sources say, that the numbers for the $1.5 million figure for the budget of the New Rent Program, were provided by Penelope Pahl. No one can deny that the City of Oakland lavishes huge salaries on those in the fold of the powers to be... 510/238-3721
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$200.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
From: "Lynda Carson" <Lyndacarson [at] excite.com>
To: JamesEVann [at] aol.com [Add to Address Book]
Subject: Task Force Responce/Oakland Tenants Union
Hello James....
I stand by the story I wrote for the SF/IMC regarding the rent
increases the "Task Force" which your a part of signed off on, which is a
disaster for low-income renters. Based upon the e-mail below from you, I can
only wonder why you joined the landlords and Council Member Spees on this
plan meant to speed up rent increases, costing millions to Oakland renters
down the road, and to agree to any of this without having Rent Registration
in place beforehand. Without a list (rent registration) revealing the
landlords and renters that have to contribute under the Rent Control Laws of
Oakland, theres no way to tell who does not comply in contributing to the
proposed $1.5 million budget for the New Rent Program. This is unworkable
before it starts, and the $1.5 million figure has no basis of fact without
solid numbers of rental units that fall under Rent Control.
None of the above is good for Oakland renters as is, and if
you are to remain accountable for your role in the negotiations as a Tenant
Advocate, then you should welcome the questions from callers asking what the
hell is going on. Renters are already stressed out by the high rental rates
of Oakland, and signing off
on more rent increases is not the answer. I hope that renters throughout
Oakland defy the plans of the Task Force in UNITED PROTEST, so that renters
get a better deal out of this mess down the road with a negotiating team
that knows what it is doing.
Sincerely Lynda Carson
From James Vann/Oakland Tenants Union
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 06:47:37 PDT [Show full headers]
From: JamesEVann [at] aol.com [Add to Address Book]
To: Lyndacarson [at] excite.com
Subject: Re: Need help..Pt 2...Numbers off on TF Budget for Rent Program.
Lynda:
Yesterday afternoon, I spent over 1-1/2 hours responding to your
email. After completing my lengthy response, and on attempting to send it,
my computer "crashed" and with it, my considered email and all the time I'd
spent composing it.
After consideration, I decided not to try and recreate my response. I
realize that in the two extended telephone conversations between us Thursday
and Friday, I have answered these same criticisms already. I also realize
it
seems your "questions" are not really questions but rhetorical statements
where no answer is either desired or necessary. It seems you have a point
of view from which you do not care to be deflected. If there were real
seriousness to this inquiry, all this energy would be directed at the real
enemy -- the Oakland City Council -- which is totally anti-tenant, and which
gleefully looks to the desires of LL's, developers, and the real estate
industry for its anti-tenant recalcitrance. If there were real seriousness
to this inquiry, there would be realization that any tiny advance ever won
for tenants has been the result of hard-fought struggle, that the city and
its co-conspirators do not yield willingly to even the least of tenant
protections. If there were real seriousness to this inquiry, it would be
recognized that nothing will be handed to tenants in Oakland on a "silver
platter, that the only real solution in the current political climate is to
organize the majority of Oaklanders -- the 200, 000 residents who rent, who
could really control this city if only they collectively exercised their
potential power -- conduct effective education, and convince them of the
importance of getting to the polls and voting.
This is the real job to be done. I hope you agree.
james