Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
FEUD OVER NEW RENT ORDINANCE
Against the WILL of the PEOPLE, Oakland's NEW RENT PROPOSAL's were voted into place on Tuesday January 22, 2002.
Feud Over New Rent Ordinance
By Lynda Carson 1/26/02
Oakland, Ca-Oakland's new rent law's were voted into law despite the lack of any visible public support. On Tuesday January 22, the Oakland City Council passed the Spees/Brunner Task Force Deal into a new Ordinance to redefine Oakland rent law's. Late into the night sometime around 11p.m., the already despised new rent proposal's passed by a vote of 6 to 2 despite the fact that nearly 70 speaker's spoke out against it.
The only 2 people in the audience that spoke in favor of it was John Holmgren of the Oakland Realtor's Association and Greg McConnell a landlord lobbyist, both of whom were members of the Task Force which
drafted the Ordinance. Councilmember's Nadel and Wan voted against the new rent law.
With a packed Chamber and heavy presence of 11 police officer's on hand to intimidate the rowdy crowd, 10 or more tenant activist's were escorted out of the Council Chamber's before the vote even took place. One look at all of the police on hand in the Chamber, and people knew that the fix was in for the Council to pass the new rent law's.
The new rent law end's the moratorium on rent increases after eviction's, replaces the 3% annual rent cap with a very confusing CPI/less shelter formula,
and imposes an annual $24.00 fee per rental unit to cover a budget for the creation of a new mediation program to settle challenge's to rent increases.
Section 8 Renter's were stripped of protection's under Oakland rent law's. This new law will also allow rent increases to go into effect even if challenged by Petition for being unlawful. Landlords may still evict with a 30 day no cause notice, bank rent increases, steal the interest rate's on security deposit's, and terrorize renter's who make complaint's because Oakland doe's not have a just cause measure. For those that cannot pay up into the new scheme, they will face eviction and may have men with gun's from the Sherriff's Department heading their way. Low-income renter's
are the most at risk.
The proposal's were the result of an 18 month effort by Mayor Jerry Brown's staffer/ex-aid Justin Horner to pull together a working group of landlord's and tenant activist's in a mission to re-shape Oakland rent law's. Councilman Dick Spees finaly had enough tenancity to pull it off and convinced James Vann of the Oakland Tenant's Union to sit at the table with some of Oakland's wealthiest landlord's and realtor's to reach a consensus while first dispensing with Just Cause.
Other tenant activist's got caught up into this also, but pulled out when they realized how bad thing's were going for them during the meeting's to hash out the proposal's, and they denounced the process.
Member's from both side's of the Task Force oppossed the Final Draft that was passed into law on January 22. Rick Philip's of the Rental Housing Association who
himself is an owner of over 300 rental unit's according to source's, spoke out against the annual $24.00 fee, and fear's that the Council will lose control of the process in the Rent Arbitration Program. In a turn around, James Vann of the Oakland Tenant's
Union also a part of the Dick Spees Task Force, stood up at the podium to oppose the Final Draft of the new rent law's.
In a bait and switch to appease the landlord's, Council Members Spees and Brunner made a last minute motion for some of the following; to adopt the ordinance and call for a review after it has been in effect for a year rather than 3 year's. To sunset the $24 per unit fee on June 30, 2003, and to evaluate funding source's during the 2003-5 budget process.
Many are concerned that once the mediation program is up and running that the next step is to shift it to an Outside Mediation and Binding Arbitration Program which would be cost prohibitive to many renter's in favor of the landlord's.
Landlord's and renter's united in opposition to the new rent law's, but for opposing reason's. Landlord's got most of what they wanted, but in their haste demanded more, and did not want to pay the $1.5 million fee up
front by March 2002. Renter's lost ground in the battle, with Section 8 Renter's losing all protection's under Oakland rent law's, and rejected the proposal's in it's entirety. The City of Oakland gain's with the new $1.5
million budget for the new mediation program that will be financed by a new $24.00 annual fee per rental unit. Oakland has nearly 90,000 rental unit's and over 200,000 renter's, but without rent registration to reveal
some accurate data, the mystery is how anyone came up with the $1.5 million figure as a budget. No one has a list of who should pay into the scheme or how the Rent Program Interim Director Penelope Pahl came up with number's. Landlord's are allowed to pass through half of the $24.00 fee to the
renter's.
Before the vote, a spirited rally of 40-50 people assembled in front of Oakland City Hall to speak out against the new proposed rent law's, as they
formed a circle, held up their sign's and yelled their chant's with John Reimann leading the way denouncing the greedy landlord's. A large group of student's from Skyline High School could barely contain their eagerness to set the rally into motion, while member's of B.O.S.S., Campaign For Renter's Right's, Just Cause, Oakland Tenant's Union, member's of a local S.E.I.U, P.U.E.B.L.O., and a host of other
group's found their voice to oppose the Task Force Deal. This being the fourth in a series of rally's to oppose the new proposed rent law, has inspired many
other's to join in for this last chance to lobby the Council to vote against it.
On the tenant side of the argument against the Task Force Deal, there were a frenzy of meeting's happening after the December 18th C.E.D.A. Meeting which
voted to pass the new rent law's to the full City Council. Activist's ran from one meeting to another to raise the alarm, and some took on the responsibility to be
guest speaker's where needed to inform the community. Other's did a series of media interview's for local new's stories, and two did a recent show on the Soul Beat Channel for Beverly Blythe of Community Care's. Ryan Hurley of B.O.S.S. was active throughout the recent week's to help organize the January 22 rally at City Hall. B.O.S.S. opened up their office to local activist's for an evening of protest sign making, and even provided the much needed sound system for the past few rallies.
On behalf of the East Bay Tenant Bar Association, Leah Hess and Phil Rapier spent many hour's to complete an analysis of the new rent law proposal's which were submitted to the Council Member's. In short; With due respect to those who have worked on the proposed new ordinance, the East Bay Tenant Bar Association strongly recommends that you vote against the revised ordinance. In long form, it's a splendid 15 page analysis detailing why this is bad law, with the potential to harm or destroy the fabric of Oakland neighborhood's, affordable housing, and protections for low to moderate income renter's.
As for the landlord's, on January 17, 2002, the Rental Housing Association of Northern Alameda County held their largest meeting ever in their history to prep their
millionaire members to appear in a show of force for the January 22, City Council Meeting. Numerous speaker's such as Steve Edrington and Rick Philip's who also were part of the Dick Spees Task Force, spoke out against the Task Force Deal because
they failed to achieve all of their goal's, and wanted the whole piece of cake right now! Another speaker rallied the troop's by denouncing Anne Omura and the Eviction Defense Center. Overall, the landlord strategy was to prep their millionaire member's to state or claim that they are the "Good Guy-Mom and Pop" small business owner's of Oakland, and that they want the process to continue to re-shape the rent law's until they get what they want. Document's from their meeting detail how the member's are not to stray away from the message being projected: THEY ARE NOT LANDLORD'S; do NOT mention profit, money, high taxes, etc...They were to stick to the claim's being drilled into their head's by their programer's. Sure enough, they showed up in force at the January 22, Council Meeting, avoiding the word LANDLORD like it was the plague, and claiming to be rental housing owner's. Document's further reveal that they want the mediation program to be moved out of control of the City of Oakland.
Among the speaker's at the rally outside and podium inside City Hall there were many opinion's freely being expressed with much enthusiam and emotion.
Rob Rooke, the Recording Secretary of Carpenter's Local 713 say's; the member's of the committee who attended the Council Meeting were particularly disgusted at the behavior of the so-called Labor Councilors who voted for passage of the new rent law.
Council Member's Brunner, De laFuente, and Mayne, sprang out of the labor union's.
Council Member Mayne recused himself from the vote when someone pointed out that the Oakland Housing Authority lobbied to strip Section 8 Renter's from protection's by Oakland rent law's, and that Councilman Mayne is a Commissioner for the Oakland Housing Authority. It took barely a moment for a city legal beagle to announce that the City of Oakland has no problem with this as a conflict of interest, and Councilman
Mayne then changed his mind and voted for the new rent law.
I spoke with seven year old Jasmine Hain who reside's in a place without heat, warm water, a bath or shower, after she tried to convince the Council Member's not to vote for the new rent law. At the mercy of a slumlord, Jasmine Hain say's; Thank you City of Oakland for making people homeless! She say's, she feel's bad and disappointed by their vote to weaken the rent law's. Her mother Vivian Hain who also was at the Council Meeting say's; Unbelievable! This is more of an us and them division, because it hurt's more than it help's, and it's the poor that get's the hurt.
Local carpenter Shawna Kimbrough who also face's eviction along with the rest of her building by a new owner is doing her best to find a new place before time run's out. Shawna say's that it's scary to live in a town that has no mercy for it's tenant population.
Sue Doyle a resident of Oakland, has received her 3rd eviction notice during the past four year's and claim's to have never been late on paying her rent. Ms. Doyle say's that her biggest concern about the new rent law is that it doe's not contain a just cause. She goe's on to say that a decent ordinance would take away the right's of bad landlord's. Sue's message to the reader's of Street Spirit is to go see the film; BOOM-THE SOUND OF EVICTION.
Local disabled renter Lori Kossowsky who also face's eviction told the Council Member's that she has been exposed to toxic mold because of a past greedy landlord, will not go away, and will stay to haunt them like the toxic mold that still haunt's her.
Holly Fincke of Just Cause Oakland put alot of work into the rally and state's that it was a pleasure to have worked with some of those that were involved.
In a statement from Phil Rapier of the East Bay Tenant Bar Association, Rapier say's; tenant's are 65% of Oakland resident's and must organize to help collect the 30,000 signature's needed to put Just Cause tenant protection's on the November, 2002, ballot.
Along with Leah Hess also of the East Bay Tenant Bar Association, Rapier and Hess jointly produced a 15 page analysis that point's out the flaw's in this new ordinance, and is a must read for tenant activist's, renter's, and attorney's.
Member's of the Campaign For Renter's Right's obtained the Permit for the rally's to oppose the Task Force Deal, took the photo's for Street Spirit and can be reached at; Campaign For Renter's Right's at 510/ 595-4676. Just Cause Oakland has kicked off their
Campaign for a Just Cause Initiative is seeking volunteer's and may be reached at; (510)
464-1011.
By Lynda Carson 1/26/02
Oakland, Ca-Oakland's new rent law's were voted into law despite the lack of any visible public support. On Tuesday January 22, the Oakland City Council passed the Spees/Brunner Task Force Deal into a new Ordinance to redefine Oakland rent law's. Late into the night sometime around 11p.m., the already despised new rent proposal's passed by a vote of 6 to 2 despite the fact that nearly 70 speaker's spoke out against it.
The only 2 people in the audience that spoke in favor of it was John Holmgren of the Oakland Realtor's Association and Greg McConnell a landlord lobbyist, both of whom were members of the Task Force which
drafted the Ordinance. Councilmember's Nadel and Wan voted against the new rent law.
With a packed Chamber and heavy presence of 11 police officer's on hand to intimidate the rowdy crowd, 10 or more tenant activist's were escorted out of the Council Chamber's before the vote even took place. One look at all of the police on hand in the Chamber, and people knew that the fix was in for the Council to pass the new rent law's.
The new rent law end's the moratorium on rent increases after eviction's, replaces the 3% annual rent cap with a very confusing CPI/less shelter formula,
and imposes an annual $24.00 fee per rental unit to cover a budget for the creation of a new mediation program to settle challenge's to rent increases.
Section 8 Renter's were stripped of protection's under Oakland rent law's. This new law will also allow rent increases to go into effect even if challenged by Petition for being unlawful. Landlords may still evict with a 30 day no cause notice, bank rent increases, steal the interest rate's on security deposit's, and terrorize renter's who make complaint's because Oakland doe's not have a just cause measure. For those that cannot pay up into the new scheme, they will face eviction and may have men with gun's from the Sherriff's Department heading their way. Low-income renter's
are the most at risk.
The proposal's were the result of an 18 month effort by Mayor Jerry Brown's staffer/ex-aid Justin Horner to pull together a working group of landlord's and tenant activist's in a mission to re-shape Oakland rent law's. Councilman Dick Spees finaly had enough tenancity to pull it off and convinced James Vann of the Oakland Tenant's Union to sit at the table with some of Oakland's wealthiest landlord's and realtor's to reach a consensus while first dispensing with Just Cause.
Other tenant activist's got caught up into this also, but pulled out when they realized how bad thing's were going for them during the meeting's to hash out the proposal's, and they denounced the process.
Member's from both side's of the Task Force oppossed the Final Draft that was passed into law on January 22. Rick Philip's of the Rental Housing Association who
himself is an owner of over 300 rental unit's according to source's, spoke out against the annual $24.00 fee, and fear's that the Council will lose control of the process in the Rent Arbitration Program. In a turn around, James Vann of the Oakland Tenant's
Union also a part of the Dick Spees Task Force, stood up at the podium to oppose the Final Draft of the new rent law's.
In a bait and switch to appease the landlord's, Council Members Spees and Brunner made a last minute motion for some of the following; to adopt the ordinance and call for a review after it has been in effect for a year rather than 3 year's. To sunset the $24 per unit fee on June 30, 2003, and to evaluate funding source's during the 2003-5 budget process.
Many are concerned that once the mediation program is up and running that the next step is to shift it to an Outside Mediation and Binding Arbitration Program which would be cost prohibitive to many renter's in favor of the landlord's.
Landlord's and renter's united in opposition to the new rent law's, but for opposing reason's. Landlord's got most of what they wanted, but in their haste demanded more, and did not want to pay the $1.5 million fee up
front by March 2002. Renter's lost ground in the battle, with Section 8 Renter's losing all protection's under Oakland rent law's, and rejected the proposal's in it's entirety. The City of Oakland gain's with the new $1.5
million budget for the new mediation program that will be financed by a new $24.00 annual fee per rental unit. Oakland has nearly 90,000 rental unit's and over 200,000 renter's, but without rent registration to reveal
some accurate data, the mystery is how anyone came up with the $1.5 million figure as a budget. No one has a list of who should pay into the scheme or how the Rent Program Interim Director Penelope Pahl came up with number's. Landlord's are allowed to pass through half of the $24.00 fee to the
renter's.
Before the vote, a spirited rally of 40-50 people assembled in front of Oakland City Hall to speak out against the new proposed rent law's, as they
formed a circle, held up their sign's and yelled their chant's with John Reimann leading the way denouncing the greedy landlord's. A large group of student's from Skyline High School could barely contain their eagerness to set the rally into motion, while member's of B.O.S.S., Campaign For Renter's Right's, Just Cause, Oakland Tenant's Union, member's of a local S.E.I.U, P.U.E.B.L.O., and a host of other
group's found their voice to oppose the Task Force Deal. This being the fourth in a series of rally's to oppose the new proposed rent law, has inspired many
other's to join in for this last chance to lobby the Council to vote against it.
On the tenant side of the argument against the Task Force Deal, there were a frenzy of meeting's happening after the December 18th C.E.D.A. Meeting which
voted to pass the new rent law's to the full City Council. Activist's ran from one meeting to another to raise the alarm, and some took on the responsibility to be
guest speaker's where needed to inform the community. Other's did a series of media interview's for local new's stories, and two did a recent show on the Soul Beat Channel for Beverly Blythe of Community Care's. Ryan Hurley of B.O.S.S. was active throughout the recent week's to help organize the January 22 rally at City Hall. B.O.S.S. opened up their office to local activist's for an evening of protest sign making, and even provided the much needed sound system for the past few rallies.
On behalf of the East Bay Tenant Bar Association, Leah Hess and Phil Rapier spent many hour's to complete an analysis of the new rent law proposal's which were submitted to the Council Member's. In short; With due respect to those who have worked on the proposed new ordinance, the East Bay Tenant Bar Association strongly recommends that you vote against the revised ordinance. In long form, it's a splendid 15 page analysis detailing why this is bad law, with the potential to harm or destroy the fabric of Oakland neighborhood's, affordable housing, and protections for low to moderate income renter's.
As for the landlord's, on January 17, 2002, the Rental Housing Association of Northern Alameda County held their largest meeting ever in their history to prep their
millionaire members to appear in a show of force for the January 22, City Council Meeting. Numerous speaker's such as Steve Edrington and Rick Philip's who also were part of the Dick Spees Task Force, spoke out against the Task Force Deal because
they failed to achieve all of their goal's, and wanted the whole piece of cake right now! Another speaker rallied the troop's by denouncing Anne Omura and the Eviction Defense Center. Overall, the landlord strategy was to prep their millionaire member's to state or claim that they are the "Good Guy-Mom and Pop" small business owner's of Oakland, and that they want the process to continue to re-shape the rent law's until they get what they want. Document's from their meeting detail how the member's are not to stray away from the message being projected: THEY ARE NOT LANDLORD'S; do NOT mention profit, money, high taxes, etc...They were to stick to the claim's being drilled into their head's by their programer's. Sure enough, they showed up in force at the January 22, Council Meeting, avoiding the word LANDLORD like it was the plague, and claiming to be rental housing owner's. Document's further reveal that they want the mediation program to be moved out of control of the City of Oakland.
Among the speaker's at the rally outside and podium inside City Hall there were many opinion's freely being expressed with much enthusiam and emotion.
Rob Rooke, the Recording Secretary of Carpenter's Local 713 say's; the member's of the committee who attended the Council Meeting were particularly disgusted at the behavior of the so-called Labor Councilors who voted for passage of the new rent law.
Council Member's Brunner, De laFuente, and Mayne, sprang out of the labor union's.
Council Member Mayne recused himself from the vote when someone pointed out that the Oakland Housing Authority lobbied to strip Section 8 Renter's from protection's by Oakland rent law's, and that Councilman Mayne is a Commissioner for the Oakland Housing Authority. It took barely a moment for a city legal beagle to announce that the City of Oakland has no problem with this as a conflict of interest, and Councilman
Mayne then changed his mind and voted for the new rent law.
I spoke with seven year old Jasmine Hain who reside's in a place without heat, warm water, a bath or shower, after she tried to convince the Council Member's not to vote for the new rent law. At the mercy of a slumlord, Jasmine Hain say's; Thank you City of Oakland for making people homeless! She say's, she feel's bad and disappointed by their vote to weaken the rent law's. Her mother Vivian Hain who also was at the Council Meeting say's; Unbelievable! This is more of an us and them division, because it hurt's more than it help's, and it's the poor that get's the hurt.
Local carpenter Shawna Kimbrough who also face's eviction along with the rest of her building by a new owner is doing her best to find a new place before time run's out. Shawna say's that it's scary to live in a town that has no mercy for it's tenant population.
Sue Doyle a resident of Oakland, has received her 3rd eviction notice during the past four year's and claim's to have never been late on paying her rent. Ms. Doyle say's that her biggest concern about the new rent law is that it doe's not contain a just cause. She goe's on to say that a decent ordinance would take away the right's of bad landlord's. Sue's message to the reader's of Street Spirit is to go see the film; BOOM-THE SOUND OF EVICTION.
Local disabled renter Lori Kossowsky who also face's eviction told the Council Member's that she has been exposed to toxic mold because of a past greedy landlord, will not go away, and will stay to haunt them like the toxic mold that still haunt's her.
Holly Fincke of Just Cause Oakland put alot of work into the rally and state's that it was a pleasure to have worked with some of those that were involved.
In a statement from Phil Rapier of the East Bay Tenant Bar Association, Rapier say's; tenant's are 65% of Oakland resident's and must organize to help collect the 30,000 signature's needed to put Just Cause tenant protection's on the November, 2002, ballot.
Along with Leah Hess also of the East Bay Tenant Bar Association, Rapier and Hess jointly produced a 15 page analysis that point's out the flaw's in this new ordinance, and is a must read for tenant activist's, renter's, and attorney's.
Member's of the Campaign For Renter's Right's obtained the Permit for the rally's to oppose the Task Force Deal, took the photo's for Street Spirit and can be reached at; Campaign For Renter's Right's at 510/ 595-4676. Just Cause Oakland has kicked off their
Campaign for a Just Cause Initiative is seeking volunteer's and may be reached at; (510)
464-1011.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$260.00 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
Correction...
Councilman Mose's Mayne asked for a legal opinion to decide wether or not to recuse himself before making his vote.
My apologies for any misinterpretation's.
Sincerely Lynda Carson
From: Horner, Justin <JHorner [at] oaklandnet.com> [Add to Address Book]
To: 'lyndacarson [at] excite.com' <lyndacarson [at] excite.com>
Subject: Correction Request
"The proposal's were the result of an 18 month effort by Mayor Jerry Brown's staffer/ex-aid Justin Horner to pull together a working group of landlord's and tenant activist's..." The above statement from your report of January 26 is inaccurate: I began my participation in the Task Force as the Mayor's representative, at the
request of Councilmember Spees, who convened the meetings. I continued to participate when I joined Councilmember Brunner's staff. Meeting coordination, scheduling, and minute taking were all done by Councilmember Spees' office. All Task Force meetings were facilitated by Councilmember Spees. I would request an explicit correction of your original misstatement, posted alongside your original report. Thank you for your consideration. Please
e-mail only any additional questions.
Sincerely,
Justin Horner
Chief of Staff to Councilmember Jane Brunner
1 Frank H Ogawa Plaza, 2nd Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 238-7062
jhorner [at] oaklandnet.com
For the record. Your apparent involvement in
tenant affair's during your term as a staffer for the Mayor
happened long before the Dick Spees Task Force was ever created. The e-mail's in your own writing below offer a bit more insight or clarity about your involvement behind the scene's, and your own attitude regarding Landlord VS Tenant Issue's. Therefore I do not feel obligated to correct the above story, however you may feel free to submit some documentation that may persuade me otherwise. Send your question's by e-mail.
Perhap's you may also wish to explain to the Taxpayer's of Oakland why you fraudulently used the name of Jim Smarler to give legal advise to the renter's of Oakland on the Just Cause Bulletin Board during the year 2001 while at work in the Mayor's Office? Did the Mayor know that you used time at work and City Computer's while you were being payed to claim that you were Jim Smarler while telling renter's not to fight eviction's and to move out of town? The record's are below to document your recent past activitie's. Doe's Jane Brunner know what you were up to as a staffer for Jerry Brown?
Below (bottom protion) are just a few of the time's and date's that were documented on the Just Cause Bulletin Board revealing your activitie's under the name of Jim Smarler during taxpayed hour's while you worked for the Mayor's Office.
Would you care to make a comment Mr. Horner?
Feel free to leave your comment below my dear
Justin Horner/Jim Smarler who is the Chief of Staff for
Councilwoman Jane Brunner...
Sincerely Lynda Carson
********************************************************
"Oaklanders" Support
Author: JimSmarler (host hidden)
Date: 06-04-2001 12:43
I suppose more than one Oaklander is technically "Oaklanders."
Haven't heard a peep about his campaign since I read the teeny-tiny article on page 7 or so of the Oakland Tribune (nothing in the Chronicle).
Oh, boy...
*************************************************
Reply To This Message
RE: "Oaklanders" Support
Author: JimSmarler (host hidden)
Date: 06-04-2001 17:26
Oh, also, if 65% of people geeting evicted are people of color, then that means, that WHITES are
disproportionately evicted in Oakland (people of color make up more than 65% of Oakland's population).
The stat you really want to use is the eviction rate for African Americans which is, as we say, "hella" higher than their proportion of our City's population. That's the issue.
Latino and Asian eviction rates are, according to EBHO's data, below their percentages in the population.
In either case, a whole lot of people--of all colors--are being evicted.
Just a few thoughts...
Justin
*************************************************
Reply To This Message
RE: "Oaklanders" Support
Author: Skippy (host hidden)
Date: 06-04-2001 17:52
Actually Jim,
The numbers of evictions in Oakland have dropped tremendously. There were approximately 7,400 evictions in 1996, and less than 4,100 in 2000. That's a 40% decrease.
However, there has been a tremendous increase in people complaining of being displaced. My guess is this is due to the difficulty in finding a place to rent after being evicted.
However, this trend is also changing. Look at your classifieds and you'll see that the vacancy rate is increasing, and rents are dropping.
Reply To This Message
*****************************************************
add your comments
More From Justin Horner/Jim Smarler
by Lynda Carson June 11 2001, Mon, 6:28pm
lyndacarson [at] excite.com 510/763-1085
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 15:51:38 PST [Show full headers]
From: "Horner, Justin" <JHorner [at] oaklandnet.com> [Add to Address Book]
To: "'Lynda Carson'" <Lyndacarson [at] excite.com>
Subject: RE: Rent Ordinance Changes...Thanks for reply
Lynda:
I don't understand the hang-up with a tenant being able to file a notice with the Rent Board. It doesn't make any difference as far as a tenant's cause of action is concerned. As long as the tenant has a copy of the
30-day, proof of the rent they were paying and proof of the rent the new tenant is paying (or at least a good lead), they should come to the Rent Board and ask for enforcement. There's no reason why they would have to file with the Rent Board to have the option to pursue enforcement. The tenant can enforce without a notice being filed with the Rent Board--that would actually be a further obstacle, if it were a requirement.
Also, if a 30-day notice is NOT turned-in the Rent Board, it can help the tenant: as the Ordinance currently states, a failure of a landlord to turn in the 30-day notice is a DEFENSE AGAINST EVICTION for the tenant. The Rent
Program even provides a letter to the tenant stating there is no 30-day on file for use in court. That is helpful.
Brunner's office is probably sending you a copy of the staff report, which contains all that we've been talking about and more.
Landlords cooperating: I'm saying that the Landlord Representatives side of this debate cooperate and are eager to talk and hash things out. The tenant side is not willing or shows no interest in trying to formulate policy (well, I mean, everyone knows the tenants want Just Cause, but from what I've heard, there's not even an agreement on that: this new measure is going to be different than last year's, so there's obviously some type of thinking going on). Of course all landlords don't comply with the current law (in fact, not all people comply with every law), and I don't see how rent
registration will make them either (what if they don't register?).
The Rent Ordinance Changes also provide for a NEW minimum damages provision to make the monetary award attractive enough for lawyers to take good cases.
Then, you won't have to depend on just the City to enforce the law (although you wrote that you see no benefit in more than doubling the budget and staff of the Rent Program for enforcement, so I really don't see who exactly you hope will enforce the law).
Lynda, we are trapped in a private property system. The city cannot guarantee tenancy under any circumstances in a privately held property any more than it can deny tenants their rights to decent housing, the eviction
process and other state-mandated housing laws. I don't see exactly what you are hoping to achieve. For example, I have no idea why a Just Cause measure would stop people from evicting in hopes of getting higher rents. What makes you think the courts are so tenant friendly that they're going to give them such a great deal? San Francisco has very strong tenant protections and plenty of evictions and Berkeley, jeez, they don't even have any poor people left living there, do they? !
I don't know the all the answers. My prediction is that we will eventually have a Just Cause Ordinance, but we will also see that not all of our problems are gone.
Justin
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 17:14:18 PST [Show full headers]
From: "Horner, Justin" <JHorner [at] oaklandnet.com> [Add to Address Book]
To: "'Lynda Carson'" <Lyndacarson [at] excite.com>
Subject: RE: Hello Justin....and Mayors Office....
Lynda:
1) I have repeatedly stated that Oaklanders who want to change policy should get involved and do so: whether through pressuring Councilmembers to vote for proposals they support or putting measures on the ballot for the people of Oakland to decide.
2) You are right: the Rent Board did recommend Just Cause on two occasions; I believe (although it was, you must admit, never confirmed) that 20,000 people signed petitions for the last Just Cause measure. But, no, I am not being flooded with e-mails, phone calls, letters or anything from people wanting a Just Cause ordinance. That, I have said repeatedly, is part of the problem: tenants do not let their preferences known in numbers above a dozen. Floods of e-mails would be great: I'm at jhorner [at] oaklandnet.com, as you know.
3) The Rent Ordinance does not "protect" landlords from "stealing" money from tenants. Tenants currently have a cause of action for unlawful eviction. The problem, as you have pointed out repeatedly and correctly, is enforcement. The current proposal triples the budget and staffing of the Rent Board to increase enforcement and guarantee the timely processing of petitions. This, I have said, is a reason to support some of the recommendations.
4) I am not asking anyone to "support a dishonest system." If I believed the City would not follow-through to the best of its ability (which may not be saying much...), I would not ask anyone to support anything. I encourage people to support the proposals because I believe they are better than what we have. If that is not good enough, or is an unreasonable compromise, I understand.
5) Tenants did not come up with all of the proposals offered, but they did come up with one: budget and staffing. Landlords do NOT want increased
staffing because they are afraid it will lead to bureaucracy. However, the City has a legal obligation to enforce laws it has passed. Also, landlords did not come up with any elements of the proposal either: they are against the eviction protections measure, against the staffing and budget increases, against the fee, and against the minimum damages provision.
6) I don't think it is accurate to say that you "trusted" city government when they passed the moratorium. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have always been critical of the moratorium and clear in your preference for a Just Cause measure. I don't think you (or any other tenant advocate for that matter) ever really thought the moratorium was a good idea. I don't know if that makes the City more trustworthy or what, but I do think it's a more accurate portrayal of your views.
7) I don't agree that the proposal hurts renters, for reasons I have given you and James already.
8) In your message to James, you stated: "Justin says the Mayors Office is not sure that people want a Just Cause [ordinance]." I did not say that, but I do remember saying that there are people who may not want one or may have
other preferences. I can only think this was an honest mistake and I hope that you now understand what I said. I am also not forcing anyone to accept the proposal...how could I? Regardless of how much we talk, neither you nor
I vote: it's the Council.
Thanks
Justin
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 15:27:37 PST [Show full headers]
From: "Horner, Justin" <JHorner [at] oaklandnet.com> [Add to Address Book]
To: "'Lynda Carson'" <Lyndacarson [at] excite.com>
Subject: RE: Message to Mayors Office...
Lynda:
OK, OK, you've made your point: you want Just Cause. I suppose there's nothing else to talk about. I do, however, resent the implication that I'm trying to divide anyone. I am not asking you or anyone else to compromise anything (and I am eager to know how you arrive at that conclusion): the question to support or not is up to you. If I were stuffing anything down anyone's throat I don't know why I would spend time clarifying the changes and trying to show how they could be an improvement for tenants. I think if you read my comments about the proposal, I clearly and openly explain the policy's intention and the reasons for suggesting it (when I know it). I think my problem was not limiting my comments to the staff report and verging off the topic to share my personal reflections with you. I will refrain from that in the future.
It is clear you do not agree with me or the staff recommendations, but it would be a dereliction of my duty to not follow-up and explain our side of things to people who are involved in the issue, like yourself.
I also would be more than happy to receive any and all "reports at hand" about the issue. Please forward them to me using the information below. As you and others know, I have spoken to dozens if not hundreds of tenants and feel very confident of my assessment of what's going on out there, but am hungry for more information.
Thank you
Justin
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:06:16 PST [Show full headers]
From: "Horner, Justin" <JHorner [at] oaklandnet.com> [Add to Address Book]
To: "'Lynda Carson'" <Lyndacarson [at] excite.com>
Subject: Rent Ordinance Changes
Lynda:
Thanks for the call and the e-mail. Comments and clarifications:
1) The Ordinance has not been written yet and will not be submitted in March. The March 27 meeting will consider the policy, which will then be sent back to staff to be crafted into an Ordinance. The distinction is
important, because a Policy needs four votes but the Ordinance will require five. We need a little more time to get the extra vote.
2) $500 is the fine a landlord will receive when the City becomes aware that
they did not turn in their 30-day notice. I see, maybe, how this is an incentive for the City to enforce (a good thing), but it mainly serves as a deterrent so landlords will follow the law (also a good thing).
3) Enforcement: the Rent Program will have its budget increased from $400,000 to $1.5 million and staffing will increase (both demands of housing
activists for some time). Also, the rental unit fee will create a dedicated
revenue source, so the Program's funding won't be a political issue every budget season. The Rent Program has 1/10 of one City Attorney now and only (what) 4 or 5 staff. Increasing the staff to 11 (including two FULL TIME attorneys and additional administrative staff) will provide the personnel necessary to follow-up on enforcement. Berkeley: a considerable number of
their staff are dedicated to managing their Rent Registration, which is a program we do not have.
4) Moratorium: No, to my knowledge, the City has not prosecuted any landlords for evicting then raising rents. You can, however, call Sentinel or anyone else and ask whether the new requirement has at least bought
tenants more time (because their landlords notice incorrectly and then learn
they have to renotice all over again). The Rent Ordinance Changes implement
a new requirement: that a landlord report the NEW RENT they are charging within 10 days of rerenting, which was the obvious piece missing from the
original plan. If they don't report, and the city becomes aware of it, we charge the fine and lower the rent.
This, like all things political, is a compromise. Regardless of all the news about evictions sweeping Oakland, tenants have not been particularly strong in advocating for themselves and their rights. The majority of folks
I talk to call about rent increases (because of new owners) and NOT evictions. The evictions I most often hear about are the result of others buying single-family houses that are rented out (which would be legal even
under Just Cause).
The landlords are always available to meet and cooperate with our requests for information, and are willing to compromise when they know they're not
gonna get 100% of what they want (and believe me they don't like these proposed changes). Many tenant folks I talk to are standoffish and refuse to
budge from Just Cause as they envision it. That's fine, that's advocacy, but tenants really don't even have a "good cop" for the SuperAntiJerry "bad cop," so there's nobody for me to go to to get a compromise tenant position.
You can't blame us for looking for the compromises we need to get things done. Just Cause failed 80/20 last time around, so there ARE others in Oakland with different opinions and preferences. Representation requires that accommodation. It will be even harder to plead the tenant case if nobody shows up to push for these (albeit incomplete) changes.
The one time I managed to get tenant representatives a meeting with the Mayor, we had to change it once and then THEY cancelled, without follow-up. I have been working hard to bring this issue to the Mayor's attention and to bring people around to it. I certainly hope folks come out to support this proposal: it's better than what we have and a good first step towards solid protections. From what I reckon, the votes are NOT there to get even this passed. I know some folks have "given up" on the Mayor and the Council, but
I think it would still be a good idea to turn out to push for these changes to at least show that y'all are still out there (which is NOT at all clear from City Hall's perspective).
As they say: Compromise is the art of pissing everyone off equally. These changes, however minor one may think they are, overwhelmingly benefit tenants and will make a substantial difference in the lives of Oaklanders of all shapes and sizes. I think that that's reason enough to come out. And anyway, nobody's saying "this far and no further;" I don't see how working to get these changes passed compromises the effort to get the measure on the ballot.
Thank you for your attention and let me know if there's anything else I can clarify for you.
Sincerely,
Justin Horner
Aide to Mayor Jerry Brown
1 Frank H Ogawa Plaza, 3rd Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 238-7257
jhorner [at] oaklandnet.com
add your comments
Smarler/Horner at Just Cause Message Board
by Lynda Carson June 11 2001, Mon, 6:40pm
News, action and resources about a ballot initiative for Just Cause eviction laws in Oakland, CA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forum List | Go to Top | New Topic | Collapse Threads | Search
Older Messages
Topics
Author
Date
Open Letter to Jim Smarler newAnonymous Tenant 06-11-2001 20:48
Jerry Brown's Riders/Rile's For Mayor! No Justice-No Peace! 06-08-2001 17:15
RE: Jerry Brown's Riders/Rile's For Mayor! Andy 06-08-2001 21:20
10 K Plan VS CEQA/Update Lynda Carson 06-08-2001 05:28
10K Plan Settlers Heading To Oakland LC 06-06-2001 02:39
RE: 10K Plan Settlers Heading To Oakland JimSmarler 06-06-2001 12:53
RE: Any More Comments From The Peanut Gallery? JimSmarler 06-07-2001 12:05
Any More Comments From The Peanut Gallery? LC 06-06-2001 23:01
Take a break Jim.... LC 06-08-2001 00:48
Oaklanders Support Wilson Riles Jr. For Mayor Lynda Carson 06-03-2001 20:20
Bush Trying To Revive One Strike Policy Lynda Carson 06-03-2001 20:05
Bush Trying To Revive One Strike Policy Lynda Carson 06-03-2001 20:02
Bush Trying To Revive One Strike Policy Lynda Carson 06-03-2001 20:01
delayed access to unlawful detainer alice 05-24-2001 08:08
RE: delayed access to unlawful detainer JimSmarler 05-24-2001 11:37
RE: Talk To Attorney Fast....Smarler is idiot... JimSmarler 05-30-2001 14:02
Talk To Attorney Fast....Smarler is idiot... Lynda Carson 05-24-2001 19:34
A Prayer for Smarler.... Lynda Carson 05-31-2001 04:35
RE: A Prayer for Rand McNally Peter Pan 05-31-2001 11:02
RE: A Prayer for Rand McNally JimSmarler 05-31-2001 12:03
Smarler Has Forked Tongue! Lynda Carson 05-31-2001 20:52
No he does not JimSmarler 06-01-2001 11:47
Adding Roommates to the Lease Emily 05-22-2001 19:45
RE: Adding Roommates to the Lease Andy 05-22-2001 22:05
RE: Adding Roommates to the Lease Adam 05-30-2001 15:04
RE: Adding Roommates to the Lease Emily 05-30-2001 15:12
Roomate's.... Lynda Carson 05-30-2001 21:22
RE: Roomate's.... JimSmarler 05-31-2001 12:08
RE: Roomate's.... Althea 06-10-2001 22:04
Contact Attorney... Lynda Carson 06-11-2001 16:53
RE: Contact Attorney... newAndy 06-11-2001 20:25
Assisting Homeless Family Member Althea 06-10-2001 22:15
Forum List | Go to Top | New Topic | Collapse Threads | Search
Older Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JustCauseOakland.org
Donations | Get Signatures | Flyers/PDF/Download | Testimonials
Message Boards | Press Info | Tenant Links | Eviction Law | Contact Us
As a worker for the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco ( http://www.HRCsfbay.org ), I want to lend my support and SOLIDARITY to all efforts to broaden and strengthen RENT CONTROL and TENANT RIGHTS throughout Oakland, the Bay Area and State of California.
Please see our website and call us if you are a tenant in the City of San Francisco with an issue that you need to resolve or any questions about your lease, evictions, roomates, repairs, illegal entry, etc. We also provide free referrals to the best pro-Tenant lawyers in town, most of whom offer free consultations, contingency, sliding scale, or do some pro-bono work. We are next door to the SF Eviction Defense Collaborative, a group of lawyers and para-legals dedicated to fighting evictions in SF.
The Housing Rights Committee of SF
427 South Van Ness Ave.
SF, CA 94103
Free Phone Counseling: 415-703-8684
Hours: Mon - Thurs 1:30PM - 5:30PM.
Email tenant issue questions to: tmecca [at] hrcsfbay.org
Website: http://www.HRCsfbay.org There is loads of info on the website, much of which applies not only to SF but to ALL California rentals.
You do NOT have to make an appointment to come in and speak with one of our counselors during days/hours above, and our service is FREE! Bring all documents, letters, leases, etc. We are a non-profit but we can always use donations, whether its $1, $5, $25++ to help keep us going!
Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your Cheneys!