Challenge From "Task Force Member "

The article, "Challenge From Task Force Member," by L Carson (8-6-01), contains a gross misrepresentation of facts purposely to confuse readers. Ms Carson has embarked on a personal and unilateral crusade of unjustified attack and harm to the reputations of tenant activists who do the hard work of trying to better the miserable conditions of tenants in Oakland. Eddie Ytuarte is one of those dedicated hard working advocates. Ms Carson is not. Instead, She misuses the media as a platform to spew venom against activists rather than the bureaucracy that activists are working vigorously to change.

Ms Carson purposely and incorrectly charges tenant activists on the Task Force (including Mr Ytuarte and me) with "ending the 3% rent cap in Oakland, which will enable landlords to charge more rent." The truth, which Ms Carson intentionally leaves out, is that the 3% cap for 2000-2001 already ended July 31. The cap was set by City Council -- based on the full CPI (consumer price index--the regionally adjusted rate of inflation) of 3.4% at that time -- that was effective 1 August 2000 for only a 12-month period. Under the Oakland ordinance, the City Council sets a new rent cap each year, however the Council announced that beginning 2001 and beyond, it would abandon the yearly rent cap, and would establish a permanent formula for rent increases.

In deliberations early this year in the Oakland Tenants Union and the Just Cause Coalition, both organizations endorsed "CPI less Shelter Components" (typically about 1% below the full CPI) as the goal for a permanent formula. Within the Task Force, landlords representatives fought to adopt the San Jose formula (8% increase annually for all rentals). Tenant representatives fought for 50% of the CPI. When it was clear that consensus could not be reached. Other Task Force members proposed "full CPI;" tenants countered with "CPI-less shelter." A compromise was offered by a "neutral" member to adopt the "average" of the "full CPI" and "CPI-less shelter" as the formula, and concensus was finally reached. This means that rent adjustments for Oakland tenants (unless changed by City Council) will always be a little below the full inflation rate -- which is lower than the adjustments have ever been.

Without the struggle waged by tenant advocates within the TF, Oakland tenants could well be saddled with a straight 8% increase each year or, in any event, nothing less than full CPI would have been proposed to the City Council without the fight by tenant representatives of the Task Force. Mr Ytuarte did exceptional work on the Task Force fighting in the interest of tenants. It is regrettable that Ms Carson refuses to accept that fact, instead of trying to mis-inform and mislead the readers of SF Indy Media.

Submitted by
James E Vann, Co-founder
Oakland Tenants Union

I Stand By My Story....

The research I did on the series of stories following
the Task Force of Dick Spees (a long acquaintence Of
James Vann), turned up the May 2, letter if James Vann
to Nadel/Brunner. The letter detailed the attendees as
being BIG MONIED Land Barons with the landlord agenda being promoted. Attendees such as: Greg
McConnel of The McConnel Group, Oakland Realtors
Association, Rick Philips of the Rental Housing Association, and a number of other Realtors and City Officials and staff.

The Task Force is promoting the Landlord Agenda and the moment that so-called Tenant Activists signed onto it they provided cover to the landlords for what was to come.

James Vann failed to mention that signing off on
Rent Increases for the Oakland population is NOT the
position of Just Cause Oakland.

I covered this story with an open mind, and at first accepted the PR that this was to be good for Tenants.
The facts revealed a different story altogether, and when I started asking to many questions that revealed
no one had a list of the rental units under rent control,
the $1.5 million budget figure for the New Rent Program was a fugure pulled out of a hat.

My intent is not to attack James Vann or any other
self proffessed tenant activist. Tenant activists must never take on the role of imposing rent increases on the population. "This is what LANDLORDS Do." When it
turns out that Tenant Activists take on such a role, for
"whatever reason" they offer, then there is no distinction between them and the landlords.

Let there be no mistake that the Task Force was
created by Dick Spees for BIG MONIED interests, and their intent was to get rent increases, and a faster way to achieve them. Having Tenant Activists to sign off on the Landlord Agenda is an absurd concept that is not acceptable.

The May 2 letter of James Vann mentions that
tenant groups declined to send in any attendees to the
April 16 meeting with the Wealthy Landlords, and
he showed up as an individual. Again, it was James
Vann who singlehandedly accepted the responsibility
to bring tenant activists into the midst of the group.

Wether or not James Vann convinces anyone that
the landlords were about to get rent increases from their lobby efforts with the City Council or Mayor Brown,
when Tenant Activists sign off on rent increases for the population then there is no difference between them and the landlords.

Attacking me does not change the facts of the situation. The Landlords used Tenant Activists such as James Vann to promote their interests and if James
Vann is too blind to see this then he should consider
a different role in life. Let the landlords be the one's to give rent increases, "NOT," Tenant Activists.
.

For The Record
(Please forgive the rushed above unedited responce)
I have repeatedly been approached by the Mayors Office to sign off on
issues which I felt were not in the best interest's of renters. I DECLINED.
It was the Oakland Tribune and other publications that called me a Anti-Eviction
Activist, and a term I never used to describe myself. I first gained media attention in this context when I refused to go along with the landlords schemes to force renters with Section 8 Contracts to pay more than their contracts require, which was wide spread in Oakland. Then as now, I still refuse to collaborate with landlords or the mayors Office in any schemes to take money away from the renters of Oakland. If some wish to say I am not a Tenant Activist because I refuse to be a collaborater with the oppressors of society, then so be it. For what it's worth, I advocate Rolling Rent Strikes to bring down the worst of landlords in the Bay Area, am holding out for a Just Cause Ordinance, and refuse to ever side with the landlords that are already filty rich.
Sincerely Lynda Carson


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


-----Original Message-----
From: Lynda Carson [mailto:Lyndacarson [at] excite.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 3:13 PM
To: Horner, Justin
Subject: Re: Rent Ordinance Changes...Thanks for reply


Hello Justin  
          Thanks for the reply. Your clarifications are helpful.
Now I am wondering what it is that a staffer from Jane Brunners Office sent
off in the mail yesterday. They told me that they would send a copy of the
Ordinance, and said that it was 20 pages both sides full. I was also told
that
at the end of this week, amendments were to be added to it. This was
according to Rachel. She also told me that the Library has copies of the
Ordinance. Am I confused? Eitherway, I shall check my mail to see whats
cooking.

          I appreciate the good works you are doing. This eviction for
profit system terrorizes the renters, and
cannot be allowed to stand. The anger is all over this city, and if you rode
the busses to listen to peoples concerns,
or watched Soulbeat lately, this Mayor has big problems with trying to run
for re-election in this town. I heard from Kit Fischer, Nancy Nadels
Campaign Manager last week, and she was all upset about being pushed around
by some Realty Agent commissioned to sell the properties she resides on. I
worked out a strategy with her, to get these people off her back. They
threatened to parade a bunch of buyers thru her home just to be mean. Theres
plenty of horror stories going around, including one from an interview about
a Lawsuit filed against Oaklands Deputy Attorney General at the D.O.J. They
allege that they were locked out of their apartments without due process,
and now their old apartments have been rented out to others. Why do people
in Oakland treat their renters so bad? There has to be more to this than
just money. People are getting very mean, and act as tho some people do not
have any rights. Its a power trip, along with greed.

             Justin, you state that the $500.00 fine shall occur
if the landlord fails to submit the 30 Day Notice to the Rent Program. Thats
not what the summary states. It
clearly states that the landlord must report the rent to
the Rent Program within 10 days after re-renting the unit to someone. Are
you thus suggesting that fines of $500.00
shall apply in more than one instance? Either way, to the person that was
just evicted and may have become homeless non of this is of any help. You
mentioned that its easy for the Mayors Office to meet the landlords and that
they cooperate. If they cooperate so well, why do they refuse to send in
copies of the 30 Day Notices to the Rent Program? Landlords refuse to
cooperate with the existing Moratorium on rent increases after evictions,
why should anyone possibly believe that the future shall be any different?
Short of Rent Registration this proposal will not work.

       The existing Moratorium places a gag on the renters of Oakland,
because it does not allow them to file the 30 Day Notices with the Rent
Program. This cannot be justified.  Even when new renters discover that
their being cheated or get their hands on the 30 Day Notice from the evictee
before they moved in, they are not allowed to file the 30 Day Notice. Its
not that tenants do not now how to represent theirselves in these matters.
Even when they try they are shut out of the process. If the new proposal
depends on the landlords to file the 30 Day Notices but disallows the
renters that were served the 30 Day Notices from filing them with the Rent
Program then we are right back where we started from. A Moratorium that has
yet to prosecute even one landord for stealing from renters and breaking the
law........   Renters must be allowed to participate in the process,
including the new renters that move into the units where someone was evicted
from. Renters must be free from the fear of retaliation for being a part of
the process.

            As for the new proposal?If I saw anything here to support, you
may believe that I would be singing songs about it. What I do see is the
offer of a Moratorium that already exists. I also see a huge loophole for
the landlords to legally get around the existing Moratorium on rent
increases in units which the existing Moratorium disallows. The summarry
tells of many reasons why a renter may get evicted so that the landlord may
raise the rents to market. But there is not even one reason listed or
suggested as to why the renter cannot be evicted in this system of eviction
for profit. Whats wrong with this picture? Whats there to support from the
viewpoint of a renter?

           Please feel free to send me new reasons why a renter may not be
evicted under this new proposal. Feel free to tell me how any of this
matters to anyone made homeless by this system of EVICTION FOR PROFIT?
Lastly,
considering the lack of enforcement on the existing
Moratorium, and that renters are shut out of the process for submitting the
30 day Notices, why should anyone spend their time away from pushing for a
Just Cause Evictions Measure to support whats on the table? I'm looking hard
at the summary proposal but I do not see anything that keeps a renter from
being evicted under the eviction for profit system, and I see the offer of a
Moratorium already in place but not enforced. What exactly is being offered
to the renters of Oakland?

                       Sincerely Lynda Carson   3/21/01

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





_________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Lynda Carson [mailto:Lyndacarson [at] excite.com]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 4:36 PM
To: Horner, Justin
Subject: Hello Justin....and Mayors Office....


 Hello Justin
      Always pleased to hear from you over issues about housing.
I am not angry at you.
      I suspect that you may have received an e-mail or two from
people that want a Just Cause Measure to be put in place. It was others that
made their point about wanting a Just Cause Measure, I'm just getting
started in letting others know that their voice in the issue matters.
       Justin, the conclusions of the staff report make clear that
trying to enforce the law ( proposal at hand ) without "Just Cause" is
cumbersome, costly , and less effective. The Rent
Board voted twice to pass a "Just Cause Measure" to be voted on by the
Council. Over 20,000 voters signed petitions for a Just Cause Ordinance to
be passed. And I suspect that you and others are being flooded withn e-mails
for a Just Cause. Theres plenty of support for a Just Cause Measure to be
passed in Oakland, and any suggestion to the contrary is the propaganda by
the landlords and their minions.
         Theres plenty to talk about. The system that protects the
landlords who have continued to steal money from the renters of Oakland
cannot stand the light of day when exposed. The brutal system to Evict For
Profit after fleecing the renters, shall create a struggle that can only
result in an honest system.
         How about some honesty in our discussions? Please
do not ask people to support a dishonest system. On top of that,
renters get stuck with the bill in this proposal which equally shall be used
by the landlords. It's obvious that James Vann is correct to state that the
fix is in for the landlords. It was not renters that came up with the
proposal offered.
         Renters trusted Oakland Officials with the so-called Moratorium on
rent increases after evictions. Please explain why there has been such a
breach of trust. Not even one landlord
brought to the table for violating the Moratorium, nor made to pay back the
stolen money. This town is lawless for the rich, but the poor get the screws
turned on them daily.
         How about some fairness when asking for compromise?
This proposal hurts the renters of Oakland, and sticks them with the bill.
We can do better.....We need Just Cause.....
Let me know your thought's...
                                                                       
Lynda  

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: 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  

Did you get my response to Lynda Carson's August 6
article about me? If so will you distribute it?