Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Corrupting Influence Of Big Money Weakens Rent Laws/Health & Safety Laws
Regarding the petition of the California Apartment Association that blocked Richmond's renter protections from going into effect on September 4, 2015, allegedly, the Contra Costa County Clerk Recorder-Elections Division did a random sampling of 500 signatures of which 389 of the 500 signatures were valid. This is all that they were required to do to claim that the petition was found to be sufficient, by using the formula approved by the Secretary of State to determine that the statistically projected number of valid signatures is 5,514, being enough valid signatures to to qualify for the ballot!
Corrupting Influence Of Big Money Weakens Rent Laws/Health & Safety Laws
By Lynda Carson - October 21, 2015
Richmond - On the Consent Calendar for Tuesday, October 20, 2015, known as I-22, the Richmond City Council was expected to: “RECEIVE the Certificate of Sufficiency of Referendum Petition dated October 13, 2015, indicating that the referendum petition protesting the passage of Ordinance No. 21-15 N.S. -- amending Article XI of the Richmond Municipal Code to establish a rent control board and just cause requirement for evictions -- has a sufficient number of valid signatures for the ordinance to be suspended.”
This is the petition of the California Apartment Association (CAA) that blocked renter protections from going into effect on September 4, 2015, including rent control, and just cause eviction protections. Many Richmond voters complained about the petition and stated that they were tricked by signature gatherers into signing the petition, when they were told that the petition strengthened renter protections, which was not true.
Allegedly, the Contra Costa County Clerk Recorder-Elections Division did a random sampling of 500 signatures of which 389 of the 500 signatures were valid. This is all that they were required to do to claim that the petition was found to be sufficient, by using the formula approved by the Secretary of State to determine that the statistically projected number of valid signatures is 5,514, being enough valid signatures to to qualify for the ballot.
Click on link below for more about the petition that people were tricked into signing…
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/10/06/18778507.php
Click on link below for Consent Calendar item I-22.…
http://sireweb.ci.richmond.ca.us/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=617&doctype=AGENDA
Click on links below for more details…
http://tinyurl.com/q66ejoa
http://tinyurl.com/ogpctn8
http://tinyurl.com/qgzgtr5
Corrupting influence Of The CAA And Other Associations
The California Apartment Association (CAA) and it’s 13,000 members have been busy lately, using their power, influence, and big money to meddle in the affairs of cities in Northern California that have been considering renter protection ordinances, including the City of Richmond, Alameda, San Jose, San Mateo, Santa Rosa, and Mountain View.
In addition to the CAA’s attempts to sabotage efforts locally by the working class, and school teachers, construction workers, store clerks, city workers, union members, veterans, the elderly, disabled, tenant activists, and families with children, to have renter protections that will stop the abuse of greedy landlords, and realtors involved in the eviction-for profit-system, the CAA has been meddling in the affairs of the California Legislature. This is being done in the effort to weaken rent laws, and health and safety laws that affect renters throughout California.
New laws scheduled to take effect during 2016 in California, reveal that the corrupting influence of the CAA and other anti-tenant associations have been successful in weakening rent laws, and health and safety laws that tenants depend on.
According to the CAA, Senate Bill 655 sponsered by Holly J. Mitchell (Dem. Los Angeles): “As initially introduced, SB 655 would have added mold to the conditions that make housing substandard. The bill was amended at CAA’s request. It now provides that a landlord has no obligation to repair a dilapidation relating to visible mold until the owner has received notice of the mold problem. The bill also holds the tenant responsible for mold that is caused by the tenant’s poor housekeeping. Under the bill, a property cannot be declared substandard unless a code enforcement officer makes the identification that the visible mold exists to the extent that it endangers the occupants. A property owner is not responsible for mold that is minor and found on surfaces that can accumulate moisture as part of their properly functioning and intended use, such as bathroom showers and the like. Under current law, the term “any nuisance” found in the health and safety code is used by code enforcement and tenant attorneys to make claims against the property owner about mold in the housing and the conditions surrounding mold growth.”
With Senate Bill 655 that goes into effect in 2016, tenants can no longer higher an attorney that would bring in an inspector to document mold conditions in their housing, as a way to force a landlord to clean up the mold problems. Starting in 2016, tenants will have to file a complaint with the city or county they reside in, in an effort to try to get a code enforcement inspector to come by and claim that the visible mold exists to the extent that it endangers the occupants in that housing unit, before the landlord is responsible to remedy the mold situation. In cities or counties that have a weak corrupted code enforcement department, this may be a very daunting experience for renters, that may result in retaliation by the landlord.
In this case, the CAA has corrupted Senate Bill 655 to such extremes that they are exposing tenants to unhealthy mold problems, and are totally interfering in the tenant-lawyer relationship that currently exists, by making it much harder for the health and safety laws of California, to be enforced to protect tenants from criminal landlords and slumlords that allow mold to exist in their residential properties. Meanwhile, the unit may really be uninhabitable and the tenant may have to pay rent, while being exposed to health problems as a result of the mold in their housing units.
Was Assemblywoman Holly J. Mitchell (Dem. Los Angeles), corrupted by the influence of big money in her decision to collaborate with the CAA to weaken health and safety laws in California?
According to the records with Follow The Money, since she has been in office during the past year or two, Holly J. Mitchell (Dem. Los Angeles) in part has accepted $4,000 from the California Apartment Association, $4,000 from the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, $30,500 from the California Association of Realtors, $4,374 from the California Building Industry Association, and an additional $1,500 from the California Hotel & Lodging Association.
Additionally, there is Senate Bill 600 (D-Pan) — Discrimination: Immigration Status.
According to the CAA: SB 600 amends the Unruh Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of “citizenship,” “immigration status,” and “primary language.” “Under this bill, a landlord who asks a prospective tenant to verify his/her immigration status will not constitute a violation of this law. CAA requested, and the author added, language to the bill to clarify that landlords are not required to provide documents in a language other than English unless the landlord negotiates contracts in another language (as already required by existing law).”
This means that starting in 2016, U.S. citizens may have to prove their citizenship to rent a housing unit that may be uninhabitable (full of mold) from greedy landlords, and slumlords in California, because it will no longer be a violation of the law to demand that a prospective tenant must prove their citizenship, before renting to them.
Clotheslines – Energy Conservation — Assembly Bill 1448 (D-Lopez)
According to the CAA: “As initially introduced, AB 1448 would have prohibited residential lease provisions that restrict the use of clotheslines by tenants at the property. As amended, and signed by the Governor, the bill requires a tenant to obtain permission from the landlord prior to using a clothesline on the exterior of the building.”
Thanks to Assembly Bill 1448 (D-Lopez), starting in 2016, tenants who use a clothesline to dry their clothes outside at the property they reside at, may face eviction if they do not ask the landlord for permission first.
Liability and Litigation — Civil Actions: Objections to Pleadings — Senate Bill 383 (Wieckowski) According to the CAA: “SB 383 imposes new court requirements before a demurrer can be filed. (A demurrer challenges the legal sufficiency of a cause of action in a complaint or of an affirmative defense in a court answer.) The bill requires the plaintiff and the defendants to meet and confer at least two separate times before any demurrer can be filed. The party filing the demurrer now must file a declaration about the efforts to meet and confer, and a court must make a determination if the meet‐and-confer process was sufficient.”
This means that starting in 2016, if tenants end up facing eviction for hanging their clothes on a clothes line without having the landlords permission beforehand, or if they face eviction for some other trumped up charge, their attorney can no longer file a demurrer against an unlawful detainer/5 Day Summons, unless the plaintiff and the defendants meet and confer at least two separate times first. Then a court must decide that this was sufficient, before a demurrer may be filed.
SB 383 makes it more complicated, expensive, and much harder for tenants to fight unlawful evictions by greedy landlords, slumlords and unscrupulous realtors involved in the eviction-for profit-system.
What kind of corrupting influence does big money bring to the California Legislature that makes the politicians want to weaken the rent laws and health and safety laws to such extremes, that tenants lives are being placed at risk?
According to the records of Follow The Money, it appears that the following associations and organizations below have been spending BIG MONEY to corrupt the legislature in California.
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CITIES / IPPAC (ID# 782117)
$1,500
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CITIES CURRENT ISSUES
$250
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CITIES PAC
$1,500
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA CITIES / IPAAC
$1,500
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CITIES (ID# 782117)
$800
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CITIES / IP PAC
$1,000
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CITIES / IPPAC
$11,600
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CITIES / IPPAC (ID# 782117)
$400
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CITIES IPPAC
$1,000
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CITIES PAC
$400
CAA TRICOUNTY CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION
$1,100
CAAPAC CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION PAC
$500
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION
$6,568,432
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION
$110,000
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION (CAAPAC)
$4,100
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF GREATER INLAND EMPIRE
$500
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION PAC (CAAPAC IE)
$25,000
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION PAC CAAPAC CANDIDATE ACCOUNT
$4,100
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION PAC CAAPAC CANDIDATE ACCOUNT ID# 745208
$2,000
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION PAC IE ACCOUNT
$5,000
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION PAC(CAAPAC)
$1,500
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION POLITCAL ACTION COMMITTEE, CAAPC CANDIDATE ACCOUNT
$40,000
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITEE CAAPAC
$4,100
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE CAAPAC CANDIDATE ACCOUNT
$3,000
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, CAAPC CANDIDATE
$25,000
CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CITIES APARTMENT ASSOCIATION
$203,074
Lynda Carson may be reached at tenantsrule [at] yahoo.com
>>>>>>
By Lynda Carson - October 21, 2015
Richmond - On the Consent Calendar for Tuesday, October 20, 2015, known as I-22, the Richmond City Council was expected to: “RECEIVE the Certificate of Sufficiency of Referendum Petition dated October 13, 2015, indicating that the referendum petition protesting the passage of Ordinance No. 21-15 N.S. -- amending Article XI of the Richmond Municipal Code to establish a rent control board and just cause requirement for evictions -- has a sufficient number of valid signatures for the ordinance to be suspended.”
This is the petition of the California Apartment Association (CAA) that blocked renter protections from going into effect on September 4, 2015, including rent control, and just cause eviction protections. Many Richmond voters complained about the petition and stated that they were tricked by signature gatherers into signing the petition, when they were told that the petition strengthened renter protections, which was not true.
Allegedly, the Contra Costa County Clerk Recorder-Elections Division did a random sampling of 500 signatures of which 389 of the 500 signatures were valid. This is all that they were required to do to claim that the petition was found to be sufficient, by using the formula approved by the Secretary of State to determine that the statistically projected number of valid signatures is 5,514, being enough valid signatures to to qualify for the ballot.
Click on link below for more about the petition that people were tricked into signing…
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/10/06/18778507.php
Click on link below for Consent Calendar item I-22.…
http://sireweb.ci.richmond.ca.us/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=617&doctype=AGENDA
Click on links below for more details…
http://tinyurl.com/q66ejoa
http://tinyurl.com/ogpctn8
http://tinyurl.com/qgzgtr5
Corrupting influence Of The CAA And Other Associations
The California Apartment Association (CAA) and it’s 13,000 members have been busy lately, using their power, influence, and big money to meddle in the affairs of cities in Northern California that have been considering renter protection ordinances, including the City of Richmond, Alameda, San Jose, San Mateo, Santa Rosa, and Mountain View.
In addition to the CAA’s attempts to sabotage efforts locally by the working class, and school teachers, construction workers, store clerks, city workers, union members, veterans, the elderly, disabled, tenant activists, and families with children, to have renter protections that will stop the abuse of greedy landlords, and realtors involved in the eviction-for profit-system, the CAA has been meddling in the affairs of the California Legislature. This is being done in the effort to weaken rent laws, and health and safety laws that affect renters throughout California.
New laws scheduled to take effect during 2016 in California, reveal that the corrupting influence of the CAA and other anti-tenant associations have been successful in weakening rent laws, and health and safety laws that tenants depend on.
According to the CAA, Senate Bill 655 sponsered by Holly J. Mitchell (Dem. Los Angeles): “As initially introduced, SB 655 would have added mold to the conditions that make housing substandard. The bill was amended at CAA’s request. It now provides that a landlord has no obligation to repair a dilapidation relating to visible mold until the owner has received notice of the mold problem. The bill also holds the tenant responsible for mold that is caused by the tenant’s poor housekeeping. Under the bill, a property cannot be declared substandard unless a code enforcement officer makes the identification that the visible mold exists to the extent that it endangers the occupants. A property owner is not responsible for mold that is minor and found on surfaces that can accumulate moisture as part of their properly functioning and intended use, such as bathroom showers and the like. Under current law, the term “any nuisance” found in the health and safety code is used by code enforcement and tenant attorneys to make claims against the property owner about mold in the housing and the conditions surrounding mold growth.”
With Senate Bill 655 that goes into effect in 2016, tenants can no longer higher an attorney that would bring in an inspector to document mold conditions in their housing, as a way to force a landlord to clean up the mold problems. Starting in 2016, tenants will have to file a complaint with the city or county they reside in, in an effort to try to get a code enforcement inspector to come by and claim that the visible mold exists to the extent that it endangers the occupants in that housing unit, before the landlord is responsible to remedy the mold situation. In cities or counties that have a weak corrupted code enforcement department, this may be a very daunting experience for renters, that may result in retaliation by the landlord.
In this case, the CAA has corrupted Senate Bill 655 to such extremes that they are exposing tenants to unhealthy mold problems, and are totally interfering in the tenant-lawyer relationship that currently exists, by making it much harder for the health and safety laws of California, to be enforced to protect tenants from criminal landlords and slumlords that allow mold to exist in their residential properties. Meanwhile, the unit may really be uninhabitable and the tenant may have to pay rent, while being exposed to health problems as a result of the mold in their housing units.
Was Assemblywoman Holly J. Mitchell (Dem. Los Angeles), corrupted by the influence of big money in her decision to collaborate with the CAA to weaken health and safety laws in California?
According to the records with Follow The Money, since she has been in office during the past year or two, Holly J. Mitchell (Dem. Los Angeles) in part has accepted $4,000 from the California Apartment Association, $4,000 from the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, $30,500 from the California Association of Realtors, $4,374 from the California Building Industry Association, and an additional $1,500 from the California Hotel & Lodging Association.
Additionally, there is Senate Bill 600 (D-Pan) — Discrimination: Immigration Status.
According to the CAA: SB 600 amends the Unruh Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of “citizenship,” “immigration status,” and “primary language.” “Under this bill, a landlord who asks a prospective tenant to verify his/her immigration status will not constitute a violation of this law. CAA requested, and the author added, language to the bill to clarify that landlords are not required to provide documents in a language other than English unless the landlord negotiates contracts in another language (as already required by existing law).”
This means that starting in 2016, U.S. citizens may have to prove their citizenship to rent a housing unit that may be uninhabitable (full of mold) from greedy landlords, and slumlords in California, because it will no longer be a violation of the law to demand that a prospective tenant must prove their citizenship, before renting to them.
Clotheslines – Energy Conservation — Assembly Bill 1448 (D-Lopez)
According to the CAA: “As initially introduced, AB 1448 would have prohibited residential lease provisions that restrict the use of clotheslines by tenants at the property. As amended, and signed by the Governor, the bill requires a tenant to obtain permission from the landlord prior to using a clothesline on the exterior of the building.”
Thanks to Assembly Bill 1448 (D-Lopez), starting in 2016, tenants who use a clothesline to dry their clothes outside at the property they reside at, may face eviction if they do not ask the landlord for permission first.
Liability and Litigation — Civil Actions: Objections to Pleadings — Senate Bill 383 (Wieckowski) According to the CAA: “SB 383 imposes new court requirements before a demurrer can be filed. (A demurrer challenges the legal sufficiency of a cause of action in a complaint or of an affirmative defense in a court answer.) The bill requires the plaintiff and the defendants to meet and confer at least two separate times before any demurrer can be filed. The party filing the demurrer now must file a declaration about the efforts to meet and confer, and a court must make a determination if the meet‐and-confer process was sufficient.”
This means that starting in 2016, if tenants end up facing eviction for hanging their clothes on a clothes line without having the landlords permission beforehand, or if they face eviction for some other trumped up charge, their attorney can no longer file a demurrer against an unlawful detainer/5 Day Summons, unless the plaintiff and the defendants meet and confer at least two separate times first. Then a court must decide that this was sufficient, before a demurrer may be filed.
SB 383 makes it more complicated, expensive, and much harder for tenants to fight unlawful evictions by greedy landlords, slumlords and unscrupulous realtors involved in the eviction-for profit-system.
What kind of corrupting influence does big money bring to the California Legislature that makes the politicians want to weaken the rent laws and health and safety laws to such extremes, that tenants lives are being placed at risk?
According to the records of Follow The Money, it appears that the following associations and organizations below have been spending BIG MONEY to corrupt the legislature in California.
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CITIES / IPPAC (ID# 782117)
$1,500
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CITIES CURRENT ISSUES
$250
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CITIES PAC
$1,500
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA CITIES / IPAAC
$1,500
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CITIES (ID# 782117)
$800
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CITIES / IP PAC
$1,000
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CITIES / IPPAC
$11,600
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CITIES / IPPAC (ID# 782117)
$400
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CITIES IPPAC
$1,000
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CITIES PAC
$400
CAA TRICOUNTY CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION
$1,100
CAAPAC CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION PAC
$500
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION
$6,568,432
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION
$110,000
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION (CAAPAC)
$4,100
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF GREATER INLAND EMPIRE
$500
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION PAC (CAAPAC IE)
$25,000
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION PAC CAAPAC CANDIDATE ACCOUNT
$4,100
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION PAC CAAPAC CANDIDATE ACCOUNT ID# 745208
$2,000
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION PAC IE ACCOUNT
$5,000
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION PAC(CAAPAC)
$1,500
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION POLITCAL ACTION COMMITTEE, CAAPC CANDIDATE ACCOUNT
$40,000
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITEE CAAPAC
$4,100
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE CAAPAC CANDIDATE ACCOUNT
$3,000
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, CAAPC CANDIDATE
$25,000
CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CITIES APARTMENT ASSOCIATION
$203,074
Lynda Carson may be reached at tenantsrule [at] yahoo.com
>>>>>>
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
The article is wrong about at least two of the four bills mentioned, SB 600 and SB 383.
On SB 600, the article quotes the CAA, "Under this bill, a landlord who asks a prospective tenant to verify his/her immigration status will not constitute a violation of this law", and assumes that this is a correct description of the bill in saying "starting in 2016 ... it will no longer be a violation of the law to demand that a prospective tenant must prove their citizenship, before renting to them". In fact, the bill only states that "Verification of immigration status and any discrimination based upon verified immigration status, where required by federal law, shall not constitute a violation of this section". That is, verification of immigration status (not of citizenship) is not a violation of the new provision of state law only when it is required by federal law. If verification of immigration status is required by federal law in order to rent an apartment, then the bill would exempt that verification from the new ban on discrimination based on immigration status. However, I'm not aware that it is required. Additionally, if there are any other laws (besides the Unruh Civil Rights Act, that SB 600 amends) that would currently forbid verification of immigration status and discrimination based on the results in renting an apartment (probably some local ordinances), SB 600 wouldn't remove their bans on such discrimination.
On SB 383, the article states that "starting in 2016, if tenants end up facing eviction for hanging their clothes on a clothes line without having the landlords permission beforehand, or if they face eviction for some other trumped up charge, their attorney can no longer file a demurrer against an unlawful detainer/5 Day Summons, unless the plaintiff and the defendants meet and confer at least two separate times first." In fact, the bill doesn't apply to evictions. The requirement for meeting and conferring before filing a demurrer is in an added Civil Code Section 430.41, but its paragraph (d) says "This section does not apply to the following civil actions:
(1) An action in which a party not represented by counsel is incarcerated in a local, state, or federal correctional institution.
(2) A proceeding in forcible entry, forcible detainer, or unlawful detainer."
On SB 600, the article quotes the CAA, "Under this bill, a landlord who asks a prospective tenant to verify his/her immigration status will not constitute a violation of this law", and assumes that this is a correct description of the bill in saying "starting in 2016 ... it will no longer be a violation of the law to demand that a prospective tenant must prove their citizenship, before renting to them". In fact, the bill only states that "Verification of immigration status and any discrimination based upon verified immigration status, where required by federal law, shall not constitute a violation of this section". That is, verification of immigration status (not of citizenship) is not a violation of the new provision of state law only when it is required by federal law. If verification of immigration status is required by federal law in order to rent an apartment, then the bill would exempt that verification from the new ban on discrimination based on immigration status. However, I'm not aware that it is required. Additionally, if there are any other laws (besides the Unruh Civil Rights Act, that SB 600 amends) that would currently forbid verification of immigration status and discrimination based on the results in renting an apartment (probably some local ordinances), SB 600 wouldn't remove their bans on such discrimination.
On SB 383, the article states that "starting in 2016, if tenants end up facing eviction for hanging their clothes on a clothes line without having the landlords permission beforehand, or if they face eviction for some other trumped up charge, their attorney can no longer file a demurrer against an unlawful detainer/5 Day Summons, unless the plaintiff and the defendants meet and confer at least two separate times first." In fact, the bill doesn't apply to evictions. The requirement for meeting and conferring before filing a demurrer is in an added Civil Code Section 430.41, but its paragraph (d) says "This section does not apply to the following civil actions:
(1) An action in which a party not represented by counsel is incarcerated in a local, state, or federal correctional institution.
(2) A proceeding in forcible entry, forcible detainer, or unlawful detainer."
Confirmation about Senate Bill 383 (Wieckowski)
I was able to confirm what Dave Kadlecek of the Oakland Tenants Union pointed out regarding an unlawful detainer, and Senate Bill 383.
I should have done a deeper search regarding Senate Bill 383 (Wieckowski) than what the CAA reported on.
Regarding what Dave Kadlecek also had to say, I could not verify or confirm what he had to say.
See more below about Dave Kadlecek and the Oakland Tenant's Union further below....
(LC)
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB383/2015
Senate Bill 383 (Wieckowski)
(d) This section does not apply to the following civil actions:
(1) An action in which a party not represented by counsel is
incarcerated in a local, state, or federal correctional institution.
(2) A proceeding in forcible entry, forcible detainer, or unlawful
detainer.
>>>>>>
A check to see if Dave Kadlecek is listed as an attorney did not turn up any results.
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/MemberSearch/QuickSearch?FreeText=David+Kadlecek&x=73&y=14&SoundsLike=false
Dave Kadlecek
Your search for David Kadlecek returned no results.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Dave Kadlecek - Bio
http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/06/06/ca/alm/vote/kadlecek_d/bio.html
“I try to combine progressive politics and culture through my participation in the La Pena Community Chorus, and I've fought for housing as a right through my work in the Oakland Tenants Union.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Oakland Tenants Union
http://www.oaklandtenantsunion.org/
Our Mission
Oakland Tenants Union is an organization of housing activists dedicated to protecting tenant rights and interests. OTU does this by working directly with tenants in their struggle with landlords, impacting legislation and public policy about housing, community education, and by working with other organizations committed to furthering renters’ rights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Oakland Tenants Union
A search of a 990 tax filing for the Oakland Tenants Union did not return any results in California, or the United States.
As an organization, there is no listing for the Oakland Tenants Union in California or the United States listed with the Foundation Center according to a search of 990 tax filings.
http://990finder.foundationcenter.org/990results.aspx?990_type=&fn=Oakland+Tenants+Union&st=&zp=&ei=&fy=&action=Find
Your query: ( Organization Name: Oakland Tenants Union , State: CA , Zip: , EIN: , Fiscal Year: )
0 documents matched. 0 documents displayed. Click on the column headers to sort.
Search Again
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
A search of Oakland Tenants Union with the Secretary of State turned up the following…
Entity Name:
OAKLAND HOUSING TENANTS' UNION, INC.
Entity Number:
C0597837
Date Filed:
05/06/1970
Status:
FTB SUSPENDED
Jurisdiction:
CALIFORNIA
Entity Address:
1845 UNION ST.,
Entity City, State, Zip:
OAKLAND CA 94607
Agent for Service of Process:
*
Agent Address:
*
Agent City, State, Zip:
*
>>>>>>
I was able to confirm what Dave Kadlecek of the Oakland Tenants Union pointed out regarding an unlawful detainer, and Senate Bill 383.
I should have done a deeper search regarding Senate Bill 383 (Wieckowski) than what the CAA reported on.
Regarding what Dave Kadlecek also had to say, I could not verify or confirm what he had to say.
See more below about Dave Kadlecek and the Oakland Tenant's Union further below....
(LC)
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB383/2015
Senate Bill 383 (Wieckowski)
(d) This section does not apply to the following civil actions:
(1) An action in which a party not represented by counsel is
incarcerated in a local, state, or federal correctional institution.
(2) A proceeding in forcible entry, forcible detainer, or unlawful
detainer.
>>>>>>
A check to see if Dave Kadlecek is listed as an attorney did not turn up any results.
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/MemberSearch/QuickSearch?FreeText=David+Kadlecek&x=73&y=14&SoundsLike=false
Dave Kadlecek
Your search for David Kadlecek returned no results.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Dave Kadlecek - Bio
http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/06/06/ca/alm/vote/kadlecek_d/bio.html
“I try to combine progressive politics and culture through my participation in the La Pena Community Chorus, and I've fought for housing as a right through my work in the Oakland Tenants Union.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Oakland Tenants Union
http://www.oaklandtenantsunion.org/
Our Mission
Oakland Tenants Union is an organization of housing activists dedicated to protecting tenant rights and interests. OTU does this by working directly with tenants in their struggle with landlords, impacting legislation and public policy about housing, community education, and by working with other organizations committed to furthering renters’ rights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Oakland Tenants Union
A search of a 990 tax filing for the Oakland Tenants Union did not return any results in California, or the United States.
As an organization, there is no listing for the Oakland Tenants Union in California or the United States listed with the Foundation Center according to a search of 990 tax filings.
http://990finder.foundationcenter.org/990results.aspx?990_type=&fn=Oakland+Tenants+Union&st=&zp=&ei=&fy=&action=Find
Your query: ( Organization Name: Oakland Tenants Union , State: CA , Zip: , EIN: , Fiscal Year: )
0 documents matched. 0 documents displayed. Click on the column headers to sort.
Search Again
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
A search of Oakland Tenants Union with the Secretary of State turned up the following…
Entity Name:
OAKLAND HOUSING TENANTS' UNION, INC.
Entity Number:
C0597837
Date Filed:
05/06/1970
Status:
FTB SUSPENDED
Jurisdiction:
CALIFORNIA
Entity Address:
1845 UNION ST.,
Entity City, State, Zip:
OAKLAND CA 94607
Agent for Service of Process:
*
Agent Address:
*
Agent City, State, Zip:
*
>>>>>>
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$185.00 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