Blogging Bayport Alameda

March 9, 2016

New and approved

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:09 am

It’s not a meeting that gets any sort of real attention but given the recent City Council actions and focus on rental housing issues, the RRAC is worth paying attention to if just from the standpoint of seeing whether or not the RRAC is a “success” which was touted by folks asking the City Council to do nothing or people on the City Council who voted to do nothing coughFrankMatarresecough.

On Tuesday night John Klein live tweeted the RRAC meeting, here are some highlights:

At least two of the units mentioned by John Klein was managed by Gallagher and Lindsay which means that it was probably owned by a “mom and pop” landlord operation.

Also, the RRAC seemed inclined to approve almost every rent increase request even in the face of evidence of maintenance issues.  In almost every scenario the landlord declined to consider a lower rent increase amount (the problem with the lack of actual consequences). Additionally the RRAC’s eagerness to approve rates above the 5% “trigger” just proves the point that the appointees to the board should really be something other than Mayor nominated and rubber stamped by the City Council.



  1. Something of a leap to suggest that the same results will happen in cases to which the Rent Control Ordinance passed by the City Council applies. The Ordinance does not go into effect until April.

    Comment by MP — March 9, 2016 @ 7:44 am

  2. Thank you City Council for standing up for the ‘little people’ you represent!

    Comment by Not. A. Alamedan — March 9, 2016 @ 7:47 am

  3. Well landlords, looks like you still haven’t learned your lessons. If you don’t follow RRAC recommendations tenants and their allies will have every reason to support the ARC ordinance.

    Comment by APH — March 9, 2016 @ 7:47 am

  4. Probably the most troubling thing about this group of RRAC members doesn’t show up in the tweets. It has to do with the unanimous vote for the 5% increase on the last item. The last case involved a landlord who wanted a 7.75% increase but the RRAC voted to recommend 5%. The fact is, though, that three of the four RRAC members wanted to recommend an amount lower than 5% but one member did not.

    However, rather than a member making a motion for a lessor amount and then proceed to a vote, the three relented and compromised to the higher amount which was unanimously approved by the RRAC.

    I asked about this after the meeting and was told they prefer to have a consensus and unanimous position. This struck me as really, really weird and is the same dynamic the previous RRAC fell into, that of the imagined desirability of unanimity. It is actually counter to all other public bodies from Congress to city councils and advisory boards where unanimous votes are coincidental, not intentional. It’s the whole reason bodies are comprised of odd-numbered members.

    I know the new RRAC members were coached about this having attended a new RRAC member orientation at which two out-going RRAC member said exactly that: vote by consensus. That approach makes no sense and is counter to nearly all other experience and practice of governing bodies.

    Comment by John K — March 9, 2016 @ 9:14 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at