Blogging Bayport Alameda

April 6, 2016

Conflicting measures

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:06 am

Yesterday Steven Tavares tweeted this:

Which means that if the Renters Coalition ballot initiative is successful and Tony Daysog’s aw-shucks mom ‘n pop initiative can get enough signatures as well, there might be — at least — three initiatives on the same subject: rent control.

Which, naturally, will be confusing and will probably make most people vote against all of them out of sheer frustration.

I’ll review the new rent control ban initiative tomorrow, but in the meantime, let’s look at Tony Daysog’s mom ‘n pop proposal.

This mom n’ pop (MNP) landlord initiative would allow MNP landlords to be exempt from the relocation fee.

A MNP landlord would be defined as an Alameda resident owning six (6) units or less.  You only need to have lived in Alameda for one year to qualify as a “resident” per Tony Daysog’s initiative.

Additionally, if you are not an Alameda resident you will be exempt from the initiative if you can prove that you lived in that unit for at least one year prior to moving someplace else.

But even though Tony Daysog will elect to hype up that these are only protections for MNP landlords the initiative also changes the ordinance passed by the City Council with regard to relocation fees to only cover very-low, low, and moderate income households.  Also to only allow for a maximum of two months’ rent plus $1500 for relocation fees.

Essentially what this does is create a disincentive to rent to very-low, low, and moderate income households because renting to folks that do not fall into the moderate income or below scale would not require paying a relocation fee if the landlord decides to evict.

But, naturally, Tony Daysog is too concerned about protecting MNP landlords that being concerned that his initiative would result in creating a caste system for renters.

Advertisements

81 Comments »

  1. Qualified “small mom and pops” landlords are only exempt from paying relocation fees in the one specific instance of a family move-in, meaning all the many other circumstances that trigger relocation assistance enumerated in the March 2016 ordinance continues even for the small mom and pops.

    Comment by tony daysog — April 6, 2016 @ 7:54 am

  2. Will limiting relocation fees to very low, low, and moderate income tenants prove to be a disincentive on the part of landlords to rent to them: Berkeley limits relocation fees to low income tenants. Oakland Ellis Act based relocation fees similarly limited to lower income.

    The key thing is this: the mass eviction of Harbor Isle in 2004 in which 400 plus tenants were given notice to move pronto, and the mass eviction notices given to 30 plus residents at 470 Central clearly indicate low income tenants are especially vulnerable in hot hot housing conditions, hence the need to target relocation assistance to lower income tenants, and as circumstances dictate in Alameda (unlike Berkeley), even broaden eligibility to moderate income tenants.

    As Google\Makani expands its footprint in Alameda, or even Uber in nearby Oakland, as well paid, way above moderate income workers there decide to rent in Alameda, did we really mean to create a relocation assistance regime to help them, because, at the end of the day, when added up, the current relocation formula will result in off the chart transfers to even them.

    Comment by tony daysog — April 6, 2016 @ 8:08 am

    • You’re creating two classes of renters in addition to creating two classes of landlords.

      A landlord that can choose between a tenant in which they would not have to pay relocation fees to and a tenant in which they would have to pay the fees would undoubtedly choose the one that is less likely to cause them to pay a relocation fee if they decide they don’t want that tenant around anymore.

      The mass eviction at Harbor Island in 2004 in which you were on the City Council when it happened shows a need for greater protections for renters, not a nominal payoff to help these families leave the Island faster. Don’t paint this as you protecting low income tenants. You should have done that 12 years ago.

      Comment by Lauren Do — April 6, 2016 @ 8:40 am

      • My point is this: in places such as Berkeley and Oakland, when it comes to relocation assistance, those places target to low-income. So, my hope is to replicate that approach,which I am convinced is right and appropriate, i.e. target policy to persons with gravest need.

        Let’s make policy based on right reasons, not merely because it is the most elegant thing to do (ie allow relocation benefits to all [elegant] versus target relocation assistance to lower- and moderate-income [inelegant but right]).

        Again, thanks.

        Comment by tony daysog — April 6, 2016 @ 10:37 am

        • FYI:

          What is moderate income for purposes of the charter amendment:

          A one-person household is moderate income and eligible for relocation assistance if this household makes anywhere from $50,151 to $78,550
          A two-person household is moderate income and eligible for relocation assistance if this household makes anywhere between $57,300 and $89,750
          A three-person household is moderate income and eligible for relocation assistance if this household makes anywhere between $64,451 and $101,000
          A four-person household is moderate income and eligible for relocation assistance if this household makes anywhere between $71,601 and $112,200

          What is low-income for purposes of the charter amendment:

          A one-person household is low income and eligible for relocation assistance if this household makes anywhere from $32,751 to $50,150
          A two-person household is low income and eligible for relocation assistance if this household makes anywhere between $37,401 and $57,300
          A three-person household is low income and eligible for relocation assistance if this household makes anywhere between $42,101 and $64,450
          A four-person household is low income and eligible for relocation assistance if this household makes anywhere between $46,751 and $71,600

          Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160315063452/http://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-policy-development/housing-resource-center/reports/state/inc2k15.pdf

          Comment by tony daysog — April 6, 2016 @ 11:09 am

  3. Thank you for posting.

    Comment by tony daysog — April 6, 2016 @ 8:09 am

  4. Lauren,

    I don’t usually disagree with you but you are not a renter or a landlord and live in a 3,600 sq. ft. $1.5 million house . I have compassion for renters but I don’t think rent control is the correct way of handling it. I rented under rent control in SF for years and it didn’t help me at all. Once in a rent controlled apartment people stay forever and the people on the lower end don’t get rent controlled properties because there are none available. My roommate had his apartment for years and could have bought a place but he had a good deal. He paid I think $1,500 for the 3 bedroom apartment and I paid $1,200 to him for a 10′ x 10′ room. He did eventually buy a property a few years after I moved out and the owner then was able to raise the rent to market which was $4,500. The owner refused to make any improvements to the place until he moved out. After he moved, the owner refinished the hardwood floors, painted, replaced the windows, insulated the place, got rid of the mold in the bathroom, fixed up the outside of the building ect…

    I would definitely vote of the measure which would ban rent control.

    Comment by joelsf — April 6, 2016 @ 8:19 am

    • Who said that I am not one or the other? I could be a landlord, I could also be a renter as well.

      Comment by Lauren Do — April 6, 2016 @ 8:35 am

      • some local realtor scuttlebutt does indicate that Lauren owns more Alameda real property than that Bayport house…she might be a landlord

        Comment by vigi — April 6, 2016 @ 9:33 am

        • Who owns 406 Channing Way, 94502 and how much has the rent been jacked there?

          Comment by vigi — April 8, 2016 @ 11:20 am

        • If that is inded the case, then isn’t her advocacy of rent control more altruistic than greedy? And, how is the charming Karin Lucas? Gotta love the old, angry, white, conservative Alameda Inner Ring.

          Comment by BC — April 8, 2016 @ 11:49 am

        • Winner winner Chicken dinner! Her Costa Hawkins protected house becomes more valuable with rent control!!
          Those of us who are honest on both sides must always question the motives of the parasites . My Spidey senses are going off. I smell a Jeff Cambra future want to be politician in Laura Do.

          Who runs Barter town?

          Comment by Ted — April 8, 2016 @ 12:03 pm

        • Not that it’s anyone’s business but I don’t own the house at the address listed above.

          Comment by Lauren Do — April 8, 2016 @ 12:30 pm

        • It wasn’t particularly difficult to find the name of the owner of 406 Channing Way. It’s not a name I’m going to disclose here simply because I’m pretty certain it’s not someone who is participating on this blog. I could be wrong, but it’s not my business.

          Comment by John K — April 8, 2016 @ 12:37 pm

        • But every other house in town is your business LMFAO

          I’m so in your head John, I’m paying rent fool.

          Comment by Ted — April 8, 2016 @ 12:56 pm

        • Oh, really, Ted? Interesting that you’ve taken so much time and interest in the personal lives and details of the renters you rant about – who is in whose head? But, again, what you say here is meaningless and accomplishes nothing. As I’ve said before, we got the moratorium, the rent ordinance and now the ballot initiative- oh, and let’s not forget that we got the entire composition of the RRAC changed from being packed with lawyers and real estate agents. You, on the other hand, haven’t accomplished anything. I suggest you take your phoney-balony, do-nothing histrionics and stick them you-know-where.

          Comment by John K — April 10, 2016 @ 12:21 am

        • Good morning John!

          You won! I lost ! Can’t blame me for trying . Maybe next life.
          Why are you not enjoying this Sunday. I may share a frustration I have from time to time , but letting it consume me like your doing will only harm you. Now go to work and sell some crop tops!

          Comment by Ted — April 10, 2016 @ 9:01 am

  5. Joel — this is exactly what I mean when I say — rent control transfers property rights to tenants. Let’s repeat what you just said: the master tenant paid $1,500 to his landlord for a 3 bedroom rent controlled apartment, and then charged you $1,200 for a 10′ x 10′ room. If it was 3 bedroom aparment, he probably charged the same or similar price to another sub-tenant — thereby making a “profit” on his rent controlled apartment.

    Tell me why this is fair!! Just wondering, are “rooms” exempt in the new tenant ordinance?

    Comment by Karen Bey — April 6, 2016 @ 8:59 am

  6. Daysog’s proposal definitely creates two classes of renters, and, it would be a very large group – at least 30% of renters would lose the relocation benefit. I think the MNP landlords should be required to disclose this when renting their apartments – a legal disclosure that their units are exempt from certain provisions of the Rent Ordinance, the relocation portion to be exact (and any others).

    Further, the notice of the exemption should be given to prospective tenants upon first viewing the unit or, at the very least, at the time of signing the lease. Tenants must be made aware of this to the extent of requiring them to sign an acknowledgement of the exemption prior to renting.

    I still have no idea why any landlord with more than six units would support such a measure.

    Comment by John K — April 6, 2016 @ 9:00 am

    • Mr. Klein write, “at least 30% of renters would lose the relocation benefit”. To be sure, in my initiative only qualified “small mom and pops” landlords (ie those who live in the City of Alameda and who own no more than 6 units) are exempt from paying relocation fees and the exemption has to with ONE specific instance involving family move-in, meaning all the many other circumstances that trigger relocation assistance enumerated in the March 2016 ordinance continues even for the small mom and pops. So, the relocation benefit is still in place, except in the ONE circumstance when a landlord wants to move back into their unit.

      Example: maybe a homeowner was living with a long-time partner elsewhere in town and in the meantime rented out her one and only residential nit she owns, a 3-bedroom home. She’d be liable for almost $20,000 in relocation fees just to move back in her own home starting right now, if she rented her space for four years to the same tenant. That’s simply not reasonable and right.

      Thank you.

      Comment by tony daysog — April 6, 2016 @ 11:26 am

      • First off: thank you, Tony, for your reasoned and continued participation here. I know it’s not always friendly for you but everybody seems to be staying civil.

        Your initiative also restricts relocation to extremely-low, very-low, low and moderate income. In your example, it’s unlikely that a 3-bedroom home would occupied by any of these groups but the reality of the rental market is the same regardless of income unless tenants are high net-worth individuals. That is, tenants who can afford a 3-bedroom rental will face dramatically higher rents like everyone else, so tenant income for determining whether relocation costs are due shouldn’t apply.

        Following the same sort of reasoning, why not have an income/asset test for MNPs? If a MNP landlord has a net worth of, say, $3-$4 million, then how can they claim ‘poor’? Relocation costs aren’t punishment or disincentives, they are to proved the actual costs to relocate tenants who must move through no fault of their own.

        Comment by John K — April 6, 2016 @ 5:45 pm

        • I kinda agree with my favorite Oaklander , Me. Klein.

          Comment by Ted — April 6, 2016 @ 5:50 pm

        • Any thought to offering a tax abatement (or a refund of that part of the property tax remitted to the City) to the owner who through no fault of her own has to move herself or an infirm family member back into the property, in the amount of the relo payment ?

          Comment by MP — April 6, 2016 @ 7:30 pm

  7. When Tony Daysog first ran for City Council, I thought he was a progressive–because he said he was. I have learned that he is not, despite claims when he ran again that he had “changed” and told us he would no longer be the long-winded but ultimately indecisive and conservative/reactionary council member he had been during his first terms on the City Council.

    You can fool some of the people some of the time, but his recent votes to deny substantial protections against price gouging and eviction to renters have taught us a sad lesson about who Tony Daysog really is….

    Comment by Jon Spangler — April 6, 2016 @ 9:22 am

    • About me, Mr. Spangler writes, “his recent votes to deny substantial protections against price gouging and eviction to renters”. To set the record straight, I support and voted for the March 2016 ordinance because I am convinced the binding hearing process (adopted to give teeth to the previously tooth-less voluntary RRAC process) will stop what brought us to here in the first place, i.e. excessive rent increases on the order of 10%,15%,20%,25%,30%,35% and more. All tenants and all landlords (except those exempted by virtue of state law called Costa-Hawkins),including small mom and pops, are subject to the binding hearing process to stop excessive rent increases. That is a substantial protection to tenants,about which the City and each Councilmember can be proud. The March 2016 ordinance still needs to be change in an effort to make it fairer in regards to how the relocation fee impacts especially slam small mom and pop and lords — so for them, I am seeking targeted exemption specific only to owner move-in; I am not seeking a blanket exemption.

      Comment by tony daysog — April 6, 2016 @ 10:20 am

  8. John K
    Are “rooms” exempt from rent control in the new tenant initiative?

    Comment by Karen Bey — April 6, 2016 @ 9:37 am

  9. The City Ordinance (less so) and the ARC initiative (more so) also create two classes of renters, and more so as time goes on. (The ARC initiative also creates two classes of people eligible to run for public office –See section 6 — one subject to a standardless and malleable test, and one not). That said, I rather not see everyone on all sides trying to bake their preferences into the City Charter

    Comment by MP — April 6, 2016 @ 9:56 am

  10. A landlord is always going to favor the prospective tenant with the highest income because they are presumed to be the least likely to fail to pay their rent. They will rent to the person applying with the best credit and the highest income. Rent control will probably lessen the number of single family houses available to rent because the relocation costs would be huge for the landlord and many will decide to sell, with most of those properties going to home buyers rather than investors. Rent control has not been shown to be effective overall. It solves one problem while creating a host of other ones.It most certainly creates two classes of renters as well: those who got in early and those who did not.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — April 6, 2016 @ 9:58 am

  11. Council did not put in a just cause eviction policy in the recently passed ordinance at the behest of the landlords. In response, the relocation assistance had to be fairly generous to provide the needed disincentive to evict long term tenants whose rents are significantly below current asking prices.

    Tony’s initiative removes about half of that disincentive to ALL landlords, including ones at 470 Central or Summer House. In addition, he says that people like me don’t deserve protection from eviction because my landlord inherited a multi-unit east end property with a tax basis of $70,000. I will pay almost that much over the course of my two year lease.

    Comment by BMac — April 6, 2016 @ 11:07 am

    • Mr. MacGuire writes, “Tony’s initiative removes about half of that disincentive to ALL landlords”. By this, I believe Mr. MacGuire is referring to the change in the relocation assistance formula I am proposing, from four months plus $1,500 to two months plus $1,500. BACKGROUND: the two month plus move-out expenses formula is aligned with what I have seen in my research. The City of Glendale has this provision. The City of Richmond in its initial efforts also sought a two month plus move out expenses. As indicated earlier, Oakland Ellis Act relocation assistance is also two months. Finally, Berkeley’s relocation assistance cap of $4,500 is roughly equivalent to a two months plus expenses, if not somewhat below two month plus expenses.

      Thank you.

      Comment by tony daysog — April 6, 2016 @ 11:48 am

      • If you were attempting to protect MNP landlord’s why adjust this particular piece of the policy passed by the City Council for big corporate landlords that you say are the real problem. So essentially your initiative is not just to protect MNP landlords but rather to insulate all landlords, including the ones that you have indicated are the problems.

        Comment by Lauren Do — April 6, 2016 @ 11:58 am

        • As indicated directly above, my research indicates that two months plus $1,500 is the standard relocation assistance package, in looking at Berkeley, Glendale, Oakland, and Richmond. That’s basically three months worth of rent, no? That is a reasonable sufficient amount. Thanks.

          Comment by tony daysog — April 6, 2016 @ 12:27 pm

    • I haven’t read the text of Mr Daysog’s (rather quixotic) initiative, so I must ask: does he really get that granular? Does he differentiate between various methods of acquisition, location and tax bases?

      Comment by dave — April 6, 2016 @ 12:01 pm

  12. Rent control is a policy for those who want to pretend that they are addressing the housing shortage issue. The ARC initiative has so many hidden land mines that it should really be called the “relinquishing of property rights initiative “. And all Tony’s trying to do is gather some votes for November . The correction in the market has already began, but that doesn’t matter to politicians or the John Kleins of the world, they have their own agenda and I have nothing to do with housing .

    Comment by Ted — April 6, 2016 @ 12:46 pm

    • It not I – Auto correct 🙂

      Comment by Ted — April 6, 2016 @ 12:47 pm

    • Mr. Ted writes,”And all Tony’s trying to do is gather some votes for November”. With half of Alameda’s population as renters,which is probably also reflected in the voter rolls, and with an expected heavy turn out of tenants, the political thing is probably to **not** push my initiative. But pushing the initiative **is** the right thing to do,especially now,because, right now,small ‘mom and pops’ are at risk of having to pay huge relocation costs. They have explained to me their need to move back in, or move-in family members back into rented out “granny flats” in their backyard, and the daunting relocation fee they will face. No, this is the right thing to do now.

      As for reducing relocation fee formula — from a purely political calculation, pushing for that reduction probably is not a political winner, no? But, again, changing the formula is the right thing to do: we **all** agree that low and moderate income tenants should be eligible for relocation assistance as the conditions warrant; and, we **all** an engineer working at Google or Uber or Apple or Pixar and renting a nice home in the Fernside should not be eligible for relocation assistance.

      Thank you.

      Comment by tony daysog — April 6, 2016 @ 1:14 pm

      • Tony,

        Thank you for your reply . I’m sorry if my frustrations come across as rude. So you do realize that the lady on Benton who started all this would be exempt from giving a relocation fee to the senior couple and the disabled child with your initiative ? She owned four units collectively . I actually appreciate that you are a moderate, I wish you had a stronger presence on the council . When are you going to officially come out against the ARC initiative? When are you going to lead ? And since you’re a numbers guy, how about some statistics regarding crime at the BVs before and after everyone was kicked out. Stop pretending it was a tragedy, it was a crime filled , blight filled area of our town . It was downright dangerous.

        ( on a sidenote, is anybody else noticing how concerned John K is about getting paid to leave his rented room? )
        Thank you

        Comment by Ted — April 6, 2016 @ 1:24 pm

        • On BVs: well,listen, yes, there was crime there and clearly the data indicated it was a crime hot spot. But,as you probably know, growing up in the West End in the 70s and 80s, that was a place where many of my friends and classmates resided — even a UC Berkeley valedictorian (and EHS valedictorian) came from the BVs. So, crime notwithstanding, it was also a community. And to see many of their parents still there in 2004: well, when the 15 Group did what it did then, you got to do something. I’m proud of my role is trying to help out the residents there in 2004 — on Council, we tried our level best back then. We took it to court, where Judge Alsop finally said that the 15 Group can proceed. We gave it a fight, and we obtained paltry relocation assistance. So when I pushed the concept of relocation assistance in September or October, it was because of what I remembered in 2004. And when I raised the concept, I got push back for even raising the concept of relocation assistance. Then: WHAM! 470 Central Avenue happens, and then suddenly there’s a sea change in general attitude toward relocation assistance. The relocation amount should be the standard amount — two months and moving expenses — right now we on Council made it roughly five months worth of rent — that’s overkill. Again, thanks.

          Comment by tony daysog — April 6, 2016 @ 1:47 pm

        • Tony,

          You forgot the ARC relinquishing of property rights initiative . Where do you stand? Stand for something !

          Thanks Tony

          Comment by Ted — April 6, 2016 @ 1:53 pm

        • The focus of my attention is on my initiative: gathering the signatures is daunting. Since Council will in all likelihood deliberate on the ARC, I’ll have to reserve my judgement on that until then. (I haven’t read it yet — it’s many pages!). In the early 90s,while in grad school, I did research for the Berkeley property owners in a project funded by the Pacific Legal Foundation (hey! I was a starving grad student!), which demonstrated the affects of Berkeley’s rent control on the African-American population. All that aside, clearly, I am convinced that the March 2016 ordinance addresses the major problem that brought us here,ie excessive rent increase problem via the binding hearing process placed on top of the RRAC, as well as mass evictions,though as indicated here, that ordinance needs to be changed in a few place that keeps in tact tenant protections but makes things fair for small ‘mom and pop’ landlords.

          Comment by tony daysog — April 6, 2016 @ 2:19 pm

        • So instead of making the relocation fee a deterrent for groups like the 15 Group and 470 Central and prevent mass evictions Tony Daysog instead wants to go back to the paltry amount of relocation assistance that will be embedded in the charter rather than having to go to court to fight for the money.

          Comment by Lauren Do — April 6, 2016 @ 2:21 pm

        • No,we’re going to have to disagree, Ms. Do: three months of rent is not a paltry amount. That’s why that’s the figure basically for Glendale, Berkeley, Oakland (Ellis Act instances),and something that even Richmond sought. I get it that, in championing for my formula of 2 months plus $1,500 I, by doing simple math, generate an amount that is half of the relocation fees that would be generated by formula right now in the ordinance (4 months plus $1500). There’s no way around that.

          But I urge readers to see two things: the proper comparison for the relocation amount is what is set (or sought) in nearby areas of Berkeley, Oakland and Richmond, and even Glendale in southern California. An improper comparison is the standard 2 months and expenses (effectively three months of rent) formula against four months plus $1500 (effectively five months of rent).

          Thank you.

          Comment by tony daysog — April 6, 2016 @ 2:36 pm

        • Here’s the truth Ruth!

          No Rent Control – is never worked, San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland are proof.

          We need relocation money for tenants to move with dignity.

          All the blogging in the world isn’t going to change the fact that this is one of the most desirable places in the world to live . They don’t have our issues in Buffalo New York 🙂

          The ARC relinquishing of property rights initiative serves no purpose towards the housing solution.

          This is not landlords versus the renters, ARC is assuming that renters are all in despair . Most renters are doing just fine and living a very vibrant life and our town. Most of them are educated from first-hand experience that rEnt control does not work in the towns they used to live in.

          There are plenty of communities in the bay area that offer safe neighborhoods, schools and desirable neighborhoods but will be more affordable for those struggling . No one including myself is guaranteed a spot on this island .

          Comment by Ted — April 6, 2016 @ 3:09 pm

        • Again, Tony Daysog, you seem to not understand that the higher relocation assistance rate offered by your colleagues was a deterrent to evictions to raise rates, not what is the absolute least amount that the landlord should be expected to pay when they want to cash in on a hot property market by evicting an Alamedan without cause.

          Comment by Lauren Do — April 6, 2016 @ 3:35 pm

        • Ms. Do writes, ” . . . not what is the absolute least amount that the landlord should be expected to pay when they want to cash in on a hot property market by evicting an Alamedan without cause.” There is no reason to believe that leaders in far-left progressive, liberal cities like Berkeley, Oakland (Ellis Act instances) and Richmond, in seeking their respective relocation formulas (roughly 2 months plus expenses) to defend tenants in their areas, sought the “absolute least amount,” because in the end, I am seeking to replicate the standard they set. So, while the Rhetoric 1A technique is duly noted, in the end, it’s just that, i.e. a rhetorical ploy: characterize the formula I seek (3 months of effective rent) as “absolute least amount” in an effort to make the current formula (5 months of effective rent) appear reasonable.

          No one is arguing that my formula yields a relocation assistance amount that is less than what the current formula yields — but to characterize it as the “absolute least amount” would be incorrect much as it is based on Berkeley, Oakland, Richmond .. and Glendale. Thank you.

          Comment by tony daysog — April 6, 2016 @ 4:22 pm

        • Tony Daysog: All of those communities began protecting their tenant residents long before Alameda decided to with relocation assistance amounts that were reasonable for the time that their ordinances were passed. When cities like Palo Alto and, yes, even Oakland are considering raising the amount of household income that would qualify for subsidized housing then yes, your halved reduction of the relocation fee that was passed by this — fairly conservative — City Council is the absolute least amount.

          The goal is not to pay off tenants to leave their homes and this city, the point of the relocation assistance fee is a deterrent, something that you refuse to acknowledge even though that was the stated goal of the other members on the City Council.

          Comment by Lauren Do — April 6, 2016 @ 4:56 pm

        • Lauren,

          You can only have your point of view regarding relocation fees if you are a person who has enough money to relocate . The relocation money is intended to allow people to move on the dime of the investor , rather then beg, borrow or steal. And if they have to move to San Leandro or Hayward for example , the people of Syria or starving kids of Africa may not consider that a ” crisis “. That’s just moving . It also seems you keep pushing back on Tony for the sake of pushing back. The relocation is not meant to be a ” lottery moment ” for the tenant. The only thing I would suggest is that it be 2 months of market rent , not current rent.

          Comment by Ted — April 6, 2016 @ 5:12 pm

        • The purpose of the relocation fee — at least the way that Alameda’s relocation fee is structured — is to be a deterrent to make landlords think twice about whether or not that extra 20- 30% they can levy on the next renter is worth the money they would need to pay out to evict a tenant without cause. Tony Daysog thinks it needs to be the absolute minimum that he feels is “fair.” I’m pretty sure that most renters would prefer to stay in their homes rather than collect a perceived “lottery” amount of two – four months rent.

          Comment by Lauren Do — April 6, 2016 @ 5:24 pm

        • Ms. Do writes,”the point of the relocation assistance fee is a deterrent”. I’m sorry but we’re just going to have to part ways on this, and simply agree to disagree. I see a relocation fee formula of 3-months-of-effective-rent as a deterrent to stop mass evictions, or single evictions for various no cause reasons. If a 3-months-of-effective-rent formula was in place in 2004 (Harbor Isle) or even in 2014 (470 Central),I suspect that would have deterred those mass relocations, Likewise, a 3-months-of-effective-rent formula would serve as a deterrent to landlords seeking to push out single tenants for “no cause” reasons. Like the 3-months-of-effective-rent formula, the 5-months-of-effective-rent formula is a deterrent. Both formulas deter.

          But there is an inherent problem in the binary manner in which you rhetorically characterize “3-months-of-effective-rent formula” versus “5-months-of-effective-rent formula”, as in (to you) the latter **does** deter while the former **does not** deter. You see the inherent problem, right?

          It’s this: the time over which a landlord would bank 5-months worth of rent as a reserve (in the event relocation assistance is needed) by necessity implies that the landlord will first collect three-months worth of rent as a reserve, no? So, if by your logic, 3 months of effective rent provides “no deterrence”, then by that logic, neither does 5 months, right? Since this just means the landlord (hell bent on some kind of project requiring no cause eviction) will bide her or his time until the kitty is full,then pull that trigger.

          So, in the end, when it comes to the effectiveness of the relocation formulas, it’s not binary (ie one deters while the other does not deter). Either both deter, or both do not deter, or both exhibit varying shades of deterrence. But it is incorrect to say “one deters” while the other “does not deter.”

          But to the key point of the initiative: the relocation formula as it stands now falls incredibly hard on small ‘mom and pop’ landlords, especially the likes of a homeowner who just wants to move back into the only home they own after living away for a while. Or a homeowner who wants to move-in an elderly family member into the accessory unit\granny flat behind her house.

          The formula right now imposes and incredibly unfair penalty — $19,300 in relocation fees for a 3-bedroom house? That on its face is unreasonable.

          So, (a) exempt Alameda-based small ‘mom and pop’ landlords along the narrowly targeted lines of what I propose, ie only in family move-in situations, and (b) change the relocation fee formula to what is the right amount, and (c) target relocation fees to low and moderate-income tenants only.

          Thank you.

          Comment by tony daysog — April 6, 2016 @ 5:48 pm

        • Well said Tony

          Comment by Ted — April 6, 2016 @ 5:59 pm

        • Aren’t “mass evictions” under the Ordinance prevented without regard to the level of relocation benefits?

          Comment by MP — April 6, 2016 @ 6:08 pm

    • Thanks, Doug…..lol.

      Comment by John K — April 6, 2016 @ 2:17 pm

    • Actually, Ted, the ARC has been pretty specific that the ballot or any other rent control measure is not about addressing the housing shortage, it is about keeping existing tenants housed. I don’t think it was your intent, don’t blame rent control for not fixing a problem it wasn’t designed to fix.

      Comment by notadave — April 11, 2016 @ 9:46 am

      • Appreciate your insight. But I’ve said several times before, had this work in San Francisco, Oakland, or Berkeley. It’s a failed system. I understand how frustrated people might look at it as a solution, but it is not. We need below market units for for qualified people who are making a living , but not making tech money. This does work. Other cities have this program. For example , I could only rent 2 out of every 10 units to median income or below. That saves spots for teachers, nurses etc . Rent control should never be anything but a temporary ” time out ” till an actual housing plan is devised. The moritorium worked . The market has softened and we are now calling down.

        Comment by Ted — April 11, 2016 @ 9:56 am

  13. Tony Daysog’s foray into amending the rent ordinance proves the absolute need for renters to coalesce and support ARC’s ballot measure. I used to oppose the measure, but knowing how little it would take for current renter protections to be dismantled, as shown by Daysog’s amendments I am convinced that more needs to be done, especially since there are no housing alternatives for most renters. It’s not like large swaths of moderately priced housing are coming to the Bay Area any time soon. This means that landlords have a monopoly and that we renters are a cash buffet, forced to pay whatever is asked, because the “free” market is impinged by outdated zoning laws that place priorities on quaint notions of suburban housing over dense, transit connected, multipriced housing for everyone. You can’t have it both ways. If you want NIMBYism, you have to also suck it up to rent control, and that requires having meaningful consequences for displacing residents at every price point.

    Renters will know all too well after the greed of the last 4 years that a vote for rent control is a vote for the smallest chance of having stable housing in the Bay Area.

    Comment by Angela Pallatto Hockabout — April 6, 2016 @ 3:40 pm

    • Ms. Hockabout writes, “Tony Daysog’s foray into amending the rent ordinance proves”. The reality is that gathering the required number of signatures will be a daunting task. So, this is not a foray in the colloquial sense of the word. Thanks.

      Comment by tony daysog — April 6, 2016 @ 3:44 pm

    • Suck it up?!?! Angela try coming to terms with the fact that your blogging won’t pay your bills. Who are you? It’s not my fault you continue to make horrible choices! Now I have to pay your way? My bad , your living for free at your husbands mommies house . Less time on comic books and wine!! You are a sickness in this town!!!! How dare you tell anyone how to live when you can’t manage your own life.

      Comment by Ted — April 6, 2016 @ 4:15 pm

      • Rent control is the economic untended consequence of elitism and NIMBYism, with the mayor campaigning on a no growth, NIMBY, provincial stance of “Alameda for Alamedans” only. Turning Alameda into Sausalito, Piedmont, Belmont or Palo Alto means paying a lot more taxes to keep the holy unwashed out of the city.

        Comment by Cindy — April 6, 2016 @ 4:39 pm

      • Personal attacks? How classy.

        Comment by Angela — April 8, 2016 @ 7:37 am

        • Angela ,

          After characterizing anyone in this town with private property as ” greedy Landlord” and the ranting of your fellow unemployed bloggers like Jason Buckley And Klein . That’s not personal? What did I say that was not true? You are broke because of you , not because of me. Less wine, less blogging, less Instagram and more gainful employment! You idiots go after everyone and none of you are in any danger of being ” classy “. I wonder what color your hair will be this week? Can’t wait to see. Focus!!!!

          Comment by Tex — April 8, 2016 @ 8:20 am

        • Here’s the question Angela?

          Did you apply for Section 8? That’s the program designed for family’s that need assistance with housing . The only downside for you would be that you would be required to get a job. The current lifestyle you have would be frowned upon by HUD. Get off your @ss!

          Over 700 on the waiting list and not one Alamedan!!!

          Comment by Ted — April 8, 2016 @ 8:36 am

        • OMG, Ted/Tex…unbelievable – you are really, really a smart guy. A lot smarter than the rest of us. Wow. The good news is for renters is, however, than literally nothing of what you say here has any relevance or impact in the real world. We got the moratorium, we got the rent ordinance (such as it is) and now on the way to the ballot. So – blast away…as if it’s making a difference cuz it’s not and you know it. PS. Stop being such an eff-ing bully, shitbag.

          Comment by John K — April 8, 2016 @ 8:40 am

        • I better be careful before you break my hip !

          Comment by Ted — April 8, 2016 @ 9:03 am

        • See John your the bully. You tried to violently enter the council chambers. You broke an old mans hip. You can put all the Budist back grounds you want , but your actions spoke volumes about the violent f*cker you really are. Now remember your advice. Less social media , less lipstick time , more planning for your golden years which are around the very foreseeable future . You little trick !

          Comment by Ted — April 8, 2016 @ 9:11 am

        • Haha…Ted, you are so predictable. As I said, nothing of what you have to say has or will change anything. Love me/hate me, doesn’t matter-I know I’ve made a difference and you haven’t, not even a little. You need to stfu, shitbag.

          Comment by John K — April 8, 2016 @ 10:07 am

        • You’re right John , you did make a difference, you’re causing market rate to continue to rise. Thank you.

          Comment by Ted — April 8, 2016 @ 11:15 am

        • No, by calling out specifically “greedy” landlords I am excluding regular landlords. There is a difference and Alameda is full of great landlords who have not gouged their tenants and kept their units well maintained, but there still existed plenty of unscrupulous, and yes greedy individuals who raised rents high enough to displace people, my landlord included. You cannot raise rents $450 on one unit and then $900 on another one and not call that greed and lucky for me I found the strength to stand up, organize people and say that such behavior does not belong in this city.

          You want to be mad at someone? Be mad at the landlords who gouged tenants and forced renters into taking political action.

          I have no problem with landlords in general, so long as they don’t displace tenants unnecessarily. In fact, you may not remember that I spent a significant amount of time working with landlords during my tenure leading the Alameda Renters Coalition. I’m actually one of the few renters who appreciates hearing their perspective and tries to find a balance in working with our existing housing supply. I still believe as indicated in my first comment that rent control is necessary in a region that is incapable of building the housing that matches its employment engine. Until Alameda and the Bay Area at large changes how they zone for housing I’m going to continue to support rent control as the only tool available to reliably keep renters in their homes and protected by speculators.

          Comment by Angela Pallatto Hockabout — April 8, 2016 @ 2:30 pm

        • Those are big raises. It might be greed or gouging, or there may be a story on the other side.

          The ARC continually uses the phrase “greedy landlords” and basically defines that as raising rent by more than about 1.5%, a very low threshold for defining “greed” or “gouging”, particularly in this place and at this time. Add to that what someone described as the prospect of dealing with a regulatory thicket similar to the DMV (if not more adversarial) (As a side note, the link in today’s Blogging Bayport post reports that lawyers are, apparently, already the highest paid cohort in the City). Like it or not, I think that a lot of the great landlords lose heart with regard to great maintenance, great improvements or even keeping certain great units on the market at all in that environment.

          Comment by MP — April 8, 2016 @ 4:17 pm

        • Angela:

          Have you ever asked for a raise? Or if you’e self employed, have you eve raised your prices?

          Have you ever changed jobs for higher pay? If you have, are you greedy? Were you gouging when you did that?

          Local landlords put up with a decade of flat to falling rents while their costs rose. They had to accept that condition because that’s how the market was, and I don’t recall them trying to overturn contract law & property rights during that time.

          The tide has turned, at least for now. Renting housing is landlords’ business, their JOB. They’re getting raises because conditions warrant them. When the tide turns again, things will change again.

          If you, or any other person, has the right to get a raise or change jobs for more pay, so do landlords, no?

          Comment by dave — April 8, 2016 @ 5:55 pm

  14. Ted seems nice.

    Comment by BMac — April 6, 2016 @ 4:24 pm

    • Lauren,

      I have seen Angela and her fellow entitled hipsters tear apart in the most vicious manner any person who has an aposing opinion. Their catchphrases of “greedy landlord ” is getting tired. You know there’s nothing wrong with explaining to them that a different municipality may suit their financial means better . It ok to say that out loud. Doing her a disservice otherwise . In ten years she’s going to have the exact same problem she has now, but she’ll have 10 more years under her belt .

      Is your tone on this blog being affected by the fact that you were leaked as a landlord in Alameda by Karen? Coddling people never helps .

      Comment by Ted — April 6, 2016 @ 4:48 pm

      • Your reading comprehension is really bad. You are not replying to Lauren and Karen didn’t out anybody. Nice try though.

        Comment by BMac — April 6, 2016 @ 5:16 pm

        • Your just getting 2% of my attention. I just don’t have your scary successful life I guess to watch the screen so attentively . Bet my last dollar you’re not this outgoing in person .

          Comment by Ted — April 6, 2016 @ 5:48 pm

        • “Bet my last dollar you’re not this outgoing in person .”

          lolz. I guess you didn’t earn that last dollar as an FBI profiler.

          Comment by BMac — April 6, 2016 @ 6:23 pm

  15. does anyone have a link to the 3rd rent control-related petition, i.e. banning R/C? thanks

    Comment by MP — April 6, 2016 @ 7:06 pm

  16. Buena Vista?

    Just felt like running thru the old neighborhood on the way in today!

    A post shared by Jimmy Rollins (@jrollins11) on

    Daysog, SFGate, February 2000

    http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Converting-a-Navy-Base-With-a-View-New-2804875.php

    “A coalition of churches, local housing advocates and a nonprofit housing corporation have approached the Alameda City Council with a proposal to purchase the East Housing for $5 million. This coalition wants to rehabilitate the 590 units as a mix of low-income rentals and affordable condominiums. In a nutshell, the matter of what to do with the East Housing comes down to this: if the issue regarding the East Housing were solely about affordable housing, then what this coalition (“Renewed Hope”) proposes makes sense.

    However, the East Housing must be understood within a broader context involving strategies for mitigating the costs of conversion. In this light, Renewed Hope’s proposal falls short of what is needed. Market price for the East Housing land alone ranges between $18 million and $29 million, far above Renewed Hope’s offer.”

    ……

    Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority City of Alameda, Component Unit Basic Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Reports For the year ended June 30, 2011

    “Bayport has generated approximately $28.5 million in net revenues from land sales proceeds….. generate $19,300,000 in residential profit participation and approximately $5,000,000 in reimbursements. These revenues will be used to pay for the Commission’s obligations under the DDA, which total approximately $75,100,000 and include demolition and the construction of major backbone infrastructure to support the Bayport project.”
    —–
    Daysog argued to mitigate the cost of base conversion with $22 million in public debt to build Bayport rather than receive $5 million in revenue to preserve affordable housing. Can’t fix stupid.

    Comment by Gerard L. — April 6, 2016 @ 7:30 pm

  17. I’ve always enjoyed watching Jimmy Rollins. Not super strong sabre-metrically but a contact hitter with speed is fun to watch. Plus anyone who can play SS daily for 15+ years is a supremely tough and durable player. I’m considering knocking off early & going to the game tomorrow, in part because it may be one of my last chances to see him play in person.

    Comment by dave — April 6, 2016 @ 8:48 pm

  18. Ou vey, not East Housing again. But, because I consider as my “baby” (a teen now!), let me discuss this. First, let’s begin by addressing Mr. Gerard’s rhetorical approach, of providing numbers but providing no context, in an effort to scare.

    Oops I, Gerard, conveniently forgot to mention number 1: “Daysog argued to mitigate the cost of base conversion with $22 million in public debt…”: in the case of Bayport, the public debt is debt secured by revenues (also known as property tax increment) generated by the Bayport project itself. The impression Mr. Gerard is reaching for is to scare folks into think that, somehow, a person residing in the Fernside, HBI, or other parts of historic Alameda is on the hook for the $22 million in “public debt.” Why even issue the debt in the first place? For those who are new, in the case of the 70 acres that contained former military housing called East Housing, which is now where Bayport is, you had above the ground dilapidated, below code, and unsafe buildings, and, below the ground, poor if not failed and inadequate infrastructure. But what does it mean to address a site such as this? It means that the cost is doubled right off the bat. You first have to dig out the below surface dilapidated infrastructure, then pour in the new stuff. In contrast, when Ron Cowan was doing HBI, he was working on pretty much land that was ready to build; he didn’t have to do the tearing out on order required at Brownfield site like Bayport or Alameda Point generally. So, in working in this context, we, the City, chose the standard redevelopment approach, of issuing debt to tear out and build anew, with the debt paid for by the property taxes generated by the Bayport and Alameda a Landing itself. Which leads us to our next oooops Gerard forgot to mention. . .

    Oops, I, Gerard, conveniently forgot to mention number 2: “Daysog argued to mitigate the cost of base conversion with $22 million in public debt rather than receive $5 million in revenue to preserve affordable housing…”: so, the $5 million Mr. Gerard is referring to is the price for all of the East Housing buildings and the 70 acres of land underneath. What he conveniently forgets to mention is that, even if the City of Alameda sold a East Housing for $5 million, he would still have the city pay for the deficiencies mentioned above. At this scale of deficiency, there’d be no private tax credit subsidies or state subsidies for a project of this scale. So City Hall would still have to pursue that redevelopment approach mentioned above. But…………the ability to issue debt to pay for improvements because his project was low income project. So, there wouldn’t be enough property tax and property tax increment (which in this special rare case, for you wonks, was the same because of the baseline issue) to pay for the part of the Bayport-FISC project that ultimately became Alameda Landing. What, did you think bonding capacity to pay for preparing the land, building underneath the land, and constructing building on what ultimately became Alameda Landing just emerged out of nothing? So, if we sold East Housing and all the 70 acres for $5 million as Gerard would have us do, we’d still be on the hook for $20 plus million on infrastructure improvements for that 70 acre site, and we’d have little to no wherewithal for doing the adjacent FISC Alameda Landing site.

    Oops, I, Gerard, conveniently forgot to mention number 3: “these revenues will be used to pay for the Commission’s obligations under the DDA, which total approx. $75 million and include demolition and backbone infrastructure to support the Bayport project”: if memory serves me right, the backbone infrastructure and demolition cost for Bayport was roughly $29 million, which means that the same cost for Alameda Landing and the waterfront was placed at $46 million ($46 million = $75 million minus $29 million). So, Gerard by his almost 15 year fixation on getting a bargain basement deal of $5 million would cut into the underlying ability to meet $46 million in infrastructure needs outside of Bayport.

    Oops, I, Gerard, conveniently forgot to mention number 4: “Bayport has generated $19.3 million in profit participation”: here’s the story because I remember it well. At the time we were signing off on the DDA, I inquired what’s our projections as to sales price of homes. Initially, staff thought $400,000, which was more than break even but still a bit close. Then, as homes were built and being sold, homes started coming in at $600,000 then $700,000, then $800,000 a pop. That’s the source of the $19.3 million in profit participation from Bayport to the City (or redevelopment agency). But, if you ask me, the real PROFIT PARTICIPATION to the RESIDENTS OF ALAMEDA came…….when we restored the historic D’town movie theater, built the new cinemaplex, and built the parking structure on Park Street. “Whaaaaaa?” you ask. The tax increment generated by the Bayport project was such that we combined the redevelopment area for Park Street (known as BWIP), which had no ability to secure debt, with the redevelopment area supporting Bayport, whose underlying revenue stream was robust enough to secure debt issued for the movie theater restoration. So, my fellow Alamedans, always remember this: the West End of town is subsidizing Park Street revitalization.

    Oops, I, Gerard, conveniently forgot to mention number 5: Since Mr. Gerard is trying to weave a tale of a East Housing/Bayport as a parable of city officials not caring about affordable housing, to provide that complete picture, it would have been nice if he mentioned that City Council followed through on its commitment to provide affordable housing on the rest of the base, to the tune of setting aside 25% as affordable. This was an agreement we struck with Renewed Hope, and we are now seeing one of the first projects on NAS Alameda at Site A: I think ground breaking will occur in the summer.

    If you have the time, take a look at the guest column I wrote in the Chronicle slightly over sixteen years ago. Mr. Gerard graciously linked to it. As we move forward with Site A and nearby areas, a lot of the themes I raised 16 years ago persist to this day, as clearly indicated in the recent discussion we had about Building 8. But take a note a what I wrote at the end, on the importance of people working together to figure things out. Stay positive about Alameda Point, traffic, and the housing situation, and stay committed to working with each other to figure things out.

    Thanks.

    Comment by tony daysog — April 6, 2016 @ 10:40 pm

  19. Tony:

    Seek professional help.

    Comment by Gerard L. — April 7, 2016 @ 2:23 pm

  20. John,

    Anybody that knows how to use Google can check and confirm that rent controls cause rents to go up. You just locked out future generations from being able to move here.
    You can’t argue with economics. No matter how nice your lipstick looks. 🙂

    Comment by Ted don't lie — April 8, 2016 @ 11:20 am

    • Ted. I don’t care what you think. Go do something in the real world, shitbag.

      Comment by John K. — April 8, 2016 @ 11:39 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Say what you want

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.