Blogging Bayport Alameda

April 20, 2016

Going through a withdrawal

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:00 am

So strangely enough the other day the landlord group withdrew their filing.

Don’t be too excited/disappointed just yet.

They filed a new initiative that doesn’t seem all that different from the old one, but I have yet to do a line by line comparison, which I’ll probably do in another post.

It would appear that this ballot initiative had not actively started collecting signatures quite yet, otherwise they probably would have been reluctant to reboot the process if there were only small changes.

From the look of things, the Renters Coalition has been hitting the pavement hard for their signatures. They probably should be pretty close to meeting their numbers.  According to the updates to their website they’ve been consistently out there hustling for signatures.

Interestingly enough, it doesn’t appear as though Tony Daysog has done all that much work for his initiative.  Apparently it was less about actually “protecting” mom n’ pop landlords and simply doing something gimmicky to attract news coverage.



  1. Many landlords made rhetorical offers at public meetings, asking tenants “just talk to us and let us work things out together” (apparently in order to avoid rent stabilization measures of any substance being implemented). Sadly, though, over several years of our asking,no landlords were ever willing to sit down with tenants to develop mutually agreeable and Alameda-specific rent stabilization policies or guidelines that might have helped local landlords as well as tenants.

    I am not surprised that the landlords are now (falsely) blaming “outside interests” for stirring up or leading the movement for tenants’ rights and relief here in Alameda. This is a patently false claim: the Alameda Renters Coalition DID seek out the assistance of Tenants Together, but that was only to get the legal assistance we needed and it only took place months after we organized ourselves. No one came in from the outside to stir us up–the landlords’ egregious rent increases–the ones that were literally driving us out of our homes and this community–that accomplished that goal.

    So I am not surprised that the landlords are now maneuvering politically and raising big war chests to further crush half of the people who live in Alameda. And the landlords think this is going to be perceived as an attempt to achieve justice? Give me a break…

    Comment by Jon Spangler — April 20, 2016 @ 9:02 am

    • “So I am not surprised that the landlords are now maneuvering politically and raising big war chests to further crush half of the people who live in Alameda.” Are you forgetting about renters of single family houses? Something like a full quarter of the rental units in Alameda are single family homes. A question is how did the legal advice from Tenants Together in putting together the ARC initiative assist those renters. The rent control provisions in the ARC initiative do not (and can’t under state law) cover those units.

      But that’s not the only problem. From what I can see, Tenants Together’s advice – if it was their advice — resulted in language that seems to go out of its way to not only not cover rent increases on single family houses, but also to dissolve the Rent Review Advisory Committee. (From the ARC initiative: “Sec. 13. Supersedes.
This Charter Amendment shall supersede any ordinance passed by the Alameda City Council covering the area of rents or evictions.”)
 That would cut off the only City-provided procedure regarding rent increases for single family house tenants (including the tenants who appealed to the RRAC featured in a post from last week

      “Half of the people who live in Alameda” is often repeated to promote the initiative, but you have to look at the fine print.

      Comment by MP — April 20, 2016 @ 9:46 am

  2. The city ordinance was a compromise, Jon. It involves significant concessions from landlords as well as tenants. Landlords ceded some of their control over their own property, tenants received several protections and benefits. Neither side got everything it wanted, which I’ve heard is the definition of compromise.

    Comment by dave — April 20, 2016 @ 9:21 am

    • “Compromise”? You must speak some ancient language. BTW, I’ll raise you on that border wall by an additional 15 feet.

      Comment by MP — April 20, 2016 @ 10:04 am

      • ????

        Comment by dave — April 20, 2016 @ 10:49 am

        • Too oblique, yes. My point was that the idea of compromise seems a bit out of fashion this political year. That probably changes somewhat once we move out of primary season.

          Comment by MP — April 20, 2016 @ 11:00 am

  3. 2nd try and they still can’t get Ms. Schumacher’s name spelled correctly.

    Also, no Mr. Smallman signing onto this version?

    Perhaps the $$$ behind the two landlord friendly initiatives is waiting to see if the ARC initiative makes it onto the ballot, then will shoot for getting on the ballot for next year when turnout, especially amongst renters, would be down dramatically and their money would go further.

    Comment by BMac — April 20, 2016 @ 9:58 am

    • Silly landlords think now that renters are organized we’ll just quit once we pass our initiative!

      Comment by Jason Buckley — April 20, 2016 @ 2:00 pm

      • Jason,

        Should you not be practicing to play in an elevator somewhere!!!!
        1. It’s not my fault you are not an actual musician . It’s a hobby.
        2. It’s not my fault that you are winded from reading this reply.
        3. It’s not the doughnuts fault that you are so unhealthy.
        4. It’s not my fault that smoking an e cigarette Is more important to you then watching your kid get married.
        5. Get a job!
        6. Work out!
        7. Live in a LEGAL unit in a community you can afford!
        8. Keep talking shit fat boy!

        Comment by Master Blaster — April 22, 2016 @ 9:38 pm

        • 1-2-1-9


          Comment by Master Blaster — April 22, 2016 @ 9:39 pm

        • Buckley,

          The fact that you are a man is enough to make me go straight! You are really disgusting . Your chins, your fat , your nasty ass body. And your stupid as f@ck!!! It’s a scientific fact that your body type has no testosterone and the belly fat hold estrogen ! We all know you could not get it up to save your life.

          Comment by Master Blaster — April 22, 2016 @ 9:50 pm

        • sounds like a campaign to see who gets to go back to the 2nd grade. who are you trying to impress?

          Comment by MP — April 23, 2016 @ 10:47 am

        • MP

          Honestly , fuck off. You all stand by and Buckley yells and screams at anyone and everyone. So fuck him. Fuck you . Get a job. Finance your own life. Enough is enough. You fucks are gonna get push back bitches. Stinky hipster fucks! You don’t represent the renters. Most renters are smarter then you fucks . Their not broke . You are.

          Comment by Master Blaster — April 23, 2016 @ 2:24 pm

  4. Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal for the First District has upheld the trial court’s dismissal in the Robles-Wong case, determining that the California Constitution, though providing a right to an education, does not set any quality standard. See

    Comment by AK — April 20, 2016 @ 4:01 pm

      • RS- thanks for this article. Yesterday when I started to read the actual ruling it occurred to me it would be best to save it until I was committed to digesting the legal language. Reading this article which serves as an abstract, it is interesting to learn that this ruling was by a three judge panel and it was a 2/1 decision. If the language of the constitution is acceptable at all, I think there are ways to address adequate minimums. Since the constitution was written decades ago in another economy it is not realistic to expect a mechanism for funding be spelled out, I’d be interested to know how other areas of government are treated, though I doubt i’ll find time to read the entire state constitution any time soon.

        Comment by MI — April 21, 2016 @ 10:01 am

    • AK, since schools are funded by property taxes this is sort of relevant but not as much as the law suit over parcel tax H which the district lost. It would take massive restructure of government along the lines of Bernie’s revolution to change funding schools from property taxes.

      Comment by MI — April 21, 2016 @ 9:51 am

      • Schools in CA are only partly funded by property taxes. More than 80% (the exact number escapes me at the moment) is ADA funding from Sacramento. The state doesn’t collect property taxes, rather income, sales and other taxes

        Comment by dave — April 21, 2016 @ 11:02 am

  5. To many rent control posts, but I thought this was interesting from the SF Business Times: “The Oakland Raiders will stay in the city for at least one more year under the terms of a lease agreement the Oakland City Council approved this week, which triples the rent the team pays the city from $925,000 to $3.5 million”. Really doesn’t have anything to do with this post, but what if commercial properties all of a sudden decided they wanted rent stabilization? It is sort of the same thing except not as personal unless you are a small business or non-profit.

    Comment by joelsf — April 21, 2016 @ 7:48 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at