Blogging Bayport Alameda

July 5, 2016

What comes next

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:05 am

As part of the City Council agenda tonight there is a comparison of the two initiatives that will be on the ballot in November as compared to the ordinance passed by the City Council.

Supposedly there is a third ballot initiative but of course Tony Daysog didn’t actually intend to do any work around collecting signatures and, instead, will be using the filing of the ballot measure as a campaign talking point but without actually doing anything.  From the staff report:

In addition to the Renters’ and Landlords’ Initiatives, a third initiative, of which Councilmember Daysog is one of the proponents, is also in the process of gathering signatures.  This third initiative largely concerns which landlords would be required to pay relocation benefits to tenants whose tenancies are terminated for no cause or no fault and which tenants would be eligible, based on income, to receive such benefits.  At this time, the proponents of this initiative have not submitted petitions to the City Clerk.  Therefore, this staff report does not discuss the provisions of that initiative nor how the City Council may choose to handle such initiative should the necessary number of signatures be obtained.

I mean, if anyone needs a primer on how to promote yourself without actually having accomplished very much as an elected official, see Tony Daysog for reference.

Anyway, both the landlord and the renters signatures have gone to the Registrar of Voters for review to make sure that a sufficient number  of valid signatures have been submitted. By the end of the week, unless there is an extension, we should know if the renters initiative has qualified.

Here are the options for the renters initiative:

As noted above, if the Registrar is able to use the random sample method, the City Clerk will be advised whether the measure qualifies for the ballot by July 7.  If, however, the Registrar determines that a complete signature check is required, that deadline is August 18, which is past the Council’s last regularly scheduled meeting in July (July 19). Council has no more regularly scheduled meetings until September.  Accordingly, if a complete check is necessary, staff recommends the Renters’ Initiative not be considered until September. For purposes of the remainder of this discussion, staff is assuming the City Clerk will receive timely confirmation that the measure qualifies for the November ballot.

Under the Elections Code, once the City Clerk is advised the initiative qualifies for the ballot, the City Clerk is to place on the City Council’s next regular meeting an item certifying the sufficiency of the initiative, in this case, July 19.  The Elections Code then calls for the City Council to “order an election”, here November 8, 2016.  In addition, the City Council must approve the ballot question for the Initiative and determine its interest in drafting an argument for or against the Initiative, as well as its interest in drafting a rebuttal argument, and direct the City Attorney to prepare an Impartial Analysis of the Initiative.  Staff anticipates having a resolution addressing all of these items ready for Council’s consideration and action on July 19, as the last day to place a measure on the November ballot is August 12.

The Elections Code provides that the legislative body may choose to sign the argument for or against an initiative and to sign the rebuttal to the argument for or against an initiative  If all or a majority of the Council wish to sign such arguments for the Renters’ Initiative, staff recommends that Council  discuss its options.

The options include:

All, or a majority, of the Council could choose to sign an argument.  Council will either need to appoint a Council committee to draft the argument and then either (a) call a special meeting so that the Council majority can take action to approve the argument or (b) agree to sign what the committee drafts. If the Council agrees to sign whatever its appointed committee drafts, there is no need for the Council to approve the argument at a meeting. This would also be the case concerning the rebuttal.  If only a majority of the Council will sign the argument/rebuttal, a committee should nevertheless be appointed to determine if other members of the community should sign and who those members should be, as five people may sign the argument/rebuttal.

Moreover, if all, or a majority, of the Council choose not to sign, one or two members of the Council may nevertheless indicate that he/she/they do wish to sign either the argument for or against and/or the rebuttal and that member/those members may then select other members of the community to sign.  No more than five persons may sign the argument/rebuttal.

If no members of the Council choose to sign, then other members of the community may submit arguments.  If more than one argument is submitted, the Elections Code provides the priority ranking to determine which argument will appear in the voting materials.

It will be interesting to see which City Council members, if any, decide to sign an argument for or against either of the two initiatives.



  1. but of course Tony Daysog didn’t actually intend to do any work around collecting signatures


    He rang my doorbell to ask for a signature and he had a stack of papers on his clipboard that indicated he was doing a fair bit of work gathering sigs.

    Comment by dave — July 5, 2016 @ 6:15 am

  2. Bagging on Tony Daysog was worked very nicely into the piece.

    Comment by MP — July 5, 2016 @ 8:38 am

  3. Tony Daysog’s utter failure to actually protect renters from egregious rent increases–never mind his self-serving alliance with the “mom and pop” landlords who are getting ripped off by doing all the dirty work for the greedy big-time property owners–has been a huge disappointment. Too bad it is just the latest of many disappointing failures to actually lead our community towards constructive solutions that make sense. Since he ran in 2012 as a “new” Tony Daysog and we have seen only the “old” one, I will be looking for candidates who can actually lead when I vote this November…

    Comment by Jon Spangler — July 5, 2016 @ 8:59 am

    • Indeed the mom & pop landlords ARE getting ripped off. Nice that you finally admit that.

      Comment by Sigmund Freud — July 5, 2016 @ 9:12 am

      • “mom & pop landlords” are actually people doing business, they rent space for a profit. Being in “business” means being regulated by our government. I don’t wish them any more problems than any other business people. But they are “business” people, and that is hard work.

        Comment by John P. — July 5, 2016 @ 1:00 pm

        • Rent control or not, it is already a heavily regulated industry. Adding price controls usually creates all sorts of adverse consequences and is usually limited to monopolies. Adding extreme price controls – less than regular inflation as in the ARC initiative – means more adverse consequences. Less so under the City’s current ordinance.

          Comment by MP — July 5, 2016 @ 3:00 pm

  4. The staff report for tonight says “The Renters’ Initiative, because it is a Charter amendment, would repeal and replace the City’s Ordinance.” True, but the actual language in the ARC initiative goes farther: “This Charter Amendment shall supersede any ordinance passed by the Alameda City Council covering the area of rents or evictions.” That would include the RRAC, a body created by another City ordinance that covers the area of rents. Without the RRAC, renters of single family houses, condos and newer apartments – who make up a significant number of renters — lose the opportunity for even a hearing. It will be interesting to see how those renters view the ARC initiative.

    Comment by MP — July 5, 2016 @ 9:30 am

  5. Look in the mirror and run Jon, run

    Comment by jack — July 5, 2016 @ 9:43 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at