Blogging Bayport Alameda

November 17, 2016

Reversal of Fortunas

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:07 am

It’s interesting what types of public comment happens at City Council meetings.  At the meeting before the election supporters of the Mayor, City Councilmember Tony Daysog, and candidate Jennifer Roloff decided to use those precious minutes to campaign for their candidates.  And there was, of course, the conspiracy theory floated that PG&E was looking to purchase AMP and therefore giving money to one of the independent expenditure groups for the purpose of influencing the election.

This week, after the election and the failure of Measure M1 to pass brought in renter after renter to ask the City Council to place a moratorium on evictions at least until the end of the year.  From a KRON report:

The coalition says the city council needs to step in and impose an emergency moratorium on the so-called “no-cause” evictions until after the holiday season.

The group says these types of evictions are unfair and adversely affect low-income families in Alameda.

Because this was done during public comment it’s not clear if the City Council will take any action on the issue.  However given that the protections that were put into place by the City Council has not managed to stem the tide of evictions or stories of rent increases it’s time that the City Council step up again and craft an ordinance that really serves to protect Alameda renters.   And, since the next election is two years away this time perhaps the City Council members — all of them — can look toward providing a true compromise agreement as opposed to looking to the next interest group to appease *coughmomnpopcough*.

On that note, regarding the name change suggestion by Tony Daysog that went down in flames but not before the sole public speaker, Cynthia Bonta, had a few words to say.  Which is summed up here:

Although it was a nice smackdown, initially caveated with the sentiment that perhaps we should wait to memorialize people after death so that nothing surprising comes up to make people regret naming something after someone.  She pointed out that this person that Tony Daysog wanted to honor gave money to the pro L1/anti M1 committee.  And since M1 was supported by many in the Filipino community as they are directly affected by the the recent rent hikes and evictions, this wouldn’t necessarily be seen as honoring the Filipino community.

Tony Daysog didn’t even vote in favor of his own suggestion.



  1. it’s time that the City Council step up again and craft an ordinance that really serves to protect Alameda renters


    A de facto cap of 5% on rent increases, several thousand dollars in relocation payments and significant curbs against evictions are MAJOR protections for renters, as well as major encroachments on property rights. Some call that a compromise, but landlords received *nothing* in return.

    Those are meaningful concessions to renters, entitlements not extended to the overwhelming majority of renters in America. Voters agreed they were enough and that demanding more was excessive. What you call for has already been done.

    Comment by dave — November 17, 2016 @ 6:41 am

    • And yet renters feel vulnerable and insecure about their housing situation in Alameda. But perhaps they are not as big enough of a special, I mean, public interest to warrant any more attention.

      Comment by Lauren Do — November 17, 2016 @ 6:53 am

  2. “but landlords received *nothing* in return.”

    I would say that they received the opportunity to not be stuck with M1.

    Tenants receive a lot, on paper. Problem is the barn door has been closed after most of the horses have left the barn. There are major questions of enforcement and effectiveness still.

    Also, we are still suffering from an apocalyptic housing shortage. Until that is addressed, renters will always be crying out for relief anywhere they can find 50%+1.

    Comment by BMac — November 17, 2016 @ 8:31 am

    • 1031 Exchanges
      Depreciation, mortgage interest, property tax, plus other write offs against income taxes
      $500,000 in tax-free profit on sale of primary residence
      Prop 13
      Restriction of competition through decades sustained Bay Area-wide suppression of new residential development


      Comment by brock — November 17, 2016 @ 11:09 am

      • So why might we want to enforce landlord rights? Because they are all warm and fuzzy? No, because we need what they produce! If there is no incentive, profit, or whatever you want to call it, landlords will go do something else. I have been to foreign capitals where landlord rights are not protected and there are 4 million people living in cardboard shacks on the outskirts of town. Do you think it odd that with each turn of the rent control screw we have more homeless living in tents under the freeway? Depreciation, interest deduction, 1031, all serve to lower landlord costs and help keep apartments affordable. Taxes, fees, and such raise landlord costs and push up the price of apartments. Who else is going to produce and maintain apartments? San Francisco tried. They had 6000 units and finally admitted they could not do it. they are down to 60 now. The market exits so that people will have a place to live. Keep tearing down the market, and people won’t have a place to live, except under the freeway.

        Comment by Ed Hirshberg — November 17, 2016 @ 1:30 pm

        • You don’t think that decades of NIMBY resistance to construction of housing might be more of a contributor than rent control? Aren’t newly built units in SF exempt from rent control? And, no, I’m not arguing that rent control is the optimal response to a housing shortage.

          Comment by BC — November 17, 2016 @ 2:05 pm

        • Landlords: “The government shouldn’t be interfere in the free and open market!”
          Landlords: “Except for this raft of laws that interfere in the free and open market on our behalf! This government interference just helps US help YOU Mr. Renter! We promise!”

          Comment by brock — November 17, 2016 @ 2:58 pm

  3. Oakland. I hear Oakland calling. You better answer it. You live where you can afford to live. It’s not like its sooooo far away. No racist comments please. Remember last weeks protests against racism. Here is your chance to put up. Move to Oakland. I’d love to live in Hillsborough, but the stinking rent is way too high. Unfair. It must be racism, or sexism or one of those isms. I believe the latest trend du jour is poorism.

    Comment by Alameda Landlord — November 17, 2016 @ 1:26 pm

      • this pod cast by Sam Harris is 30 minutes long, but he covers a lot of material including stuff about liberal elites and P.C. list of “isms” to which you refer. His criticisms might surprise you.

        A.L.- What is it about last weeks protests against racism and our “chance to put up. Move to Oakland.”? I assume that is as in “put up or shut up” ? I ain’t shuttin’ up or moving to Oakland. So get used to it.

        Comment by MI — November 17, 2016 @ 5:39 pm

    • The ism is NIMBYism, oh small town tycoon.

      Comment by BC — November 17, 2016 @ 5:01 pm

      • The anti development Alameda NIMBYs of yesterday are the exact same people crying about high rents and screaming for rent control today. There is something delicious about making them eat the meal they cooked.

        Comment by Alameda Landlord — November 17, 2016 @ 6:38 pm

  4. Nimbyism is also a problem. It now generally takes years to get a permit so the market reacts slowly to changes in demand.

    Comment by Ed Hirshberg — November 17, 2016 @ 3:04 pm

  5. NIMBYism is also a problem in the same way that a bullet in the chest is also a problem for the guy who asks his doctor to take a look at his bunions.

    Comment by BMac — November 17, 2016 @ 3:34 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Create a free website or blog at