Blogging Bayport Alameda

August 18, 2017

Once more without feeling

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:08 am

Because of course.

Of course.

Once was not enough and so the landlord at 470 Central is trying it once again, he’s sent out eviction notices as the rent stabilization ordinance is on pause — cause of the new ballot initiative — just in time for the first day of school.   From the East Bay Citizen:

On Wednesday, just days before the start of a new school year, three families received 60-day eviction notices from the owners of the complex, known in popular parlance as 470 Central. Three additional tenants were given three-day notices for non-payment, said the Alameda Renters Coalition.

The renters’ group laid blame for Wednesday morning’s on the Alameda landlords group behind the voter referendum.

“The no cause evictions were made possible by “Alamedans in Charge for a Fair and Affordable City,” said Eric Strimling, a spokesperson for the Alameda Renters Coalition. Strimling added that tenants who were issued three-day notices for non-payment have documentation to prove their rents were up-to-date.

I’m not sure if this is what the local-er Alameda landlord groups actually wanted the same level of attention that kicked off the whole rent stabilization thing in the first place, but they can definitely thank this dude for bringing back images of sad children and potentially displaced children back into the public eye.

Advertisements

10 Comments »

  1. I thought everyone had already been been evicted? Or did he get new tenants and evict them too?

    Comment by dave — August 18, 2017 @ 6:17 am

  2. Considering that “Alamedans in Charge” (who elected them to be “in charge, anyway?) spent $130,700.97 between January 1 and June 30, 2017, to buy your signatures on petitions that aim to keep renters under landlords’ thumbs. ironically, many of the people behind the charter amendment petition–an example of bad government if there ever was one–have been the loudest to complain about the “corrupting influence” of political expenditures by unions, who represent working people and not the corporate landed gentry.

    http://docs.ci.alameda.ca.us/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=458077&dbid=0

    Only when unjust evictions like the ones pending again at 470 Central are made plainly illegal will tenants regain partial parity with greedy landlords who, like the current White House, lack a moral compass. Personally, I would like to see landlords (including the officers of corporations found guilty of unjust evictions) who wrongly evict or harass tenants should face the prospect of jail time or significant financial penalties. For example, landlords who kick people out illegally might have to forfeit ownership of the units from which they unjustly–that is, wrongly and illegally– evict tenants. (There I go, dreaming of a just society again. Sorry. I should realize that live in the wrong city, the wrong state, and the wrong country to expect justice for renters. Or poor people. Or people of color. Or…)

    Comment by Jon Spangler — August 18, 2017 @ 7:52 am

    • The most active union in local politics, and indeed the most active entity, is the IAFF. Members of that union earn on average over $200,000 per year and a good number are over $300,000. They are eligible to retire in their 50’s with pension that have NPV’s of millions of dollars. This wealth is courtesy of the taxpayers, a group with a median income of about a third of a firefighter’s. A typical taxpayer will have to retire a decade or two later than an IAFFer with only a fraction of the income.

      Which one is “gentry” and which is “working people?”

      Comment by dave — August 18, 2017 @ 8:12 am

  3. For example, landlords who kick people out illegally might have to forfeit ownership of the units from which they unjustly–that is, wrongly and illegally– evict tenants

    ———————

    Is there any evidence of “illegal” evictions? An eviction has to be filed in superior court. It’s difficult to envision a court issuing an illegal order.

    Comment by dave — August 18, 2017 @ 8:17 am

    • “It’s difficult to envision a court issuing an illegal order.”. HAHAHAHAHA… Obviously “dave”, you have little court experience. You have never been in the court of Taylor Culver [now retired]. Or Family Law court, where many women are unsuccessful maintaining restraining orders to protect them from abusive spouses.

      I take it you never heard of Brock Turner or Judge Aaron Persky. Or The Alipato Project.

      You might want to check out “The Robing Room”, or other consumer rating site for the bench.

      Comment by vigi — August 18, 2017 @ 9:11 am

      • A regrettable court order is not necessarily the same as an illegal one.

        Evictions require court orders. Is there any evidence of illegal court ordered evictions in Alameda?

        Comment by dave — August 18, 2017 @ 9:13 am

        • Unfortunately, “regrettable” orders only get overturned by the next highest court, and only if the right appeal papers are filed by the arbitrary deadlines. That always takes more money than the loser usually has.

          Comment by vigi — August 18, 2017 @ 9:20 am

  4. #2, do you have any idea how many duplexes, triplexes and single family rentals there are in Alameda? A lot. Do you know how easy it is to convert those buildings so they are suitable for sale as a single family homes (or to sell to multi-generational family who want to keep the partitions in place)? I bet some reading of this blog who have done contracting work could accomplish the physical work over the course of a weekend. Do you know what single family houses in Alameda are selling for these days? I raise these points because you seem eager to speak of jail time (and there are criminal sanctions in Alameda’s existing law, if you did not know that) and to make comparisons between some landlords (and it is not exactly clear which ones you would include) to someone who, among other things, praises people who show up for Klan and Nazi-organized marches. What do you think the effect of that type of climate is on small property owners of those types of buildings? Don’t you see a risk of creating far more, not less, evictions by small property owners who would rather avoid that climate, get out of the business, and sell into a seller’s market for single family homes? I’m not saying that all, or anything like that, would react that way – and I surely don’t and can’t speak for that diverse group of thousands of small property owners — but it’s hard to believe that the effect won’t be more, not fewer, evictions. A price worth paying? Is it a price worth making unlucky tenants of those buildings pay?

    Comment by MP — August 18, 2017 @ 8:53 am

  5. “Strimling added that tenants who were issued three-day notices for non-payment have documentation to prove their rents were up-to-date.” If this is the case, then there won’t be any problem.

    Comment by Brian K — August 19, 2017 @ 4:39 pm

  6. Or maybe the Alameda Renters Coalition got greedy and bullied Council into changing the rent ordinance thus forcing landlords to take action?

    Comment by Eyeroll — August 21, 2017 @ 7:47 pm


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

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.