Blogging Bayport Alameda

May 9, 2019

Rent review

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:09 am

For those that are interested in helping the City Council to shape policy around rent stabilization, there is a survey here about the various policies the City Council will be considering.

For those that don’t want to click through but are curious as to what is under discussion, I have screen shots below.

Screen Shot 2019-05-08 at 3.52.41 PM

Screen Shot 2019-05-08 at 3.52.59 PM

Screen Shot 2019-05-08 at 3.53.06 PM

Screen Shot 2019-05-08 at 3.54.35 PM

Screen Shot 2019-05-08 at 3.54.41 PM

Screen Shot 2019-05-08 at 3.55.15 PM

Screen Shot 2019-05-08 at 3.56.24 PM

Screen Shot 2019-05-08 at 3.56.30 PM

Screen Shot 2019-05-08 at 3.57.27 PM

Screen Shot 2019-05-08 at 3.57.36 PM

The capital improvements one appears to be the most straightforward but one that was not used a lot during these past few years.  Maybe because it’s easier and more straightforward to go to the RRAC to ask for a larger rent increase and just get whatever percentage they’re going to give you.

What is not discussed in any of these policy considerations is what happens to the RRAC, I guess if there actually is a hard cap then there is no more use for the deliberations at the RRAC.  It would avoid all the privacy concerns that arise with the very public nature of the RRAC, but I think the whole banking of rent increases may get a bit tricky to track and will require a robust database and tracking system.  I don’t know if the City currently has anything like that available.

The suggestion to lower or eliminate the relocation payment for — ostensibly — “mom n pop” operations is one of the more intriguing additions.  I’m not quite sure why five is the magic number, but it certainly would take the sting out of the rent stabilization policy for people who are truly using their rental investments as a long term retirement strategy.  I guess a few data points that would be helpful in saying if this is good or bad is (1) how many relocation packages have been paid out annually and (2) how many of those would have been exempted if the “5 and under” landlords were excluded from paying the fee.  Lumping single family homes and condominiums in one data point isn’t that helpful.


  1. Beware of any survey that uses percentages without providing the underlying raw data. Also using text based answers to complex questions is not going to provide any meaningful feedback but maybe that is the point.

    Comment by Mike McMahon — May 9, 2019 @ 7:32 am

  2. Once again, Tony and his irrelevant lone vote managed to weasel in that Mom and Pop BS which would create two classes of tenants. So either rent from a large landlord or have fewer protections. Brilliant!

    Comment by Rod — May 9, 2019 @ 12:11 pm

  3. Thank goodness commun…ism has gained a strong foothold in Alachina

    Comment by Jack — May 9, 2019 @ 5:58 pm

  4. I agree with Mike. Also the format of this survey is a bit annoying. I have a feeling it will discourage participation.

    Comment by michonnekatana — May 10, 2019 @ 12:01 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Say what you want

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at