pages: CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf, 13
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2016-01-05 | 13 | The Assistant City Attorney responded the Council could adopt a procedure that would allow property owners the ability to recover potential losses or inability to receive a fair return; the procedure does not need to be included the extension voted on tonight. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated a property owner that would like a family member to move in can do so under the moratorium. Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of extending the moratorium [adoption of the urgency ordinance] with [legal] counsel answering questions regarding testimony provided tonight. Under discussion, Mayor Spencer inquired about the amount of time for the extension, to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded the time is 60 days as recommended by staff. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated there is an overarching theme on both sides for fairness; that he would like the mediation process expanded to include eviction issues and a component that monitors the process; every case is different and Option 1 provides a case-by-case approach; filings, results, and reasons for any withdrawals are very valuable information; the RRAC has a track record for working; he would like there to be a balance such that the burden of proof is on the landlord; there should be a process where each side talks to each other face-to-face; there would be a good success rate if the face-to-face approach is the basis of the process; a monitoring and reporting system is needed; a penalty should be imposed for those who break the law; he believes in mediation; the RRAC expansion would be good balance; that he supports Option 1. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the non-binding nature of RRAC does not offer protection to tenants; the RRAC scope includes evictions, but at the end of the day, the decision is still non-binding; unless the RRAC is restructured or there is professional arbitration, the process falls short of the protection that should be given to tenants; there are sharply divided views, but everyone wants to find a fair solution; Council will not be able to fashion an ordinance that pleases everyone; she believes a cap is necessary, but 8% is too high; she would be willing to support a 5% cap similar to the City of Los Gatos; Alameda has older housing stock and providing decent housing is important; landlords need to be able to maintain their buildings; landlords can still petition to increase above the maximum allowable percentage for capital improvements; she favors relocation assistance for no fault evictions; tenants need assistance to find a new place to live; she favors annual review as this will be the first test for Alameda; that she is okay with a sunset provision at the end of 2019. Councilmember Daysog stated it is time for Council to act to restore fairness; the problem is excessive rents; Council has listened to various sides and hopes to come to a consensus solution; the Renewed Hope survey suggested a 5.7% rate increase, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 13 January 5, 2016 | CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf |