pages: CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf, 14
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2016-01-05 | 14 | which is one way of confirming the range of 4-8%; the CPI is an important number which speaks to the 8% threshold; all data points confirm Alameda is on the right track with the 8% range; Alameda is dealing with lasting effects of income inequality; he does not think it is fair to increase rents 8% every year; a cumulative rent increase of not more than 12% over 2 years is a better approach; certain policy remedies could be triggered with the cumulative method; mom and pop landlords play by the rules and their needs should be addressed; there is a role for government to regulate when excesses occur in the free market; the Council's role is to fit solutions to problems; that he favors Ordinance 1 modified, including: 1) there should be just cause for landlords who play by the rules, 2) small mom and pop landlords should be exempt from Ordinance 1, 3) relocation assistance should be offered for tenants who cannot afford the rent increase; 4) he would like to combine proposed Ordinance 1 with Alternative Option 1 to include binding arbitration, and 5) rent increases should be dealt on a cumulative basis. Councilmember Oddie stated the matter is serious and will impact many people no matter what Council chooses to do; Option 1 does not provide tenants with additional protectio, it just shifts the burden onto the landlord to file a request for a rent increase; if the landlord is intent on raising the rent, Option 1 is non-binding; Option 3 has the most tenant protection and limits evictions based on certain causes, which is a protection that does not exist today; Option 2 is the most fair to everyone; Option 2 provides a binding mechanism if an increase is over a certain number; he does not believe every single rent increase will be 8% every year; there needs to be a provision to collect data; returning in a year to compare and fix problems would be helpful; he would like Option 2 changed; the 50% exception for non-just cause evictions should be lowered to 25% as clever landlords will use the loophole; disincentives could be built into Option 2; a capital improvement program to address landlord improvements will come back at subsequent meeting and does not include enough information to be discussed tonight; nothing that the Council decides tonight should prevent a landlord from being able to make improvements; there has to be clear guidelines on the person making the decision in arbitration; the provision for reduction of services is missing from Option 2 and should be included. Mayor Spencer stated the creation of an ordinance which gives the RRAC more teeth was not included in the report; she would like the process to start with RRAC for all tenants, whether or not they fall under Costa Hawkins; she likes the current composition of the RRAC; cases that do not settle through RRAC should then go through binding arbitration; the goal is to find balance; 30 to 60-days notice is too short for tenants; allowing the landlord to give a six months notice of eviction, whether for no cause or no fault, is reasonable; a landlord giving more notice will not cost them; the landlord could negotiate or go through the RRAC process if less than six months time is needed for an eviction; some tenants may not need six months and would prefer the payment, which should be based on the rent; the additional $1,500 relocation is offset by six-months notice; the capital improvement plan has to be required in advance if an eviction is due to substantial rehabilitation; establishing a capital improvement plan process is important; she would not support Options 2 or 3 as she considers the options traditional Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 14 January 5, 2016 | CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf |