pages: CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2017-04-07 | 5 | The Assistant City Attorney stated the discussions with the stakeholder groups can address landlords covering costs, such as hotel, pet and laundry rates, instead of paying relocation benefits. Mayor Spencer stated a majority of Council supports said proposal. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Councilmember Oddie stated the tenant should get the same rent subject to the CIP or RRAC process. The Community Development Director stated the Council direction is to have the tenant have the right to return to the unit. Councilmember Oddie stated a tenant might want to have temporary costs covered rather than accepting relocation benefits; the matter needs to be flushed out. The Community Development Director stated the CIP provisions address the issue. Mayor Spencer stated a majority of Council agrees. The Community Development Director outlined the last clarification about the tenant receiving whichever relocation fee is higher. The Council expressed support for the provision. No Cause Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like to make personal comments and a motion on no cause evictions; apologized for and briefly discussed reading an email in violation of the Sunshine Ordinance on Tuesday night; discussed the 24 eviction cases; requested staff to provide additional information on the cases; discussed his background as a landlord-tenant attorney, including providing examples of specific cases protecting tenants; briefly discussed the election; stated it is time to review just cause evictions; requested an examination of other comparable, Bay Area cities' provisions on just cause evictions; stated his motion would be to reconsider the direction on Item B [Tenancy Terminations for No Cause] and in addition to the technical change made, direct staff to come back with what just cause eviction could look like in Alameda, preferably at the May 2nd meeting; the process does not need to be long; the Council should have close supervision; the City should address: 1) the interplay with relocation fees, 2) closing loopholes that exist in other cities, 3) disincentives to the Ellis Act on single family rentals and turning multifamily rentals into condominiums, 4) Council's discussion of fixed term leases, 5) anti-harassment provisions, similar to Union City, and 6) the relation of maintenance requests to evictions; the list is not all-inclusive; Councilmembers and the public should offer additional ideas. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie is requesting additional Continued April 4, 2017 Meeting Alameda City Council 5 April 7, 2017 | CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf |