pages: RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-11-09.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2016-11-09 | 3 | Approved Minutes November 9, 2016 Proposed rent increase: $500 (35.8%) effective 12/1/16 Note: Staff received information that the delivery of the rent increase notice may not be in accordance with State law. Both parties were notified of this concern and referred to seek legal advice. The City's Rent Stabilization Ordinance does not stipulate requirements on delivery of notices. The Program Administrator does not have authority to enforce deficiencies under certain State law requirements. The tenant, Mr. Shabazz, stated the maximum rent increase he would be able to pay is $69.00 (4.9%). Mr. Shabazz explained the proposed rent increase would be a substantial financial burden because currently he spends around 45% of his income on rent. He estimated that he would likely have to move if the rent was raised to the proposed amount. He noted that he has not received additional services or amenities with this rent increase. The tenant explained that he has lived in the unit for 11 years and emphasized the value of long-term tenancy. Mr. Shabazz also stated that this increase is a retaliatory response to an invalid termination notice served in December 2015. The landlord estimated that the fair market value for a 2-bedroom unit with a separate single car garage is around $2,200. Hence, he stated the proposed rent remains under fair market value. Mr. Dang explained that he has worked very hard over his lifetime and is looking for a fair return on his property. He is retired and relies on this income to provide for his family. He stated that he does not want the tenant to move. Mr. Dang emphasized that he has a great deal of respect for Mr. Shabazz and this increase is not retaliatory. Member Schrader noted that rents for long-term tenants are often lower than those for a new tenant. Member Friedman asked Mr. Dang if there are any large costs of operation causing him to request such a large rent increase. Mr. Dang said he considers his operating costs to be normal. Mr. Dang explained that while his proposed rent increase is below the market rate, he would consider lowering the increase to $400 (28.6%). He stated that this is the lowest increase he could consider. Member Griffiths asked about the possibility of adding a roommate to the unit, noting there is currently one tenant residing in a 2-bedroom unit. Mr. Shabazz stated that he is open to adding a roommate. Mr. Dang stated adding a roommate would not be possible. Member Friedman emphasized that adding a roommate could allow the landlord to receive higher rent while also reducing the financial burden on the tenant. Staff clarified that the tenant and landlord have the option to pause the meeting and speak privately. Page 3 of 5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-11-09.pdf |