pages: RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-22.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-02-22 | 4 | Approved Minutes February 22, 2017 Mr. Cheung offered to reduce his increase request to $300.00 (21.0%), for a total rent of $1,700.00. The tenants offered to pay $140.00 (10.0%) rent increase, for a total rent of $1,540.00. The tenants expressed concern about maintenance issues such as a leaking roof. The landlord clarified that he had fixed the roof but will re-inspect it immediately. The landlord explained that he is very invested in maintaining the property. Mr. Cheung explained that he does not have more room to negotiate because another unit in the building agreed to a rent increase. He expressed that he wants to be fair to all tenants and charge the same rent for all units. The tenants explained that they pay for water while the other tenants do not. Therefore, charging the same rent is not treating each tenant equally. Staff clarified that each unit has a separate rental history and a separate agreement around amenities. Therefore, reasonable rent is determined for each unit separately. The parties were unable to reach an agreement. Member Griffiths acknowledged that the current rent appears less than market rates. However, he noted that this rent increase is not consistent with the landlord's previous rent increase requests. While the landlord reduced his request from $450 to $300, Member Griffiths noted that $300 is still a significant jump to absorb at one time. Member Griffiths also stated that even though the tenant offered to pay a $140.00 (10%) increase, this amount of an increase is still very significant to absorb at one time. Therefore, he stated he would be most comfortable with a rent increase of $120.00 (8.6%). Chair Sullivan-SariƱana stated that this is a difficult situation with a very large rent increase following a long period of no increases. He noted that the original $450.00 increase request is not in line with the landlord's previous increases of $50.00 and $100.00. He explained that he believes the reduced offer to a $300 increase is also unreasonable. He explained that the purpose of the Ordinance is to keep Alameda renters in their homes. He recommended a $140.00 (10.0%) rent increase. Vice Chair Landess asked City Attorney staff to clarify the purpose of the Ordinance. Mr. Roush explained that the Ordinance may not specifically indicate its purpose as keeping Alameda renters in their homes. Rather, the Ordinance looks to keep rents in a posture to be affordable for individuals to continue to live in Alameda. He noted that there is an inherent tension Page 4 of 5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-22.pdf |