pages: RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-01-10 | 3 | Approved Minutes January 10, 2018 Mr. Martinez stated that his income fluctuated from $2,400 to $2,800 and Ms. Martinez's income was about $1,200 per month. He said they were worried about being priced out of the area and concerned that their son would have to change schools mid-year. Chair Cambra asked the landlords if the bank extended their mortgage loan knowing the amount of rent the in-place tenants were paying. Mr. Wallace confirmed that the bank had that information. Member Griffiths asked the landlords what would happen to them if they only got a 5% increase versus a $300 increase. Ms. King said they would appeal the decision. She said that she and Mr. Wallace were both self-employed and their income could be unpredictable, while rental income from the property provided them a stable source of income. Mr. Wallace stated that anything less than $2,000 per month total rent for the unit would be inadequate. He said they wanted to expand the unit and wanted to see if they would qualify for the "capital evictions" process. Mr. Martinez said that to meet a $400 per month increase, he would have to work 14-16 hour days. Ms. Martinez said that they had to a new expense of $300 per month for their son's healthcare and had forgotten about that when they said they could pay a $300- $400 per month increase. She said they were still offering to pay a $65 increase. Member Friedman commented that the tenants would have to move if they were required to pay the increase the landlords were requesting. He restated that the landlords purchased the property knowing about the costs involved, Ordinance 3148's requirements, and the amount of rent the tenants were paying, and that the bank assessed that the landlords could maintain payments on their mortgage loan given those circumstances. Mr. Wallace said that they wanted to improve the property. Ms. King added that unlike the previous landlords they did not benefit from the tenants working at their business. She said their mortgage was $5,700 per month. Chair Cambra stated that the goal of the RRAC was to balance the landlord's interest in obtaining reasonable rate of return with the tenants' interest in not being displaced. He estimated the landlord's monthly cash flow was $7,500. Ms. King stated that they chose to purchase rental property in the City of Alameda because they thought the laws were more reasonable toward landlords than in other rent-stabilized communities. She said she did not think the landlords should be restricted by their tenants' income forever, as they would have to return to the RRAC each year to get future increases. Page 3 of 6 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf |