pages: RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-01-10 | 4 | Approved Minutes January 10, 2018 Chair Cambra asked the parties to take a seat so the RRAC could begin deliberations to reach a decision. Public Comment from Mari Perez-Ruiz, President of the Alameda Renters Coalition, on Item 7-B: claimed the tenants did not know about the RRAC hearing until the day before and were not given the opportunity to prepare. Public Comment from Laurie-Anne King, landlord at subject property, on Item 7-B: stated that it was a breach of California law for employers to pay workers less than minimum wage and compensate for that by subsidizing their living expenses by charging them below-market rent. Public Comment from Rasheed Shabazz, Alameda resident, on Item 7-B: said he came before the RRAC one-and-a-half years ago. He said he wanted to acknowledge the inequality in society that allowed the landlords to have access to $300,000 from their insurance policy, while the tenants would have to work 30,000 hours to make an equal sum. He opined that the rent increase imposes a great burden on the tenants and hoped the RRAC decision was one that allowed the tenants to remain in place. Member Friedman thanked the parties for attending the hearing. He acknowledged that the tenants may have had an agreement for below-market rent with the prior owners. He restated that the landlords financed the property with the current tenants' rental rate known by themselves and the lending institution, and said that with a 5% increase, the tenants would be paying 40% of their income for rent if their income was $3,400 per month. He stated that the purpose of the Ordinance is to stabilize the rental market and proposed a $65 increase. Chair Cambra stated that if the tenants' income was $4,000 per month, a $300 increase would have the tenants paying 40% of their income toward rent. Vice Chair Sullivan-SariƱana opined that a 5% increase would be reasonable as it was what the tenants said they could afford. Chair Cambra commented that a 10% increase, or $130, would provide the landlords extra income they could use to improve the property. Member Griffiths answered that there was a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) process landlords could use to finance improvements. He said he thought the tenants could only pay a 5% increase and suggested the landlords look into the CIP process for future increases. Chair Cambra responded that many landlords find the CIP process unworkable. Page 4 of 6 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf |