pages: RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-06 | 4 | Approved Minutes August 6, 2018 Monica and Berkeley would not need to amend their ordinances if Costa Hawkins was repealed. City Attorney's Office staff clarified that the Ordinance does not prevent the parties from coming to mutual agreements outside the rent review process. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Armitage if he had improved the home. Mr. Armitage said he had redone some plumbing and worked on the carport. He said he had told Ms. Harrison's husband to tell him if anything needed to be done. Ms. Harrison said that they never ask for anything from their landlord. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah stated that having a long-term tenant who is willing to pay a substantial rent increase, even if it's not what the landlord is looking for, may be something the landlord would want to consider. Member Friedman asked Ms. Harrison why she did not submit a statement. She said she did not understand the process or the Committee. Member Murray asked Ms. Harrison if a postponement of the effective date of the increase until September would be advantageous to her, and she said it would be. Mr. Fried responded that he would never advise his client to postpone rent increases, because he thought it might put his client at a disadvantage if any court proceedings were required, such as an unlawful detainer further down the road. He said that the parties were doing fine before they came here, and parties could always come to fair agreements without rent control measures. He added that the rules in court are rigged against the property owner. Member Friedman asked what appeal options were available to the parties. City staff clarified that the appeal process for a nonbinding decision was a request to have City Council review. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said he would not vote for what the landlords were asking for as he did not feel the landlords had demonstrated a need for the rent increase, e.g., they did not show documentation of income or expenses. He said that even though the tenant did not provide a written response, she did provide detailed financial information during the hearing that showed a financial burden, which he would take into account. Member Murray said that she believed that the landlord had a genuine concern to obtain a rent increase prior to an impending law that would affect how much he could charge, which would not only affect his retirement income, but also the value of the property itself. She said she also saw the stress the increase put on the tenants and would like to see a deferment or temporarily decreased amount to allow them more time to adjust, Page 4 of 7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf |