pages: RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2019-01-23 | 8 | Approved Minutes January 23, 2019 apartment elsewhere in Alameda. She said her daughter work part-time and attends college, and she contributes to her daughter's food and utilities, as well as pays the full $1,600 monthly rent on that apartment, in addition to her own. The parties were not able to reach an agreement and the Committee began deliberations. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah stated that neither party's position S unreasonable. He said in these situations he considers who has the financial ability to absorb more financial hardship. Chair Murray stated it may not be possible for the tenant to continue this arrangement with two households in the long-term, but the Committee can consider a compromise that avoids forcing an immediate relocation. Member Johnson stated she believes the landlord is justified in seeking an increase of more than 5 percent, but that those buying a rental property must consider the likelihood of successfully seeking a 50 percent increase when deciding on a purchase price. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah stated he believes the tenant's position that 10 percent is a maximum increase she could afford based on her budget. Member Johnson stated that the owner did make an investment, and it is reasonable to expect a return. Chair Murray noted that both parties are trying to provide financially for family members who are unable to work. She noted that the committee only has the ability to make a decision for one year. Member Johnson stated she believes a 50 percent increase is too large, but a 10 percent increase may not be enough for the landlord given the higher tax base and few rent increases over the years. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah noted that their decision on this case, as well as the building's history, would be part of the public record and could therefore be considered if the landlord seeks a new increase on the unit after a year. Member Chiu suggested a $100 increase, recognizing it would be a challenge for the tenant but perhaps low enough to give her time to figure out a long-term solution. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah stated he thought it was reasonable, but emphasized he understands that a roughly $15 per month difference is not trivial for tenants on tight budgets. Chair Murray questioned whether $15 a month would be trivial for a landlord. Members Chiu and Johnson said they believed it would not be trivial because it helps to establish a base for future rents. | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf |