pages: RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-04.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2019-02-04 | 6 | Approved Minutes February 4, 2019 stated that the increase would burden his household more than it would benefit the owners. The participants took their seats and the Committee began deliberations. Member Chiu asked for clarification that the Committee's decision would be non-binding and program staff confirmed this was correct. Member Chiu expressed frustration that the parties did not communicate with each other regarding the increase prior to the hearing. Chair Murray replied that program staff offers all participants the opportunity to mediate, but that the parties did not agree to do so. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah noted that the Rent Stabilization Ordinance excludes the landlord's mortgage payment as a cost of operation that the Committee could consider. He pointed out that many landlords request increases of 4.9% or 5% in order to evade being subject to a binding Committee decision. He said he did not believe the amount requested was unreasonable but also noted that it was a lot of money. He posited whether the Committee could consider the landlord's expenses at another property as a basis for requesting increases the subject property. Chair Murray replied that she thought that the operating costs of the particular subject property were the only costs that the Committee should consider in this case, and not expenses at other buildings that may be owned by the same landlord. Member Chiu said he did not hear the landlord bring up a lot of extraordinary expenses at the subject building and thought an increase lower than the current request would be reasonable. Chair Murray opined that the business of providing housing was different than other types of for-profit businesses, and this difference was an important consideration that allows for regulations such as the rent stabilization ordinance in-place in Alameda. She said that although she understood the landlord was running a business, she was concerned that the landlords seemed to not acknowledge the impact and hardship the increase would have on the tenants. She said she thought an increase of 4.9% lent itself to being seen as a way for landlords to skirt a binding decision and squeeze the maximum amount out of their tenants. Motion and second for a $0.00 increase for January and February 2019, followed by an increase of $50.00 from March through February 2020 (Member Chiu and Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah). Motion failed 2-1. Chair Murray pointed out that the tenants had already paid the rent increase for January and February 2019. | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-04.pdf |