Renters’ Day of Action Tuesday February 18 Click to download a PDF
Berkeley Tenants Union members will join with tenants from around the state in the first tenant March and Rally in Sacramento in many years.
On Tuesday February 18, Tenants Together is leading member organizations like BTU to the capital. BTU members and friends are invited to hop on a bus in the morning and return by about 1 PM to the East Bay. If you live in Berkeley, please email us for more information. Sign up directly on the Tenants Together website if you are not a Berkeley tenant.
With evictions in California’s larger cities creating panic among long-term renters, it is time for solidarity. State cuts to affordable housing threaten to have long-term impacts unless restored, and elimination of the renters’ rebate in state income taxes has left low-income senior and disabled tenants with less food on the table. These are the issues we will march to support on the Renters’ Day of Action.
Signing an online petition is not enough. Even writing to your state representatives is not enough. It’s time to take to the streets!
◘ Restore the Renter’s Rebate For Seniors and Disabled
In 2008 the Governor cut the Senior Citizens Renters Tax Assistance Program from the California budget. The program allowed disabled and senior tenants making less than $44,096 a tax rebate of about $300. Fixed income renters relied on this rebate.
State Bill 391 puts a fee on recording of real estate transactions – except home sales – which would generate $500 million a year to fund construction of housing for working people. California could use this money to leverage another $2.78 billion in federal assistance and bank loans to boost construction and create 29,000 jobs.
Speculators are misusing the state law to get around local tenant protections. In San Francisco, over 3,700 families have lost their homes through this type of eviction. This reform asks that local governments have more control over how Ellis evictions are carried out.
This is an alternate map favored by progressive student groups.
Berkeley Tenants and other supporters rejoiced Tuesday as the Berkeley Referendum Coalition turned in 7,876 signatures, much more than the 5,275 necessary for the referendum. Alameda County has 30 business days to make sure the signatures are legitimate, but volunteers already combed the sign-up sheets to validate the petitions.
City Council reportedly has until April 1 to offer a compromise redistricting plan – otherwise the districts go on the ballot for voters to decide. StefanElgstrand, a student leader who worked on the referendum, told City Council on Tuesday night that he and other referendum group leaders are looking forward to working out a plan everyone can support.
Berkeleyside
Rob Wrenn in Comments: “Measure R, a poorly thought-out measure, supported by everyone on the Council if I remember right, makes gerrymandering much easier. Whoever has a majority on the Council can more easily create districts that make re-election difficult for their opponents….
Maybe the City should follow the lead of the state of California and create some independent body to set Council districts. Otherwise we may have redistricting referendum petitions every ten years.”
“If the referendum is successful, the city still must equalize its districts. The City Council can choose to place a redistricting ordinance before the voters, or it can write a compromise redistricting plan that won’t face a new referendum.”
“If the council reaches agreement before April 1, it will still meet the deadline for putting new district lines into effect by the November election. If the council decides not to create a new map, its other option is to put the BSDC map on the June or November ballot.”
Calling All Members! The Berkeley Tenants Union, The Council of Neighborhood Associations and Cal Dems – UC student Democrats – have endorsed the referendum on redistricting. Join us in collecting signatures for the Berkeley Referendum Coalition. We must stop a new map of council districts clearly designed to disenfranchise neighborhood groups and progressive students from the co-ops — in order to unseat Kriss Worthington. Worthington has been a strong supporter of tenants for many years – plus he is a BTU member!
PICK UP A PETITION THIS WEEKEND SATURDAY at 10am or 1pm
SUNDAY at 10am or 1pm
Grassroots House (where BTU meets) 2022 Blake Street
The Coalition also needs folks who can’t collect signatures to verify signers and do other office work. Contact berkeleyref (at) gmail.com
Denim Ohmit, vice president of finance for Cal Berkeley Democrats, believes…that more perfect district lines are attainable and worth all the effort of a referendum. ‘Why not get the best district possible?’ Ohmit said at the rally. ‘Redistricting is an opportunity that only comes once every ten years. The Daily Californian also compares the two student district maps, and has a photo of BTU member Judy Shelton collecting signatures. http://www.dailycal.org/2014/01/05/berkeley-referendum-rally-held-new-district-lines/
Berkeleyside: The council rejected another map that was introduced late in the process known as the United District Student Amendment (UDSA). That one had the co-ops. After the vote, supporters of the UDSA map decided to collect signatures for a referendum to put the issue before voters. http://www.berkeleyside.com/2014/01/03/tight-deadline-to-get-redistricting-referendum-on-ballot/
Berkeley is one of 14 cities in California that enjoys strong protections for tenants. San Francisco has decent protections, but has seen a huge wave of evictions that use a state law, the Ellis Act, to get around local rules.
Now there is a statewide effort to reform the Ellis Act. The law was intended to allow long-term owners to “go out of the rental business” but instead allows investment companies and other speculators to buy rent controlled buildings, evict all the tenants, and sell the units as condos or tenancies-in-common at huge profits.
Activists from San Diego to Redding are hoping a reformed law might require an owner to hold the building for at least five years before they could “go out of business” – this would eliminate speculators who buy rental properties only to flip them after evictions. However, in 2007 a bill in the California legislature which called for a five-year delay failed miserably. If a broad coalition from many cities – including Berkeley – doesn’t support the current reform, we could end up with a state exemption to the law that will only protect San Francisco.
And you know what they say – “When San Francisco sneezes, Berkeley get a cold!” If SF was able to curb their epidemic of evictions, speculators will quickly turn to Berkeley. This is why the Berkeley Tenants Union wants you to join with us in supporting broad statewide reform of the Ellis Act now!
Our friends at Tenants Together have put together a petition as a first step:
A state law, The Ellis Act, is responsible for the unfair eviction of thousands of seniors and families in California. In the past few years Ellis Act evictions have surged, with thousands of long-term tenants displaced from their homes.
San Francisco is taking other steps to end their eviction crisis – Berkeley should also increase Ellis relocation payments, restrict unit mergers, and give evicted residents priority for local affordable housing – join BTU to fight for this today! Right now, the revisions to the Berkeley Demolition Ordinance proposed by Mayor Bates will make it easier to eliminate rent controlled units by merging them to create big houses for the wealthy — the exact opposite of how San Francisco is changing their law! http://sfpublicpress.org/news/2013-12/supervisors-approve-plan-to-protect-tenants-against-displacement
Calling all tenants! Save fair elections and stop gerrymandering in Berkeley!
Come out on Saturday at 10:30 AM for the kickoff of the redistricting referendum. Folks who care about giving all voters a voice in Berkeley should come pick up petitions tomorrow – we have 30 days to gather 5,275 signatures!
The Council majority have approved a redistricting plan under the guise of creating a student district – but the district would only include students on the south side of campus, and cut the student co-ops from District 7, placing these progressive voters in the homeowner-dominated District 6. It seems that the vote may have been timed such that signatures must be collected while students, and practically everyone else in Berkeley, are traveling or in bed with the flu.
Tenants must show strong tenant support for the Berkeley Referendum Coalition, which includes the only two tenant Council members – the only Council folks who work closely with BTU to represent your concerns!
Worthington’s re-election may be at stake.
WHEN: Saturday, December 21, 2013, 10:30 AM WHAT: Kick-Off and Press Conference: Berkeley Redistricting Referendum WHO: Council members Jesse Arreguin and Kriss Worthington; neighborhood leaders, progressive activists and students WHERE: Outside Mudrakers Cafe, 2801 Telegraph Avenue, Berkeley
Berkeley Referendum Coalition press release:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 19, 2013
CONTACTS: Jesse Arreguin: 510-717-2910 Alejandro Soto-Vigil : 510-610-0466 Lisa Stephens: 510-575-2068 Kriss Worthington: 510-548-879 Matthew Lewis: 310-869-8250
A diverse coalition of Berkeley residents including neighborhood leaders, progressives and students will kick off a month-long signature drive this Saturday to stop the City Council’s controversial redistricting ordinance from going forward.
On Tuesday, December 17th, a divided Berkeley City Council on a 6-3 vote adopted a redistricting plan that will shape the composition of the Council for the next ten years.
Just like we have seen in Texas and throughout the country in which redistricting has been used for partisan political purposes, Berkeley’s City Council has adopted a controversial plan that not only divides neighborhoods but also gerrymanders out students and progressive voters who live north of the UC Berkeley campus. The Council rejected an alternative plan that (the United Student District Amendment) united students and kept neighborhoods together.
The Council could have chosen the plan that was more fair and inclusive, but instead adopted a partisan plan explicitly designed to minimize progressive voices on the Council. The Council also ignored other redistricting plans that were more balanced including the plan submitted by the Berkeley Neighborhoods Council.
Redistricting has been before the Council for the last three years. In early 2012 the Council voted to delay redistricting for one year, which disenfranchised over 4,000 people, keeping them from voting for the City Councilmember who would ultimately represent them. In November 2012 Berkeley voters approved changes to the Charter around redistricting which gave Council total flexibility to draw new boundaries. Prior to Measure R, the Council could only make minor adjustments to pre-existing boundaries that were adopted by voters in 1986. Unfortunately the Council has abused this new power, creating an unfair map.
Proponents of the redistricting referendum have 30 days to gather 5,275 signatures to stop the ordinance from going into effect. If we are successful the Council will have to reconsider the ordinance or put it on the ballot. The Berkeley Referendum Coalition is working over this holiday season to gather signatures so that the City Council can reconsider its decision and do the right thing – come up with a fair and inclusive plan that unites neighborhoods, students and the entire community.
Fun fact: In 1812, the word “gerrymandering” was created in response to Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry’s redrawing of state senate districts to favor the Democratic-Republican Party.
Berkeleyside: Berkeley Redistricting Map Splits Council, Community “Some officials and community members testified that the council should reconsider its previous vote and, instead, approve Elgstrand’s USDA map. Supporters of this map said it does a better job protecting the progressive voice and keeping neighborhood groups like Halcyon and Le Conte together. Some questioned the legitimacy of the public process surrounding the BSDC map.” http://www.berkeleyside.com/2013/12/18/berkeley-redistricting-map-splits-council-community/
Daily Californian: “The United Student District Amendment, proposed this summer as an improvement to the BSDC plan, includes Northside student cooperatives, as well as the dorms on the northeast side of campus and International House. Both sides want a student district — some hope that new boundaries could put a student on the City Council — but proponents of the USDA plan have called the BSDC map unnecessarily exclusive.” http://www.dailycal.org/2013/12/18/city-council-passes-redistricting-plan-referendum-may-follow/
Tenants Together has a Statewide Petition to Change the Ellis Act: “…then real estate speculators starting abusing the Ellis Act to turn a quick profit by evicting long-term tenants and selling the units. Ellis Act evictions are now surging. In San Francisco and Los Angeles in particular, thousands of rent-controlled tenants are being displaced by Ellis Act evictions.” – and Berkeley could be next! http://org2.salsalabs.com/o/5247/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=15820
This 18-unit OCCUPIED building on Durant has applied for a demolition permit.
Berkeley City Council is supposed to discuss three major policy changes concerning tenants THIS TUESDAY. There is a move to require owners of unsafe buildings to retrofit for earthquakes and another to allow tenants to be evicted for smoking cigarettes — but by far the most alarming issue is the Demolition Ordinance.
Last week, the Planning Commission was to consider changes to the law that have been in the works, and in the news, for months. But city staff said a California Supreme Court decision called Sterling Park, and a pending decision on a case involving the City of San Jose, mean that the city should do a “nexus study” before they change the existing law on demolition.
Since most of the changes weren’t very good for tenants, you might think that is good news — but it’s not! For one thing, a nexus study is about a fee, not about requiring one-for-one replacement of demolished rent controlled units with permanently affordable housing. For another, the City Attorney says the current law means any EMPTY rent controlled unit can be bulldozed with no mitigation whatsoever.
BTU needs you to stand with us during public comment on Tuesday at 7 PM!
We were told the demolition law would be on the Council agenda this week, but it isn’t, so we want folks to come during comment for off-agenda items, to restate the message in our petition – which now has over 270 signatures.
BTU member and Rent Board Commissioner Judy Shelton said it best at the Planning Commission:
“The various considerations of how to proceed with the Demolition Ordinance are confusing and difficult to parse, but for tenants this is a really simple issue: We want one-for-one replacement on demolitions of rent-controlled units, and we want these replacement units to be permanently affordable.
We don’t care what studies the City needs to conduct to make this happen. We don’t want a financial mitigation of $20,000, or even $34,000. We want the units.
We don’t care about the Sterling Park court decision. All we care about is that no affordable units be lost.
And if the City can’t do that, the City shouldn’t tear down rent-controlled housing.”
Scenes like this will no longer be confined to Southside if revisions to the Demolition Ordinance allow destruction of small rental properties to build expensive commuter apartments.
DATE: November 5, 2013 TO: Planning Commissioners RE: Demolition Ordinance
SUMMARY: Please preserve affordable housing by again recommending the June 4 compromise on the Demolition Ordinance. Please find attached our petition — with 270 signatures.
Respected Planning Commissioners:
The Berkeley Tenants Union is extremely concerned about proposed changes to the demolition ordinance. As you may recall, you already approved changes to this zoning code in the spring. We think it might be a bit confusing that this law is before you once again, so we have tried to provide a comprehensive summary with links to all relevant documents in this correspondence.
In December of 2011, the Berkeley City Council directed staff to draft amended language to Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 23C.08, the “Demolition and Elimination of Dwelling Units Ordinance.” (Document:Council Direction 12-6-11) In June of 2013, staff presented a draft that met all the requests Council made in 2011, and was approved by the Rent Board and the Planning Commission. The same draft has also been presented one month before, at the 4×4 Committee, and neither Mayor Bates nor Councilman Capitelli voiced any concerns with the draft. On June 4, it looked like Council was going to pass this compromise draft (Document: June 4 draft), until time ran out on the meeting.
Then something changed. The Council began to question the June 4 compromise, and considered a new draft, perhaps hastily prepared, presented at the July 2 Council meeting. (Document:July 2 Draft). The new draft appeared to be based on requests made by developer Equity Residential (Document:ER Letter to Council), who are now Berkeley’s largest landlord. Since Council got letters of objection from many civic groups, including the Sierra Club, Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, Berkeley Neighborhoods Council, and Berkeley Tenants Union, they sent the Ordinance back to the Planning Commission and the Housing Advisory Commission.
What do these drafts say?
Currently BMC 23C says “controlled rental units” cannot be eliminated unless the owner “cannot make a fair return on investment by maintaining the dwelling unit as a part of the rental housing market” and that those apartments must also be “seriously deteriorated beyond the conditions which might reasonably be expected due to normal use.” It also says that demolished rent controlled units must be replaced with permanently affordable housing. (Document: DemoCURRENT)
Problems with the current law arose because the City Attorney decided that empty units which would otherwise be under rent control are not “controlled rental units” and therefore not subject to the rules above. This means any empty unit can be torn down with no mitigation for the loss of affordable older units which would be under rent control if they were rented. Such a policy encourages owners to leave buildings to rot, promotes evictions and harassment, and may violate not only the Demolition law, but also the voter-approved Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance. (Document:NPO)
To end the controversy about the interpretation of the law, the Rent Board and the City Council called for revisions, but Council also asked that new rules require “units are replaced with an equal or greater number of new units inclusive of the current number of existing affordable units.” (Document: Council Direction 12-6-11) Likewise, the June 4 draft required developers who tear down multiunit buildings built before 1980 (those covered by rent control) replace them with “designated below-market rate units equal in number and comparable in size to the demolished units.”
However, the July and August drafts do not call for one-for-one replacement of affordable rent controlled units with housing for low-income renters. The July 2 and August 30 drafts both require developers pay a fee into the Housing Trust Fund. However, the fee in the July 2 draft is about 10% of what it costs to build an affordable unit, and the fee in the August 30 draft is unspecified and thus could be changed by City Council at any time. (Document:Worse Aug 30 draft)
There are numerous other problems with the July and August drafts. For example, one scheme outlined by developer Equity Residential was included in the July draft. This calls for replacement units in the new building which would be “designated rent increase restricted” – however, the Rent Board (Document:Berkeley Rent Board letter) and East Bay Community Law Center (Document:EBCLC Letter) have both pointed out that this violates the state law called Costa-Hawkins, because that law banned any new rent control in California, even if you call it by another name.
In addition, later drafts contradict the voter-approved Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance and may be challenged in court if they are made law. (Document:NPO)
Several community groups have sent communications on this issue that raise various additional concerns, such as the wisdom of tearing down perfectly fine small buildings at all, and the environmental impact of encouraging growth through demolition. You can find copies of public communications from The Sierra Club, Berkeley NAACP, Berkeley Neighborhoods Council, and Berkeley Architectural Heritage Assn. on our website along with all documents we have linked to in the text above.
The real question here is what kind of community benefits does Berkeley need in exchange for allowing speculators to tear down a useable rent controlled building in order to build a bigger one with market rate apartments? This is not just about what legal mitigations a nexus study might allow. We can actually choose, as Berkeley did in the 1970s, to ban demolition altogether. BTU hopes you might realize that rent control has been Berkeley’s most successful affordable housing program, and that rent controlled units should be preserved, even if they are not rented at this time.
You can choose not to allow demolition – and you should choose this if there is going to be a long wait for a Nexus study.
Please see the attached petition, with 270 signatures. Please note that, following pages with electronic signatures and comments, there are scans of the paper petitions.
Please again recommend the June 4 compromise draft.
Sincerely,
Berkeley Tenants Union Steering Committee, on behalf of the tenants of Berkeley
Because of the appeal of the Zoning Board ruling, tenants who lost almost everything in the 2012 fire at 2227 Dwight Way will be given relocation benefits and the units, once rebuilt, will remain under rent control. City Council voted to uphold the ZAB ruling, but “clarified” that previous tenants have the right to reoccupy the apartments at the previous rent-controlled rates. The units will remain under rent control, but if the old tenants don’t move back in, new rents can be set at market.
The appeal challenged the ZAB decision that the owners, the infamous Lakireddy family, would not have to pay the affordable housing mitigation fee. At issue was the possibility that the owners were at fault for the extend of the fire damage because smoke detectors and fire alarms may not have sounded, and the fire may have been caused by a faulty water heater.
Because of the appeal, the City Council also plans to clarify what constitutes “fault” when properties destroyed by fire are exempt from city fees like the affordable housing mitigation fee. In the appeal, it was suggested that city staff only looks for arson and does not consider negligence when determining fault.
Several BTU members wrote to the City Council in support of the appeal, and many tenant advocates spoke at the meeting.
According to Inside Bay Area, Council also voted to make rental housing inspection safety reports from the Dwight property public documents.
Tenants from the building on Dwight partly destroyed by fire are asking for support on October 29. Renters and friends from 2227 Dwight, owned by Lakireddy Bali Reddy, the famous Berkeley landlord who plead guilty to federal charges about immigration fraud, transporting a minor for sex and tax evasion, are appealing the Zoning Board ruling that allows the owner to rebuild without paying mitigation fees. At issue is whether the owner was at fault for the extent of the fire because the smoke alarms may have been disconnected.
This is from BTU member Luis Amezcua:
The tenants of 2227 Dwight Way, on March 8, 2013, lost most, if not all, their personal possessions due to the fire that happened that night. The Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) approved a use permit to reconstruct the building, but there are some uncertainties that need to be addressed before the reconstruction can begin. For clarification, the appeal does not object to the reconstruction to the building, since it would remove a blight from the neighborhood and provide needed housing.
The ZAB was not fully informed of 2227 Dwight, and were unsure as to whether the fee and other mitigations applied. Even with the testimony of one tenant about the fire and the owner’s negligence, Staff determined that, because the fire was not arson, it was accidental. Staff failed to fully analyze the issue of fault, and restricted themselves between two possibilities (either arson or accidental) when making their determination; however, there is evidence that suggests that the landlord is fault due to negligence. The fire report states that “the building’s fire alarm system was not sounding when fire units arrived at the scene and was not heard sounding by firefighters at any point during the incident”, and that “the full circumstances surrounding the failure of the fire alarm system are still under investigation”. Tenants testify that the landlord disabled the fire alarm system due to false alarms, and it is a factor that needs to be considered when determining fault. Furthermore, there is still pending litigation between some of the former tenants and the property owner, with the question of who’s at fault being key. A few of the former tenants received settlement payments from the property owners – something that wouldn’t happen if this was an open and shut case where the property owner clearly was not at fault.
The ZAB’s decision on 2227 Dwight Way encourages owners of older housing to not adequately maintain their properties by creating unsafe housing which result in fire incidents. When a building is burned down, the owner can put the new units at market rate, lowering the amount of affordable housing in Berkeley, and allowing owners to avoid the Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee. All we ask is that the Council either require affordable housing to be built on site, an in-lieu payment be made to the Housing Trust Fund, or staff thoroughly investigate the issue of fault and remand this project back to the Zoning Adjustments Board with sufficient information so that they can make the proper findings (including the determination of fault).
City Council hears the appeal on October 29 and the tenants are asking for support at the meeting.
