Tag: Berkeley Tenants Union

By Posted on Posted in Actions
DEMO_1106
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

P.S. All documents mentioned in this correspondence can be found here:
https://www.berkeleytenants.org/?page_id=773

By Posted on Posted in Issues

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.

Inside Bay Area
http://www.insidebayarea.com/breaking-news/ci_24420395/berkeley-council-upholds-affordable-housing-exemption-rebuilt-apartments

Daily Californian
http://www.dailycal.org/2013/10/30/fire-damaged-building-retain-rent-controlled-status/

Berkeleyside
http://www.berkeleyside.com/2013/10/31/fire-damaged-berkeley-apartments-to-stay-rent-controlled/comment-page-1/

Daily Planet
http://berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2013-10-26/article/41579?headline=Berkeley-City-Council-to-Decide-on-Appeal-Brought-by-Former-Tenants-of-Fire-Ravaged-Building-with-History-of-Landlord-Negligence–By-Marcia-Poole

By Posted on Posted in Issues

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.

By Posted on Posted in Issues

Bulb_1025The City of Berkeley is working with the Ecology Center and other nonprofits to offer energy upgrades and sustainability tips to renters. They may even install a new shower head to cut down on water use!

Call 510-981-9818 or email “joanna at ebenergy.org” to schedule a one-on-one consultation.

By Posted on Posted in Issues

Couch_1017Date Change: Seismic Retrofits
The Berkeley City Council vote on mandatory Seismic Retrofits for “soft story” buildings is now scheduled for Tuesday, November 19.

Berkeley’s Demolition Law and Recent Zoning Changes
“…this new demolition ordinance draft which paves the way for developers to demolish all of the existing apartments in downtown Berkeley.”
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2013-10-04/article/41520?headline=New-Berkeley-Demolition-Ordinance-Proposal-Threatens-Rent-Controlled-Housing–By-Stephen-Stine

Brown Vetos Affordable Housing Bill
BTU will report back on how this veto may impact changes to the Demolition Ordinance
http://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/Brown-vetoes-bill-requiring-affordable-rental-4901709.php

Ellis Evictions Skyrocket: Protests in San Francisco
It won’t be long before the eviction wave comes across the Bay.
http://evictionfreesummer.wordpress.com/ 

San Francisco Housing Crisis in the New Yorker
SF Mayor says, “We’ve got to…make sure we protect many of the rent-controlled apartments that we have.” With his campaign to relax rules about demolition of rent controlled buildings, we are not sure the Berkeley Mayor would agree!
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2013/09/at-the-rent-board-new-tales-of-the-city.html?mobify=0

Berkeley’s Progressive Days
At Berkeley History Center on Center Street
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Everybody-got-together-in-Berkeley-commune-days-4889254.php

By Posted on Posted in Issues

On October 1, City Council rejected the long process between the Rent Board and the Health Commission and decided to draft new antismoking legislation on the fly. Staff has to come back with actual language, but it is very likely that Berkeley will make it legal to evict tenants for smoking cigarettes, even if the lease has allowed smoking for years.

The new laws will also apply to owners who live in multiunit buildings, for example an owner-occupied unit in a building which also has rental units, or a condominium. However, owners can’t be evicted, and tenants can!!  The City Council keeps saying they want a law that can be enforced, but this latest plan puts the obligation to enforce the law onto landlords. Who will enforce the law against owners who smoke?

QUOTE_100813BTU hasn’t taken an official position, in part because the draft that was going to Council last week balanced concerns about protecting housing with the needs of those who are impacted by secondhand smoke. Now one big concern might be that the phase-in period for the law hardly gives long-term addicts the time to successfully quit. Also, landlords are far more likely to enforce the smoking ban against long-term tenants with controlled rents, while not acting to protect other residents from second-hand smoke if the smoker is paying a high price for his or her unit.

If you are concerned one way or the other, contacting Linda Maio would be a good place to start. It sounded like she is very in favor of the new rules to define smoking as a nuisance. Email her: lmaio@CityofBerkeley.info 

Councilman Arreguin’s Explanation of His Concerns for Tenants:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2013-10-04/article/41505?headline=Why-I-Voted-No-on-Second-Hand-Smoke-Ordinance–By-Councilmember-Jesse-Arreguin

Daily Californian Report on Council Meeting:
http://www.dailycal.org/2013/10/02/berkeley-city-council-votes-amend-proposed-smoking-ban/

By Posted on Posted in Issues

city-to-suburb_stamenreprisedforwired-660x5891Oakland fights to close rent control loophole:
Berkeley tenants enjoy protections against bad business decisions by owners. Here, landlords can only passthrough “capital” costs if they were not foreseeable when they set the initial rent or they can’t make a fair return on their investment. In Oakland, their weaker rent control law is further undermined by broad rules which allow landlords who paid too much for a building to then raise the rents to pay their mortgage. Oakland is fighting to close this loophole even as Berkeley tenants could see passthrough rules relaxed so that landlords can charge for seismic retrofits:

“Of the ten major jurisdictions in California that have rent control laws, only four allow landlords to pass on the costs of debt service. Of those four, Oakland is the only municipality that allows landlords to force tenants to pay up to 95 percent of their debt.”

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/oakland-rent-laws-to-be-debated/Content?oid=3719780#fromMobile

In San Francisco, the rents are too damn high:
The SF Department of Public Health made an interactive map which shows how many full-time minimum wage jobs it takes to pay rent on the average market rate apartment in each SF neighborhood. For example, in the Mission District, it would take 5.5 minimum wage jobs to pay rent on a new 2-bedroom apartment, because market rent is $2,920. The actual median income of the neighborhood is about half of what it takes to pay that rent.
http://www.sfphes.org/news/211-rent-affordability-in-san-francisco

Thoughtful tech industry comments on gentrification, development, and the “Google Bus” phenomena:
“Whichever side of this issue you’re on, it’s clear that we’re looking at a reversal of the historical norm: The workers that used to live in residential suburbs while commuting to work in the city are now living in the city, while the largest technology companies are based in the suburbs and increasingly draw their labor supply from dense urban neighborhoods…That they’re young and educated and lots of them are millionaires is kind of beside the point. It’s about more than gentrification as we’ve experienced it thus far: It’s about an entirely reconfigured relationship between density and sprawl…”

This article contains a really cool map but it doesn’t show that these tech industry shuttles now pick up at MacArthur, Ashby and North Berkeley BART stations as well.
http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/09/mapping-silicon-valleys-corporate-shuttle-problem/

Nob Hill building with 33 units would be largest Tenancy in Common:
Over in San Francisco, investors would like to use the state Ellis Act to evict rent controlled tenants and turn buildings in condominiums. Only they can’t, because like Berkeley, San Francisco has tight restrictions on how many precious affordable rent controlled units can be turned into condos each year. So speculators turn them into Tenancies-in-Common, which are like condos, only not. Pretty soon investors in Berkeley will be exploiting similar loopholes, so let’s get ready!
http://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/Park-Lane-tenants-protest-conversion-plans-4853226.php

Meanwhile back in Berkeley, BNC issues strong statement on Demolition Ordinance:
The Berkeley Neighborhoods Council newsletter discusses how revisions to the Demo Ordinance are not only bad for tenants, but also for neighborhood stability:

“This provision puts multiple unit buildings that are well-integrated parts of neighborhoods throughout the city at risk of being demolished for no other reason than a developer sees an opportunity to replace it with a new and bigger building.”

In their September newsletter, BNC reminds everyone that the Ordinance will be discussed November 6 at the Planning Commission.
http://www.berkeleyneighborhoodscouncil.com/Newsletters/2013/Issue2/BNC_eNEWS_2_NNRaA2.htm

Speculators Driving Up Rents in East and West Oakland:
Big national companies are outbidding regular folk and buying up foreclosures all over Oakland’s flatlands, breaking up long-standing African American communities. Some firms just slap a new coat of paint on the “distressed property” and resell them right away, at prices working people can’t afford. Others are offering these homes at San Francisco-type rents, but plan to sell them in five to seven years. Several nonprofits – including Oakland Community Land Trust and Restoring Ownership Opportunities Together –are working to keep owners in their homes, or buy foreclosures and keep them affordable to working people. If you think this is going on in Berkeley, let us know!
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/whos-jacking-up-housing-prices-in-west-oakland/Content?oid=3726518

By Posted on Posted in Actions

April 28 BTU - 18Good news on the Demolition Ordinance!

On September 12, the Housing Advisory Committee voted unanimously to support one-for-one replacement of demolished rent controlled units with permanently affordable housing. They recommended the good June 4 compromise draft over the more recent drafts, which provide incentive for developers to empty buildings of all tenants.

The key vote on the Demolition Ordinance will be the one by the Planning Commission on November 6. BTU will be calling all tenants to come out to the meeting. We need Planning on our side to save Berkeley from the bulldozer.

By Posted on Posted in Issues

Our awesome web guy and I went to the Berkeley Public Library and took some photos from their file on the history of the rent strike, the birth of rent control, and the struggles of the Berkeley Tenants Union in the 1970s and 1980s. We will post some of the scans and copies of full-text articles at a later date – here’s the really fun stuff!

Click on each photo for a closer view.

April-28-BTU---01April-28-BTU---03

April-28-BTU---02