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/
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
Berkeley City Council may finalize the law making it illegal to smoke in any multi-unit building in Berkeley on Tuesday December 3. Councilman Arreguin is making one more attempt to ensure the new law treats owners and renters equally. His suggestions also include more information to guide new renters, such as a registry of rental units and their smoking history, requiring owners to post signs, and that smokers receive warnings before they are fined.
Arreguin’s proposal – Council Item 28 – includes the radical suggestion that Berkeley actually allocate city staff to enforce the law!
28.Referral to City Manager: Amendments to Tobacco-Free Multi-Unit Housing Ordinance(Continued from November 19, 2013) From: Councilmember Arreguin Recommendation: Refer to the City Manager for incorporation in a draft Tobacco-Free Multi-Unit Housing Ordinance the following proposals: 1. Delay the effective date of the ordinance to May 1, 2014, rather than March 1, 2014 as previously directed by the City Council, so that staff has adequate time to draft amendments based on this referral and bring back a final ordinance for Council adoption. Also delay the requirement that landlords notify tenants effective January 1, 2014. A delayed implementation date would also provide enough time for the city to conduct outreach to owners and tenants of the new requirements and increase smoking cessation resources before the ordinance goes into effect. 2. All initial leases or rental agreements signed on or after May 1, 2014 shall include language expressly prohibiting smoking in the units or in any common areas of a multi-unit residence. 3. That all initial leases or rental agreements signed after May 1, 2014, also notify tenants which units in the building do not have leases which expressly prohibit smoking. 4. Failure to provide either of the lease provisions noted above will allow the new tenant to break the lease without penalty. (the language proposed by the Manager on October 1st along with the modifications proposed by the Rent Board on October 1st suffices). 5. That the City or Rent Board actively encourage and try to get tenants to sign voluntary lease addendums which prohibit smoking. Any voluntary lease addendum should be on a City/Rent Board developed form. 6. That the Rent Board establish and maintain a registry of all rental units in multi-unit housing indicating which units have leases that expressly prohibit smoking & require owners to notify the Rent Stabilization Board of lease provisions prohibiting smoking, and that the city require that owners of units registered with the Rent Board and those that aren’t registered provide information on which units have no-smoking lease clauses. 7. That owners be required to post signs in common areas of all multi-unit housing indicating smoking is prohibited. 8. That the City allocate staff to enforce violations of this ordinance through an initial investigation, written warning and followed by progressively increasing fines of $250, $500, $1000 and $1,500 for each infraction. Consistent with the previous staff drafted ordinance, there should be a cap on the number of private right of actions that any individual resident may file in a year against another smoking resident. 9. Includes the private right of action but strengthen it by allowing each resident to collect no more than $1,000 in a calendar year through private right of action. Doing this allows us to show that we are not tolerating or condoning smoking but believe that real financial penalties (rather than an unequal risk of lost housing) should be an appropriate penalty that can be applied in a more uniform way. Also making a violation the ordinance an infraction does not give an owner automatic grounds to evict a tenant. Also include the mandatory mediation provisions included in the ordinance proposed by the Manager on October 1, 10. Warnings be required by landlords and by the City before any enforcement action can be taken. The City Council should authorize sufficient staff and a funding source for proper enforcement and outreach. Previously, the City Manager indicated such a program would cost in the neighborhood of $120,000 annually to implement. Councilmember Maio indicated that the inspectors associated with the Rental Housing Safety Program be charged with implementing the Ordinance. If the RHSP fee were increased by $5 per unit, there would be sufficient resources to fund the necessary staff to implement the provisions of the Tobacco-Free Multi-Family Housing Ordinance I am proposing. If there needs to be a specific nexus between a no smoking ordinance and the RHSP program, City staff should explore amending the housing code so that smoking is a violation that can be cited and enforced by RHSP Housing code inspectors.
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
Thursday, October 10 at 5 PM Final Public Hearing on Seismic Retrofits
City of Berkeley Hearing sponsored by ASUC
UC Berkeley Alumni Hall: 2537 Haste Street
Currently, the plan is to allow landlords to pass costs onto tenants if the landlord can claim paying for the retrofit is a hardship. Since Rent Board rules already allow owners to pass costs on to tenants if they are not making a fair return on their investment, these new hardship rules imply that owners who “need” to raise rents for seismic safety are already making a fair return, so where is the hardship??!
REVISED DATE!Tuesday, November 19 at 7 PM Seismic Retrofits to City Council Council Chambers: 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way
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?
BTU 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
This Thursday, October 3, the Housing Advisory Commission will vote on their recommendations to Council regarding the law to require landlords to fix unsound buildings. BTU attended the last HAC meeting to speak about our concern:
Tenants should not have to pay extra rent for safe housing!
The City will hold the final public hearing on the law to require seismic retrofits for Berkeley’s most unstable rental housing on October 10 at 5 PM. Since the first hearing was held over the summer, and so many students live in these “soft story” buildings, the October hearing is cosponsored by Berkeley’s ASUC and will be held on campus but open to everyone. Only five tenants spoke at the July 27 hearing, although more than 40 landlords were present.
On September 16, the Berkeley Rent Board finished their recommendations to Council, which cite many ways that owners with financial hardship could pay for retrofits without raising rents. However, even the Rent Board voted to consider amending rules so that landlords can raise rents! If tenants do not speak out at the meetings listed below, Berkeley tenants could see increases under the new mandatory retrofit rules like those in San Francisco, where rents in unsafe buildings are going up an average of $900 a year!
Seismic Retrofit Recommendations Thursday October 3 – 7 PM
Housing Advisory Commission
South Berkeley Senior Center
Final Public Hearing on Seismic Retrofits Thursday October 10 — 5 PM
City of Berkeley Hearing sponsored by ASUC
UC Berkeley Alumni Hall – 2537 Haste Street
Seismic Retrofits to City Council REVISED DATE November 19 — 7 PM
Council Chambers: 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way
The Berkeley Tenants Union has no position on the emerging legislation to make cigarette smoking illegal in all multiunit buildings in Berkeley. This hot issue pits neighbor against neighbor, especially since the City Council’s draft only has one enforcement mechanism: take your neighbor to small claims court!
Requests from the Rent Board and other constituents for the city to require mediation have not been included in the rules, which would make smoking in or around their buildings illegal for tenants and condominium owners, even if smoking is allowed in the lease or homeowner’s agreement. Smoking will be prohibited in all new leases.
Possible changes to the current draft of the law which are discussed in the Council report:
Mandating mediation
More aggressively enforcing the Ordinance
Defining smoking in multi-unit housing as a nuisance to allow evictions
Requiring a registry of units with non-smoking clauses in their leases
Including medical cannabis smoking
The Berkeley City Council will finally vote on the controversial law at their meeting Tuesday, which begins at 7 PM at 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way and will be broadcast on the web, cable TV and 89.3 FM. The current draft does include some increased support for smokers trying to quit.
Our elected Rent Board has been under fire from at least one antismoking advocate. The Commissioners expressed concerns that defining smoking as a nuisance would lead to evictions, pushed for mediation to be mandatory before law suits are filed, and also requested that the city enable their department to provide tracking so prospective tenants would know if they are applying for a unit next door to a smoker and/or if smoking happened during the previous tenancy: May 7 Smoke-free Housing Council final
Berkeley’s Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) will consider several hot issues at their meeting on Thursday September 12, including mandatory retrofits of seismically unsafe apartment buildings and alarming changes to the demolition ordinance which would threaten rent control and lead to evictions.
The HAC will also hear an update about the exciting new program that offers energy efficient upgrades to tenants and landlords, a proposed ordinance declaring mold unhealthy in rental units, and changes to the affordable housing fees developers of new buildings must pay to offset the impact of unaffordable units on the community.
TENANTS, Come Out and Have Your Say!
South Berkeley Senior Center, 2939 Ellis Street, at 7 PM Thursday
Demolition Ordinance The Berkeley NAACP joined with other organizations like BTU and the Sierra Club in opposing new drafts of the Demolition Ordinance which don’t require rent controlled apartments be replaced with units affordable to low-income residents.
The Berkeley NAACP top priority recommendation in the Housing category for the report from their summer Town Hall meeting was, “Demolition Ordinance will include the replacement of all affordable housing that is demolished.” Unfortunately, there is a new draft of the demo ordinance that came out on August 30 which would allow developers to tear down rent controlled units, even those which are occupied or in good condition, and not replace them. The new draft allows developers to pay an unspecified fee which could be changed by City Council at any time.
BTU is standing by our request that Council approve the June 4th compromise draft, and we are still collecting signatures for our petition, which we will also present to the HAC.
Seismic Retrofits BTU is determined that tenants should not be forced to pay a rent increase just because their building will stand up for 3-5 more seconds in a major earthquake.
Mold Right now, Berkeley Housing Code Enforcement can’t cite for mold in apartment buildings because even severe mold, which causes asthma and other health problems, is not defined in our city codes as a hazard. This new law is based on one that has protected San Francisco tenants for years.
If you can’t come to the Housing Commission meeting Thursday, write to them care of kslee@cityofberkeley.info
PICK UP A PETITION THIS WEEKEND
