Tag: evictions

By Posted on Posted in Issues

Businesses do not like to be regulated. In fact, Airbnb sued San Francisco, Santa Monica, and New York City quite some time ago about the same issue they have now threatened to sue Berkeley about – yet in all the discussions City Council had about short term rentals (STRs), they have never discussed those lawsuits?

Airbnb and HomeAway say they are protected when they advertise illegal rentals just like YouTube and Yelp are protected when they host user content. Not exactly the same thing? Craigslist was recently found not to be responsible for housing ads that ban minorities, with the court saying it would be like FedEx looking in every package. However, Airbnb makes money directly off the services it markets and also already claims to vet the listings in other ways. Are short term rental hosting platforms like social media, or are they like e-commerce sites?

Airbnb has invoked Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. As San Francisco Deputy City Attorney Robb Kapla said, Section 230 doesn’t apply. “San Francisco is regulating commercial transactions, not speech,” he said.

Also, some Council members have said to me that if Berkeley doesn’t give in to the mega corporation’s threats, then Berkeley’s new STR Law could be put on hold – that would be great! Right now, short term rentals are just illegal! Why not just enforce that so we can have those 200-400 homes for rent again?

That is the real problem with Short Term Rentals in Berkeley – that the city staff and city leaders have refused to enforce ANY short term rental provisions while trying to get a law legalizing some of the rentals in place. Berkeley is sending the wrong message – essentially telling owners it’s OK to break the law. By changing our new law in response to a threat instead of joining Santa Monica and San Francisco in fighting for our housing, Berkeley is sending another wrong message.

San Francisco’s law was not put on hold, just enforcement of the provision fining platforms who list illegal hosts. So why doesn’t Berkeley join on the side of SF and Santa Monica the way that HomeAway and some big property managers have joined on the side of Airbnb? If Berkeley won’t fight the lawsuit, why not file an amicus brief?

Instead the City Council voted unanimously to edit the new law – a law that has had countless public hearings and been debated for almost three years – just the way Airbnb asked them to!

Additionally, the Council report our new renter-Mayor Jesse Arreguin submitted said that changing this key enforcement provision will cost Berkeley nothing. But Berkeley contracts with an outside vendor to (not do) its enforcement. If every ad has to show the host has registered, how much easier will it be to see who is legal and who is not? How much money will that save Berkeley?

Again, it would also be really easy to see who is breaking the law if we just went back to not allowing any short term rentals, and enforced that! Isn’t that what our leaders should be saying to Airbnb? Isn’t this just a big game of chicken?

Then the item from Jesse Arreguin goes even further: it says Berkeley will lose money if Council doesn’t do what Airbnb wants, not because we will be sued, but because we won’t get revenue from short term rental listings. Like we just sold Berkeley’s housing rights? Actually we could generate a lot of money by fining all the people who are already breaking the law.

Shouldn’t the City Council have at least held a closed session to discuss pending litigation before they let Airbnb off the hook?

Santa Monica responded to their lawsuit – which actually claims the law violates the US Constitution – by making their rules even stricter and demanding any business renting for the short term appear on a public city registry just like other small businesses do. This is something BTU asked for in Berkeley, so we could make complaints and track enforcement by being able to see who is legally registered. But even Berkeley’s new City Council would not do this for tenants. The registry is not public.

In San Francisco, New York, and many other places they have moved toward more and more restrictive laws because owners just continue to ignore them. In San Francisco, Airbnb made a big show of taking 900 of the thousands of illegal listings off of their site. In New York, you can now call 311 if you think your neighbor is running an illegal hotel.

Santa Monica recently won a case where a large landlord created fake profiles to get around the local laws. BTU has found several owners with fake profiles, including some who rent all the rooms in one house under two different “host profiles” to disguise that they are renting a whole unit, since renting rooms is allowed under Berkeley’s new law.

Another trend we see in Berkeley is that large landlords who had complaints filed against them just move their listings away from Airbnb and HomeAway and try to hide them on Sabbatical Homes, Flipkey, or even Craigslist.

Berkeley Council Has Second Reading April 25th – it’s not too late!

Meet the New Boss, Same As the Old Boss?
“After over two years of discussion and a lengthy community process, the City Council voted on an ordinance that would regulate Short Term Rentals (STRs) in a balanced way that ensures people can rent out a spare unit, while preventing the exploitation of converting units into mini-hotels. The ordinance provides a method of enforcement that would make it easy to identify violators, and prevent Accessory Dwelling Units from being used as STRs (a position 8 out of 9 members of the Council agreed on). However, during the second reading of the ordinance, last minute changes were proposed that jeopardized the entire process. Despite a previous consensus, several Councilmembers are backtracking as a result of intensive lobbying from Airbnb, which among other things would make it very difficult to enforce.”
Jesse Arreguin, July 2016 Newsletter

Airbnb Letter to Berkeley and City Council Response
“After consultation with AirBnB representatives and City Attorney, it is prudent to strike this section to avoid unnecessary litigation so the ordinance can move forward and so AirBnB can work cooperatively with the city in implementation.”
2017-04-04 Item 11 Amending BMC Section 23C 22 050, Short-Term Rental-1

San Francisco Lawsuit: Initial Ruling Against AirBnB
“City Attorney Dennis Herrera applauded the ruling. “I am grateful for Judge Donato’s thoughtful ruling recognizing that just because Airbnb and Homeaway conduct their business online, they are not exempt from any regulation of their commercial transactions,” he said in a statement. “Online businesses don’t get a free pass from the types of regulations that apply to other businesses in San Francisco.”
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Airbnb-rebuked-in-SF-lawsuit-10602042.php

Why San Francisco is Winning
“James Donato, a US District Court Judge for California’s Northern District, didn’t see it that way. In November 2016, he dealt a major setback to Airbnb when he rejected the company’s request to block the ordinance. Donato didn’t buy Airbnb’s Section 230 argument. As he put it, San Francisco’s ordinance doesn’t treat Airbnb as the publisher of illegal rental listings, nor does it force Airbnb to police its website and remove such listings. It simply holds Airbnb accountable for its own conduct: providing “booking services” in connection with unregistered units.”
https://backchannel.com/the-most-important-law-in-tech-has-a-problem-64f5464128b6

1431 Allston -Multiple Rooms under different “Hosts”

 

Details About Each Step of the SF Case:
http://ia601908.us.archive.org/8/items/gov.uscourts.cand.300367/gov.uscourts.cand.300367.docket.html

Airbnb Pulls 900 Illegal SF Listings
http://www.sfweekly.com/news/airbnb-ousts-nearly-1000-sf-home-listings/

Santa Monica Sued In September
“The goal of Santa Monica’s legislation is to eliminate so-called “rentalpreneurs”, people who use services like Airbnb to lease out several units that, critics argue, would otherwise be used as housing stock in L.A.’s historically tight rental market. For example, a group of evicted tenants sued their former landlord last December, after their old homes showed up in Airbnb’s listing pages.”
http://laist.com/2016/09/03/airbnb_sues_santa_monica_over_airbn.php

Santa Monica Responds by Making Law Tougher
“The City Council voted 4-0 to require all “home sharing” hosts to not only register with the City but have their information published on a special registry compiled by the City. Officials said it is not unusual for businesses to opt out of such lists, but that eliminating the choice in this case will make it easier for the City to catch hosts who are operating without having registered.”
http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2017/January-2017/01_12_2017_Santa_Monica_Gets_Even_Tougher_on_Short_Term_Vacation_Rental_Hosts.html

Details on Santa Monica Lawsuit
http://strfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Airbnb-Santa-Monica-Complaint.pdf

More About the Law Airbnb Invoked
“In Airbnb’s case, the short-term rental giant is arguing that although some people might be breaking the law by listing property on Airbnb without first registering with the city, Airbnb isn’t responsible — and can’t be held accountable — for what people decide to list on its platform.”
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-airbnb-free-speech-20160629-snap-story.html

Tech Industry Wants Its Shield
“…Detractors say the law has been applied too broadly, and judges have pushed back in a string of recent cases. Section 230 was intended to protect free speech online by removing liability for a newspaper, say, for libelous comments posted on their websites by readers.
But Deputy City Attorney Robb Kapla said Section 230 doesn’t apply.” San Francisco is regulating commercial transactions, not speech,” he said.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-tech-court-idUSKCN10T0ET

Santa Monica Wins Another Case
“The city accused Globe of hiding its activities from investigators through subterfuge, which according to news reports included creating phony Airbnb profiles for owners. Globe is appealing.”
https://www.courthousenews.com/class-home-sharers-can-sue-santa-monica/

 AirBnB Drops Lawsuit Against New York
“Airbnb on Friday agreed that it would drop the suit as long as New York City enforces the new law only against hosts and does not fine Airbnb. The settlement takes effect on Monday.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/technology/airbnb-ends-fight-with-new-york-city-over-fines.html?_r=0

Craigslist Not Responsible for Housing Discrimination
“Traditional statutes are now being applied to e-commerce models. For instance, the anti-discrimination clauses of the United States (“US”) Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) have been examined in the case of online classifieds companies like Craigslist. And, a clause under the Communication Decency Act (applicable to explicit content) has been applied to this case.”
http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=2014

Related Issue – Renters Subletting

In Berkeley, the new STR law prohibits renters from doing a short term rental without permission from the owner. BTU didn’t oppose this even though it seems unfair on the surface. That is because we hear about renters getting evicted for using platforms like Airbnb. Not only do most written leases prohibit subletting and assignment (like taking money to let someone else use your apartment) – the Rent Ordinance also does not allow a master tenant (person on the lease) to charge more than the rent controlled rent. That means if the rent is $2000 a month, the rent is about $66 a day, and charging more than that is against the law.

Property Manager Sues AirBnB
“It is not acceptable to us that Airbnb actively promotes and profits from deliberate breaches of our leases, and does so in utter disregard of the disrespectful and unsafe situations created for our full-time residents and their families,” Aimco CEO Terry Considine said in a statement.”
https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/18/a-big-apartment-management-company-is-suing-airbnb/

By Posted on Posted in Issues

re: Item 1, Second Reading of Short Term Rentals Law

Berkeley Tenants Union letter to City Council

February 14, 2017

Berkeley Tenants Union members have spent countless hours waiting to address the City Council in the past several years to deliver our message: in order to protect our rental housing stock, Council should only ease the ban on Short Term Rentals (STRs) a little bit at a time. We have been asking City Council for years to please JUST allow renters and owners to rent THEIR OWN HOMES for the short term, and move on to enforcing the existing ban on other STRs as soon as possible.

We remind you that the ban on renting for less than 14 days was created to make sure there was not an easy way around rent control protections.

We remind you that all permanent housing – even housing that is not rent controlled – contributes to the diversity and affordability of Berkeley.

Some people say they want a compromise; allowing short term rentals for unlimited days when the owner is present WAS a compromise — those rooms could ALSO be used for students and other permanent residents.
 We join the Rent Board in asking Council to please change the language in Section 23C.22.020D  – BTU has always asked that Council not allow rentals for less than 14 days in any whole unit that could be used for people who live and work in Berkeley. Berkeley Tenants need you to preserve all existing housing for residents, and to create new housing. We do not want new accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to be used as vacation rentals – we worked hard to get that into the initial Council referral for the ADU law many years ago – but it did not get put into that final draft. Berkeley Tenants have always asked that Council not allow STRs in any existing in-laws, or even converted garages – if they have a kitchen. It doesn’t matter if someone bought it last week, wants to use it for their nanny, father or second cousin. Berkeley people need that housing!

We are very concerned that Section 23C.22.020D will encourage new owners to evict long term tenants.

BTU members have also been consistent in our other message — simple laws make for better enforcement. Allowing some ADUs to be short term rentals but not others will be confusing for owners as well as adding an additional layer, and thus additional costs, for enforcement.

We did not send people to the Council meeting on January 24th because we thought that the leaders we worked so hard to get elected this fall had heard our pleas. We are not asking members to come out on Tuesday for the same reason – we expect you to preserve housing and create new housing, not establish new hotel rooms.

Please don’t let us down!
 
New York Gives First Fines to Owners
“Cames was described by the city council as a broker who bought a Brooklyn brownstone for $2m in 2015, and then rented five apartments inside it via Airbnb. She was fined $1,000 for each apartment.”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/airbnb-hosts-new-york-fines-government-illegal
Barcelona First City to Fine Airbnb
“Airbnb’s business in the city has almost doubled in two years, rising to 20,000 listings from 11,000 in 2014….Even so, its rapid growth has aggravated city authorities who slapped a 600,000-euro ($644,160) fine on Airbnb in November for advertising what they deemed to be illegal room rentals, becoming the first city to do so.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-08/barcelona-rejects-airbnb-plan-to-limit-rentals-in-fresh-clash
There But For Fortune
“Clearly, cities with a much longer history of tourism than Charleston have concluded that there is such a thing as too much. In October, Barcelona residents rated tourist numbers as second only to unemployment as the city’s biggest problem. The problem there, which is an increasing problem in Charleston too, is that those tourists are driving up the cost of renting apartments for residents in the city.”
http://www.postandcourier.com/opinion/editorials/take-a-tip-from-barcelona/article_82aebb12-e7ef-11e6-8ca7-b7e9e53783b1.html

By Posted on Posted in Actions

Short Term Rentals to new City Council January 24th

There are two proposals before the Council tomorrow. One would allow folks who have been breaking the law by renting their “in-law” unit to visitors to continue to do so while continuing to ban others with in-laws (the ones who have been abiding by the current law) from short term rentals. Yes, you heard me. Item 41a would reward some duplex owners who have been breaking the law by “grandfathering” their short term rentals! This item is a carry-over from the previous City Council, and BTU hopes and expects the new Council to see the inherent risk to renters and reject Item 41a.

Instead, BTU is asking the City Council to support proposals by the Rent Stabilization Board (see below) which would make Item 41b into a short term rentals law much closer to what we have all hoped for: one that would protect our housing stock while allowing owners and tenants to rent their own homes out on AirBnB and other platforms now and again for some extra cash.

BTU did not make these signs, but we were happy to see them
BTU did not make these signs, but we were happy to see them

When is a Kitchen not a Kitchen?

The whole vote on Tuesday will be made extra-confusing by an adjunct proposal; Item 42 changes the definition of kitchen. This may also be an issue renters and those concerned with housing policies will want to weigh in on: can folks rent their converted garage or other “Accessory Building” as a short term rental? Under Item 41b and 42 the answer will be yes, as long as the building does not have a history of being rented for the long term.

There is just one problem with this compromise regarding Accessory Buildings: the new definition of kitchen says a kitchen is not a kitchen if the refrigerator is small! A kitchen would now be defined as “A habitable space used for preparation of food that contains at least a sink, a refrigerator of no less than 10 cubic feet, and either a cooktop and an oven, or a range.” This leads to the questions: if you can put a full kitchen in your garage, then why would we allow it to be a vacation rental but not a permanent home at a time when we need housing? If you put a kitchen in your garage, will it be safe for short or long-term renters? BTU has always said we are fine with folks renting their garage as a short term rental if it does not have a kitchen, and thus could not be used for long-term housing.

Short Term Rentals Enforcement

Last summer the Council also directed staff to take action to enforce the existing ban on rentals of less than 14 days if an owner had more than three units listed for the short term. BTU worked with Councilmember Worthington’s office to provide information about several such owners. So far we have not heard of any action taken. Also last summer, the staff from Berkeley put out an RFP and decided to hire a private firm called Host Compliance to enforce the new rules. The firm also contracts with Oakland, Napa, Los Angeles, Denver, Toronto and many other cities, according to their website.
The Rent Board’s recommendations to Council also include language to make enforcement of the new law more effective.

Council Items 41a, 41b and 42 Concern Vacation Rentals
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2017/01_Jan/City_Council__01-24-2017_-_Regular_Meeting_Agenda.aspx

Rent Board Gives Advice
“The Board is requesting that Council consider proposed revisions to language in the definition of Short-Term Rental (23C.22030 –D) and Host Residence (23C.22030 –D).  I addition, we believe there should be a definition for Long-Term Rental and have provided possible language.  The Board also recommended that Council adopt enforcement language similar to the City of San Francisco to prevent hosting platforms from ignoring local regulations.”
RSB to Council: rent-board-strs-2017
Harr / Simon-Weisberg Proposal: harr-simonweisberg-strs-2017
Soto-Vigil Proposal: soto-vigil-strs-2017

Previous City Council Vote
http://www.berkeleyside.com/2016/07/11/berkeley-council-votes-to-crack-down-on-short-term-rentals-of-multiple-units-by-same-owner/

The Company Berkeley Hired To Do Enforcement
https://hostcompliance.com/

“The AirBnB Police”
http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/01/technology/airbnb-police

Oakland Still Working on STRs
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/01/16/oakland-airbnb-issue-highlights-citys-gentrification-fears/

In Other News

Student Groups Support Harrison in District 4
“We have an opportunity in Berkeley today to lead the way on progressive solutions to our nation’s challenges and ensure that the legacy we leave for those who follow in our paths is an equitable, sustainable, affordable and livable community for years to come. Kate will bring the lessons she has learned from her work as a consultant on the global stage to keep our city welcoming and inclusive and make it an even better place to call home.”
http://www.dailycal.org/2017/01/20/students-support-kate-harrison-district-4-city-council-special-election/

SF Tenant Gets $400,000
“A San Francisco woman was forced out of her home when she was hit with a 400 percent rent increase in 2015. The renter’s attorney announced Tuesday that his client had won a $400,000 settlement in her lawsuit alleging an unlawful eviction.”
http://abc7news.com/realestate/san-francisco-renter-wins-$400000-settlement-/1707689/

Warehouse Item Being Developed in Berkeley
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Rent_Stabilization_Board/Level_3_-_General/CTTE_17%20Jan%2013_4x4%20Ad%20Hoc%20Committee%20agenda(1).pdf

Artists Not to Blame
http://fusion.net/story/373688/dont-blame-artists-bay-area-oakland-ghost-ship-housing/

Permits Bureaucracy Drives Events Underground
“Everything about the permitting system is designed to discourage the type of electronic music events that people want to hold, Keenan said, from dropping off special permit applications at the city’s Eastmont police substation on 73rd Avenue, to the applications themselves that say in block-faced letters: “Dancing is not permitted between 1 a.m. and 9 a.m.”  Plus, permits have to be filed at least 30 days in advance. And, it can also be incredibly costly, he said. Each permit has its own associated fee, and while special event permits are only $50, extended-hour cabaret licenses can run as high as $2,900, according to the city’s master fee schedule. There’s also the added cost of hiring security for the event if the city deems it necessary, and acquiring insurance, which is also required.”
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/12/09/musicians-artists-costly-permitting-system-forces-events-underground/

Oakland Tries to Shut Down Legit Activist Space
David Keenan is a BTU Member.
“Omni founding member David Keenan said the experience calls into question public statements from Mayor Libby Schaaf that city officials would not be conducting a “witch hunt” and would be using “compassion” in their handling of fire and code enforcement complaints. Those types of complaints spiked in the two weeks after the deadly Ghost Ship warehouse fire in Oakland’s Fruitvale neighborhood earlier this month.”
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/12/28/omni-commons-experience-highlights-oaklands-heavy-handed-approach-for-artist-spaces/

 

By Posted on Posted in Issues
BPOA spent $1 Million - and lost!
BPOA spent $1 Million – and lost!

Like progressives all over America, Berkeley voters are sad, angry and frightened about the national election results. However, we have a lot to celebrate at home, and can look forward to once again leading these United States in progressive, humane, and innovative solutions, particularly to the problem of ensuring safe and affordable homes for all.

The big landlords who control about 50% of all rental housing in Berkeley spent about a million dollars to defeat the affordable housing tax Measure U1, and promote their deceptive Measure DD. That is well over $15 per voter! Yet Berkeley voters reaffirmed affordable housing as a core Berkeley value with 75% voting for U1 and 71% voting against DD. This tax on large landlords is expected to generate $4 million annually in new revenue for affordable housing and homelessness prevention programs!!

East Palo Alto also passed a similar landlord tax, and it is hoped this will be a model to take back profits being drained out of our communities and use them to build homes.

Additionally, Berkeley supported stronger protections for families being evicted for owners to move in. Measure AA, which passed with an astounding 73% of the vote, was put on the ballot at the request of the Rent Board.

ProRenter candidates also got strong support from Berkeley. Renter Cheryl Davila beat incumbent Darryl Moore in District 2 despite generous spending by the Association of Realtors for Moore. BTU Members Ben Bartlett and Sophie Hahn were also elected to the City Council, and BTU Member Jesse Arreguin was elected as Mayor!

Perhaps the best news of all for tenants is that landlord incumbent Judy Hunt was voted off the Rent Board, with the “CALI Slate” chosen at the 2016 Tenant Convention easily defeating Hunt’s tiny team.

Elsewhere in the Bay Area, California gained its first new rent control in decades, and even in places like Alameda, where the tenant measure was defeated, renters did gain new protections on November 8.

Soon the new City Council will move forward on core BTU issues like Short Term Rentals and mitigations for Demolition of Rent Controlled Units. BTU will work to guide our new leaders, who we hope will be more responsive to what everyday folks need in order to keep Berkeley a place we can all call home.

ProTenant Slate Wins Rent Board, Removes Landlord Incumbent
“The 2016 Berkeley Tenant Convention, hosted by a coalition of Berkeley political groups and attended by nearly 400 Berkeley residents, selected the four CALI Slate members from nine potential candidates.”
http://www.dailycal.org/2016/11/09/cali-slate-sweeps-open-seats-berkeley-rent-board/

Victories for Affordable Housing, Tenants Rights
“Berkeley citizens voted to pass Measure U1 on Tuesday with 74.06 percent…Berkeley voters passed Measure AA on Tuesday with 72.29 percent of the vote as of press time, which will place more regulations on owner move-in evictions.”
http://www.dailycal.org/2016/11/09/city-measures-t1-u1-v1-w1-x1-y1-z1-aa-pass-measures-bb-cc-dd-fail/

Landslide for Landlord Tax
“Berkeley voters approved a landlord tax that will raise millions for affordable housing.
The measure, U1, passed with about 74 percent of the vote. A competing measure, which landlord groups placed on the ballot in an effort to undermine U1, was crushed, with 71 percent voters rejecting it…
Proponents of U1 filed a state Fair Political Practices Commission complaint against the Berkeley Property Owners Association, alleging they broke the law by using anonymous LLCs to finance their opposition campaign and make it appear that a large group of landlords were opposing the measure, when in fact it was just a handful. The FPPC hasn’t ruled on the complaint yet.”
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2016/11/09/berkeley-landlord-tax-easily-passes

Berkeley Gets Activist Renter as Mayor
“Arreguin said, “I am a renter. I’m like many people in Berkeley, I’m trapped in this housing crisis.”
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/11/11/berkeleys-first-latino-mayor-elect-is-also-its-youngest-ever/

Progressives Take Three of Four Council Seats
“Sophie Hahn handily won the District 5 council seat being vacated by Capitelli, defeating another candidate with real estate industry backing, Stephen Murphy, 61.9 percent to 38.1 percent. Hahn is a member of the Zoning Adjustments Board. Capitelli endorsed Murphy, his appointee to the Planning Commission and the panel’s current chairman.
Berkeley for several years has been the scene of a major debate over skyrocketing rents and the shortage of affordable housing, with a six-person council majority backing many controversial development-related issues.”
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/11/09/berkeley-voters-elect-arreguin-mayor/ 

Not Everybody Got Rent Control
“Voters in Alameda, Berkeley, Oakland, Mountain View, Palo Alto and Richmond supported some form of rent stabilization or eviction protection legislation while only Burlingame and San Mateo favored a “no” decision.”
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Alameda-County-Voters-OK-Rent-Control-Housing-Measures-400516081.html

Details on Rent Control Votes
“Measure L in Richmond, which would enact limits on rent increases and landlord evictions, was victorious with 64 percent of the votes cast. In Oakland, with all 279 precincts reporting, 74 percent of voters supported Measure JJ, which requires landlords to get permission from the rent board before increasing rents above the consumer price index and expands eviction protections. In Mountain View, Measure V, which was placed on the ballot by voters, had a slim victory with 53 percent, while W, the council-backed measure fell short with 49 percent.
In Alameda, ground zero for the battle for rent control, Measure M1, the strict tenant rent control measure sponsored by tenants groups, only garnered 34 percent of the vote, well shy of the necessary simple majority. Instead, 56 percent of voters approved L1, a competing, council-backed initiative that did not cap rent increases. Instead landlords must go to mediation in order to increase rents above 5 percent. And in San Mateo County, Measure R in Burlingame mustered just 31 percent of voters, while Measure Q in San Mateo got 38 percent.”
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/11/03/bay-area-rent-control-measures/

Oakland Gets What Berkeley Has: Details on Renters Upgrade
https://oaklandnorth.net/2016/10/28/oakland-residents-to-vote-on-rent-control-initiative-this-november/

Mountain View Gets Eviction Protections Too
http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2016/11/15/fearing-evictions-city-backs-immediate-tenant-protections

Record Spending and Fair Political Practices Complaint
“The political action committee for the Berkeley Property Owners Association has steered more than $892,540 in donations to defeat Measure U1 and promote Measure DD, two competing measures that would raise the business tax on rental units… Most of the donors to the “Committee for Real Affordable Housing – Yes on Measure DD, No on Measure U1, Sponsored by the Berkeley Property Owners’ Association,” have not made contributions in their own names. They have used the LLC they created to run various apartment complexes. UC Berkeley’s Progressive Student Alliance  filed a complaint about this practice with the Fair Political Practices Commission, which is investigating the situation.”
http://www.berkeleyside.com/2016/11/07/fight-involving-measure-dd-and-measure-u1-is-costliest-in-election/

Student Editorial Contrasts Berkeley Wins with National Loss
“Moreover, Berkeley voters proved largely immune to false and misleading campaigns, easily selecting measure U1 over DD, increasing landlord taxes for Berkeley’s wealthiest landlords while still protecting both tenants and small landlords.”
http://www.dailycal.org/2016/11/15/trump-will-not-halt-berkeleys-fight-justice/

National: Senator Boxer Leads Charge to Make Popular Vote Count
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/Senator-Boxer-to-Introduce-Bill-to-Eliminate-Electoral-College–401314945.html

By Posted on Posted in Issues

It’s a funny thing law makers have to deal with: the people! Anything approved by the voters can only be changed by the voters. We out-rank the City Council, the Rent Board, even the state legislature. However, this also ties the hands of elected officials.

That is why Measure AA on the November 8th ballot in Berkeley is a much-needed fix. In November 2000, voters approved relocation funds and eviction protections for elderly and disabled tenants when Berkeley experienced the first big wave of owner-move-in evictions (OMI). But now the only way to update the 16-year-old relocation amounts is to go to the ballot box with Measure AA.

The Good News?

The City Council just raised the relocation funds for tenants thrown out for the other common no-fault eviction, the Ellis Act. Eviction restrictions and relocation funds for the Ellis Act were not decided by the voters, so City Council was permitted to update Ellis relocation assistance following a request by the Rent Board.

Rent Board Ellis Report
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Rent_Stabilization_Board/Level_3_-_General/INFO_Ellis%20Report%20to%20Committee_5-4-16.pdf

City Council Item
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2016/10_Oct/Documents/2016-10-18_Item_03_Ordinance_7507.aspx

Berkeley Measure AA
“Measure AA is endorsed by many different groups, because it supports education, preserves diversity, and by slowing displacement it also helps the environment.”
http://www.berkeleymeasureaa.org/

In Other News

Election Complaint Against Measure DD
A UC student association filed a complaint to the California Fair Political Practices Commission regarding campaign law violations by the landlord group “Committee for Real Affordable Housing Yes on Measure DD, No on Measure U1, Sponsored By Berkeley Property Owners Association.”
According to the press release, the list of violations “…includes multiple advertisements and literature that does not include the mandatory disclosure requirements. In one case, a mailed document was sent without proper disclosure, and was deceptively designed to look like an official government document.”
pressreleasereaffordablehousingproponentsslambiglandlordsoncampaignviolations

 

Is this a campaign violation?
Is this a campaign violation?

 More on Suspected Campaign Violations
“Stefan Elgstrand, secretary of the Berkeley Tenants Union, said the Berkeley Tenants Union supported the FPPC filing. ‘We want to make sure that these groups that do these deceptive mailings are held accountable,’ Elgstrand said.”
http://www.dailycal.org/2016/10/23/campus-group-files-complaint-measure-dd-campaign-alleged-violations/

More on Measure U1 and Measure DD
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2016-10-14/article/45005?headline=Measures-U1-and-DD-br-What-s-the-difference—Rob-Wrenn

 

By Posted on Posted in Issues

Six Bay Area Cities Have Ballot Measures
http://www.mercurynews.com/census/ci_30089584/mountain-view-residents-push-historically-elusive-rent-control

Getting Renters to Vote Might Be the Heart
https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/10/06/is-rent-control-fair-the-question-at-the-heart-of-the-debate/

Tenants Are Really Getting Together
http://www.tenantstogether.org/updates/5-cities-going-november-2016-ballot-rent-control

Landlords Tell the Same Old Lies
http://www.beyondchron.org/landlords-recycle-rent-control-falsehoods/

Alameda Arguments on CPI – Truth
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/09/21/alj-letters-0923/

Santa Rosa Gets Rent Control
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/5979650-181/divided-santa-rosa-city-council?artslide=3

..But Will It Be Undone?
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/6084762-181/fate-of-rent-control-could?artslide=0

Rent Control on the Ballot in Mountain View
http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/07/27/mountain-view-rent-control-makes-its-way-to-november-ballot/

More on Mountain View
http://mv-voice.com/news/2016/04/07/tenant-advocates-submit-rent-control-measure

Rent Control on the Ballot in San Mateo
http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county/ci_30144869/san-mateo-rent-control-measure-headed-november-ballot

Rent Control on the Ballot in Burlingame
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2016-08-02/burlingame-rent-control-moves-to-november-ballot-council-unanimously-approves-measure/1776425166013.html

Richmond Sees Wave of Evictions Before Vote
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/10/07/richmond-activists-protest-evictions-ahead-of-rent-control-vote/

Oakland Wants Real Rent Control November 8th
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Oakland-voters-will-get-their-say-on-stricter-8399331.php

Richmond Landlords Jack Rents Before Vote too
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/09/13/richmond-council-fails-to-pass-emergency-rent-moratorium/

Concord Wants Rent Control
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/concord/ci_30194850/concord-landlords-tenants-debate-rent-control

Property Owners Spend to Save
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2016/09/18/18791392.php

Owners Spend to Save in Berkeley Too
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2016-10-07/article/44963?headline=Big-Landlords-Raise-Big-Bucks-to-Fight-Measure-U1-

Want to Keep Your Rent Control?
http://berkeleyrentboard.org/

By Posted on Posted in Issues

This is a big election for renters since the housing crisis has morphed into a housing emergency that has seen a record number of Cal students homeless while in school, the rapid displacement of longtime South Berkeley families, and a dramatic increase in both legal but pretextual evictions and general tenant harassment.

BTU shared our ballot measure endorsements meeting with our allies at Berkeley Citizens Action — the full endorsement list for Measures is at the bottom of this post.

screen-shot-2016-10-11-at-4-10-23-pm

Berkeley: More Eviction Protections
So far, Berkeley’s Measure AA has no declared opposition, and is endorsed by the Alameda County Democratic Party, Green Party of Alameda County, Berkeley School Board, East Bay Young Dems, Berkeley Tenants Union and Wellstone Democratic Club.
The measure, put on the ballot by the City Council at the request of the Berkeley Rent Board, delays “no fault” owner-move-in evictions (OMIs) of families with school-age children until end of school year and increases relocation funds. Voters have required landlords in OMIs to provide relocation help of $4,500 to low-income tenants, but not other tenants, since 2000. Measure AA would update this amount to $15,000, and require that it be paid to all tenant households, plus an additional $5,000 for low-income, disabled, age 60 or older, or long-term (since 1998) tenants.
Relocation funds help evicted renters stay in the area, which is good for the community and the environment.

Berkeley v. Big Landlords
Of course, the big news this year is the controversy generated by competing ballot measures based on the failed 2014 volunteer signature drive called Robin Hood. The Daily Planet reported that the Berkeley Property Owners Association has spent over $500,000 – that’s half a million dollars – to stop Measure U1. The Planet says that is the second most money spent in Berkeley history!
The grassroots campaign needs each and every renter in Berkeley to get up to speed and talk to their friends and neighbors – U1 can’t afford to compete with glossy mailers or pay students $15 an hour to hang something on your door! Renters should study up on the differences between U1 and DD and help Berkeley get the most affordable housing!

Who Supports Yes on U1 and No on DD?

The League of Women Voters: Berkeley, Albany, Emeryville
Alameda County Democratic Party, Wellstone, John George
East Bay Housing Organizations, Berkeley Food and Housing Project, BOSS
California Alliance for Retired Americans, ASUC, Berkeley Student Coop, Cal Dems
Sierra Club, Green Party, Greenbelt Alliance
Robert Reich, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy
Berkeley Tenants Union, Berkeley Progressive Alliance, Berkeley Citizens Action

 

btu-no-on-u1-e1476232453372

 

Student Leaders Op-Ed – No on Deceptive DD.
http://www.dailycal.org/2016/09/13/conflicting-city-council-measures-seek-confuse-voters/

Alameda County Housing Bond Measure A1
“The Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted to place a $580 million housing bond on the November ballot. This measure is a much needed investment in affordable homes for low-income renters, homeownership, and an Innovation Fund to seek new solutions to our housing crisis. It will require that 20% of the rental housing units be reserved for extremely low-income households at or below 20% Area Median Income, provide homeownership opportunities, and provide support to help keep residents in their homes.”
http://www.berkeleyside.com/2016/07/28/op-ed-confronting-the-causes-and-solutions-of-mass-homelessness/comment-page-1/

More on Measure A1 from East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO)
http://ebho.org/our-work/alameda-county-housing-bond

More Info
Berkeley AA http://www.BerkeleyMeasureAA.org
Berkeley U1 http://www.fundaffordablehousing.org/
Berkeley DD http://tinyurl.com/dangerousdeception
Alameda A1 http://tinyurl.com/zego9dt

Nice Collection of Many Progressive Endorsements
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2016-10-07/article/44966?headline=Measures-and-Propositions-Progressive-endorsers–Margot-Smith

Rent Board Endorsements of Ballot Measures
http://www.dailycal.org/2016/09/20/berkeley-rent-stabilization-board-endorses-november-ballot-measures/

BTU / BCA 2016 Endorsements As Voted By Memberships

screen-shot-2016-10-11-at-4-10-58-pm 

 

By Posted on Posted in Issues

election-3

This year, Berkeley Tenants Union held two endorsement events. In the spring, we shared a meeting with Berkeley Progressive Alliance and Berkeley Citizens Action to select candidates, and in the fall we shared a meeting with BCA to make endorsements on measures.

This is the first year the reconstituted BTU has done endorsements on measures, because this year there are several measures important to renters – particularly Measure AA (relocation funds for evicted renters) and Measure U1 (tax big landlords to fund affordable housing). Results of our ballot measures vote will be posted tomorrow.

Rent Board

opt3cali2Vote for four. Vote for only four — no ranked choice in this race.
Vote for the CALI Slate chosen at the Berkeley Tenant Convention!!
All are BTU Members:
Christina Murphy, Alejandro Soto-Vigil,
Leah Simon-Weisberg, Igor Tregub
http://berkeleyrentboard.org/

 

Mayor: Jesse Arreguin

Jesse used to chair the Rent Board, was chosen at the Tenant Convention multiple times, and help pass recent rules for renters, including:

City Council:

Ending the Bates hold on City Council could really help make Berkeley’s housing policies into housing realities. Electing a realtor as mayor probably won’t.

District 2 West Berkeley: Nanci Armstrong-Temple
An activist with strong ties to the community and Black Lives Matter.
http://www.nanciforberkeley.vote/

District 3 South Berkeley: Ben Bartlett
Chosen by Max Anderson to take his place.
http://www.benbartlett.vote/

District 5 North Berkeley: Sophie Hahn
Voice of reason on the Zoning Board. Leader at Sierra Club.
http://www.sophiehahn.com/

District 6 Northeast Berkeley: Fred Dodsworth
Longtime advocate who has helped with Tenant Convention. BTU Member.
http://freddodsworth.nationbuilder.com/

electionHere is a link to the responses to our questionnaire from all local candidates who chose to answer (BPA led the questionnaire, in collaboration with BTU and BCA).
https://berkeleyprogressivealliance.org/2016/04/23/candidates-for-mayor-and-city-council-2016/

 

 

 

 

By Posted on Posted in Issues

IMG_6926

Short Term Rentals

We have one step forward and two steps back:
The good news is that the City Council voted July 7th to demand enforcement of the existing law prohibiting short term rentals if an owner has three or more units offered as vacation rentals in Berkeley. BTU is sending updated info about the owners we complained about last summer – and we would like you to send any information about big landlords breaking the law to the City Council, and to us, too!
The bad news is that the Council majority may be selling tenants out for some tax revenue so they can cut a deal with megacorps like AirBnB. After promises from Bates and Capitelli to continue the ban on short term rentals of units that are not someone’s home, they voted to “have staff consider the possibility of grandfathering in permits for accessory dwelling units currently being rented out on a short-term basis.” In other words, if you own a duplex and are following the law, you are screwed, but people who have been breaking it might be allowed to legalize their small business.

“After debating some of the finer points about what the city’s ordinance should look like — particularly after a preliminary vote in June — officials agreed to have staff do further research before ratifying the overall law. In the meantime, however, officials want to begin immediately to address the issue of owners with multiple units who are flouting the rules. “It’s currently against the law and it will continue to be against the law,” Worthington said. “Therefore there’s no reason to delay.”
http://www.berkeleyside.com/2016/07/11/berkeley-council-votes-to-crack-down-on-short-term-rentals-of-multiple-units-by-same-owner/comment-page-1/

Durant Demolition Granted
(with Unknown Mitigation)

We have mostly a success story on our continuing opposition to the demolition of 18 rent controlled units on Durant. This is because while the BTU/ASUC appeal was going through a ridiculous year-long city process, the Council passed a new version of the demolition ordinance which requires a mitigation fee for the loss of rent control.

However, the Council did not set the fee. State law says you have to show a direct relationship between the level of a mitigation fee and the damage to society that the money is meant to offset. Council first commissioned a “nexus study” on demolition of rent controlled units several years ago, but they say they still don’t have it back. Some activists think they are waiting until after the election to make an unpopular vote.
BTU plans to demand that the fee be as high as the study says it needs to be to provide for one-for-one replacement of rent controlled units with real affordable housing.

2631 Durant In Daily Cal
“We don’t inherently oppose tearing-down and replacing the building,” Lewis said in an email of the project that would add 38 housing units to the city of Berkeley. “However, we do oppose incentivizing landlords to destroy habitable, low-cost housing in order to try to make a profit.”
http://www.dailycal.org/2016/07/13/lawsuit-prolongs-struggle-2631-durant-ave-complex/

Berkeley Demolition Appeal in SF Chronicle
Berkeley’s approval of demolition increases worries over rent – San Francisco Chronicle

Lawsuit on Durant Demolition
Developer Orloff claims there is an inherent “right to develop.”
“…plaintiffs fault Berkeley for “its enactment of legislation that illegally and unconstitutionally requires property owners to transfer massive sums of money to the City and tenants in order to exercise an essential right of property ownership: the right to develop property.” They seek, among other relief, a declaration from the court that the ordinance violates the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution and its Due Process Clause, and is therefore invalid….The city, in its motion to dismiss, argues that there is a definite nexus between mitigation fees and the public purpose of mitigating the loss of affordable housing…”
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/breaking-news/ci_30145194/berkeley-landlord-sues-city-over-demolition-fees

In Other News

2017 Berkeley Budget Cuts Homeless Services
The City took money from long-established programs to pay for a new “hub” for homeless intake.
http://www.dailycal.org/2016/07/04/several-berkeley-nonprofit-homeless-services-partially-defunded-by-2017-city-budget/

Evictions from Unpermitted Units in SF
“Though S.F. has proven to be an inhospitable place for renters the last several years, the circumstances surrounding this eviction are particularly startling. It seems that Malliett’s new landlords—Mathieu Verbeeck, a VP of product development at Mubi, and Catherine Crevels, a marketing manager at Intuit—are testing out a novel strategy for ejecting tenants. They contend that Malliett and her daughter are causing a “nuisance” by living in a unit that lacks the proper permits. The Board of Supervisors has…”
http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/tech-workers-evict-kindergarten-teacher-mission-apartment-using-appliances

Where Do Renters Evicted from SF Move?
http://antievictionmappingproject.net/relocation.html

San Jose Needs a Demolition Mitigation
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/07/silicon-valley-largest-eviction-rent-controlled-tenants-income-inequality

First Time Buyers Screwed Too
“The only cities that fared worse than Oakland and Berkeley were Miami Beach, Florida (299) and Newark, New Jersey (300).”
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/07/18/oakland-berkeley-ranked-worst-u-s-cities-for-first-time-home-buyers/

By Posted on Posted in Issues
More Evictions in West Berkeley
More Evictions in West Berkeley

On Tuesday, the Berkeley City Council will consider a request from the Rent Board to place a measure on the November 2016 ballot to update the Rent Ordinance. Because that law was passed by the voters, it can only be changed at the ballot box. This will be Item 48 on the June 14th agenda.

Update: This Will Be On The November Ballot

Summary of the Changes
The main request is to revise the amount of assistance tenants receive when they lose their homes to an owner move-in eviction (OMI). Berkeley’s relocation funds have not been updated since 2000. The changes would also expand relocation assistance to all tenants; currently only low-income Berkeley tenants get any recompense at all after such no fault evictions. Berkeley is the only rent controlled jurisdiction in California which restricts help by income. Since rents have gone up over 40% in five years, all tenants need help with moving costs and new security deposits.

The other important change to the Rent Ordinance would be to protect families with children from owner move-in evictions during the school year. An owner could still evict a family, but the family would not have to disrupt their children’s education and could wait until the summer to relocate. San Francisco has had such protections for renter families for many years.

OMI evictions in Berkeley doubled between 2013 and 2014.
When Berkeley voters passed “Measure Y” in November 2000, they also voted to have the Rent Board monitor such evictions. Recently, the Rent Board won an important court victory (see https://www.berkeleytenants.org/?p=1386) which upheld the agency’s ability to reset the rent to the previous tenant’s rent-controlled rent when a landlord evicts a tenant but does not actually move in.

The Rent Board reports on owner move-in evictions every six months. The reports show that most owners who evict buy the building and then evict within two years. The reports also show that most “fake” OMIs happen in larger buildings, and that recent OMIs are concentrated west of Sacramento Street. Yet the Rent Board only tracks evictions which follow the law. If tenants leave simply because they are threatened with an OMI, the Rent Board cannot track the eviction or enforce the law. Tenants who accept a buyout also have new protections passed by the City Council a few months ago, but typically waive their rights under the Rent Ordinance for some cash.
Relocation funds would increase to about $15,000 per household.
BTU hopes increasing the relocation payment a landlord is required to give might cut down on false evictions.

Read Item 48 here: RSO Changes Ballot Measure Final
“The law currently requires landlords who evict for the purpose of moving into the rental unit to pay $4,500 only to tenant households who qualify as low income. Tenants who are evicted for owner move in but do not qualify as low income receive nothing. Berkeley is one of the only major rent control jurisdictions in the state that does not provide relocation assistance to all tenants, regardless of income. Also, the relocation assistance amount set forth in Measure Y has not been adjusted since it was passed almost 16 years ago. The amount of the assistance is nearly four times lower than that required by the cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood – each of which have periodically adjusted relocation payments over the years in response to rising rents, moving costs, and inflation.”

Report on Owner Move In Evictions:
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Rent_Stabilization_Board/Level_3_-_General/Measure%20Y%20report_9-18-15(1).pdf