Refusal to repair can be considered harassment in Oakland, but before you get too jealous that Oakland finally got an Anti-Harassment Law – there is a BIG catch: tenants will have to enforce the law by suing landlords – the city has no enforcement mechanism at all. So even though Oakland now defines actions such as repeated bogus eviction attempts, refusal to make repairs, and threats to report renters to immigration as harassment, tenants without the means to hire an attorney might not benefit from the new rules.
Such additional protections against harassment have been discussed often but never developed by our elected leaders. San Francisco, East Palo Alto, Santa Monica and West Hollywood are other Rent Control cities that have similar laws. If Berkeley renters want such protections, they will have to organize like Oakland renters did!
There is also an exemption in Oakland for new construction.
See the Anti-Eviction Mapping Project for more Berkeley Areas!
In December, BTU wrote about a suggestion by the Housing Advisory Commission, spearheaded by new Councilperson Lori Droste, to lay the foundation to tax tenants on their rent control (“means testing”). The other City Council folks wisely either voted no or abstained on the item, so it is dead for the moment.
But here we have a study about this very issue by SF’s Anti-Eviction Mapping Project – it is fighting conjecture with fact – and we hope the Council and Housing Commission will review!
If you go to the Source data map, you can see data for Berkeley too!
“There are probably landlords in San Francisco who make less money than their tenants. But they are very much the exception and not the rule. That’s the conclusion of a new study by the Anti-Eviction Mapping Project, which compares the median income of renters and property owners by census tract in San Francisco.
Let’s take a few examples. In Census Tract 176.01, South of Market, people who owned property had a median income of $111,330 in 2013. Renters had a median income of $17,396. Let’s move to the Mission, where there are increasingly wealthy renters. Median income for tenants? About $80,000. For landlords? About $154,000.” http://48hillsonline.org/2014/12/29/debunking-myth-poor-landlord/
We at the Berkeley Tenants Union need your support on Tuesday, December 9 at the City Council meeting.
First, Council are considering a suggestion to tax the benefits of rent control on any long time tenant the government decides is earning a living wage. (Item 17)
Also, BTU members have appealed a dangerous decision by the Zoning Board which would set bad precedent and put over 4,000 units in Berkeley at risk. (Item 39)
Both items are expected to be near the beginning of the meeting, as early as 7:30 PM. Council meetings take place in Old City Hall, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way.
2401 Warring Street Appeal by Harr and Stephens
This is the latest in a series of disputes BTU has fought at the Zoning Board – at the core is the interpretation of the Demolition Ordinance. In this case, a huge building on Warring near Channing has been under rent control for many years because it was used as a boarding house. Now, a new owner has removed all the renters and wants to turn it into a triplex. Rent Board staff and the owner appeared at the Zoning Board in the summertime. BTU was there as well. Everyone – even the owner Nathan George – seemed to agree that it was fair that one of the triplex units would be new construction because the owner is adding a lot of space, but that the other two units needed to stay under rent control.
Yet when the decision was written up by the staff from the Planning department, they chose to word the agreement in a way that would be legally unenforceable. This can get complex, but the gist of it is that Planning wants to give the building a new certificate of occupancy, and state law Costa Hawkins says a new COO means no rent control.
This is not what the Zoning Board intended. So BTU members Katherine Harr and Lisa Stephens filed an appeal.
Once again, the City Attorney is saying the units are empty and therefore not rent controlled units under the Demolition Ordinance. This means any building where the landlord can get the tenants out could easily be torn down with no mitigations for the loss of rent controlled housing.
The City is also saying that although Planning was aware that the building was a boarding house, it was not licensed to be one. This opens up over 4,000 units that have rent control but are not in Planning records as “permitted units” to lose rent control because they, too, could get a new certificate of occupancy.
Means Testing
Yes, you heard us right: the Housing Advisory Commission has asked Council to begin the process of means testing rent controlled tenants. Item 17 on the City Council agenda for Tuesday is the first step toward a plan by certain bitter property owners and the Council majority to tax middle income renters on their low rents.
“One approach we believe should be explored is to determine if some of the long term tenants in Berkeley’s rent controlled housing have been enjoying low rents while their incomes have been rising,” they wrote. There are many disturbing things about the proposal: the underlying assumption that rent control is a charity program and only the very poor deserve housing stability; the invasive nature of the proposal wherein longer term renters would be forced to disclose their income while owners do not have to do so; and the idea that measuring only income and rent would give the government any idea who can afford to pay more for housing, without considering medical bills, student tuition or student loans, number of dependents or other factors.
While BTU is pretty sure portions of the plan are actually illegal, and we expect the Rent Board will work to educate Council on that aspect, we need renters to stand together to show that local efforts to whittle away tenant protections and pit lower income folks against teachers, firefighters and small business owners making mid-range salaries will not be tolerated. Means testing would make Berkeley a city of just the very rich and very poor – just what rent stabilization was designed to prevent!
This type of proposal would never have been considered in the progressive Berkeley of the past and is clearly retaliation against tenants for supporting the “Robin Hood” ballot measures to tax owners of multiple rental units on their profits under vacancy decontrol.
JOIN US TUESDAY at CITY COUNCIL – items are early on the agenda
RSVP to info at berkeley tenants dot org to learn the plan!
Berkeley Tenants Union had a good turnout at our first endorsements forum in many many years. Please read candidate responses to the joint questionnaire sent by Berkeley Tenants Union and Berkeley Citizen Action to learn more about why the members who voted on Sunday chose these excellent candidates!
Please be sure to support these candidates – they are the best to further the issues that impact Berkeley Tenants. BTU will send you more info on how to get involved alongside other tenants and our friends as the campaign season moves along!
The Pro-Rent Control Slate, chosen at the 2014 Tenant Convention
Chang, Harr, Laverde-Levine, Selawsky and Townley http://berkeleyrentboard.org/
FREE 2014 Candidate Forum Sunday, September 21, 3:30-6:30pm Fellowship Hall, 1924 Cedar Street
Linda Maio Declined the Tenants Union Invitation
Berkeley Tenants Union, along with Berkeley Citizen Action and the Social Justice Committee of the Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists, will hold a forum for candidates in the 2014 election on Sunday September 21 – it being at 3:30 SHARP!
Only longstanding Council Person Linda Maio (District 1) and District 8 candidate M. Alvarez Cohen declined to attend the event. Assembly candidates Echols and Thurmond will be there for us to get to know, plus all School Board candidates and all the other Council hopefuls.
Meet the candidates and hear their ideas! After the speeches, BTU and BCA members will remain to discuss ballot initiatives and vote on endorsements (separate ballots).
Here are Responses to the BTU / BCA Joint Questionnaire
Berkeley Tenants Union, along with Berkeley Citizen Action and the Social Justice Committee of the Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists, will hold a forum for candidates in the 2014 election on Sunday September 21. Meet the candidates and hear their ideas! After the speeches, BTU and BCA members will remain to vote on endorsements (separate ballots). https://www.facebook.com/events/1491931991054041/
At BTU we’re very excited to get to know newcomers like Lori Droste and Sean Barry – and find out what they plan to do for tenants, or for landlords, or for real estate developers. So we are sending a few questions to the candidates and will be posting replies here on the website from Berkeley City Council, School Board, and candidates for the state Assembly.
2014 Candidate Forum Sunday, September 21, 3:30-5:30pm Fellowship Hall, 1924 Cedar Street SAVE THE DATE
Rents in Berkeley are rising dramatically. What’s going on? Two things are creating upward pressure on both rent- and non-rent-controlled units. These phenomena are:
1) The skyrocketing rents in San Francisco, which push people across the Bay, and
2) The ongoing construction of expensive new (thus not rent-controlled) apartment housing in Berkeley.
If you’re a doctor or high-paid techie, no problem. But if you’re a teacher or postal worker, good luck! Berkeley is becoming a bedroom community of upper-middle class professionals.
From $1817 to $3465 1300 block of Euclid Ave
This one-bedroom unit was rented back in 2002 at $1,550 to one tenant. Its 2014 rent ceiling is $1,817.93. Had it remained rent-controlled under pre-Costa-Hawkins rules, the rent ceiling would be $1,353.
The owner recently filed a Vacancy Registration stating that the unit had been rented to a new tenant on July 1 for $3,465. Still listed as one bedroom, still rented to one tenant.
From $1250 to $3380 1200 block of Alcatraz Avenue
This one looks like a flip, and sure enough, some pretty big rent increases have been taken. Here is the history:
All three units were rented out by the previous owner in 2007/2008:
#A was rented out in 2007 at $1,250;
#B was rented out in 2008 at $1,000;
#C was rented out in 2008 at $450 (it is a studio, but this still seems like a below-market rent).
In 2008 #A was claimed exempt because it was rented out to a Section 8 tenant, and #C was claimed exempt as not available for rent. (No change reported for #B.)
In December 2012, the entire property changed hands, and all three units were claimed exempt as owner-occupied as of that date, probably in error.
Then, in May 2013, the property was sold to a new owner. And sure enough, in August of 2013: Rents more than twice those charged in 2007/08!
#A was rented for $3,380;
#B was rented for $2,380,
#C was rented for $1,080.
The new owner has listed the property for sale several times – this is from one recent real estate listing: “Currently Producing $6840 a month from rent. THE HIGHEST RETURN ON THE MARKET IN BERKELEY! Average rent per unit is $2280. Over 200 applicants prior to August 2013 placement of current tenants. There are no substitutes for good quality of life & peace of mind! Maybe that’s why an all cash million dollar offer was dismissed?”
From $3090 to $3690 1500 block of Walnut Street
This also seems to represent fairly big rent increases over the years, but it also needs to be said that the rent goes up as the number of tenants goes up.
In 2002, it was rented to 4 people for $2,200.
In 2005, it was rented to 2 people for $1,750.
In 2009, it was rented to 5 people for $3,090.
In 2012, it was rented to 7 people for $3,690.
Thus, not quite apples to apples. Without Costa-Hawkins rent increases, under Berkeley’s old system of rent control, the rent ceiling would be $1,326.
From $1600 to $3200 3000 block of College Ave
Two of the units have turned over and been fixed up. The tenant in the third unit, who had several cases before the Rent Board, recently passed away. We assume that in the near future the Board will receive a revised registration form raising the rent significantly.
While the owner has done substantial work on the property, it was purchased for a bargain price in 2008 and the owner only pays taxes on a value equal to the average single family home bought in Berkeley this year, while soon his rents will total Over $110,000 a Year for this triplex.
Unit 1
Before Costa Hawkins increase — $674.27.
After Costa Hawkins increase — $3,300.00 (8/1/13).
Unit 2
Before Costa Hawkins increase — $581.61.
After Costa Hawkins increase #1 — $1,600.00 (8/1/12).
After Costa Hawkins increase #2 — $3,200.00 (6/1/13).
Unit 3 (long-term rent controlled tenant) — $670.46.
Rent Prices Are Going Up, But Your Income Isn’t. Original chart with data source: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/rental-affordability-crisis-hud
It’s a national problem: the foreclosure crisis made former owners into renters, the federal government cut housing assistance, and now more than 28% of Americans pay more than half of their salaries for rent. Mother Jones: National Data on Rising Rents http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/rental-affordability-crisis-hud
Recently, San Francisco leaders changed the Ellis relocation payments law: speculators who buy a building to “go out of the rental business” will have to pay tenants the difference between their current rent and the market rent – times 24! Naturally, landlords have filed a lawsuit.
Now, SF activists are fighting the Ellis crisis with a ballot measure they call an “Anti-Speculation Tax.” The tax was first proposed by activist Supervisor Harvey Milk around the time that San Francisco got rent control – over 30 years ago! Today, SF’s Prop G is sponsored by four members of the Board of Supervisors and would impose a tax on buildings sold in the first five years after purchase, but exempt owner-occupied homes.
“Prop G would tax the entire value of the building, beginning at 24 percent if sold within one year of purchase. The rate would be less after each successive year, falling to 14 percent if sold five years out. It would not apply to owner-occupied buildings, so as long as the buyer moved into the property they could sell it within five years and not face the tax.” http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=69972
“…Additional Transfer Tax on Residential Property Sold Within 5 Years of Purchase seeks to discourage real estate speculators from buying up properties with the aim of flipping them, a process that tends to involve bringing down the hammer of the Ellis Act to evict long-term tenants.” http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2014/08/12/who-will-san-francisco-dems-back-november
Refusal to repair can be considered harassment in Oakland, but before you get too jealous that Oakland finally got an Anti-Harassment Law – there is a BIG catch: tenants will have to enforce the law by suing landlords – the city has no enforcement mechanism at all. So even though Oakland now defines actions such as repeated bogus eviction attempts, refusal to make repairs, and threats to report renters to immigration as harassment, tenants without the means to hire an attorney might not benefit from the new rules.
