Tag: Tom Bates

By Posted on Posted in Issues

IMG_shirtBerkeley Tenants Union will hold our quarterly member potluck on Wednesday July 8th. There will be free tenant counseling from 6:30 to 7:30 PM, updates on demolitions and short term rentals regulations, and a roundtable discussion about enforcement of safety and habitability concerns for tenants.

Demolition Decision Sets Bad Precedents

Learn more about what happened at the Zoning Board at our quarterly member potluck on July 8th.

ZAB Grants Demolition…
“Some speakers at the meeting were concerned that the owner of the building deliberately worsened its condition in order to get approval for its demolition. John Selawsky, a substitute for Sophie Hahn and the only ZAB member to vote no on the use permit, said the building showed signs of deliberate neglect. Cliff Orloff, managing partner of developer OPHCA LLC, agreed to let the Berkeley Fire Department conduct training exercises in the building in 2014.”
http://www.dailycal.org/2015/06/26/zoning-adjustments-board-approves-student-housing-complex-on-durant-avenue/

…Despite Strong Public Protest
“Earlier this week, in an email regarding the project, a UC Berkeley student who said she used to live at 2631 Durant said tenants had been required by the owner to move out by a certain date, and that conditions had been poor.“When I was signing my lease I was told that I was signing under the condition that I would move out on May 31, 2014. We were told that the building was going to be torn down and developed,” wrote Nicole Yeghiazarian.
“The building was kept in awful shape because they did not want us to stay. When I moved into my apartment, there was mold. The kitchen was filthy with food stains around the stove.… Other tenants I talked to had similar complaints of conditions inside and outside of their units being dilapidated. It really felt like they were doing the bare minimum to not be sued, but wanted to make our conditions unpleasant enough that we would move out.” Added local resident Tree Fitzpatrick, in an email to the zoning board, “To grant this project as requested is to condone demolition by neglect.”
http://www.berkeleyside.com/2015/06/25/berkeley-zoning-board-to-consider-demolition-on-durant/

Short Term Rentals

We have heard that legal service providers like the East Bay Community Law Center are seeing more attempted evictions for renters who sublet for the short term on services like Airbnb. Currently, the Berkeley proposal to legalize such rentals may allow renters to sublet this way as long as the place is their home. But that doesn’t mean doing so won’t be a violation of their lease – it depends on the agreement. Renters should read the fine print, and remember the Rent Ordinance prohibits charging more than a prorated portion of the controlled rent.
Below is the document some folks currently violating Berkeley’s ban on such rentals are presenting to the Planning Commission, who will hold a hearing soon regarding the potential new laws and taxes in Berkeley.
We have just a few corrections: Regulations are not “being passed” – the current prohibition is being lifted for some users. Therefore, the number of short term rentals will not be “cut,” and no law-abiding citizens will see their “livelihood” impacted. These new regulations will not reduce any legal income, they will only legalize a currently illegal activity for some but not all users. It’s like saying the pot dealer on the corner is going to be put out of business by the legalization of medical marijuana!
2015-07-01_Communications_Berkeley Home Sharers_Recommendation on Revisions

Landlords Favor Allowing Hotels Anywhere, Unless Run By A Renter
“Sid Lakireddy, president of the Berkeley Property Owners Association, said he doesn’t think the use of Airbnb among tenants is widespread. Lakireddy believes that property owners should be allowed to use Airbnb, but not tenants.
“It’s a lot of work for a property owner to do Airbnb, and if they feel like they can make more doing it, I don’t think we should stop them,” he said. “If a tenant is doing it, that’s wrong because they’re using somebody else’s property to make a profit.”
http://www.dailycal.org/2015/06/21/city-considers-lifting-restrictions-on-short-term-rentals-while-practice-abounds/

Council Passes Referral Designed to Protect Rental Housing Stock
“The proposal, introduced by Mayor Tom Bates and Councilmember Lori Droste, would legalize rentals not exceeding 14 consecutive days and would tax hosts in the same way as hotels. Under the proposed regulations, the property must be occupied by the owner or tenant for at least nine months of the year and can be rented out no more than 90 days if the host is not present.”
http://www.dailycal.org/2015/06/25/city-council-refers-short-term-rentals-proposal-planning-housing-advisory-commissions/

San Francisco Hires 6 to Crack Down on Illegal Hotels
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/morning_call/2015/07/san-francisco-airbnb-law-enforcement-office-hosts.html

Paris Neighborhood Had More Airbnb Guests Than Actual Residents
“During summer 2014, 66,320 people stayed on Airbnb in the neighborhood’s two arrondissements, slightly more than the 64,795 who actually live in them, according to 2012 figures. The popularity of tourist rentals also made it a target of French housing inspectors. In May, inspectors made surprise early-morning inspections that turned up roughly 100 potentially illegal apartments.”
http://graphics.wsj.com/how-airbnb-is-taking-over-paris/

Balcony Collapse Highlights Problems with Code Enforcement

Code enforcement complaints and missing inspection forms at Library Gardens highlight the need to revamp Berkeley’s Rental Housing Safety Program. Currently, the program is a little meaningless. Landlords have to pay a fee and do inspections each year, but they don’t have to turn in the forms to the City. Issues about inspections and habitability will be the topic of a BTU member roundtable at our quarterly meeting on July 8th.

Missing Inspection Forms at Library Gardens
“Prior to July 1st, city officials say Greystar provided the wrong inspection records, failing to use the form required by the city. In a letter to Greystar, the city noted that the self-inspections were also missing required signatures and dates.”
http://wn.ktvu.com/story/29458314/2-investigates-missing-incomplete-safety-inspections-after-berkeley-balcony-collapse

Mayor Says New Housing Is Safe
“Berkeley code enforcement inspectors might not have been previously aware of Library Gardens’ failure to perform safety inspections. Those records are not required to be filed with the city unless a code inspector asks for them. Bates said it was unreasonable to mandate increased city inspection of rentals, given the city’s budget, but believed newer apartment buildings are not apt to present many hazards”.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-balcony-inspection-report-20150629-story.html

Balcony Collapse Spotlights Dry Rot
Yes, but when will they realize we need to inspect more than just balconies?
“In Berkeley, officials recognized this gap in oversight and a week after the balcony disaster called for a mandate on building owners to inspect balcony supports at least once every five years. State officials are considering whether the balcony collapse demands a broader fix.”
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-balcony-dry-rot-20150626-story.html

Criminal Investigation
“As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, the investigation will likely focus on Segue Construction Inc. — the company responsible for constructing the building — and on R. Brothers Inc., the company responsible for waterproofing the balcony’s wooden support beams. Several lawsuits throughout the Bay Area involving allegations of water penetration due to faulty waterproofing have been filed against Segue in the past.”
http://www.dailycal.org/2015/06/25/alameda-county-lead-criminal-investigation-berkeley-balcony-collapse/

From Other BTU Members:

Supreme Court on Fair Housing
From a BTU Member: I think that the Court’s decision on the Fair Housing Act is more important, insofar as it established the “disparate treatment” standard.  This is a significant victory for tenants and housing rights advocates.  It will now be much harder to defend discrimination and segregation in housing and other areas on the basis that it was not intentional.
http://feminist.org/blog/index.php/2015/06/25/the-supreme-court-fair-housing-ruling-is-a-civil-rights-victory/

And In Other News:

Demolitions, Ellis Act Plague Los Angeles Renters
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0609-gross-housing-ellis-act-20150609-story.html

Cal Student Plagued by Pests
http://www.dailycal.org/2015/06/10/off-the-beat-on-renting-and-raccoons/

By Posted on Posted in Issues

A special edition of the Berkeley Property Owners Association newsletter came out in early July, announcing their plans to spend at least half a million dollars each year to fund the Berkeley Rental Housing Coalition. Their announcement begins:
“Since the beginning of permanent rent control thirty-five years ago, knowledgeable people have often suggested that Berkeley property owners should establish a legal defense fund and /or a political action committee.”

Apparently, our Mayor, Tom Bates, is one of those people!

In his speech, Bates also called for an end to the elected Rent Board in Berkeley. In recent press articles, the landlords have said the Board is “answerable to no one” – BTU thinks the Board is answerable to the voters, since they are elected.

From the Contra Costa Times: “Introduced by BPOA President Sid Lakireddy as a friend and supporter of the organization, Bates talks about his early days as a real estate salesman, manager and developer, observing wistfully that a former partner later became a billionaire… He touts the Downtown Area Plan; mocks the sponsors of a move to modify it last year; proposes a downtown office building to entice startup companies to stay in Berkeley; and suggests it might be time to bring the Rent Stabilization Board and the Berkeley Housing Authority under direct city control.
Late in the video, Bates sounds a warning: “You need to organize yourselves,” he says. “You need to think about the possibility of forming a PAC … because you’re going to be under attack.”
http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_28426339/fremont-chastised-destroying-emails-berkeley-mayor-tom-bates

Landlords Plan to Sue Rent Board
“It depends on the money they have. They can run candidates,” UC Berkeley assistant adjunct professor public policy Larry Rosenthal said about the new coalition’s potential influence. “A group of landlords that are organized well will have substantial influence.”
http://www.dailycal.org/2015/06/25/berkeley-landlord-coalition-raises-money-to-seek-greater-political-influence/

People Power Can Beat Money Every Time!
Get Involved! Come to the Potluck July 8th!

Berkeley Still Has It Better
“…In Oakland, when a landlord unlawfully raises rents throughout an entire building, the burden falls to each tenant to write a formal petition and present his or her case in a hearing. As a result, many 1565 Madison residents — who chose not to file petitions or missed a hearing, in some cases because they didn’t have the resources to complete paperwork or because they feared retaliation — have to pay the entire rent increase, even though the city deemed a portion of it illegal.”
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/how-oakland-landlords-prevail-in-rent-disputes/Content?oid=4345386

By Posted on Posted in Actions

Pages-from-2013-12-03-Item-29-City-Council-RedistrictingWITH-MAPSCalling 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/

KTVU:
“Worthington, who represents District 7, said Wednesday that he, Arreguin and Anderson favored an alternative plan called the United Student District Amendment (USDA) that proposed that college-age students comprise 90 percent of the district.”
http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/berkeley-redistricting-plan-approved/ncB9y/

Daily Planet:
“The BSD plan district covers mainly the south side of campus, dominated by residential fraternities and sororities, and excludes the more progressive co-op residences located north of campus.”
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2013-11-22/article/41664?headline=Berkeley-City-Council-Adopts-Greek-Dominated-Redistricting-Proposal–

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/

City Council December 17, 2013 Item 2, Redistricting:
Ayes: Capitelli, Maio, Moore, Wengraf, Wozniak and Bates.
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Clerk/City_Council/2013/12Dec/Documents/2013-12-17_Item_02_Ordinance_7320.aspx

City Council December 3 Alternate Proposal Page 30:
2013-12-03 Item 29 City Council RedistrictingWITH MAPS

By Posted on Posted in Actions
DEMO_1106
Scenes like this will no longer be confined to Southside if revisions to the Demolition Ordinance allow destruction of small rental properties to build expensive commuter apartments.

DATE: November 5, 2013
TO: Planning Commissioners
RE: Demolition Ordinance

SUMMARY: Please preserve affordable housing by again recommending the June 4 compromise on the Demolition Ordinance. Please find attached our petition — with 270 signatures.

Respected Planning Commissioners:

The Berkeley Tenants Union is extremely concerned about proposed changes to the demolition ordinance. As you may recall, you already approved changes to this zoning code in the spring. We think it might be a bit confusing that this law is before you once again, so we have tried to provide a comprehensive summary with links to all relevant documents in this correspondence.

In December of 2011, the Berkeley City Council directed staff to draft amended language to Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 23C.08, the “Demolition and Elimination of Dwelling Units Ordinance.” (Document: Council Direction 12-6-11) In June of 2013, staff presented a draft that met all the requests Council made in 2011, and was approved by the Rent Board and the Planning Commission. The same draft has also been presented one month before, at the 4×4 Committee, and neither Mayor Bates nor Councilman Capitelli voiced any concerns with the draft. On June 4, it looked like Council was going to pass this compromise draft (Document: June 4 draft), until time ran out on the meeting.

Then something changed. The Council began to question the June 4 compromise, and considered a new draft, perhaps hastily prepared, presented at the July 2 Council meeting. (Document: July 2 Draft). The new draft appeared to be based on requests made by developer Equity Residential (Document: ER Letter to Council), who are now Berkeley’s largest landlord. Since Council got letters of objection from many civic groups, including the Sierra Club, Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, Berkeley Neighborhoods Council, and Berkeley Tenants Union, they sent the Ordinance back to the Planning Commission and the Housing Advisory Commission.

What do these drafts say?

Currently BMC 23C says “controlled rental units” cannot be eliminated unless the owner “cannot make a fair return on investment by maintaining the dwelling unit as a part of the rental housing market” and that those apartments must also be “seriously deteriorated beyond the conditions which might reasonably be expected due to normal use.” It also says that demolished rent controlled units must be replaced with permanently affordable housing. (Document: DemoCURRENT)

Problems with the current law arose because the City Attorney decided that empty units which would otherwise be under rent control are not “controlled rental units” and therefore not subject to the rules above. This means any empty unit can be torn down with no mitigation for the loss of affordable older units which would be under rent control if they were rented. Such a policy encourages owners to leave buildings to rot, promotes evictions and harassment, and may violate not only the Demolition law, but also the voter-approved Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance. (Document: NPO)

To end the controversy about the interpretation of the law, the Rent Board and the City Council called for revisions, but Council also asked that new rules require “units are replaced with an equal or greater number of new units inclusive of the current number of existing affordable units.” (Document: Council Direction 12-6-11) Likewise, the June 4 draft required developers who tear down multiunit buildings built before 1980 (those covered by rent control) replace them with “designated below-market rate units equal in number and comparable in size to the demolished units.”

However, the July and August drafts do not call for one-for-one replacement of affordable rent controlled units with housing for low-income renters. The July 2 and August 30 drafts both require developers pay a fee into the Housing Trust Fund. However, the fee in the July 2 draft is about 10% of what it costs to build an affordable unit, and the fee in the August 30 draft is unspecified and thus could be changed by City Council at any time. (Document: Worse Aug 30 draft)

There are numerous other problems with the July and August drafts. For example, one scheme outlined by developer Equity Residential was included in the July draft. This calls for replacement units in the new building which would be “designated rent increase restricted” – however, the Rent Board (Document: Berkeley Rent Board letter) and East Bay Community Law Center (Document: EBCLC Letter) have both pointed out that this violates the state law called Costa-Hawkins, because that law banned any new rent control in California, even if you call it by another name.

In addition, later drafts contradict the voter-approved Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance and may be challenged in court if they are made law. (Document: NPO)

Several community groups have sent communications on this issue that raise various additional concerns, such as the wisdom of tearing down perfectly fine small buildings at all, and the environmental impact of encouraging growth through demolition. You can find copies of public communications from The Sierra Club, Berkeley NAACP, Berkeley Neighborhoods Council, and Berkeley Architectural Heritage Assn. on our website along with all documents we have linked to in the text above.

The real question here is what kind of community benefits does Berkeley need in exchange for allowing speculators to tear down a useable rent controlled building in order to build a bigger one with market rate apartments? This is not just about what legal mitigations a nexus study might allow. We can actually choose, as Berkeley did in the 1970s, to ban demolition altogether. BTU hopes you might realize that rent control has been Berkeley’s most successful affordable housing program, and that rent controlled units should be preserved, even if they are not rented at this time.

You can choose not to allow demolition – and you should choose this if there is going to be a long wait for a Nexus study.

Please see the attached petition, with 270 signatures. Please note that, following pages with electronic signatures and comments, there are scans of the paper petitions.

Please again recommend the June 4 compromise draft.

Sincerely,
Berkeley Tenants Union Steering Committee, on behalf of the tenants of Berkeley

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

By Posted on Posted in Actions

Torn windowPlease join us tonight, when controversial rules about tearing down rent controlled buildings will be before Berkeley’s City Council.

The Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, Berkeley Neighborhoods Council, and Sierra Club joined with the East Bay Community Law Center, Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board, and 136 members and friends of the Berkeley Tenants Union to inform the City Council that proposed changes to the part of the Zoning Code called the Demolition Ordinance will be bad for Berkeley.

Council will consider changes TUESDAY JULY 2 but are likely to continue the discussion in coming weeks. BTU will present a petition with over 135 signatures at the meeting.

One major reason everyone is objecting: the Council majority wants to ask for a fee of only $20k for each rent controlled unit destroyed – but it costs $400,000 to build a new unit of affordable housing! So under this July 2 draft of the Ordinance, for every 20 rent controlled units lost, one replacement unit might be built many years from now. And what will happen to the tenants?

Below are links to letters from the other organizations.

Please join us TONIGHT – JULY 2 – at 7 PM

  • Say you support the Berkeley Tenants Union position on Item 17, the Demolition Ordinance.
  • State that no occupied units should be eliminated for any reason.
  • Emphasize that units emptied via the Ellis Act cannot be eliminated.
  • Ask that demolished empty units be replaced with permanently affordable housing.
  • Argue that this new draft will violate the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance.
  • Point out that a mitigation fee will not meet our housing needs soon enough.

Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board letter
Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association (BAHA) letter
East Bay Community Law Center letter
Sierra Club letter
Berkeley Neighborhoods Council Shirley Dean letter