Meeting Time: February 14, 2019 at 11:30am PST
The online Comment window has expired

Agenda Items

Select an Agenda Item to Comment on.


    • Default_avatar
      Royl Roberts about 1 month ago

      While I do support Councilmember Bas' Recommendation, i believe we have to look at some sustainable long term solutions. Owner Occupiers are almost in the same boat as the renters. I do not believe that most owner occupiers are out to gouge their tenants. I currently live in an owner occupied unit and the owner has been more reasonable that all others I have rented from. I would like to see some data or factual information regarding owner occupied unreasonable rent increases. I think the bigger issue are vacant units. Why are units vacant and what can we do to get to capacity? In closing, this is a quick fix however I do not think it goes to the crux of the real issue which is speculative purchasing of real estate for the sake of pure profit.

    • Default_avatar
      Reisa Jaffe about 1 month ago

      As a volunteer at CJJC I listen to tenants getting huge increases. Their Just Cause protection is of no help when they can't afford the rent. Those of us with the privilege of being able to invest choose our investments. Landlords, you chose to be a person who controlled someone's housing. There is a responsibility that comes with that choice. When you look at your expectations for what the tenant should pay are you considering what you should be paying for your housing? When a non-landlord homeowner puts money into their home they have to wait until they sell to get a return on the investment. Are you expecting the tenant to cover everything and not have to wait at all until you sell? For those who said they bought into a duplex because that was the only way they could afford to buy, you had the option of buying with a co-owner. For those worried about bad neighbors, we all want good neighbors. Perhaps if we did a better job of living in community we would all be better neighbors.

    • Bootstrap_10213762004625609
      Kenneth Tang about 1 month ago

      Working with many low income Chinese immigrants who are living in this triplex/duplex units, I’ve seen the impacts of our community being forced to move because they can’t bear the costs anymore often accompanied by regular harassment to leave. These cases are numerous and often go unseen or unheard as many in our Chinese and asian immigrant broadly don’t know their rights or resources. It feels even more hopeless for these families and seniors who don’t have the rights at all simply because they chose to move into a triplex/duplex. One elderly couple we worked with had rented for 13 years and even had section 8, but their landlord explicitly and unabashedly told them they would stop accepting their section 8 voucher and wanted to raise their rent by $1000. With little to no protections we were only able to negotiate for more time, but ultimately the uncertainty of housing and fear of losing their section 8 voucher if they couldn't find another home forced them to move out of Oakland.

    • Bootstrap_1081428018692362
      Emily Wheeler about 1 month ago

      I support this interim emergency moratorium and want to thank CM Bas for authoring it. An emergency moratorium is needed because, even if a retroactive ordinance is passed in March, people who have been priced out of their homes in the meantime will have suffered needlessly and might have been forced into leaving the city. I don't think this ordinance puts undue burdens on landlords and I urge council to pass it.

    • Default_avatar
      Tida Leagnavar about 1 month ago

      I strongly support this ordinance, applaud Nikki's responsiveness, and urge all council members to approve this for their clients -- the people of Oakland. I don't even need to list the data or reasons because everyone knows.

    • Default_avatar
      Morgan Kanninen about 1 month ago

      Housing precarity is devastating and unjust.

    • Bootstrap_10157480630846294
      Dustin Hoffman about 1 month ago

      I'm a landlord who shares their home with two families. A triplex was the only way I could put down roots in Oakland.
      Lowest rung on the ladder. I'm basically a live-in-janitor. This ordinance change is being proposed as a "tenant protection" but actually I believe it was originally, and still is owner-occupier protection. We live together; closer than neighbors, but not quite housemates.


      Measure Y already passed. I wasn't in favor of it. Now this.
      I would actually be ok if I was covered by rent control, but if I was exempt from just cause for eviction. The basis for the desire being partially monetary (expensive evictions are expensive and bad tenants know it so they leverage it), the other part is my own piece of mind and security. I have to live with someone throughout a lengthy eviction.

      Please consider, there are only 8,000 owner-occupiers in Oakland. We represent a mere half-percent of the housing inventory. Meanwhile, 10% of the units in Oakland are vacant.

    • Bootstrap_2310468368987081
      Robby Weinberg about 1 month ago

      We bought a triplex during the housing bubble in 2005 (Oaklanders since 2001). We were $250,000 underwater (based on a 2012 appraisal).

      While MANY "walked away" from their mortgages, our civic pride and morals kept us in Oakland for the long haul. And during our entire ownership, the most we EVER raised a tenant was $50.

      We live in the same building as our tenants. They are also our neighbors. Up until we were able to refinance in 2013, the rents covered about HALF of our PITI.

      We luckily refinanced between 2013 and 2016. The building still doesn't cover the property taxes, but we felt a sense of relief. The tenants over the 14 years of ownership have been AWESOME!

      We could have jacked up rents, but we didn't and we believe the VAST majority of owner occupied duplexes and triplexes respect their tenants.

      If the owner occupied exemption becomes permanently abolished, we will be PERMANENTLY PUNISHED for keeping our rents not only below market, but not even raising them CPI.

    • Default_avatar
      Miguel LaRosa about 1 month ago

      Gotta Love that. The rules as they are have it so that I would never want to be a landlord on the Flats of Oakland. Market Rate in non Class "C" neighborhoods. Is a quagmire of regulations. If their is any profit to be made. This City WANTS, & must have it. I no longer buy soda in Oakland. I feel robbed when I could walk to Alameda & pay $2.40 less for that 20 pack. The point is . That shopper will wait, and change their shopping habit to shop for other Groceries outside of the City. It is a very small amount. But it adds up for the small retailer, or West Coast Bordello that needs that $. You Guys have priced out Major League Sports due to systematic Regulation & poor cost management. The Revenue had always been available to this City. The over regulation & poor use of revenues has come full Circle, as we have another Off Time City Council Meeting after the Cancellation of Committee to discuss.... No IMPOSE. The Ayes have already been Counted.

    • Default_avatar
      Rachel Gottfried about 1 month ago

      If no decision will be made anytime soon by Council then a moratorium on rent increases is needed because we are seeing rent increases of 100% or more. We need to provide some housing stability to tenants living in Owner occupied Duplexes and triplexes. As a resident in an Oakland duplex, that's soon to be owner occupied, I ask you to please support a moratorium.

    • Default_avatar
      Joanna Villegas about 1 month ago

      If no decision will be made anytime soon by Council then a moratorium on rent increases is needed because the realtors are encouraging rent increases of 100% or more. We need to provide some housing stability to tenants living in Owner occupied Duplexes and triplexes

    • Default_avatar
      Sue Reale about 1 month ago

      I am not opposed to rent control. No one would be eager to rent a space knowing that their rent can go up to any amount, (assuming there's no contract/lease, which is unlikely). Owner occupiers have had the right to raise rent to any amount in the past– so why is this an “emergency” issue now? Because Measure Y was an ill-planned, poorly executed measure.
      As an owner-occupier of a duplex, I have the right to peace-of-mind in my own home. For most of my life, I was a primary lease-holder/renter with housemates. Often, someone is just downright creepy, perverted, reckless, has anger-issues, or lies about their lifestyle, and that it is not safe to live in extremely close proximity to that person. I had more rights as a lease-holder than I do now as a home OWNER.
      Lastly, the flat has not been a rental unit since I purchased my home 15 years ago; I had planned to lease it on 1st Jan 2019. Sadly, due to Measure Y the flat will stay off of the market until I have control over my own home.

    • Default_avatar
      Laurie Polster about 1 month ago

      Socio-economic diversity is vital to Oakland, and we have many moderate and low(er) income residents who need rental assistance. There are ways to achieve this that won’t jeopardize socio-economic diversity of our property owners, something also vital to Oakland. First, make rent subsidies based on level of need. Second, spread financial responsibility onto the entire city population, not just landlords, and definitely not on small owner-occupied landlords, many of moderate income whom have invested heavily in renovating deferred maintenance properties and are struggling to make ends meet. Ways to spread financial responsibility: property tax breaks for landlords subsidizing tenant rentals through reduced rent, raising revenue for direct rent subsidies through parcel tax, business tax, and volunteer donations solicited from low Prop 13 assessed rate property owners who already aren’t paying their fair share. Prop 13 has created one inequitable system. Please don’t add to it.

    • Default_avatar
      Andrew Goodman about 1 month ago

      Owner occupied duplexes aren’t owned by greedy corporations. We live in the neighborhood. We put in sweat equity and cope with stress and liability. We don’t do this bc we like it or make lots of extra money. We do this bc it allows us to afford to live here.

      Property taxes rose significantly to pay for 2016 ballot measures. Renters vote on measures. In fact, there are more renters than owners. But, rent control limits the ability for owners to share the imposed costs. Also, legal fees are astronomical. Further, the rise in repair costs is unprecedented.

      If an owner bought 10 yrs ago she can potentially absorb the new costs. If she bought 3 yrs ago she cannot. Any legislation should treat these situations differently.

      Also, members say building new housing is key, but that it’s 3-5 yrs away and folks need relief now. So, why not write legislation that expires in 3-5 yrs?

      Solving the crisis is important, but the details and true impact of this proposal are not thought through.

    • Default_avatar
      Chris Saavedra about 1 month ago

      As someone who's lived in rent control units, I oppose this ordinance. From my experience, taking away landlord's freedom to set their prices and choose who they want to live with, causes animosity between tenant and landlord. It's a terrible not being able to evict someone who is disrespectful of your home. Or not being able to afford fixing your property because you can't raise rent. I experienced that while living in SF. Our landlord was kind and caring. Unfortunately, he couldn't evict one of the families he rented to. A family of 3 originally, who soon grew to 4 and then 6 members (they were not having kids), and who later leased the place to someone else for double the cost. Unfortunately, we, as the other tenants, got the short end of the stick, too, as our landlord couldn't maintain our unit to the level we wished he could. It was a sad to see this man, a Vietnamese immigrant, who was always eager to help, lose his trust in his tenants. I don't want that happening to us.

    • Default_avatar
      Lauren Roy Spence about 1 month ago

      If no decision will be made anytime soon by Council then a moratorium on rent increases is needed because the realtors are encouraging rent increases of 100% or more. We need to provide some housing stability to tenants living in Owner occupied Duplexes and triplexes.

    • Default_avatar
      HJ Yothers about 1 month ago

      When I have been allowed to actually explain how Measure Y was going to work even the most progressive of my friends were against it. Sadly those who just went along with the idea that it was going to protect tenants and not how it actually would reduce housing didn't read nor understand the full ramifications. That measure only passed because it was on the face of it, the obvious progressive vote. However, since housing has already shrunk and people are scrambling, the city council calls for an "emergency moratorium" on rent increases. And then to follow with rent control for the .4% of OOs. The owners of these won't be able to stay. So THEY go. Who cares (according the tenant activist) they are just homeowners. Well, once they sell out, the NEW owner will have different set of numbers to get "FAIR RATE of RETURN" on his property. It creates a precarious position for the tenant. Oakland's future is upper middle-class. Have fun with your new friends!

    • Default_avatar
      Eric Arico about 1 month ago

      Purchasing our duplex (from our previous landlord) was one of the only ways my girlfriend and I could afford to stay in Oakland. A couple points:

      1) My current tenant's annual income is ~$25k per year higher than mine. Why is the city council dead set on subsidizing his housing costs at my expense when I'm the one who has made a decision to lay down roots in Oakland?

      2) On my street, as far as I can tell, all of the owner occupied duplexes are owned by people of color. While the duplexes owned by absentee landlords (which already have rent control), are white owned. I actually see the owner occupied exemption from rent control as a backdoor affirmative action program for middle class black and Latino residents of Oakland. I don't know if this is the case city wide, but on my block owner occupants are overwhelmingly African American. Subjecting owner occupied properties to rent control will result in Oakland residents selling off their homes to investors. Oppose this ordinance!

    • Default_avatar
      H C Davis about 1 month ago

      We are .5% of the rental market​
      Taking away our exemption will not solve our homeless crisis
      We are part of the communities w/ rental unit(s) in our homes
      It takes away our safety to rent to people w/ reasons keeping them from qualifying for mainstream rental options
      If tenants move in additional people, acquire additional pets, become destructive, cease being respectful or stop following rules laid out in the lease we have no recourse. Increased utilities or repair costs could put so much $ burden on a homeowner that they risk losing their home. It takes months for hearings to come before the ORB & in the meantime we have to continue to share our homes.
      PLEASE press pause & look at the facts. This is going to have long term negative effects for both sides as Owners find ways to take units off the market or rent for top $ to the best applicants. This is not going to help the renters groups are advocating for.
      There has to be a better compromise than all or nothing.
      Thank you!

    • Default_avatar
      Eliot Peper about 1 month ago

      I was born and raised in Oakland and am proud to call the city home. My wife and I saved up to purchase a duplex. We live in one half and are able to afford the mortgage because of the rental income from our tenant in the other half. There is a very real housing crisis in Oakland and we have done what we can to help by keeping our tenant at below market rent and volunteering to host refugees for months at a time in our own home. But this proposal doesn't help solve that crisis. Instead of building new housing or reining in large property management firms squeezing out powerless tenants, it unfairly targets a small number of Oakland residents who are trying to make ends meet in order to live in the buildings they call home.

    • Default_avatar
      Chloe Brown about 1 month ago

      Like many other owner occupants (OOs), the rental unit in my duplex helps me afford the increasingly high costs of living here. I face rising costs for repairs, utilities, CA taxes, and property taxes (up 6.2% alone in past 2 yrs). With bond measures and property taxes approved by voters who rent and usually don't pay for them, there's no relief.

      I support effective solutions to our housing crisis, but this is NOT one. It will have disproportionate negative effects on the small number of OOs, drastically restricting the ability of small property owners to cover costs for the property in which they live. The City acknowledged this in the current RAP ordinance. Moreover, to justify the change, Kalb is using data that is bad at best and intentionally misleading at worst--while Kalb says this change would protect tenants in up to 17k units, other sources show the true # may be <400 (https://oaklandfactcheck.org/2019/02/03/dan-kalbs-favorite-lie/).

      Don't drive out good landlords, REJECT!

    • Default_avatar
      Andrea Castillo about 1 month ago

      The City Council already understands the unique relationship small landlords have with tenants and have written it into the OMC: "owner-occupied rental properties involve special relationships between the landlord and the tenants residing in the same smaller property. Smaller property owners also have a difficult time understanding and complying with rent and eviction regulation. The Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance recognizes this special relationship and exempts from its coverage owner-occupied properties divided into a maximum of three units. For these reasons, the City Council believes owner-occupied rental properties exempt from the Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance should similarly be exempt from the Rent Adjustment Program so long as the property is owner-occupied." The sudden reversal in this sound logic punishes less than 400 members of our community who have worked hard to be homeowners in spite of the high costs of living in Oakland. Please oppose this ordinance.

    • Default_avatar
      Debra Murphy about 1 month ago

      We purchased our triplex in order to be able to afford living in the Bay Area. We keep our tenants rent well below market value because we value their ability to reside in the Bay Area as well. With the 2-3% CPI rent increase allowance it has not cover the increase in utilities of the last couple of years. We agree that unjust evictions should be stopped, however passing this moratorium was not what was voted on by the people of Oakland and directly hurts small residents of Oakland as seen in the response by landlords who are raising rents hastily before this goes into effect.

    • Default_avatar
      Taylor Hines about 1 month ago

      What’s the point of ownership if you don’t have any control over your property and a tenant gets the same rights you do? Why buy a condo when renters get the right to occupancy and fixed payments with no responsibilities?

      The issue is simple for me: if the council passes rent control, I will keep my second unit vacant. I’d rather have an office or an art studio, or whatever, than a lifetime tenant with fixed payments.

    • Default_avatar
      Guadalupe Tovar about 1 month ago

      If no decision will be made anytime soon by Council, then a moratorium on rent increases is needed because the realtors are encouraging rent increases of 100% or more. We need to provide some housing stability to tenants living in Owner occupied Duplexes and triplexes.

    • Default_avatar
      Leah Salomon about 1 month ago

      Purchasing a duplex was the only way my family could afford to buy in Oakland. We keep the rent of our unit well below market value. We are not looking to make a huge profit but we do need to be able to pay bills and address the increasing costs of living.

      Having the city of Oakland impose strict rules on how much owner occupied landlords can raise the rent will not help reduce the housing shortage and the high costs of living in the Bay Area.

      Since we live on the property as well, we work hard to maintain it and provide a good living situation for our tenants. Passing this will drive good landlords out of Oakland.

    • Default_avatar
      Israel lepiz about 1 month ago

      I believe Oakland needs an emergency moratorium on rent control exemptions by owner-occupied duplexes and triplexes in the interim of a vote at City Council. After the passage of Measure Y on November 6th, 2018 there was a rise in landlords of owner-occupied duplexes and triplexes increasing the rents of their tenants in an attempt to force the tenant to self-evict. These renters are now being targeted because they are protected under Just Cause but are still vulnerable under rent control exemptions, therefore I am urging that City Council VOTE to PASS an EMERGENCY MORATORIUM which is critical to prevent further retaliatory rent increases on tenants simply trying to stay in their homes! Furthermore, the only long-term solution to this issue is for City Council to VOTE YES to CLOSE THE LOOPHOLE of owner-occupied duplexes and triplexes being exempted from rent control

    • Bootstrap_10157229774691803
      Mark Robinson about 1 month ago

      This resolution will not help prevent evictions or keep people in their homes in the long-term. The City of Oakland must concentrate on increasing the housing supply or accept the grim reality that Oakland will be for the upper-middle class only.

    • Default_avatar
      Hannes Muesch about 1 month ago

      The ordinance has not even been voted on yet, and already City Council has to respond to the first emergency it created. It will be the first of many.

      If we live-in owners were as greedy as the emergency ordinance insinuates, we would not be affected by it because we would have raised rent to the max a long time ago. The only ones hurt by the ordinance are those who chose not to gauge. It teaches us and anyone who watches a bitter lesson: Grab every penny as fast as you can while you can, because if you don't you will be left high and dry when City Council comes after you.

      City Council proclaims it believes that live-in owners have a "special relationship" with their tenants that is worth protecting (O.M.C. 8.22.010 F). Show that you meant it when you passed that ordinance and talk to us, not about us.

    • Default_avatar
      Donna Willmott about 1 month ago

      As a co-owner of a triplex and a landlord in Oakland, I wholeheartedly support these recommendations of Councilmember Bas. Oakland is losing far too many of its longtime residents to illegal evictions and loopholes that favor landlords over tenants. It's time for decisive action to protect the rights of tenants if Oakland is to remain a city that prides itself on cultural richness that comes from diversity.

    • Bootstrap_10156305862983246
      Kim Foster about 1 month ago

      There are several bits here, but first and foremost please understand Home owners that rent out the other 12/ or 1/3 of their home should be able to control/choose who they live with! By continually pushing for more tenant rights to the exclusion of the homeowner (who lives! in the home), Oakland city council is sending a loud a clear message they prefer rentals are owned and managed by investors. Not by ordinary folk trying to get by. Over-riding what the public voted! in place in November is ... frankly, quite "Trumpian."

      I am lucky. I have wonderful tenants and we all make sure we have a home (we know the other can hear us on the phone or watching TV and we're considerate of that). .... and/but. .... with what I'm seeing at the moment, when they leave (which at some point they will), I will likely sell to an investorr who's only in it for the $s. Though maybe investors vs. homes and neighborhoods is the goal. thank you taking a moment to consider.

    • Default_avatar
      Eunhye Kim about 1 month ago

      We need a moratorium on rent increases immediately. As we all know, many people in Oakland are living in fragile housing situations. The threat of rent increases for owner occupied duplexes and triplexes looms over many. We need rent control on these properties asap!

    • Default_avatar
      Sarah Reilly about 1 month ago

      I very much support this ordinance! In this continued affordability crisis the city needs to do all it can to protect tenants and keep people in their homes. We know that an eviction or unjust rent hike can be catastrophic in people's lives. This is a good step in the right direction.

    • Default_avatar
      Caitlin Miller about 1 month ago

      As a homeowner in Oakland, I want my neighbors who rent to have the same housing stability that I enjoy. People in duplexes and triplexes should have the right to just cause protections and the ability to plan their housing budgets from year to year.

    • Default_avatar
      Ryder Diaz about 1 month ago

      I strongly support this ordinance, which will offer all tenants the same protections and allow them to continue living in their homes. The triplex next door to mine was purchased. The new owner subsequently moved in, raised the rents and 3 families were forced to move out. After everyone was removed, the new owner moved out (but still lives in the neighborhood). I believe that he used the existing laws to flip this property and 3 families were deeply harmed by this. I fully support this emergency ordinance which will give all tenants the same protections, regardless of whether or not they live in a property where the owner lives. Tenants should not be treated differently because they happen to, by no fault of their own, live on a property where the landlord also lives.

    • Bootstrap_img_9731
      Karen Yeung about 1 month ago

      Working with many low income Chinese immigrants who are living in this triplex/duplex units, We’ve seen the impacts of our community being forced to move because they can’t bear the costs anymore often accompanied by regular harassment to leave. These cases are numerous and often go unseen or unheard as many in our Chinese and Asian immigrant and refugee community broadly don’t know their rights or resources. It feels even more hopeless for these families and seniors who don’t have the rights at all simply because they chose to move into a triplex/duplex.

    • Default_avatar
      Robert Villanueva about 1 month ago

      As constituents in your district, we must inform you of our strong OPPOSITION! We put a “vote for Nikki” sign in front of our DUPLEX after talking with your campaigner, Mary Rose and her family. As a social worker and mental health advocate, we support efforts to protect our homeless neighbors and eliminate the displacement of low-income vulnerable community members. However, we are very concerned with this rush to change the long standing law that exempts owner-occupant duplexes/triplexes from rent control restrictions.
      It warrants a vote based on real data, not anecdotes of “greedy landlords” displacing long term-residents. Owner-Occupied rentals are not the same as landlords who live outside of the community.
      We OPPOSE this ordinance based on procedural grounds. The new council, in office a little over a month, is resorting to special sessions to pass controversial legislation with rhetoric, not factual data specific to the community members it will impact
      Thank you for listening

    • Bootstrap_10218825862655934
      Jake Soiffer about 1 month ago

      As an Oakland tenant I am deeply appreciative of this proposed moratorium and hope you approve it. Without the same protections for tenants in triplexes and duplexes we risk losing our families and community to unregulated and unfair rent increases.

      Working with many low income Chinese immigrants who are living in triplex/duplex units, I’ve seen the impacts of our community being forced to move because they can’t bear the costs anymore often accompanied by regular harassment to leave. These cases are numerous and often go unseen or unheard as many in our Chinese and asian immigrant and refugee community broadly don’t know their rights or resources. It feels even more hopeless for these families and seniors who don’t have the rights at all simply because they chose to move into a triplex/duplex.

    • Default_avatar
      Carmen Jovel about 1 month ago

      A moratorium on rent increases is needed because tenants like Arcelia Perez need this NOW. Tenants have received outrageous rent increases in the last few months and tenant advocates know that tenants will continue to receive high rent increases until rent control exists for owner occupied duplexes and triplexes.

      Landlords and real estate agents are issuing 100%-300% rent increases using this loophole to take advantage before the Ordianance is amended. Please vote YES on the moratorium to help keep Oakland tenants in their homes.

    • Default_avatar
      Tony Marks about 1 month ago

      I own an owner-occupied triplex and I support this ordinance. Too many long-time residents are being displaced, and without changes at the state-level, city council should do what it can to keep affordable, rent-controlled housing.

    • Default_avatar
      Elise Cox about 1 month ago

      When Measure Y was proposed, the 342 affected homeowners told you they could not continue to provide undermarket rents if you gave their tenants lifetime rights to a unit in their homes. A number of us STILL choose to continue to rent below market, but no one should be forced to provide a lifelong subsidy. Unfortunately for the City, there are enough of us who rent below market to create problems for you under Galland v. City of Clovis. You cannot force a homeowner who does not make a fair rate of return to pay excessive costs for a rent increase. Please form a working group with In It Together and review their receipts. And please stop pretending the the City Council is not fully responsible for each and every rent increase in an owner-occupied duplex between July 2018 and Jan. 2019. And also stop claiming that scapegoating 342 buildings--less than .5% of all rental units--is an appropriate response to the housing crisis.

    • Default_avatar
      Lalo Co about 1 month ago

      I believe Oakland needs an emergency moratorium on rent control exemptions by owner-occupied duplexes and triplexes in the interim of a vote at City Council. After the passage of Measure Y on November 6th, 2018 there was a rise in landlords of owner-occupied duplexes and triplexes increasing the rents of their tenants in an attempt to force the tenant to self-evict. These renters are now being targeted because they are protected under Just Cause but are still vulnerable under rent control exemptions, therefore I am urging that City Council VOTE to PASS an EMERGENCY MORATORIUM which is critical to prevent further retaliatory rent increases on tenants simply trying to stay in their homes! Furthermore, the only long-term solution to this issue is for City Council to VOTE YES to CLOSE THE LOOPHOLE of owner-occupied duplexes and triplexes being exempted from rent control!

    • Default_avatar
      Eleanor Liu about 1 month ago

      We desperately need a moratorium on rent increases. We know that landlords are raising rents by huge amounts-- amounts that will force tenants out of their homes. Oakland voters spoke clearly by passing Measure Y to support housing stability for tenants living in owner-occupied duplexes and triplexes. City council must act to defend this stability by extending rent control to these units. Since this legislation is being delayed, city council needs to pass this emergency moratorium on rent increases for these units to prevent any more tenants from losing their homes. Please support our communities and pass a moratorium now!

    • Default_avatar
      Susan Bassein about 1 month ago

      First, we need to extend rent control to tenants in owner-occupied duplexes and triplexes to protect them against unreasonable rent increases and enforce it retroactively to prevent it being circumvented. Since the passage of Measure Y, which extended the Just Cause ordinance to protect tenants in owner-occupied duplexes and triplexes, landlords have circumvented Measure Y by giving bad-faith, unreasonable rent increases to evict tenants. Second, landlords are taking advantage of the City Council's delay in passing the measure to extend rent control to these tenants by giving them outrageous rent increases. To prevent that, we need a moratorium on rent increases above the annual CPI increase until the measure is passed.

    • Default_avatar
      Rebecca Hom about 1 month ago

      If no decision will be made anytime soon by Council then a moratorium on rent increases is needed because the realtors are encouraging rent increases of 100% or more. We need to provide some housing stability to tenants living in Owner occupied Duplexes and triplexes.

    • Bootstrap_10157090277414108
      Selene Chala about 1 month ago

      A moratorium on rent increases is needed because tenants like Arcelia Perez need this now. In our clinic, CJJC sees tenants weekly who live in triplexes and duplexes with their landlord, we strongly encourage council to pass this moratorium. Especially, since the legislation is being delayed to protect these tenants from massive increases in rent that lead to their displacement, this moratorium is crucial in stabilizing them . Tenants have received outrageous rent increases in the last few months and tenant advocates know that tenants will continue to receive high rent increases until rent control exists for owner occupied duplexes and triplexes. Please pass this moratorium.

    • Default_avatar
      hunter king about 1 month ago

      We must have a moratorium as City Council deliberates on closing this loophole. Tenants are getting rent increases of 100% or more in anticipation of it being closed. If the vote is delayed, we must also press pause on the increases.

    • Default_avatar
      LORRAINE DEGUZMAN about 1 month ago

      A moratorium on rent increases is needed because tenants like Arcelia Perez need this now. Tenants have received outrageous rent increases in the last few months and tenant advocates know that tenants will continue to receive high rent increases until rent control exists for owner occupied duplexes and triplexes

    • Default_avatar
      Gabriel Kahn about 1 month ago

      REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE COUNCIL APPROVES THE BROADER RENT CONTROL ORDINANCE IN THE COMING WEEKS, PASSING THIS EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ORDINANCE IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNCIL TO REMEDY THEIR OWN MISTAKE.
      It is perhaps the most important duty of the Council to protect residents against risks that the council itself is responsible for exposing. When the council decided to investigate this "legal question" regarding rent control on owner-occupied duplexes, it delayed the approval process on the Ordinance. As a result, landlords now have a last-chance opportunity to price out their tenants before the ordinance is back on the table. Without this emergency moratorium, the COUNCIL is directly responsible for the resulting evictions sought by predatory landlords by way of obscene rent increases.