rent Posts


Rentopia in Alameda

by phildini on March 4, 2016


The Alameda Renters Coalition has published the text of the amendment to the Alameda City Charter they're trying to add to the ballot for November. It's well worth a read, but here's the key points, as I see them:

  • Renters and Homeowners should have protection under the law
  • Alameda needs a Rental Housing Board to oversee administration of rental units in the city
  • Evictions should only be enacted for Just Cause
  • Rent should be pinned to the Consumer Price Index

The charter amendment, if enacted, will provide incredible renter protections in Alameda. I haven't read the text of the rent control measures for other California cities, but I'm willing to wager this proposal would put Alameda in the top three cities in terms of renter friendliness.

I'm biased here, but as a renter (and someone who both wants to see more people in Alameda and see the current residents protected), I'm in favor of shifting the landlord-tenant power balance a bit more in favor of the tenants. That said, there's definitely some parts in the measure that gives me pause.

The big one is capital improvements. As I read the amendment, there is no allowance for general capital improvements to a property. The amendment is very explicit about allowing relocation and rent increases for capital improvements to bring the property up to code, but what if a landlord wants to do general remodeling to make a property nicer, or more attractive? The amendment doesn't seem to allow for that. It feels like an oversight that could be taken advantage of, and which would decrease the overall appeal of the housing stock in Alameda.

Also, the Rental Housing Board, again as I read the amendment, seems to operate with absolutely no oversight. They're chosen by general election, operate completely autonomously from the rest of city government, and their budget is approved only by them. Ostensibly, this is so the Board can't be influenced by a city council that is being too partisan to landlords or tenants. However, the way the amendment is currently worded, the Rental Housing Board could decide to charge a $1000/unit Rental Housing Fee, and the only recourse would be a lawsuit or another election. There doesn't seem to be a lot of 'check' to this 'balance'.

Where does that leave us? I think the debate around this amendment, especially in light of the rent stabilization passed by the City Council on March 1st, is going to be intense, and I hope it raises the level of discourse about how to prepare Alameda for the next decade and the next century. I want strong renter protections, I want myself and other renters to feel secure in our homes. Housing is a home, first and foremost. This amendment provides for that idea, but seems focused on solving the problems of the present, without considering the problems of the future.


Things Learned at the City Council Meeting

by phildini on March 1, 2016


Here are some things, learned by myself and others, at the Alameda City Council meeting on March 1st.

  • The city council continues to treat its staff in a way I find weirdly antagonistic
  • Whenever a council member uses the phrase "Real World", what they mean is: "You researched presentation means nothing, city staffer. Alameda is different."
  • Appropriate means you make funds available for. Those funds can be taken back, especially if they aren't spent
  • The Mayor and City Council are maybe really underpaid?
  • Alameda cares about golf way more than I thought it did. Like, an hour and half more than I thought it did.
  • I don't understand Councilmember Daysog's long-term strategy for Alameda
  • Councilmembers Ashcraft and Oddie seem like people I would enjoy hanging out with

And, the big one

  • Alameda now has rent stabilization.