From: Diana Cabcabin
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer Cc: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Item 7A - Changes to Rent Program Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 7:32:47 PM
Dear Mayor Ashcroft and Council Members:
It is shocking to hear that the City Council wants to end the rent freeze earlier than promised. It is shocking because I believe that some of you try to be good human beings. I don’t believe that it was ethical to leave half your population, its renters, out of the discussion of changes to Alameda’s rent program. It is unfair and morally corrupt to meet solely with landlords.
Where is the evidence that landlords’ expenses have risen more than renters’ expenses? How do you think low income wage earners, the sick, elderly, disabled unemployed renters will be impacted? The lack of empathy is particularly troubling. The very economic forces that have increased landlords’ costs have also led to increased living costs to tenants, many of whom have lost their jobs and have not recovered yet in this statewide emergency, which still exists.
Landlords large and small have substantially more financial advantages and legal resources than renters. I urge you to vote No on Proposed Changes requested by landlords and to right the historical wrongs against your most vulnerable population now, your renters.
Renters were told they would have at least 60 days’ warning before the next rent increase after COVID. Many are already stretched to their financial limit. Furthermore, allowing banking of increases puts an unfair burden on tenants, especially in these difficult economic times. We ask you to correct, not exacerbate, inequitable housing policies and to maintain strong tenant protections. I urge you to cancel all banked increases for the year 2020, 2021 and 2022.
Sincerely,
Diana Cabcabin
From: Is Sullivan
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; City Clerk; Manager Manager Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-A on March 1 Agenda
Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 4:49:31 PM
Dear Councilmembers,
I urge you to leave the current moratorium on rent increases in effect until 60 days after the local emergency is rescinded. Renters are still feeling the financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. It would be cruel to allow for a rent increase now, before the end of the declared local emergency, and especially without the 60 days notice. Furthermore, should the moratorium be lifted, the application of banked increases will unfairly burden tenants. Only the current year's AGA should apply.
Sincerely,
Is Sullivan
From: Laura Thomas
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; John Knox White; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer Cc: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7A on tonights agenda
Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 4:28:53 PM
March 1, 2022
Dear Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and City Councilmembers,
Renewed Hope Housing Advocates joins the Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC) in strongly opposing the new ordinance which would bring an early end to the rent freeze. City Council should vote no on this ordinance, item 7A on the March 1 agenda.
It seems that the city has used staff time to research and propose this new ordinance on behalf of landlords and, by default, major investment companies, at their mere request. The renters in this city – one-half of the residents – have seldom been able to summon such a response to their concerns and, apparently, were not consulted this time either.
The “rising costs” cited by the landlord and investor class, should not be given more weight than the cost of surviving in Alameda that faces your hard-working residents.
The “help wanted” signs in local businesses and the empty storefronts all over town are partly due to “rising costs” and displacement hitting renters and small business owners. This situation is reflected in stats that show up in the city’s own studies of the rent burden faced by Alamedans.
The city has gone to great lengths to address homelessness, producing a comprehensive report called the Road Home and beginning to build projects to shelter people as a path to permanent housing. Ending the moratorium at this point threatens to put people already housed out on the street and make a mockery of those efforts.
If this city is to continue to be the caring city it fancies itself in the wake of the cruel Covid pandemic, we must take the financial plight of renters seriously. We already face a city of high rents, empty units, vacant storefronts and a loss of workers and young people. Before you make it worse, you must demonstrate proof of the problem faced by “mom and pop” landlords and maybe some alternative solutions. Otherwise, we are giving wealthy investors a boon and further squeezing the life out of our city.
Sincerely,
Laura Thomas
On behalf of
Renewed Hope Housing Advocates
From: Denise Wong
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer Cc: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] City Council 3/1/22 - Agenda Item 7A Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 1:09:00 PM
Dear Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and City Councilmembers,
Filipino Advocates for Justice is writing in solidarity with our allies, the Alameda Renters’ Coalition, to urge you to vote no on agenda item 7A.
Despite the encouraging news that COVID hospitalizations are dropping, rent increases at this point in the pandemic will still destabilize our community. Having halted to a near stop during the past two years, the Bay Area’s economy needs time to recuperate. A smooth economic recovery will necessitate the cooperation of the entire community. Item 7A’s proposed timeline for reintroducing rent increases is antithetical to this obvious principle. Throughout the pandemic, both renters and renter advocates have been operating under the understanding that we would receive at least a 60-day notice before property owners resume issuing rent increases. Those sixty days are vital for renters to get their finances in order so they can afford a permanent increase in their cost of living. There is no apparent reason why that grace period for renters needs to be halved, especially when Council recently extended the local state of emergency.
Moreover, our organization urges you to reject allowing banked rent increases, which will inevitably result in displacement. Tenants will not be receiving the banked wages they lost during the past two years of the pandemic. It is unreasonable to expect them to immediately pay a banked rent increase, which operates as a de facto rent debt. The current relief options for renters remains precarious. The county’s emergency relief program for renters is backlogged and, to our understanding, quickly running out of money. In our opinion, allowing rent increases at all – much less banked rent increases from the past two years - would further burden both tenants and the county’s current efforts to ameliorate the financial strain renters are facing.
If item 7A passes, the consequences would be disastrous for the Alameda community, especially for Filipino Alamedans who are disproportionately represented in the essential worker and health care fields. If Alameda loses essential workers, the city’s economic life and job market will be adversely affected. Item 7A will prompt and accelerate the mid-pandemic displacement of many of Alameda’s diverse families, and the repercussions this would bear on youth, who comprise a significant amount of FAJ’s base, would be painful and catastrophic.
For these reasons, we ask you to stand up for Alameda working families, immigrants, families of color, and seniors by voting no on item 7A tonight.
Thank you,
Denise Sicat Wong
Tenant Organizer
Filipino Advocates for Justice
From: Cheryl Kettell
To: City Clerk; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Tony Daysog; [email protected]; housing; [email protected]
Cc: Alameda Renters Coalition; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Item 7-A Rent increase & timing of same 3/1/22 agenda Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 10:42:17 AM
Importance: High
To the Alameda City Council members/ interested parties:
As of today, 3/1/22, the official alamedaca.gov website continues to read -- Tenant Resources
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Alameda City Council has taken action to:
Add eviction protections for residential and commercial tenants Create rent relief programs for residential tenants and small businesses Stop residential rent increases in rent-controlled units until *60 days after the City Council rescinds the local emergency, which has not happened yet
Fund legal services for low-income tenants
In order to represent the interests of all its constituents, the Alameda City Council must adhere to its own stated policies (as per the above online notification):
1) *If the Local Emergency order is still in effect, the 60 days end of rent moratorium cannot yet be determined;
2) Arbitrarily shortening the rent increase moratorium from 60 to 30 days is unconscionable; this would leave the city's most vulnerable residents, those existing on limited incomes, with little or no opportunity to make provision for this loss of funds which are needed for other basic necessities of life;
3) Above all, allowing landlords to bank rent increases during the pandemic is morally reprehensible.
As a 31-year Alameda resident/ renter, an elder living on a fixed income I also ask:
Why wasn't the Alameda Renters Coalition consulted on these changes (as they have been in past years) in advance of adding them to the agenda for tonight? ARC speaks for the at-risk Alameda renters who are apparently not represented, or well-represented, by anyone on the Council. The landlords may not care about the grim & frightening realities of life for their tenants during these challenging times but I call upon the Council members to fully represent all the citizens of Alameda, not just the ones with deep pockets.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Kettell
March
1,
2022
Dear
Mayor
Ezzy
Ashcraft
and
City
Councilmembers,
Alameda
Renters
Coalition
(ARC)
steering
committee
recently
wrote
to
you
expressing
our
opposition
to
the
proposed
lifting
of
the
COVID
rent
freeze
in
30 days,
today’s
agenda
item
7-A.
Our
letter
reflects
misunderstandings
about
the
proposed
allowance
of
banked
increases
after
the
moratorium
is
lifted,
based
on
an
older
proposal.
However,
our
position
on
banking
remains:
Banking
puts
an
unreasonable
burden
on
tenants,
especially
in
the
wake
of
a
devastating
pandemic.
What’s
more,
Alameda
renters
were
told
we
would
have
at
least
60 days’
warning
before
our
next
rent
increase
after
COVID.
With
a
30-day
notice
period,
many
who
are
already
stretched
to
their
financial
limits
would
now
have
less
time
to
prepare,
and
there
would
be
less
time
to
get
the
word
out
to
tenants.
The
same
economic
forces
that
have
increased
landlords’
costs
have
also
increased
tenants’
costs,
but
with
a
disproportionate
impact.
We
urge
the
Council
to
vote
no
on
ending
the
rent
freeze
earlier
than
promised.
Sincerely,
Alameda
Renters
Coalition
Steering
Committee
From: alison hart
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 2.7%
Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 9:25:19 AM
Dear County Clerk,
I am urging you to oppose the proposed rent increase and further banked increase for renters. I am a long time renter in Alameda, retired music teacher, woman of color, single mother to a college student, and a small business owner. With inflation, my budget is squeezed as it is and every increase hurts. Alameda says “Everyone Belongs Here” but do we really mean it? Is Alameda only for those that can afford it that ultimately leads to many people of color being out priced here?
Talk is talk, signs are nice but it is policy that matters.
Please walk your talk, make decisions that truly support all people in Alameda.
Alison Hart
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From: CASANDRA DISON
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Banking Rent Increases
Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 8:52:33 AM
It's always a struggle to remain in Alameda.
It is inevitable that rents will increase.
What's unfair is that landlords are allowed to bank the increases, not to mention that they can be issued per their discretion.
How can anyone possibly survive a triple increase, it is likely we won't We urge to City Council to reevaluate the entire issue of banking Why is it even necessary to bank increases amid high rents? How much banking is allowed? Is it a fair housing choice? Is there a maximum?
How landlords can dispense the increases?
From: Anne Beavers
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Long time Alameda renter very concerned Date: Monday, February 28, 2022 10:27:52 PM
Subject: Long-time Alameda renter very concerned
PROTECT AND SUPPORT ALAMEDA RENTERS
I am a long-time renter and voter in Alameda.
As with other residents, there are a great number of difficulties and hardships during the covid emergency we have encountered. Because of that, please HELP us
Rent issues we face—
-Do not end the emergency rent increase freeze (not early) -require landlords to provide at least a 60-day (not 30-day) notice of potential increase to help renters plan financially
-NO banked increase from past freeze increase. That would put an unbearable burden on renters who have already been subjected to very difficult times
Anne D Beavers
From: Jeffrey Cheifetz
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; City Clerk Cc: Jeffrey Cheifetz
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Regarding Agenda Item 2022-1748, to be considered at the Alameda City Council meeting 3/1/22 Date: Monday, February 28, 2022 6:51:53 PM
Mayor, Vice-Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Clerk:
I am cognizant of the need for landlords to not experience more severe impacts to their financial stability than necessary during this very difficult time.
However, the timing of this agenda item is unexpected given that over the last two years, renters have had some security in knowing that a moratorium on rent increases would not expire until 60 days after the end of the Local Emergency. I encourage you to continue that understanding of the process, to give renters enough time to plan for the upcoming monthly increase, the formula for which is still to be determined. Otherwise the disruption caused by short-circuiting that process may severely affect far more people than is necessary.
However, if you decide to lift the rent increase moratorium in the proposed precipitous manner, please seriously consider the staff's recommendation as per the following:
1. End the moratorium by permitting landlords to implement a rent increase up to the current year’s AGA, which is 2.7%, but not permit further increases from previously banked increase
Thank you for your consideration.
Jeffrey Cheifetz
Jeffrey Cheifetz
PO Box 178
1501 Verdi Street Apt D
Alameda CA
94501
510-523-1015 home
415-246-5142 cell
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffrey-cheifetz-a48158b/
Twitter:JeffCh1
Facebook
Friday is my sabbath day - leave a message and I will get back to you as soon as possible.
From: Jennifer Nogle
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Rent Moratorium
Date: Monday, February 28, 2022 8:46:04 AM
As a renter for the last 12 and a half years, I want to have my say.
You PROMISED a 60 day warning and NOW you want to remove that? WTF is wrong with you people?
People are STILL recovering from the pandemic, not just health wise but monetarily too.
This shows me how little you care about the renters who live on the island and is something I will keep in mind at the next election.
I am not against removing the moratorium, just give us the 60 day notice as promised. I am also NOT looking forward to having my rent go up so much because of the banking of the last 2-3 years. That is a lot of money in one go. I think half or maybe 1 year's worth increase until the world is a bit more stabilized would go a long way in helping us out.
Alameda resident
Jennifer Nogle
1 City Clerk
From: Charles Bunker <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 4:03 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] rent controol
I am writing to ascertain whether any action has been taken concerning my email of January 13 (copy included). I am concerned about the possibility of a jumbo rent increase after the rent freeze is terminated.
January 13 email
I am writing about the rent situation here in Alameda. Currently the city of Alameda is in a rental increase freeze due to the Covid19 situation. There is also a provision which allows landlords to bank rent increases that are not given. These two ordinances seem to conflict with each other. When the rent increase freeze is terminated landlords can increase the rent by the cumulative amount that they were not allowed to charge tenants during the freeze. This will result in tenants receiving an increase of a very large amount because it would be the amount that they were not allowed to charge during the rent freeze. I think that the landlords should be allowed only to charge for the increase of the previous 12 months.
Charles Bunker
550 Central Ave. #107
1 City Clerk
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 7:03 AM
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer Cc: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] City Council 3/1/22 Agenda Item 7A.
February 23, 2022
Dear Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and City Councilmembers,
Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC) strongly opposes the new ordinance which would bring an early end to the rent freeze. We strongly urge City Council to vote no on this ordinance, item 7A on the March 1 agenda.
The city researched and proposed this new ordinance without any input from renters, responding only to a request from landlords. Best practices would call for a city government to consider input from all residents in the city, not just one interest group. Staff seems to have considered only the claim by landlords of “rising costs,” and has forgotten the original reason for Ordinance 3250, namely that rents in Alameda were rising at a rate greater than renters’ household income.
Furthermore, there is no evidence given for how much landlords’ expenses have risen and how many landlords have been impacted. The very economic forces that have increased landlords’ costs have also led to increased living costs to tenants, many of whom have lost their jobs and have not recovered yet in this statewide emergency, which still exists.
If Alameda’s rent freeze is ended early to favor the preferences of landlords, it will adversely impact renters.
Alameda rental property owners and managers are not only small property owners. Larger corporate landlords have made inroads into our city. They have substantially more financial advantages and legal resources than renters, and those entities have historically taken advantage of renters. It is the imperative of our city council to right historical wrongs against our most vulnerable population, the renters. We ask you to correct, not exacerbate, inequitable housing policies and to maintain strong tenant protections.
The staff report mentions avoiding “payment shock” by implementing a rent increase now, in 30 days, before the potential banking increases hit renters at the end of the local emergency period. We maintain that “payment shock” will occur anyway and renters will be severely impacted, and many will be displaced, regardless of whether the rent increases come in two, three, or six months apart. There will still be more than one increase in a twelve-month period, a situation that Council previously decided was burdensome to renters, even in non-pandemic years.
Please do your duty as the elected city council by voting no on Agenda Item 7A. This ordinance would not only put a burden on renters but indeed would weaken the economy of the city because people will not have money to spend in local businesses nor for housing, resulting in increased homelessness.
Sincerely,
Jan Santos
On behalf of Alameda Renters Coalition
From: Karen MIller
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog; John Knox White; Trish Spencer Cc: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-A on 3/1/22
Date: Friday, February 18, 2022 4:49:27 PM
Dear Mayor and Council members,
I strongly support staff’s recommendation of lifting the freeze on rent increases that have been in effect since 2020. We are no longer in an emergency situation and the governor has even acknowledged that this week. I would like to get more clarity on the banked increases as I see several potential problems with the current proposal and the ordinance. The ordinance provides that:
The maximum rent increase using “banked” AGAs is equal to the current year’s AGA plus no more than three percent.
A landlord may not bank more than eight percent.
A landlord may not impose “banked” AGA in consecutive years.
A landlord may not impose “banked” AGA more than three times in any one tenancy.
If you agree to the Staff’s recommendation that the banked amounts be allowable in the future, and you have concerns about those added amounts being a hardship for the tenants, then I would recommend that the ordinance be modified at least temporarily. I would recommend allowing for the banked amounts to be used in consecutive years and more than 3 times in a tenancy, until the banked amounts are recouped. Thank you.
Regards,
Karen Miller
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com