From: Diana Cabcabin
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Malia Vella; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] CIP Item - November 21, 2023
Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 7:51:46 PM
Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft
Vice Mayor Tony Dasog
Councilmember Malia Vella
Councilmember Trish Herrera Spencer
Councilmember Tracy Jensen November 21, 2023
RE: Continuation of Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Policy discussion
Dear Council Members,
I am very surprised that a Council member pulled the CIP item. I wonder what her motivation was?
I am a long-time Alameda resident and a person of color retiring in a matter of months. I just received the Rent Program’s Annual Information Letter notifying landlords primarily which is always unsettling for fixed or low-income people. I am a native of Alameda from a military family and have many family members who went through Alameda schools over the decades.
I am also a tenant advocate who believes that people have a human right to housing. We are seeing such a high rate of homelessness in California because elected officials haven’t prioritized housing or taken their responsibility to facilitate prevention of homelessness.
As I get older, I know that people like me will be more vulnerable to the rapidly rising cost of housing and lack of social and shelter protection for all those of us who are low income, fixed income, no income, people of color. It is embarrassing to all of us that visitors from other places question why there is so much homelessness in Alameda and Alameda County. It is not the job of the homeless or low-income persons to leave their homes in order to provide a profit to greedy landlords or realtors. It is the job of elected officials to take care of it’s population for basic housing.
This discussion, debate, or manipulation of such an important topic as the CIP policy during Thanksgiving week seems underhanded, inappropriate and corrupt. I question the behavior of the council person who created this problem.
I voted for those council members who made Alameda’s Rent Control happen. I urge you to have clear, conscientious priorities to protect Alameda residents. Your decision has real, urgent financial impact on poor, low-income people of color, unemployed, underemployed, disabled and elderly and sick people. Renter are over 50 percent of Alameda. Please do not allow a negative spiraling of poverty to happen to renters.
Sincerely,
Diana Cabcabin
From: Jason Buckley
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO CIP
Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 3:38:00 PM
Dear council members,
I can't believe I still have to write to you all about this, but alas, here I am just days before Thanksgiving and during the busiest time of the year at my job, urging you not to allow for any kind of Capital Improvement Passthrough to tenants. It effectively just gets around the rent control that you passed (seriously thank you again for that! It's been the only thing keeping my family in this community, possibly even this state). It's unfair to expect tenants to add equity to property they do not own. A 100% passthrough is particularly egregious. And tenants living in smaller properties should not be penalized because their landlord is supposedly less likely to be able to maintain their own investments. These last few years have been really hard. Homelessness is out of control. And giving landlords a loophole to get around rent control will only displace more of our most vulnerable community members.
Also, on a separate note, please continue to ignore that racist clown, Brian Kenedy, and his nonstop white supremacist nonsense about immigrants. I've been told he does not even live here.
Thank you,
Jason Buckley
Virus-free.www.avg.com
From: Laura Woodard
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please don"t approve a 100% CIP pass-through! Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 3:04:53 PM
Dear Honorable Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Council Members, I would be at City Hall this evening for the momentous CIP decision if it weren't taking place during the holidays when many Alamedans are away.
I rent a very small unit in a 3-unit property. I’ve been anxious and disturbed since learning of Council’s vote to allow 100% pass-through fees for tenants in small properties. Please reconsider making any tenant pay this much.
I just received the Rent Program’s letter notifying me that I’m eligible for a $192 rent increase. Imagine adding a significant pass-through fee on top of that monthly cost. Most tenants' income won't keep up with such increases.
Between banking and CIP, the rent cap is severely undermined.
I’m sure the Council is aware of the eviction crisis currently taking place in Alameda County courts. Any undue financial burden on tenants will further contribute to homelessness. Please help prevent further suffering in this housing crisis and reconsider any CIP pass-throughs higher than 50%.
Sincerely,
Laura Woodard
From: Jeanne Nader
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Written Comment on Item 6-A -- 11/21 Council Meeting Agenda Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 2:04:03 PM
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am reaching out to voice my opposition to changing the current ordinance on CIP to include a larger number of rental units. Passing the CIP onto tenants' negates the City's previous rental protections. As you well know, most of the larger apartment buildings are owned by real estate investment companies who have ample means to maintain and improve the buildings. The CIP is onerous, egregious and completely one-sided in favor of companies who are commodifying housing.
Please stand with renters - who make up nearly 50% of our city. Expanding CIP threatens to force people out of their homes, many of whom have lived on the island for years, raised their kids here and contributed greatly to our community. Remember, we're the city that proclaims - Everyone is Welcome Here.
Don't backtrack on the gains we've made to protect our fellow Alamedans.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Nader
305 Spruce St., Alameda
From: Anne Beavers
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO to cip rent increases
Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 7:29:42 AM
From: Heather Polley
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Malia Vella; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] No to Capital Improvements
Date: Monday, November 20, 2023 5:12:17 PM
Dear Alameda Council Members,
I am writing to once again ask to to consider eliminating capital improvement passthroughs in the city of Alameda. I am disappointed to hear that the compromise that was reached at the last meeting has potentially broken down. This goes against the wishes of every Alamedans who spoke at the last meeting. It is clear that the vast majority of Alamedans do not want capital improvement passthroughs of any kind, and yet it continues to be considered by the council.
I urge you to reject any form of Capital Improvement policies for the city of Alameda. We already have Fair Return in place, which is a fair balance for both renters and landlords. Capital improvement passthroughs will be a disaster for working families who are already struggling under the burden of skyrocketing market rents, student loan payments, and increasing cost of living across the board.
Renters in Alameda are under enormous financial pressure. Capital improvement passthroughs will make this pressure even worse at a time when we need city policies to help us to stay in our homes and in Alameda.
Sincerely,
Heather Polley
From: Andrew Santos
To: City Clerk; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to CIP policies
Date: Monday, November 20, 2023 5:04:45 PM
Dear Alameda City Council members,
I am a renter living in Alameda and a member of Buena Vista United Methodist Church.
I continue to oppose the Capital Improvement Plan policy. I understand that maintaining properties can be difficult for landlords, but passing it on to tenants in this way seems to offer an opportunity to take advantage of tenants. I believe my landlord would not use the policy unjustly, but they may and others likely would, especially if there were prejudices involved. Therefore I support a Fair Return policy. Please consider this during the Council Meeting on Tuesday.
Thank you all for the hard work you do for the city.
Sincerely,
Andrew
From: Cheri Stryker
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Capital Improvement Pass-Through Plan Date: Monday, November 20, 2023 4:55:41 PM
A combination of chronic illness and long term injury have left me basically housebound, so I shall send my thoughts this way:
This is the most unethical and blatant cash grab I have YET seen in Alameda politics. Far too many property owners and their managers view tenants as merely a necessary evil to keep the money flowing, instead of actual human beings that they are offering to house, and they expect "their" property to be maintained in pristine state. Allow me to illustrate my thought: when one invests in real estate, one takes on certain risks. The maintenance of one's investment is solely the responsibility of the investor. If the investor chooses not to have earthquake insurance, for example, it is not the tenants' responsibility to insure the entire building. When one invests in property, one must accept that it will eventually run down. The passage of time will bring its own destruction. Fighting entropy and maintaining value on the investment is again the responsibility of the investor. It is in no way the responsibility of the tenants. It is unreasonable to expect the tenants to support the improvement and maintenance of someone else's investment. The ONLY improvements tenants should be expected to fund are things that they get a say in. If this plan succeds, a hypothetical tenant that has been working multiple jobs, doing without, for YEARS, to try to save up to secure a home for their family should not have to choose between their savings and whatever "improvement" (which I consider different from repairs and maintenance, which a tenant should not be billed for if they were not at fault) the owner wishes to make.
Thank you for your time.
--
Cheri Stryker, B.A. Communications
From: leslie shubin
To: Rent Program; City Attorney; CityCouncil-List
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Rent Increase
Date: Monday, November 20, 2023 2:35:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear Bill,
I do not understand why the CIP pass through is not included in the rental amount going forward?? Keep in mind I have already lost $81.71 x 2 x 24 months = $3,922.08 due to Alameda’s overly punishing rules towards landlords from April, 2020 to June, 2022. I believe it was the strictest in the entire state of California.
Leslie Shubin
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 20, 2023, at 2:08 PM, Rent Program <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Leslie,
To update you, we have updated the registry as discussed in your 11/2 email below. So just to be clear and to close this matter:
For Unit 3: The Rent Program has processed the increase from $1,884.52 to $2,072.97 as a $106.74 rent increase to $1,991.26 (the 2.9% AGA plus an ~2.8% banked rent increase) plus the full CIP pass through of $81.71.
For Unit 4: The Rent Program has processed the increase from $1,785 to $1,963.50 as a $96.79 rent increase to $1,881.79 (the 2.9% AGA plus an ~2.5% banked rent increase) plus the full CIP pass through of $81.71.
Please keep in mind that the current rents, not including the CIP pass through, are now $1,991.26 and $1,881.79, respectively. The next rent increase must be made by applying the AGA to these amounts
, then the CIP pass through may be added to
the result, subject to local and state limits. Again, I strongly recommend that you check in with the Rent Program before noticing the tenants of their next rent increases so staff can verify that they meet current regulations.
Regards,
Bill Chapin
Rent Program Director
------------------------------------------------------------------ City of Alameda Rent Program
www.alamedarentprogram.org
ph: (510) 747-7520 | [email protected]
The Alameda Rent Program administers the City of Alameda’s Rent Ordinance, which regulates rent increases and “no fault” terminations of tenancy and requires landlords to register all rental units.
Mailing Address: 950 W. Mall Square, Room 172, Alameda, CA 94501 24-Hour Drop Box: Oak Street between City Hall and Alameda Police Dept.
Hours of Operation: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday-Friday
From: leslie shubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2023 5:37 PM
To: Rent Program <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Rent Increase
Dear Bill,
Thank you for responding in such a clear manner. My intention was to achieve the highest possible rent increase without exceeding 10% as we discussed in person a few weeks ago. I wanted to use the entire $81.71 and reduce the 5.9% to wherever it would achieve the total of $2,072.97 and $1,963.50. Even with this increase, both rents are under market by $250-$300 each. With lagoon views and all utilities included I am a very generous landlady.
As the saying goes, no good deed will go unpunished. For my generous rental package I have been paid back by two colluding back stabbing tenants. It sounds harsh but it is true. I have been in this business since 1987 (for other owners before I owned my own property) and I have never had such sneaky and mean tenants in 36 years!
the formula I used was to multiply the current rent by 5.9%, then add $81.71. I then took the current rent and multiplied that number by 110%. I subtracted the difference from the first formula to arrive at a 10% increase,, ergo: $1,963.50 and $2,072.97..
I am truly exhausted from this process. I want to finish and move on with the rest of my life and I know you have spent a lot of time and want to be done also.
Thank you kindly for your attention to the final details.
Sincerely,
Leslie Shubin
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 2, 2023, at 5:14 PM, Rent Program <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Leslie,
To be clear, on Oct. 12, 2023, you notified the tenant of Unit 3 that her rent was increasing from $1,884.52 to $2,072.97, a 10.0% increase.
Although you did not specify it in your notice, based on our previous correspondence, the Rent Program has processed this as a 5.9% rent increase (the maximum amount allowed by the City’s banking regulations) to $1,995.71 plus a CIP pass through of $77.26. Although the approval of your CIP entitled you to a maximum monthly pass through of $81.71, our understanding is that you have elected to take a smaller CIP pass through for the next 12 months in order to limit the total increase to 10.0%.
The only other way to achieve this would be to use less of your banked amounts, e.g. a 5.7% rent increase to $1,991.26 plus the maximum CIP pass through of $81.71.
Please clarify what you intended.
The Rent Program will be glad to
update our records for Unit 3 to show a new rent of anything between $1,991.26 and $1,995.71, with the difference made up of a CIP pass through ranging from $77.26 to $81.71, as necessary to achieve a total of $2,072.97.
Similarly, on Oct. 12, 2023, you notified the tenant of Unit 4 that her rent was increasing from $1,785 to $1,963.50, a 10.0% increase. Although you did not specify it in your notice, the Rent Program has processed this as a 5.9% rent increase to $1,890.32 plus a CIP pass through of $73.18. Please clarify what you intended.
The Rent Program will be glad
to update our records for Unit 4 to show a new rent of anything between $1,881.79 and $1,890.32, with the difference made up of a CIP pass through ranging from $73.18 to $81,71, as necessary to achieve a total of $1,963.50.
Finally, allow me to reiterate that the Rent Program reviews rent increases for compliance only with local law. My previous email was intended to verify that we have found, based on the information presented to us at this time, the rent increases you gave your tenants on Oct. 12 are, in fact, in compliance with local law. We cannot verify for you whether they are in compliance with state law, including AB 1482’s current 9.2% cap and other noticing requirements that may apply, nor can we offer you legal advice about your rights and responsibilities under state law.
Once you have clarified the rent increase amounts, I sincerely hope the Rent Program has no need for further involvement in this matter. If any of this is not clear, please call me directly tomorrow at 510-747-7521.
Regards,
Bill Chapin
Rent Program Director
------------------------------------------------------------------ City of Alameda Rent Program
www.alamedarentprogram.org
ph: (510) 747-7520 | [email protected]
<image001.png>
The Alameda Rent Program administers the City of Alameda’s Rent Ordinance, which regulates rent increases and “no fault” terminations of tenancy and requires landlords to register all rental units.
Mailing Address: 950 W. Mall Square, Room 172, Alameda, CA 94501 24-Hour Drop Box: Oak Street between City Hall and Alameda Police Dept.
Hours of Operation: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday-Friday
From: leslie shubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 7:08 PM
To: Rent Program <[email protected]>; City Attorney <[email protected]>; CityCouncil-List <CITYCOUNCIL- [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Rent Increase
Dear Bill,
I am furious. I believe you are trying to sabotage my business. You are quite mistaken. I most certainly did tell you that I wanted the whole Capital Improvement amount of $81.71 applied. It is in one of my emails and I said it to you in person when we met in your lobby. You showed me the numbers that you said were in compliance with Alameda Rent Program in person in your lobby. You told me that you did not enforce state rules which would limit my increase to 9.2% rather than 10%. You need to fix this immediately to include the whole 81.71. If you are now changing your mind about enforcing state law then the increase I am entitled to is $1,884.52 x 105.9% = $1,995.70 + 81.71 = $2,077.41 - $19.51 = $2,057.90 (9.2% of $1,884.52) for Apt.3 and $1,785 x 105.9% = $1,890.32 + $81.71 = $1,972.03 - $22.81 = $1,949.22 for Apt. 4 (9.2% of $1,785). You spelled it out in an email and now you must stand behind it.
You have had my papers for 20 days and you pull this trick on me now? Why do you hate me so much? If rules have changed regarding capital improvement amounts I should be grandfathered in since you approved my increase back in November, 2021. I have already lost 24 months of that increase. You really do have a vendetta against me and have been persecuting me and punishing me over and over. Also the rent program does not say 24 months. It spells out no two consecutive years for banked increases.
I demand that you amend your numbers to align with the numbers above which is exactly what you sent me in one of your last emails. Why on earth would an intelligent person like yourself think that I did not want the capital improvement amount used after waiting for two years. Be fair with me.
Leslie Shubin
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 31, 2023, at 12:21 PM, Rent Program
<[email protected]
> wrote:
Dear Leslie,
The rent increases you submitted for Units 3 and 4 have been processed and the Rent Registry has been updated.
To be clear, because you did not inform us otherwise, we have processed both of theses notices as maximum banked rent increases of 5.9% plus a reduced CIP pass through.
This means that the current rent for Unit 3 has been
registered as $1,995.71 ($1884.52 increased by 5.9%) and the current rent for Unit 4 has been registered as $1,890.32 ($1785 increased by 5.9%). The next rent increase that you impose on these units should be based on applying the AGA to these amounts. You may then add up to $81.71 in CIP
pass throughs so long as the total meets any caps under local and state law.
Please note that the rules for banked rent increases include a restriction that prohibits a landlord from imposing a banked rent increase in consecutive years. This means that, even though you still have some amounts banked for both units, future increases may not exceed the AGA plus CIP pass
through for at least 24 months after the effective date of the pending rent increases.
I do strongly advise you to reach out to the Rent Program prior to issuing any subsequent rent increase notices for these units so that staff can verify that the notices would be in compliance with local law. I know that you attempted to do so this past February, and the Rent Program’s transition from the Housing Authority to the City Attorney’s Office meant your message was not received. That was due to a
one-time change in contact info that should not be an issue in the future. You should always be able to find and verify our contact info at
https://www.alamedarentprogram.org/Contact-Us.
Lastly, just a final reminder that the Rent Program has only reviewed these increases for compliance with local law.
There are additional rent increase notice responsibilities under state law. Failure to comply with state law may render a notice null and void. The Rent Program does not offer legal advice about your rights and responsibilities under state law.
Regards,
Bill Chapin
Rent Program Director
------------------------------------------------------------------ City of Alameda Rent Program
www.alamedarentprogram.org
ph: (510) 747-7520 | [email protected]
<image001.png>
The Alameda Rent Program administers the City of
Alameda’s Rent Ordinance, which regulates rent increases and “no fault” terminations of tenancy and requires landlords to register all rental units.
Mailing Address: 950 W. Mall Square, Room 172, Alameda, CA 94501
24-Hour Drop Box: Oak Street between City Hall and
Alameda Police Dept.
Hours of Operation: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday-Friday
From: leslie shubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 10:23 AM
To: Catherine Erbland <[email protected]>; Rent Program <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Rent Increase
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: leslie shubin <[email protected]>
Date: October 12, 2023 at 10:18:24 AM PDT
To: Catherine Erbland <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Increase
Dear Cathy,
Your rent will increase from $1,884.52 per month to
$2,072.97 per month effective 30 days from now,
November 11, 2023. For November you will pay 1/3 of
$1,884.52 ($628.17) for November 1-10 and 2/3 of
$2,072.97 ($1,381.98) for November 11-30, a total of
$2,010.15. Your rent is not due until November 11. You
will resume paying on the 1st of the month in December.
Please note that your new rent is lower than the
approved amount by the Rent Program. I am mailing a
hard copy of this notice along with form RP-203.
Leslie Shubin
Sent from my iPad
From: Kimberly Tyda
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Malia Vella; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] CIP agenda item
Date: Monday, November 20, 2023 11:54:59 AM
Attachments: Council Letter.docx
Mayor and Councilmembers,
I oppose broadening the application of the CIP's to additional property sizes. Given the minimal notice provided to residents about this change to the agenda item and given that the holiday week makes it difficult for many residents to attend and speak on Tuesday, I ask that the council move further discussion and the final vote on this item to after the Thanksgiving holiday.
Please see my attached letter.
Thank you,
Kimberly Tyda
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
It has been brought to my attention that the council has pulled the CIP legislation approval from the consent calendar and has added it to the discussion agenda, for potential revisions which may broaden the application of the CIP program to properties over four units in size. This proposed change has the potential to negatively impact a substantial number of renter households in the city.
I find it very problematic that the council chose to make this change to the November 21st meeting with little notice, particularly given that the meeting falls on the Thanksgiving holiday week, when many people may be traveling out of the area and unavailable to attend the meeting to speak on the issue. At minimum, council should have waited until after the holiday to allow those who wished to attend to do so. It appears that council wanted this action to fly under the radar, hoping we would not be aware and/or be unable to attend Tuesday’s meeting.
Therefore, I ask that the council NOT hold a final vote on this issue until after the holidays.
As stated in my previous correspondence on this issue, the revised CIP plan will make housing more expensive for already cost-burdened tenants, undermining the stabilizing impact of Alameda's rent control laws. CIP passthroughs may be applied multiple times throughout a tenancy, as often as every other year. These additional passthroughs on top of annual rent increases will make housing more and more unaffordable for renters. Why should tenants living in larger properties receive protections that other tenants do not? Tenants living in small to mid-size properties are not any better able to absorb large increases in their rents than tenants living in larger properties.
According to the City’s 2021 Report on Housing Affordability and Displacement, the cost of housing has increased much faster than resident incomes in the City of Alameda, which makes housing unaffordable to low- AND moderate-income renters. The report also concludes that “households with one to two lower wage workers cannot afford typical market rents or home prices in the City.” 1 These conclusions are supported by data from the National Low Income Housing Coalition.2 According to their analyses, the cost of renting an average apartment in Alameda is already out of reach for many residents. In order to spend no more than 30% of income on rent, tenants in Alameda’s 94501 zip code need an annual income of at least $76,000 to afford a typical, market-rate 1 bedroom apartment. To afford a market-rate 2-bedroom apartment, tenants need an income of at least $93,000.
Some councilmembers who support the use of CIP for small to mid-size properties argued that it would help keep the properties in the hands of small landlords and prevent corporate landlords from scooping up those properties.
This argument is entirely speculative, and no evidence was provided to support it. Allowing landlords to put the cost of major repairs on the backs of their tenants does nothing to prevent corporate landlords from acquiring those properties.
Landlords should cover their own investments. Many tenants live in buildings that have not been properly maintained, even though we pay our landlords tens of thousands of dollars in rent every year. Why should tenants have to pay for upgrades and repairs to things that have sat it state of disrepair for years? CIP puts Alameda's renters in the position of having to pay for pricey repairs and property improvements which should be covered by landlords, USING THE RENT WE ALREADY PAY THEM!!!
Thank you, Kimberly S. Tyda, Alameda Tenant and Advocate
1 https://www.alamedaca.gov/files/assets/public/v/3/departments/alameda/econ-dev-amp-comm-services/city-of-alameda-housing- affordability-and-displacement-report.pdf
2 https://nlihc.org/oor
From: Tyra Lewis
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Concern Alameda Tenant
Date: Monday, November 20, 2023 9:18:24 AM
Honorable Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Members of City Council:
I am an Alameda tenant. Alameda tenants urgently need an emergency moratorium on Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) pass-throughs for ALL tenants, in ALL rental properties. CIP pass- throughs threaten tenants with displacement and should be regulated by rent control.
As the corporate owners of South Shore Apartments await approval of a CIP for up to $24 million, South Shore tenants face having to pay for these improvements in the same year that many tenants are receiving banked rent increases. Some of these tenants live in non-habitable conditions. This must be stopped for South Shore tenants, and not be allowed to happen to tenants city-wide.
Current CIP policy puts property owners in a position to attract new renters at market rate to take the place of tenants who can’t afford the additional payments. In this case, the CIP will be a gift to Blackstone, Inc., one of the largest real estate investors in the world.
Please don’t let South Shore and tenants city-wide face displacement by a flawed CIP policy that demands a major review by the City Council. We need an emergency moratorium on CIP pass-throughs now, for all rental properties city-wide, including especially the South Shore Apartments.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.
Miss Lewis
From: [email protected]
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Malia Vella; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] ARC continues our opposition to CIP.
Date: Sunday, November 19, 2023 12:33:56 PM
Hello Mayor and City Council,
ARC continues to oppose CIP in any form. We’re disappointed that council has ignored a hundred percent renter opposition to CIP. Please change your decision and vote down CIP in your reconsideration at your Nov. 21 2023 meeting. Renters make up over 50% of Alamedans . Landlords are responsible for providing safe and habitable housing, and maintaining their property, not the tenants who don’t share in property investments.
Jan Santos
On behalf of Alameda Renters Coalition Steering Committee