Correspondence - Updated 12/20 — Alameda City Council, December 19, 2023

From: JOHN ERIC BERGMAN
To: Diana Cabcabin
Cc: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Malia Vella; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: No CIP - Vote to Support Over Fifty Percent of Alameda Date: Tuesday, December 19, 2023 9:26:23 PM
Hi, Diana.

Thanks for the update. I’m sorry that I wasn’t able to attend the city council meeting earlier today.

Also, are you surprised that Tracy Jensen voted for CIP? I ask because I’ve not seen anything on the Internet where Tracy Jensen has stated that housing for low-income and working-class income people in Alameda is a high priority for her. Also, are you interested in running to be on the Alameda City Council?
I wonder if this is meaningful for you,
Eric
On Dec 19, 2023, at 4:07 PM, Diana Cabcabin <[email protected] > wrote:

December 19, 2023
Attn: The Alameda City Council
Subject: No CIP (Capital Improvement Policy) - Vote to Support Over 50% of Alameda
Dear Council Members,
I am grateful for the honest efforts made by Mayor Ashcroft, Council Member Vella and to the Alameda City Staff. They have listened to the most important stakeholders in the CIP struggle when City Council voted for “no CIP.” We still want “No CIP.” I agree this is about Empathy.

The final vote with Jensen’s vote reversal disregards and disrespects renters – over 50% of Alameda residents.

How can Council vote to support shelter for unhoused
Alamedans then turn around and vote for a policy that’s guaranteed to make housing less affordable and force more people onto the streets?
Low and middle income people of color, disabled and elderly are the most vulnerable to rent increases beyond 3%. It is embarrassing that visitors to Alameda and surrounding areas question why there is so much homelessness.

You have the power to change this.

Arguing for CIP is the same as asking homeless, low-to- medium income people, unemployed people to provide bigger profits to investors, landlords and realtors—that is what we see is happening everywhere.

But no, It must be the job of elected officials to take care of it’s most vulnerable population as elected officials.

We urge you to please do the right thing.

Sincerely,
Diana Cabcabin

From: Toni Grimm
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Malia Vella Cc: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please pull and vote No on Item 5-H in the Consent Calendar Date: Tuesday, December 19, 2023 5:40:26 PM
Dear Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft, Vice-Mayor Daysog, and Councilmembers, Once again you have a change to do the right thing for renters in Alameda and re-consider your previous vote on the Capital Improvement Plan.

It is astonishing to me that three of you on the council are ignoring all the letters and testimony from renters over the last few months on this issue, in stark contrast to the extremely weak input from landlords and property managers, who don't seem to care much about this issue. Who do you represent and why?
I have been involved in this issue for the last three years, in stakeholder meetings with staff, in Rent Program workshops, and following the City Council discussions on several different proposals, and I have never heard anyone define a "mom-and-pop" landlord. It is frustrating to hear that "small" landlords need addition monies beyond annual rent increases without any studies being done on their financial situation. There is no evidence to support the connection between the neediness of a landlord and the size of a building.

The four-tiered plan is only based on what some other cities do, and shows a lack of due diligence to prove that this plan should apply to Alameda. In the last three years, the only person who presented a logical reason for a tier break was Councilmember Vella when she presented the information on different bank loans for property owners. Other than that, the tier breaks are arbitrary and seem to be just plucked out of the air.

According to this proposed CIP, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk could be considered a mom-and- pop landlord if they owned a four-unit rental property, in spite of how may other rental buildings they owned in how many other locations, and no matter their net worth. This is not equity.

Please listen to your constituents and vote "NO" on this CIP proposal.

Toni Grimm
Alameda renter
From: Diana Cabcabin
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Malia Vella; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] No CIP - Vote to Support Over Fifty Percent of Alameda Date: Tuesday, December 19, 2023 4:07:56 PM
December 19, 2023
Attn: The Alameda City Council
Subject: No CIP (Capital Improvement Policy) - Vote to Support Over 50% of Alameda
Dear Council Members,
I am grateful for the honest efforts made by Mayor Ashcroft, Council Member Vella and to the Alameda City Staff. They have listened to the most important stakeholders in the CIP struggle when City Council voted for “no CIP.” We still want “No CIP.” I agree this is about Empathy.

The final vote with Jensen’s vote reversal disregards and disrespects renters – over 50% of Alameda residents.

How can Council vote to support shelter for unhoused Alamedans then turn around and vote for a policy that’s guaranteed to make housing less affordable and force more people onto the streets? Low and middle income people of color, disabled and elderly are the most vulnerable to rent increases beyond 3%. It is embarrassing that visitors to Alameda and surrounding areas question why there is so much homelessness.

You have the power to change this.

Arguing for CIP is the same as asking homeless, low-to-medium income people, unemployed people to provide bigger profits to investors, landlords and realtors—that is what we see is happening everywhere.

But no, It must be the job of elected officials to take care of it’s most vulnerable population as elected officials.

We urge you to please do the right thing.

Sincerely,
Diana Cabcabin

From: diane appelbaum
To: Tracy Jensen
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] The CIP vote change
Date: Tuesday, December 19, 2023 3:52:27 PM
Attachments: OutlookEmoji-167451081633579d504fd-7cd2-491b-afe4-8d1744072c17.png Dear Tracy,
I don't think you "understand and share my position" on much of anything, and am really disappointed that you are still missing the root of the matter, which is that CIP is bad for all tenants and all Alameda (much more than the "potential drawbacks" as you framed it.)
The Rent Program also proposed another Option to eliminate CIP altogether. You could have have considered that option more by doing more research to better understand all the ramifications of continuing with CIP for most Alameda renters.

You also could have watched the videos of past Council meetings since 2019, and you would understand that the 8% cap idea is nothing new, and has been rejected by ARC and renters. An 8% cap is not viable for renters. It is just another way to by-pass the established AGA limits allowed by rent control.

As you know, the CIP ordinance has only been used a few times in the past 5 years, and the example of South Shore brought to head how it can be abused.

Your arguments below to justify CIP for the future are generic and simplistic. If you really were supportive of renters, you could have delved deeper to undrerstand all the complexities of CIP.

Diane
On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 01:34:42 PM PST, Tracy Jensen <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Diane,
Thank you for you email. I understand and actually share your position regarding the potential drawbacks of capital
improvement pass-through (CIP) in rent-controlled units. I am supporting the Rent Program staff recommendations to
establish CIP limits for the first time because I agree that currently unlimited CIP is bad for Alameda renters.

Current law provides no restrictions on capital improvement passthrough, except the recently-enacted (temporary)
moratorium on CIP for properties with more than 25 units.

The City Council’s recent action will restrict the pass through of capital improvement expenses for the first time. From the inception of the Rent Program in 2019 until the moratorium on pass throughs for buildings with more than 25 units, adopted earlier this year, landlords had the right to pass through approved capital expenses without limit, with no caps, and there were no hardship exemptions.

Under current Alameda law the CIP amount is uncapped and approved capital improvement pass throughs could potentially result in unlimited rent increases. This means that landlords can impose an annual rent increase of up to 8% that including a general adjustment based on the Federal consumer price index and banked “savings” from prior years, and on top of that 8% renters could face an unlimited CIP pass through, potentially allowing for unlimited rent increases.

Fortunately, the Council is acting before any massive CIP increases are approved. The adoption of Option A for CIP restrictions will result in tighter rent control caps in Alameda.

Action to finally establish CIP caps will support tenants, and restrict the potential for rent increases to 8%, as opposed to the unlimited potential increases in current law, and the 10% annual fair return cap if CIP were eliminated.

Sincerely,
Tracy Jensen
Alameda City Councilmember
voice/text: 510-912-5556
From: diane appelbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 4:31:18 PM
To: Tracy Jensen
Cc: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog; City Clerk; Yibin Shen Subject: [EXTERNAL] The CIP vote change

Dear Councilmember Jensen,
I was very disappointed that you disrupted the process which had been voted on with regard to CIP. From our few interchanges, I had the impression you were supportive of tenants and against corporate, out-of- town landords. Your initial vote- although not eliminating CIP altogether, allowed CIP only for very small businesses. However, apparently there were forces at play that I don't understand which caused you to change your mind.

The articles below describe how billionaire equity companies like Blackstone take over entire cities by buying not only large complexes but smaller multi-family units and use passive evictions to contribute to the growing homeless population. There is probalby no chance at all that reading these articles and becoming more informed about CIP will again change your vote at the next Council meeting. But you should be aware that your position has grave consequeces.

From the Rent Program's own statistics, there are 2,565 rental units in Alameda. 67 propoperties have 25+ units, like South Shore. Your vote means that the remaining landords (2.498, or 97%) who own those properties will be able to charge tenants for their capital improvements.

And as stated by Bill Chapin, it is often very difficult to know who the real owners are of these properties are. Many of them are run by LLCs and agents representing larger corporations. A
Also, as you know (or should know), a disproportionate percentage of renters are people of color, elderly, and citizens of modest incomes. Most likely many of the dedicated community people who were honored at the Mia Bonta Awards that you attended are renters, and live in properties between 5 and 24 units.

I fear that by changing the City Council vote and allowing CIP for smaller properties, you have started a trajectory down a path for Alameda which will be hard to escape from.

With great disappointment,
Diane Appelbaum
Welcome to Blackstone U.S.A.

Welcome to Blackstone U.S.A.

A hub of Jewish life, Tablet features news, essays, podcasts, and opinion, covering arts, pop culture, technolog...

Corporate landlord’s California buying spree alarms tenants: ‘I only earn enough to pay the rent’
Corporate landlord’s California buying spree
alarms tenants: ‘I only ear...

Alejandro Lazo, Wendy Fry
Blackstone bought thousands of apartments in San Diego. Tenants foresee rent increases, maintenance issues and p...

Blackstone expands further into rental housing in the United States. (Published 2022)
Blackstone expands further into rental housing in
the United States. (Pu...

The private equity firm said it would acquire Preferred Apartment Communities, a real estate investment trust, f...

The Blackstone rebellion: how one country took on the world’s biggest commercial landlord
The Blackstone rebellion: how one country took
on the world’s biggest co...

The long read: The giant asset management firm used to
target places where people worked and shopped. Then it st...

Regarding Agenda Item 5-H
Dear Mayor and Council members,
I have been involved with Alameda rentals for over 20 years and served on the Rent Advisory Committee for 13 years, most of that time as the Chair. The balance of our cases were decided in favor of the renters which is why it worked for so long. The majority of rent control cities have a CIP when they enact strict standards on rent increases. In an uncontrolled market, the housing provider earns enough in rental income to pay for the upkeep of the property. When you put limits on what a provider can earn, you are limiting their ability to make the necessary repairs.

All you have to do is look around Alameda and see many rental properties in disrepair. There is a perception that all housing providers have unlimited funds. I have heard several of you say that the housing provider bought an income property implying that somehow, they cash flowed. It is common knowledge that you don’t make any profit in the first years. You count on the increasing rents as long time renters vacate.

An argument was made that the previous CIP was not used so therefore a new one is not needed. The original CIP was not used as the threshold was almost impossible to meet, as it was 8 times the gross monthly rent. In my building, even a new foundation didn’t qualify, let alone a new roof.

Insurance standards are getting tougher and will no longer insure a property that has knob and tube wiring or galvanized pipes. This applies to both new policies and existing ones. Many of the older buildings have both of these conditions. Changing out these systems is extremely expensive, and I can imagine that a “Mom and Pop” owner will not have the means to do this and will sell to an outside Investor. If you have a loan, you need to carry insurance. In my experience chairing the RAC, I found that the “out of towners” and the large corporations do not care about their tenants as this is just a business for them. On the other hand, the smaller housing providers know their tenants personally and have a relationship with them. One of mine brings me homemade fudge every Christmas. Mention has been made that owners can just refinance their improvements. Many of these smaller housing providers are on fixed incomes and do not qualify for financing. Having equity does not necessarily translate into having access to any funds.

There are some of you that have questioned how the improvements benefit the tenants. I would argue that a new concrete foundation would protect a tenant’s life and belongings when a major earthquake strikes the Hayward fault. If you are truly interested in keeping the local Mom and Pops here in Alameda, and keeping out the outside investors, there needs to be an avenue for the landlord to be able to make these improvements. The list of improvements allowed under this plan is minimal and is focused on health and safety issues, which I would think tenants would embrace.

Karen Miller
From: alison hart
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Malia Vella; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment in Opposition to Capital Improvements Plans Date: Tuesday, December 19, 2023 12:27:06 PM
Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Council Members,
I urge you to vote no on the Capital Improvements Plans. This policy would put the onus of the expense on repairs on the most vulnerable: the tenants. Property owners benefit from improvements on their investment. Renters should be able to live in decent housing without the burden to pay for repairs since they do not benefit from owning the property or any increase in the value of the property.

During this crisis of many unhoused people in the Bay Area, it would behoove Alameda to continue policies that ensure people to stay in their homes. C.I.P. is a policy that raises the expenses of an already bloated rental market, that could very well displace more families and people. Please do the humane thing and vote no on the Capital Improvements Plan.

Alison Hart
1011 Taylor Avenue
Apt. A
Alameda, CA 94501
From: Kimby Wells
To: City Clerk; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment in Opposition to Capital Improvements Plan Date: Tuesday, December 19, 2023 11:10:25 AM
Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Council Members,
Property is an investment for the owner. Upgrades and repairs to a property are also an investment. The owner will benefit from those upgrades when selling or renting the property in the future.

To collect rent for a property, the property must be habitable. A tenant should not have to choose between living in an unsafe condition and costly repairs. A tenant also should not be required to pay for repairs that increase the value of someone else’s investment. The property owner should be required to keep the property in a safe and habitable condition if they are collecting rent for the property.

Requiring property owners to invest in repairs benefits the owners, by allowing them to legally rent the property and by increasing the value of their real property investment. Requiring property owners to invest in repairs also benefits tenants by providing safe, habitable housing.

Conversely, requiring tenants to invest in repairs is unfair and punitive.

For the benefit of Alameda residents who own rental properties and those who rent, please vote no on the Capital Improvements Plan.

Sincerely,
Kimberly Wells
520 Palace Ct. Unit A
Alameda, CA 94501
From: Is Sullivan
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen; City Clerk; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 5-H on 12/19 Agenda: NO CIP!
Date: Monday, December 18, 2023 8:17:07 PM
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing to you in strong opposition to the CIP ordinance. Property improvements are the responsibility of the owner, NOT the tenant. The CIP ordinance severely undermines rent control in Alameda, and will displace renters if passed. Please do not make the issue of housing affordability that we have in this City worse than it already is. Vote no on CIP! Sincerely,
Isabel Sullivan
From: Rachelle Resnick
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; [email protected]; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Malia Vella; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] no CIP
Date: Monday, December 18, 2023 5:41:45 PM
I find it shocking that landlords could past maintenance costs on to renters. My neighbor’s foundation is failing. It is not her responsibility to fix it…it’s the owner of the property. Landlords get rental money which should cover their mortgage, taxes and upkeep. And they benefit from the worth of their property going up for years. I’ve never heard of CIP ….does any other municipality do this? Please vote NO to CIP. It isn’t good for renters. Property owners are doing fine.

This is why I rent…so I don’t have to deal with my own repairs. (I am a landlord in SF. I don’t expect my tenants to pay for repairs)
Rachelle Resnick
529 B Central
From: Jason Courtney
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Concerned Alameda resident
Date: Monday, December 18, 2023 5:34:41 PM
Hello,
I am an Alameda renter and just want to voice my opposition to the new CIP laws and express my disappointment in the council members who are allowing landlords to charge tenants for maintenance costs. I find it shocking that in the midst of a chronic ongoing housing crisis which has recently been marked by record-breaking levels of homelessness that the Alameda City Council is allowing landlords to pass the expense of basic upkeep on to their rent-burdened tenants.

Thank you for your time,
Jason Courtney
529 Central Ave #D
Alameda, CA 94501
From: Amy Little
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Malia Vella; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please vote no on Consent Calendar Item 5H - CIP Program Policy Amendments - on 12/19/23 Date: Monday, December 18, 2023 1:45:01 PM
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
I see that the CIP Pass Throughs policy update is on the agenda for final City Council approval on Tuesday, December 19th. I, along with a clear majority of the people of Alameda who have weighed in on this issue and who you serve, strongly urge each of you to oppose the policy. Landlords are financially responsible for the ongoing upkeep of their rental properties. CIP Pass Throughs could mean displacement for many Alamedans.

Even if I did not object in principle to the concept of CIP Pass Throughs, there are other more procedural concerns with the policy update that I would like to bring to your attention. After re-reading the exhibits from earlier meetings and the updated policy draft, I don't believe the CIP policy is ready to become part of the City's Municipal Code. Some outstanding questions & concerns include:

1. 6.58-50 Section B: A landlord being allowed to increase rent once every 12 months for CIP Pass Throughs would be too burdensome on tenants. Realistically tenants may be paying for one Pass Through for longer than a year and would need time between Pass Throughs to recover from the excess rent burden.

2. 6.58-50 Section D: An 8% overall cap on Pass Throughs and rent increases may sound manageable, but on $2,500 rent that equals an increase of $200 per month. For many, that would be too difficult to incorporate into their monthly expenses along with all of life's other regular and unexpected bills and expenses.

3. 6.58.77 General - I do not see a means test / hardship section to determine that the landlord needs financial assistance to make these improvements. The landlord should be required to demonstrate hardship as part of the CIP Pass Through application process, for example by presenting tax returns and bank account statements. Even with rent control, many landlords - even "Mom and Pop" landlords - do well enough financially to pay for improvements outright. Alternatively, they may take advantage of a property owner's ability (not available to renters) of securing a loan against the value of the property to cover the improvement costs which is then repaid over time.

4. 6.58-77 Section A: I don't believe that the following items should be considered for CIP Pass Throughs: 4. Exterior painting / siding / stucco, 6. Energy-saving improvements, 8. Fire sprinkler or fire alarm system, and 9. Replacement of stairs and/or railings, since those are regular ongoing maintenance and safety items, or in the case of number 6, not a critical habitability issue for tenants.

6. 6.58-77 Section B: What would be the amount of the CIP Pass Through to the remaining units if one or more unit(s) that benefits from improvements qualifies for a Low Income Hardship Exemption? Would the other units pay for a longer period to "cover" the exempted units' amount(s)?
To conclude, I urge you to vote no on the CIP Program amendments final vote this Tuesday.

For landlords needing assistance, they can use the Fair Return process. Let's keep Alameda renters in Alameda!
Thank you very much for your consideration.

Best,
Amy Little
Alameda, CA
From: Heather Polley
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Malia Vella; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO to ALL Capital Improvements Passthroughs Date: Monday, December 18, 2023 10:34:32 AM
Dear Alameda City Council Members,
I am dismayed to hear that the Alameda City Council has proposed an amendment to the Capital Improvements Passthrough policy that allows owners of buildings with 25 units or less to raise rents beyond the rent control cap.

While it is good that tenants of large buildings will be protected, this does nothing to combat abuses by corporate owners of small rental buildings in Alameda. Here is why this matters:

According to Urban Institute, hedge funds and large corporations bought 27% of the single family rental housing in the US in the first three months of 2023. This number is projected to grow to 40% of single-family rentals by 2030.

This also applies to what is happening in Alameda today, as well.

What is the Alameda City Council doing to combat the takeover of our city housing by corporate interests? What are you doing to protect us from being displaced by ballooning rents? One piece of this puzzle would be to vote against CIP. Make no mistake — a vote in favor of CIP is a vote against the interests of low and middle income Alamedans.

I urge you to do the right thing and vote against CIP in ALL forms. Any proposed compromise will be disastrous for ordinary Alameda renters. We need your help urgently. Please listen to the overwhelming feedback you have received against CIP. We do not feel heard.

Sincerely,
Heather Polley
Alameda resident and renter
From: Nancy Lewis
To: City Clerk; CityCouncil-List; City Attorney
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Correspondence for City Council Meeting on 12/19/2023 Date: Monday, December 18, 2023 7:07:24 AM
Nurse Nancy
Habits of the Heart
From: Jay Marlette
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fw: Failure Notice
Date: Sunday, December 17, 2023 7:12:13 PM
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2023, 07:09:19 PM PST
Subject: Failure Notice
Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following address. <[email protected]
>:

No mx record found for domain=alameda.gov
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Dear Council Members,
I am an Alameda resident and I applaud our City for having a form of rent control that is more equitable to all stake holders (owners and renters alike) then most jurisdictions that have such an ordinance. This has allowed me to enjoy a quality of life in a community that you have all participated in its greatness. I have devoted my career bolstering the quality of life in communities as a code enforcement and housing officer. Currently I am a building inspector for my third jurisdiction. Being familiar with municipal work, I truly understand the burden and pressures of a council member and I am grateful to all of you for stepping up to this duty.

Housing has always been a difficult issue to address. I am like many people who stay in the Bay Area to serve but not in a position to own a home. Instead, I enjoy this wonderful City to come home to because you all safeguard the quality of life here and it's accessibility.

As we are all aware, rulings over the last few decades have softened renter's ability to maintain rent control in its former iteration. Our current rent control does take owner's rights into consideration. Passing capital improvement costs onto the renter in an environment where the owner enjoys the Nation's highest property values is an unbalanced measure. Such a measure would create disparities, especially to those in our community have been historically (and still are) vulnerable to housing loss.

Please vote against any notion of Capital Improvements being passed onto the renter.

Thank you for fielding my email and do not hesitate to contact me for any clarifications or feedback.

Sincerely
Jay Marlette
[email protected]
From: Eloise Hill
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO CIP
Date: Sunday, December 17, 2023 6:29:02 PM
Councilmembers have disregarded the needs and clear demands of renters for “no CIP”. They have chosen instead to represent the few residents who own multiple properties instead of the many people struggling to stay housed.

Renters comprise over 50% of Alameda residents. How can Council vote to support shelter for unhoused Alamedans, then turn around and vote for a policy that’s guaranteed to make housing less affordable and more people homeless? Vote NO on CIP!
Eloise Hill
From: Alan Simmons
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Malia Vella; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] CPI
Date: Sunday, December 17, 2023 5:09:24 PM
12/17/23
To the Mayor, Clerk, and City Council of Alameda;
I'm sorry but CPI is not mainstream, and sounds too much like small town politicians passing laws to benefit themselves at the expense of their citizens. I'd advise anyone running for city office to campaign on this issue. This law was not on the ballot.

Alamedans didn't vote for it. I'd wager most never heard of it. But if you insist on finding money to incentivize property owners to improve their property you should at least use taxes paid into the city by the entire population, not penalize unknowing individuals who never signed on in the first place.

Alan Simmons
From: Anne Beavers
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO to cip
Date: Sunday, December 17, 2023 3:16:25 PM
NO to renters required to pay for cip!
Renters cannot afford to buy! If the owner can’t afford to fix up, then they should not own rental property.

Renters/owners have a rent agreement!
Would a renter be informed that they would need to leave current housing and move to 26+ unit housing rather than get EXTRA fees from a landlord!
Would a new lease for a new tenant include “by the way, tenant might also be required to pay additional costs for improvements?”
Who will notify every renter in Alameda of potential additional fees to their current rent? Will they have to cancel current lease and move out??
This is a hateful and irresponsible proposal to even consider ! RENTERS: STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS!!
City Council Meeting on Tuesday, 12/19/23 at 7:00 pm
This Tuesday, December 19th is the final vote on CIP by Council.

Alameda’s renters are paying attention and we want City Council to know that we see their failure to support us. Not only did City Council vote in favor of CIP (Capital Improvements Plans), but when Councilmember Jenson brought it back to Council for further discussion, they passed up another chance to vote for “no CIP”.

Instead, the scope of the CIP ordinance was broadened to include ALL RENTAL PROPERTIES except 25+ unit buildings,
in total covering 97% of all rental units!

These tenants will be expected to pay for building improvements which should be the responsibility of the property owner! Councilmembers have disregarded the needs and clear demands of From: [email protected]
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Malia Vella; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] FYI Mayor and Council Members
Date: Sunday, December 17, 2023 12:38:48 PM

From: Alameda Renters Coalition <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2023 8:52 PM
Subject: Council Meeting on TUES., 12/19/23: Final Passage of CIP

renters for “no CIP”. They have chosen instead to represent the few residents who own multiple properties instead of the many people struggling to stay housed. Renters comprise over 50% of Alameda residents. How can Council vote to support shelter for unhoused Alamedans, then turn around and vote for a policy that’s guaranteed to make housing less affordable and more people homeless?

Renters and all those who believe in the right to housing must continue to stand up and make themselves heard until Council is willing to listen and act responsibly.

Please write to the Council to voice your opposition.

** This matter is on the Consent Calendar (Item 5H)
near the start of the meeting. **

You can follow the Tuesday, 12/19/23 meeting at 7:00 pm online at: https://www.alamedaca.gov/GOVERNMENT/Agendas-Minutes- Announcements
or attend at: City Hall Council Chambers, 3rd Floor, 2263 Santa Clara Ave.

*****
City Council Email Addresses + City Clerk:
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

View this email in your browser

You are receiving this email because you gave us your email address via a signup sheet, an email, or our website, www.thealamedarenterscoalition.org.

Our mailing address is:

Alameda Renters Coalition
P.O. Box 6549
Alameda, CA 94501
Add us to your address book
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

From: Cheryl Kettell
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tracy Jensen; Malia Vella; City Clerk; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Alameda Renters Coalition Subject: [EXTERNAL] It"s time to call in the Special Investigations Team (SIT) Date: Sunday, December 17, 2023 10:58:35 AM
Importance: High
Honorable Mayor, Council Members:

As previously stated in my message below, there is no rational reason to threaten and terrorize 95% of Alameda renters with a CIP policy that may certainly render us homeless.

What can you be thinking?!
The only explanation that fits is
greed. If any of you have received monetary or other
"incentives" to pass this travesty of representation, a California Special Investigations (SIT) will discover it as they investigate public corruption and conflict of interest for the State Department of Justice. Here's the link to contact them for any interested parties:
https://oag.ca.gov/contact
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My Oct.2023 message --
Why are T. Daysog and other Council members so intent on undermining rent control in our city? Rental property owners have always had the option of getting a bank loan for necessary repairs and improvements. After all, it is THEIR property and their property value will subsequently increase; and, they will continue to receive rent, impose rent increases, and have the option of taking tax deductions for property improvements. In the meantime, low-income, blameless renters may be forced out of their housing during these severely fraught times. It makes NO sense for the Council to crow about new low-income housing in our city while weaponizing evictions in this manner.

I've lived in Alameda since 1991 and given the other challenges we face, facilitating the rip- off renters should not be on the list of Council work, ever.

At the very least, add a tenant financial plea clause to any CIP ordinance you pass. Will you show at least that much compassion?
https://sf.gov/tenant-financial-hardship-applications
Contact Us
oag.ca.gov

Tenant Financial Hardship Applications | San Francisco
Request deferral of a rent increase or passthrough on the grounds of financial hardship. sf.gov
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. Please do the right thing.

Sincerely,
Cheryl Kettell
From: Ktm
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO ON CIP
Date: Sunday, December 17, 2023 8:00:52 AM
I'm a long-term renter, 20 years, in Alameda and have never owned property here and never will due to the prices. It is unfair and unjust to expect a tenant to pay for capital improvements that will only benefit the owner.

I'm strongly and staunchly against CIP for the above reason and for the long-term change in demographic makeup of this island, it's already happening that people are getting squeezed out due to the increased costs of rentals. Aren't there enough new Housing units on island? And getting built? Low and middle income rentals are disappearing. Please don't help that process.

Vote no on CIP.

Thank you,
Cathleen Mayers
877 Walnut unit b
Alameda, California, 94501
From: diane appelbaum
To: Tracy Jensen
Cc: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog; City Clerk; Yibin Shen Subject: [EXTERNAL] The CIP vote change
Date: Thursday, December 14, 2023 4:31:27 PM
Dear Councilmember Jensen,
I was very disappointed that you disrupted the process which had been voted on with regard to CIP. From our few interchanges, I had the impression you were supportive of tenants and against corporate, out-of- town landords. Your initial vote- although not eliminating CIP altogether, allowed CIP only for very small businesses. However, apparently there were forces at play that I don't understand which caused you to change your mind.

I fear that by changing the City Council vote and allowing CIP for smaller properties, you have started a trajectory down a path for Alameda which will be hard to escape from.

With great disappointment,
Diane Appelbaum
Welcome to Blackstone U.S.A.

Welcome to Blackstone U.S.A.

A hub of Jewish life, Tablet features news, essays, podcasts, and opinion, covering arts, pop culture, technolog...

Corporate landlord’s California buying spree alarms tenants: ‘I only earn enough to pay the rent’
Corporate landlord’s California buying spree
alarms tenants: ‘I only ear...

Alejandro Lazo, Wendy Fry
Blackstone bought thousands of apartments in San Diego. Tenants foresee rent increases, maintenance issues and p...

Blackstone expands further into rental housing in the United States. (Published 2022)
Blackstone expands further into rental housing in
the United States. (Pu...

The private equity firm said it would acquire Preferred Apartment Communities, a real estate investment trust, f...

The Blackstone rebellion: how one country took on the world’s biggest commercial landlord
The Blackstone rebellion: how one country took
on the world’s biggest co...

The long read: The giant asset management firm used to
target places where people worked and shopped. Then it st...

From: Roberta Schwarz
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Trish Spencer; [email protected]; Tony Daysog Cc: Roberta Schwarz; City Clerk; City Attorney
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Blackstone swallows Alameda
Date: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 4:16:49 PM
TO MAYOR ASHCRAFT AND ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL:

Respectfully, you made an egregious error when you voted for Option A at the second reading. Multi-billion corporations have been buying single houses and smaller properties in California and other States in the U.S. and the world. Although you wisely exempted large complexes from CIP, why would anyone think that multi-billion corporations like Blackstone would care any more for the little guy than for South Shore? Because of your decision allowing for CIP, Blackstone and similar investment companies will have all the more reason to descend on Alameda.

We at South Shore Apartments have had a sad history of neglect on the part of Blackstone:

1. They neglect important measures like eliminating mold and instead spend money on cosmetic procedures in order to charge new tenants a much higher rent.

2. The security is woefully inadequate. The stinginess of Blackstone is painfully apparent in their refusal to provide security 24/7. Thieves are so emboldened that they steal cars and car parts. They break down the package room door and take any packages that are on the floor. They break the Amazon lockers so that Amazon must come back time and again in order repair the doors. Instead of trying to squeeze the tenants for yet more money, Blackstone should institute adequate security protections so that their tenants can feel some measure of safety. I wonder if the Alameda City Council can be helpful in that regard?

3. The thieves are so brazen that they uplifted the entire mailbox at the corner of Westline and Shorepoint Court. The Post Office did replace that mailbox with one that is securely fastened to the concrete below. Never mind that this is a federal felony. The thieves know how lax the security is at the adjoining complex, and are secure in the knowledge that they won’t be caught and will probably do this again.

They are at the location anyway, doing their routine thievery.

The goal of Blackstone is to make more money. The way they treat South Shore Apartments is the way they will treat the smaller landlords. The vote for Option A was not in the interest of landlords or tenants in our beautiful Island City of Alameda.

Sincerely,
Roberta Schwarz
resident of South Shore Apartments
cell/text: 949-922-3291

Alameda City CouncilDecember 19, 2023

Alameda City Council
December 19, 2023