2005-09-20 5-A SubmittalTASK FORCE ON MASS EVICTION
Minority Report
September 20, 2005
Background
On July 23, 2004, the City of Alameda was notified that the Fifteen Group, owners of the
Harbor Island Apartment (HIA) complex, was sending out notices of termination of
tenancy to the 370 households remaining in this 615 -unit complex. The manner in which
terminations were issued created hardships and trauma on the lives of tenants, some of
whom were elderly, disabled, and low -to- moderate income families. Most of the
residents were racial ethnic minorities with the majority of those being African
American. The HIA was also located in the census tract containing the highest
concentration of African Americans residing in the City of Alameda.
Confusion and anxiety were felt by families seeking to remedy the situation. The Harbor
Island Tenants Association (HITA) sought to support tenants in efforts to stop the
evictions, as well as to tenants who chose to move. Some property owners reached out to
tenants to offer apartments at other locations within the City of Alameda. The Alameda
Unified School District implemented emergency policies to allow families to retain
enrollment in AUSD schools while re- locating to other communities. Over the course of
the school year however, enrollment losses were sustained, as well as the accompanying
fiscal impacts due to loss in ADA revenues. As the school year opens for 2005 -2006,
loss of enrollment continues to mount as families who have moved to other communities
are no longer enrolled in AUSD schools. Chipman Middle School, Longfellow
Elementary, and Woodstock Elementary continue to be impacted. Suffice it to say, major
strain was put on families, schools, City programs and the community as a whole.
HITA and community supporters sought immediate relief from the City of Alameda, as
well as legal assistance, and support. An administrative complaint was filed with HUD
given the inequitable treatment of minorities involved in the evictions. The City of
Alameda filed suit in Alameda Superior Court on September 3, 2004 in an action seeking
to prevent the owners from terminating the leases of tenants and alleging violations of
fair housing laws, as well as unfair business practices. The complaint was removed to
Federal Court by the Fifteen Group on September 22, 2004 and assigned to Judge
William Alsup of the U.S. District Court. On October 26, 2004 Judge Alsup issued a
written opinion denying the City's request for preliminary injunction stating that the City
of Alameda had no standing for itself nor for third parties to prevent owners from
exercising their legal rights in regard to their property and tenancies.
In December, HITA and community supporters brought proposals to the City Council to
consider legislative measures to seek relief for tenants who remained at HIA, as well as to
address concerns of the surrounding neighborhood. Proposals were finally agendized
with the City Council on April 5, 2005 seeking "relocation assistance legislation" and a
"moratorium on new construction, condominium conversion and demolition" for the
"West End Atlantic Corridor Area." Council support for these measures was denied.
Submitted by Michael Yoshi and
Lorraine Lilley at the 9 -20 -05
Council Meeting
Re: Agenda Item #5 -A
Page 2
After extensive public testimony, the Council directed the Interim City Manager to form
a Task Force that would meet on a regular basis and report back to the Council within 90
days. The goals of the task force were to make recommendations on strategies to prevent
future mass evictions from rental housing complexes in Alameda, and to make
recommendations for creation of more affordable housing.
The Task Force was appointed to represent and balance the interests of the entire
Alameda community and included a City Council member, an AUSD Board member, a
City staff member, a former tenant of HIA, a representative of a local housing advocacy
organization, an at -large tenant who resides in Alameda, a representative of a rental
housing organization, a realtor who represents Alameda rental property owners, and an
at -large rental property owner in the City of Alameda.
Discussion /Analysis
Direction to create the Task Force took place on April 5, 2005 after a tumultuous City
Council meeting in which the HITA and Housing Advocates clashed with real estate
constituency on proposed ordinances seeking to provide relief to tenants. The proposed
ordinances failed to gain the support of the City Council. One of the implicit purposes of
the task force was to bring the community together to address the impacts of the
evictions. The membership of the task force explicitly named members from real estate
constituencies as well as housing advocates and renter constituencies in order to alleviate
polarization of the community. The stated purposes of the Task Force was to make
recommendations on preventing future mass evictions from occurring and to address
affordable housing issues. The evictions were a tragic event in the life of the community
of Alameda. Given the lack of legal protections for tenants in the City of Alameda, the
Fifteen Group was within its legal rights to evict all of its tenants. Many would say that
although the Fifteen Group's actions were legal, they stepped beyond moral and ethical
decency. Yet, the mass evictions were also impacted by the community dynamics and
political reality of our city. When we speak about the City of Alameda, it is a complex
set of relationships and realities. All of the citizens comprise what we might understand
as the City of Alameda. Our City Council members make policy and direct city
employees to their charge. City staff work at the pleasure of the community under
direction of the City Council. Various interest groups within the city have influence in
shaping opinion and priorities of our community. The mass evictions of residents of
Harbor Island Apartments was a blight which impacted a specific segment of our
community. Ripples of this event continue to reverberate in the lives of those who were
evicted whether they continue to reside in Alameda or elsewhere. In addressing the goals
of the Task Force it has been important not to overlook the impact the event has had upon
the lives of those who experienced it as we attempt to look at ways to prevent future mass
evictions.
Page 3
Recommendations to Prevent Future Mass Evictions
In order to make recommendations to prevent future mass evictions, the suggestion was
made to name the causes of the eviction. Without knowing the causes, how could the
task force possibly make recommendations on future prevention? Through the Interim
City Manager, the Task Force was told that the City Attorney advised that we could not
name reasons for the evictions because of potential legal liabilities against the city. Thus,
without the ability to name the causes of the eviction, the Task Force was left with
speculative theories on the causes. Any recommendations would be without solid
foundation and factual analysis.
A major portion of the report focuses on Health and Safety Compliance and Code
Enforcement issues. These issues are certainly important in addressing major complaints
which were expressed by residents of Harbor Island Apartments. These Code
Enforcement issues also reveal the nature of the conditions under which Harbor Island
residents labored for several years. But, while lack of code enforcement was an ongoing
problem and source of tenant concern, it's relation to the cause of evictions is ambiguous.
Was lack of code enforcement a symptom of inequitable treatment to primarily African
American and low - moderate income families in the City of Alameda and specific at
Harbor Island Apartments? Or was the lack of code enforcement an intentional ploy to
allow the apartments to be run down, to the point of no return?
The Task Force report also makes no mention of the pre - existing Harbor Island Task
Force, which was mentioned prominently at the time of the evictions. This city initiated
Harbor Island Task Force had apparently been meeting under the direction of the Chief of
Police. No tenants of Harbor Island were on this task force. When the evictions took
place, a meeting of the Harbor Island Task Force was convened, with tenant
representatives invited to attend. After one meeting, this task force was discontinued.
There has never been public disclosure as to the nature of that pre - existing Harbor Island
Task Force. What were the issues the Harbor Island Task Force was being asked to
address? What were its deliberations and what were its solutions? Do key possibilities
for future prevention of mass evictions also lie in the work of that task force?
The Task Force report also does not include background information on the suit filed by
the City of Alameda. From all accounts many hours of city staff time were put into this
effort. Also, a great deal of empathy for evicted tenants was also expressed on the part of
staff who worked to interview tenants and compile documentation for the legal briefs.
In court, however, the Fifteen Group sited in its own defense that it had been encouraged
by Housing Authority staff to pursue mass evictions of the tenants. Staff reports from the
Housing Authority director does indicate that encouragement was made to "disperse low
income residents" throughout the city rather than have them concentrated in one
particular part of the city. Suffice it to say, it is clear that all city staff and the city
council were not on the same page regarding the evictions. And in fact, it appears that
some city staff may have encouraged the evictions. How will we come to know the truth
Page 4
if we do not have disclosure of this information? And how can we possibly make
recommendations for the prevention of future evictions without beginning with the
causes?
Another fact which should be included in the report with respect to the city's law suit is
that the Real Estate Association wrote a letter to our city council urging them to pull back
from this legal action citing that the city should not be involved in private property rights.
The Real Estate Association had the legitimate right to advocate for its position, much as
housing advocates and HITA had the right to advocate for theirs. What needs to be
understood by the general public is that attempts to prevent the evictions were moving
forward by the City at this time with the law suit, but the Real Estate Association was
acting politically to prevent the city from intervening. It was also the Real Estate
constituency that provided the significant opposition to any ordinance protections for
tenants. Again, the Real Estate Association has the right to advocate its position, but
there needs to be much more transparency in what its actual position has been regarding
the evictions. Many real estate constituents have expressed dismay over the evictions,
while providing no real attempt to avert them. The evictions have not been just a matter
of private owner rights, but has also involved a political process in which there have been
many players both public and private.
A final matter which merits inclusion in the Task Force report is the historical
background of the Harbor Island Apartments. This is not the first time these apartments
have been subject to tenant concerns and public controversy. In 1987, Harbor Island
Apartments was a HUD subsidized property known as Buena Vista Apartments. The
decision by then owner, Albert Gersten, to opt out of the HUD program resulted in a
number of families being forced to leave the complex as well as the City of Alameda.
Buena Vista was the largest low- income, racially, socially, ethnically diverse apartment
complex in the City of Alameda, A law suit which has come to be known as the Guyton-
Henderson vs. the City of Alameda was filed addressing deficiencies in the city's
Housing Element and specifically the Measure A prohibition of multi- family units. The
law suit cited the historical pattern of discrimination in its rental policies against persons
of color and specifically the African American population. The market -rate conversion
of formerly HUD subsidized Buena Vista Apartments resulted in the exodus of a number
of African American families. The City of Alameda intervened to secure 325 Section 8
certificates to allow families to stay in their homes. The location of Harbor Island
Apartments has a history which now emerges some 15 years later with a new context of
re- development and economic circumstances. Not only should the Task Force be
seriously considering the causes of the mass evictions, but analyzing the racial impact
that follows an obvious pattern. The evictions have not been color neutral, but on the
contrary, very much a purging of a significant portion of the African American
community.
Page 5
Affordable Housing and Condo Conversion
The Task Force makes a recommendation to loosen condo conversion ordinances to
provide for more "affordable" housing. The focus on condominium conversion draws
away from the fact that the evictions were a rental issue, not a home ownership issue.
While there may be community interest in condominium ownership, this Task Force is
not the appropriate venue for discussion or promotion of condo conversion. In fact, one
of the theories of why the Fifteen Group wanted to exercise its right to mass evictions
was to take advantage of an existing loophole in our current condo conversion ordinance.
Current condo conversion ordinances require owners to provide a relocation plan for
existing tenants. If there were no tenants to deal with, condominium conversion would
be an attractive possibility for a new owner. Although this is speculative theory at this
point, it would be a calamity for this Task Force to either unwittingly, or intentionally
contribute to what may have been planned all along.
Other inconsistencies in the recommendation to loosen condominium conversion
ordinances are that such conversion does not "create" any more affordable housing.
There is no addition to the housing stock and the impact is to reduce affordability over-
all. Prices for condo units are currently increasing faster than single family homes.
Conclusions
In the process of addressing the evictions at HIA, a legal challenge was initiated by the
City of Alameda. This proved to have no standing in the Federal Court. Legislative
measures were proposed by HITA and housing advocates to prevent similar evictions
from taking place in the neighborhood surrounding HIA. There was a lack of political
support, and in fact, vocal opposition from Real Estate constituencies to infringe upon the
"rights" of property owners. Regardless of one's view point as to the efficacy of such
legislation, this was, and is a part of the political reality regarding the tension between
tenant rights vs. property owner rights. What has not been discussed is the fact that it
seems a significant segment of the community in fact, supported the evictions. Had there
been unanimous concern from all sectors of the community, the practices of the Fifteen
Group would not have been tolerated.
Circumstances and context of any future and/or potential mass evictions will have similar
political dynamics surrounding both decision making on the part of owners as well as
policy making on the part of city leaders.
Page 6
Recommendations
The Task Force seemed to operate as if the HIA situation was completed. In fact, just
last week, the last resident moved out, and a completion of sale of HIA to new owners,
the Kennedy - Wilson group, was recently finalized. Questions are still before us as a
community regarding the future situation at Harbor Island Apartments. The publicly
stated goals of Kennedy - Wilson are to renovate the apartments as planned by the Fifteen
Group. If these are their true goals, this minority report would recommend:
• A formal meeting set up with the Task Force and HITA and Kennedy Wilson to
inform them of the history of the Harbor Island Apartments
• Recommendations to work closely with Kennedy - Wilson in restoring the
fabric of community which was lost due to the mass evictions
• Ensure the right of return of former HIA tenants
Respefully Submitted,
Lorraine Lilley, Task Force Mem
Michael Yoshii, Task Force Member
.2..: ,.,•:' —
LI ,r; .=
P `-
C - :2
.
..,-,-4,
ij kz... 4;, E, 9., .fi ,,,,/_,
, • . .. ;5...
'-' 4- 1 :-,---: .', 2,, -,.
;S'. V;
''';'
...;
,':
'-'
—
"3=
. 2'
d
_ .6='--- m ,-i • L-, a
c 9_, ..-•• , • ....; c_ _o u-. ;7. tr',..-
EQ
:5 , `o,' - E: f'' -=
2 2 ,- T i7-,
-
_ ',7.....
=2; 7f E' • " ;:=' f L'' 5_,
g ' . ,-2.
47 - os- ▪ ..--. •= = 7, o F ,-f o 7 ".' '- ',"-,', ' '''' ' ''zt•-■ ' =7.4 ■13 :o ' 2
4 ' 260• P 52
a f E2 % ,.
u -c ^,:i v. ," 2
Subsection 30 -8 -8 Expiration.
Subsection 30 -8-9 Fees.
Subsection 30-8-10 Costs.
Subsection 30 -8 -5 Procedure.
0
7 .-:-5- _ 5 -3 _c (6 .,_,
5 . ,9 P
-.2+-- , ■':, E 'F''.. . :
- _, ... , c7,. . 2:
' .' '.'• n:' '-'1'. 6 '5—f) 0 ' -,-;
- C ,
.3
=1
u , ,
o 7
-2 7
".•- --3 Q 6.,.c 7
_
''''' g) :57,
a -8 8 , E
9.
2 '-' - E. g t ..S: rT, . ;2, _6 :,, • ,7, 2;
1.- g 7 = _--_,' :_ff, =8
. 5 , "3' - .3r., ■ -31 ;,...--- -4
.252 ' '5 3 77; ..-'. 1
. -3 -e _ .-?, :,,,
E,. ,,,,, ,-,-. ,,7-7 :,..-; = --,'
- 3 % •'---- _.,:
4-1, ' ..— 0
8 -_... 8."-; - 17, `=-.:- E. -0 5, /
'''' " ■2 'A ' : ,, 8 8 .=3 ., ..-
, ...Yr::
.79 ÷-; .
'
,'.-
g '4
..,..
33 f 2.
2 .'..3 0 0,0- C.
. r.... ..
1 , .-___..,,, 0.2 -,;.' 6' g - 1, g ) 4 ; 2
- ..7,
:z: ' .1. -o ,,., .-...5-... r--.:' „.i,
:: .T, '8 T., - 6' 363
RI 4
C., 7 __, 7
2 i Er: cis. ;,,, .. , , t ,7 ! 7: Ly .. 1
5 - .... .' V- ,, /
2 ',,, Ti , : q - -7 6 -.: — 7 t"' '!
- , - . = . 9 . -. , i ,_,_t , , , _.. ,.> . . , j '
Subsection 30 -8 -6 Relocation.
T, . 0.
2E-
%,
So ... .. 1, _
g .,. . , ,6 -! it
5 - 2+0 -, .
5 -6
6
' - . ° ; , : 6 , • . • A "
" 00
.^ ',
'-', "3 = 4 ... ;=.
..- ....,
-'-: _c, C-
,-. C:--. .> 5 ,.,
-.-, _3
. 4- g Ed ,:-
..;,-, ','J 's.-!
.
Y:-.., 8 .„... • ,,,, :,
0. n' u 5:3 c -2— 2 _e,
:,
322
..2 '.2..= ''''_.
,, ,6-. i.,.: ,, e., .3 _
"7-" .:'",, -', :Ed ', :: 57! ..f': :
;'' J. 6-
, .._,--
, ..:',„..
.5' 5 '''' 5
_a2, 2
_ 3 . . 0 .
_
. , a2 , . . :F'
. 777.E7.
1 1
--= 2 - P 7
. ,,. 79; f,,, I 4 L'', c:
_3' 3 ,.., - 3 ,,, ....L. 6 .,..,
P. 0 - a :. 0
7.
`'' '-
Subsection 30 -8 -7 Critical Ratio.
•
AGENDA ITEM 5 -E
TASK FORCE REPORT
The following comments refer to the numbered paragraphs in the attached
report from Bill Norton dated September 7, 2005.
#1 The representative from AUSD has clarified the actual impact on a few
West End Schools caused by the evictions at Harbor Island.
#5 We are happy to see that the term "mandatory annual inspections" has
been removed form the report. The context of the term "annual inspections ",
which still appears, is unclear. Do these apply only to troubled properties,
or is the annual inspection of all properties still a goal of the task force?
The periodic inspections by the Housing Authority of the Section 8 units at
Harbor Island revealed to the city the problems at that complex, however, it
was the failure of the city to enforce state laws which led to the continued
deterioration. So follow -up at known troubled properties is the solution, not
massive annual inspections.
Fees for inspections should only be charged to rental property owners who
have failed to correct problems.
#7 The language in which business is done and contracts are enforced are
governed by California Civil Code 1632. It states in paragraph (3) of that
code that the top five languages spoken in California other than English are
Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, and Korean.
However owners who negotiate in English with a tenant who supplies his or
her own interpreter are not bound by the requirements of Civil Code
Section 1632. (Section 1632 (3) (h)) This is important because a prudent
landlord will use the same paperwork with all tenants. An activist
organization would be quick to claim that the non - English rental contracts
were not as favorable as the English contracts even if that were not the case.
So if a tenant wants to constructively notify a landlord of a problem, it needs
to be done in a language which the landlord understands, the same language
Submitted by Barbara Kerr at the
9 -20 -05 Council Meeting
Re: Agenda Item #5 -A
in which the rental contract is written. If the City Council wants to keep
records in several languages, that is their policy to decide, but it cannot be
binding on the landlord.
Owners cannot be held accountable for problems about which they have not
been informed. The city forms should have a line to be checked that asks if
the tenant has notified the property owner /manager of the problem.
#14 The City should stay out of acquiring property for ownership
opportunities. The City has failed at the condominium conversion at 460
Buena Vista, at estimating the costs for ownership units within the 62 units to
be built at FISC, and the Alameda Housing Corporation has failed at the
project in the 600 block at 460 Buena Vista. As for entering into agreements
with other non -profit organizations, the proforma submitted by the East Bay
Asian Land Use coalition for development of low cost housing at FISC was
too low by over forty million dollars. Let the private sector take the risks.
#15 Sentinel Fair Housing has been a disappointment. The record has been
dismal. They have spent their energy on establishing picket lines, actions
against the City of Alameda, and other activities which are not useful to
tenants. Alameda needs to give the Block Grant funding to a
person/organization which will help educate and genuinely counsel tenants.
Legal Aid has been no help at all in the problems at Harbor Island. There has
been free legal counseling at the library once a month. The county also has
free counseling available: advice to seniors, and seminars on filing claims in
small claims court.
#19 Inclusionary housing requirements would kill all or almost all
condominium conversions. Inclusionary Housing Requirements would
eliminate all but the most high -priced conversions where there might be
enough money to subsidize a few units.
It is up to the City Council to determine which income groups(s) they wish to
help into ownership opportunities by easing the condominium conversion
ordinance. If the Council wishes to target the average income worker, then
the lower priced conversions are the ones to be encouraged. However,
inclusionary requirements would prevent such conversions from ever
happening.
Low income ownership should be accomplished by completing the
conversion of 460 Buena Vista. It would be fiscally possible under an eased
condominium conversion ordinance. In addition, if the Housing authority
were to sell these units, then the proceeds would help fill the fiscal hole which
was created by bailing out from the over leasing problem.
#xx The report does not include the responsibilities and privileges of
tenants. They have standing, unavailable to the city, to pursue the legal
actions against landlords. There are two parties which sign rental contracts.
One of those parties is the tenant.
Sinc'ely,
✓lei- �-�'LL.--
arbar a Kerr
V/5
OS
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
September 7, 2005
To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: William C. Norton
Date: September 7, 2005
Re: Recommendations of Task Force Regarding Proposed Strategies to
Prevent Mass Evictions from Large Rental Housing Complexes, and to
Create More Affordable Housing
Background
#1
On July 23, 2004, the City was notified that the Fifteen Group, owners of the
Harbor Island Apartment (HIA) complex, was sending out notices of
termination of tenancy to the 370 households remaining in this 615 -unit
complex. The terminations created hardships on the tenants, some of whom
were elderly, disabled, and low -to- moderate income families, caused some
financial impact to the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) and put strain
on City programs and the community as a whole. The Harbor Island
Tenants' Association reports that the hardships continue to negatively
impact the lives of the former tenants.
#2
Subsequently, the City Council discussed relocation assistance legislation
and a moratorium on new construction, condominium conversion and
demolition that was proposed by the Harbor Island Tenants' Association for
the "West End Atlantic Corridor Area." Following extensive public testimony,
on April 5, 2005, the Council directed the Interim City Manager to form a
Task Force that would meet on a regular basis and report back to the
Council within 90 days. The goals of the Task Force were to make
recommendations on strategies to prevent future mass evictions from rental
housing complexes in Alameda, and to make recommendations for
creation of more affordable housing.
#3
The Task Force was appointed to represent and balance the interests of the
entire Alameda community and included a City Council member, an AUSD
Board member, a City staff member, a former tenant of HIA, a
representative of a local housing advocacy organization, an at -large tenant , who resides in
Alameda, a representative of a rental housing association, a
realtor who represents Alameda rental property owners, and an at -large
rental property owner in the City of Alameda. The Task Force considered
several options to help prevent mass evictions in the future.
Discussion/Analysis
#4
Based on a suggestion by the HIA Tenants' Association, the Task Force
focused its attention on complexes having forty or more rental units. The
Task Force considered a variety of strategies, including code compliance,
legislation, education and new initiatives to provide affordable housing.
Ultimately, discussion settled on two specific areas, as described below in
the Task Force recommendations.
Heath and Safety Compliance and Code Enforcement
#5
The frequency and nature of complaints regarding safety, habitability and
other physical conditions can be an indication of deteriorating and /or
mismanaged rental properties. Over time, deterioration and
mismanagement can lead to the property being removed from the housing
stock for rehabilitation or sale. As happened at the Harbor Island
Apartments, mass evictions can occur. Increased code compliance and
enforcement activities, such as annual inspections, improved reporting
procedures and coordinated complaint tracking would help identify
troubled properties so that timely regulatory enforcement activities could be
implemented. Following are suggested action items:
#6
• Increased Code Compliance and Enforcement activities
should occur when series of confirmed code violations, as in
the case of the Harbor Island Apartment complex, are
documented. Proactive inspections of other units at the
complex should be undertaken. Fines and all administrative
costs associated with re- inspection and monitoring of a
problem property should be assessed. City ordinances
should be amended, if necessary, to amend the assessment
of fines on ownership of problem properties.
#7
• Complaint procedures should be reviewed for user -
friendliness, including increased publicity, outreach and
availability, and forms and services for limited- English
speaking residents. Forms should be printed in the
appropriate language groups derived from the census data,
such as in Spanish, Vietnamese, Mandarin, and Cantonese,
as well as English. Mechanisms for keeping tenants and
owners informed of complaints and actions taken could be
strengthened, including an on -line tracking system similar to
the permit tracking system, unless responses are requested to
be in writing.
#8
• If a complainant requests direct contact in -lieu of on -line
tracking, they should receive return phone calls, visits as
necessary and follow -up letters explaining the status of their
complaint on a regular basis, until resolved.
#9
• The City of Alameda AMC Subsection 13 -11 -3 Boarded
Building and Vacant Parcel Penalty needs to be changed to
include individual units. Fines should be per unit. The City of
Alameda needs to consider a Neighborhood Blight
Ordinance and implement sections from other cities'
ordinances which the Alameda Municipal Code does not
already cover.
#10
• The City should also consistently utilize sections 17274 and
24436.5 of the California Revenue and Tax Code by reporting
to the Franchise Tax Board the addresses of the owners of
rental housing when the City has determined violations of
state or local laws governing health, safety, and /or building
codes. If certain conditions are not met, then the Franchise
Tax Board is enabled to disallow deductions such as
depreciation, interest, and insurance on the State income
tax return.
#11
• When the Alameda Housing Authority, under Section 8, has
certified a unit and then decertifies this same unit, the
Alameda Housing Authority should send a letter
documenting this to the Planning and Building Department
for investigation by Code Compliance. A copy will be made
for the City Manager and Council.
#12
• The state provisions for relocation benefits need to be
enforced, pursuant to California Health and Safety Section
17975.
Affordable Housing
#13
• The City could investigate available funding sources for
making below- market rate rehabilitation loans for rental
property owners in exchange for rent limits and relocation
assistance on affected units.
#14
• Utilize State Proposition 46 funds and Federal Housing funds,
where financially viable, to provide affordable housing
opportunities. The City should investigate joining with the
Housing Authority or a non - profit developer to determine if
acquisition of housing units at existing complexes, such as,
but not limited to, the Harbor Island Apartments, would be
economically feasible.
#15
• Counseling for evicted tenants regarding opportunities for
affordable housing should be made available by the City.
This should be done through a contract with non -profit
entities such as Sentinal Fair Housing or Eden I & R.
#16
• The City should provide education to both property owners
and tenants on existing discrimination laws. This should be
accomplished through property owner associations for
owners and through Sentinal Fair Housing, or Eden I & R, or
similar non - profits for tenants. There are existing remedies
under current State laws, and counseling and education will
help both owners and tenants exercise their rights.
#17
• Condominium -style housing is the most affordable form of
ownership housing currently available on the market.
Increased availability of affordable condominium housing
could meet the needs of some lower- income families.
Currently, state and local laws make it economically
infeasible for owners to convert rental housing to
condominiums. However, revised condominium conversion
rules could lead to increased affordable housing
opportunities for all complexes, not only larger complexes,
while maintaining or enhancing the quality of Alameda's
housing stock. In addition, increasing home ownership is a
goal of the City. The 2000 Census determined home
ownership to be 48 %, while the goal is 60 %. In Alameda,
there is currently an oversupply of rental units and a shortage
of more affordably priced home ownership opportunities.
An easing of the City condominium conversion ordinance
would help solve this problem. For example, there was a
forty percent vacancy rate at Harbor Island when the
eviction notices were posted. The vacancy rate in Alameda
is at an historic high. Residents may make too much to
qualify for subsidies but not be able to afford the new houses
being built in Alameda.
#18
• Current City rules require that rental housing being converted
to condominiums meet current building and zoning codes.
Revising the City's condominium conversion ordinance to
allow conversion, as long as the structure was legally
constructed and met codes in effect at the time, would
make conversion more economically feasible. The property
owner would still have to submit a plan for tenant relocation
assistance and could include provisions for helping low and
moderate income occupants purchase a converted unit at
an affordable price.
#19
• To ensure that converted units would continue to provide an
affordable housing resource, the ordinance could also treat
the conversion as new residential development and require
affordable inclusionary units of 15% to 25 %, similar to the
existing city -wide and redevelopment inclusionary
requirements where financially feasible. First right of refusal
would be offered to in -place tenants, who could also be
assisted through additional owner incentives and existing
homeownership programs. Former tenants of the Harbor
Island Apartments, if qualified, should be given first right of
refusal if this building is converted to condominiums within
the next year.
Municipal Code/Policy Document Cross Reference
#20
As noted above, these alternatives might necessitate modifications to
existing Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) and policy documents in the areas
of code enforcement, abatement procedures, and inclusionary housing
and condominium conversions. Modifications would be undertaken
separately as the various alternatives are identified and presented for
Council consideration.
Fiscal Impact
#21
Expansion and enhancement of the code compliance /enforcement
function would entail additional code compliance staff, as well as costs for
systems development, software upgrades and legal fees for enforcement
activities. A more detailed study would be necessary to determine the
exact needs and costs of an upgraded code compliance division.
Estimates of costs covered by penalty revenue range from 50% to 100 %.
Revising the condominium conversion ordinance could be handled by
existing City staff over an extended period of time. Similarly, administration
and oversight of condominium conversion applications could be absorbed
within the current organizational structure and supported by permit
application fees.
Recommendation
#22
It is recommended that the City Council consider the recommendations of
the Task Force and direct the City Manager to pursue strengthening
proactive code compliance, investigate the use of state and federal
funding for affordable housing opportunities, and modify the condominium
conversion ordinance to encourage development of affordable for -sale
units.
Respectfully submitted,
William C. Norton
WCN:cb
cc: Housing Task Force Members
City Manager
Building Official
City Attorney
Development Services Director
RENTAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION
OF NORTHERN ALAMEDA COUNTY
360 22nd Street, Suite 240 • Oakland, CA 94612
Ph 510.893.9873 • Fax 510.893.2906
Website: www.rhanac.org
September 20, 2005
Dear City Council Members:
As a member of the housing task force, I believe the committee has made progress on
reviewing the city's policies that we help prevent future mass evictions from rental housing
complexes and to create more affordable housing. Instead of rehashing all points of the
task force report, I want to address some concerns on reviewing the condo ordinance. Our
association supports home ownership and believes that condo conversions allow many
residents that are currently renting to become homeowners. Please see our following
comments as to problems with inclusionary provisions and loss of housing that we feel must
be addressed.
The problems with mandating inclusionary zoning for condo conversions
A. Economics - Do Not Pencil Out
RHA does not question the good intentions of the proponents of this proposal. The motive -
to provide more affordable housing -is a good public policy goal. Unfortunately, the
economics simply do not pencil out. Requiring an apartment owner to sharply discount the
sales price for 15% to 25% of the rental units would remove any incentive to convert the
property to condos thus denying home ownership to moderate to middle income families.
With high cost of detached single family homes, moderate to middle income families cannot
afford to purchase a home in highly populated urban areas. Due to the skyrocketing cost of
construction defect litigation, builders stopped constructing condos and town homes.
Virtually the only remaining affordable housing stock that is available to moderate and
middle income families are surplus rental units.
B. Too easy for the program to be abused
It would be costly and difficult for City Staff to police against abuses. Other cities with
inclusionary zoning ordinances for °for sale" housing have uncovered wide spread abuses,
i.e. City of Sunnyvale. People who have purchased for sale housing at huge discounts
under inclusionary zoning ordinances have realized unfair gains by selling the property at
the market value, by renting the housing at market rates, or by refinancing the property at
the rp'a1 ket value. Please call me at 510 - 893 -9873 x103 if you have questions.
Si rlcerely,
Edrin'gton, Executive Director
Submitted by Steve Edrington at
the 9 -20 -05 Council Meeting
Re: Agenda Item #5 -A
HOW TO AVOID DISCRIMINATION
LAWSUITS: FREE Fair Housing
Seminar for Landlords
ALAMEDA/Rental housing survey finds bias...discrimination...
San Francisco Chronicle 10/22/04
Rental Housing Association of Northern Alameda County in collaboration with Alameda Housing
Authority and the City of Alameda Mayor, Beverly Johnson and Vice Mayor Marie Gilmore invite you
to FREE seminar on Federal and State Fair Housing Laws. ,
Get practical advice that will protect you from lawsuits, fines and penalties for violating Fair Housing
Laws. This FREE seminar is designed to provide guidance on:
Advertising: Attracting Responsible Tenants
Screening & Leasing: Working within Fair Housing Laws
Tenancy: How Fair Housing Laws affect you ( "the landlord ") and your tenants
Date: Wednesday — September 21, 2005
Time: 6:30 pm - Registration; 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm - Seminar
Place: Albert H. Dewitt Officer's Club, 641 West Redline Avenue, Alameda, California
RSVP to attend seminar by calling 510- 893 -9873 extension 106, emailing to rsvp @rhanac.org; or
faxing in this Registration form to 510- 893 -2906
FREE Fair Housing Seminar for Landlords — Wednesday, September 21st, 2005 -6:30 pm
Name: Number of People Attending:
Street Address:
City: Zip Code:
Phone: Email Address:
City (or Cities) where you own/manage rental units:
Total number of rental units:
* See reverse for driving directions.
S,h-eridan
Report
by Matthew C. Sheridan
The Cold, Hard Truth
My last column speculated that
upon further examination, San Francisco
neighborhoods with high homeownership
rates may contain a high percentage of
minority households and would have a
higher percentage of families with kids. I
didn't have all the facts and figures at the
time, but now I do.
Straight from the Board of Supervisors'
own Legislative Analyst's report, the
data shows that the neighborhoods/
supervisorial districts with the highest
homeownership rates just happen to
contain the highest percentage of minorities
in the city, and as you may have guessed,
they also have the highest percentage of
families with kids. They are: Sunset/
Parkside (District 4), Mission /Bernal
(District 9), Potrero /Bayview (District 10)
and Excelsior /Ingleside (District 11). This
should come as no surprise for many, but it
is quite awkward to think of the city's racial
and renter demographic profiles in such
simple terms. The correlation between
racial diversity and homeownership is
never made in the press, and certainly not
spoken of at City Hall.
The areas with the highest percentage
of white residents in the city —the Marina
(District 2), the Haight /Western Addition
(District 5), and the Castro /Noe Valley
(District 8)— contain large majorities of
renters. Meanwhile, the districts with the
most renters —North Beach /Chinatown
(District 3) and South of Market/
Tenderloin (District 6) —have an even
split between minorities and whites. The
Richmond (District 1) and Inner Sunset/
Stonestown (District 7) are slight anomalies,
with the former's white population just
under 50% and a renter class of 65 %, and
the latter 57% white with a homeowner
class of 61 %.
So what's wrong here? Over the past
four decades, the perception is that San
Supports* Homeowners Minorities Households
w/ Children
25%
Source: Board of Supervisors Legislative Analyst
Neighborhood District Supervisor Supports* Renters Whites Households
w/ Children
6 Daly No 90% 48% 12%
SoMa /Tenderloin
likB- -_ an tiq
Haight /Western Add.
W Ae frarl A
5 Mirkarimi
Castro /Noe
8
Dufty
No
4fx tii'�s.: �'ar
'tGo1 ;e .
Source: Board of Supervisors Legislative Analyst
Yes
A'.'" 46 "' r'�nt s
81% 60%
sw
66%
66`to a >E;,
12%
81% - .nridh..
76%
11%
( *Supports homeownership)
12%
10%
8%
6%
SF CBSA Residential Rental Vacancy Rate
9.2%
9.8%
14-4%
8.0%
8.2%
8.1%
6.9%
--a
52 0
•
Q2 03
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
04
01'04
02 03 04 Q1'05 02
Includes Oakland and San Francisco Metro Areas
SF Vacancy Rate —Year-Over-Year Percent Change
400%
300%
200%
100%
0%
-100%
Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
'01
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 03 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
'02
'03
,04
'05
Asking Rents vs. Tenant Demand
52,100
$2,000
$1,900
$1,800
$1,700
$1,600
$1,500
Q2 Q3
$2,074
- Rents
Asking
- - • Tenant Demand
$1,914
$1,835
■ 1,863.
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
Source: MetroRent
'02
'03
'04
'05
16 September 2005 SF APARTMENT MAGAZINE
Francisco -has evolved into a city populated
with people of different cultures, races and
lifestyles. While no doubt this is correct,
policymakers, intellectuals and activists
focus on contributing factors that are
generally not related to housing. When they
do employ housing as an argument, they
often advocate for continuation of a large
renter class to maintain San Francisco's
unique flavor. But what is unspoken —and
now quite apparent from this data —is that
racial and cultural diversity are, in fact,
advanced by homeownership.
Even San Francisco's gay
neighborhoods —the Castro, Bernal
Heights and sections of the Mission —
while possessing a mixture of renters and
homeowners, clearly have grown thanks
in part to the seeds of homeownership
that helped nurture these blossoming
communities.
The War Begins
Over and over, the Board of Supervisors
has stymied the expansion and development
of homeownership opportunities in San
Francisco. They imposed moratoriums on
developing industrial quadrants of the city.
They enacted laws attempting to curb TICs.
They banned property owners from the
right to move into their own homes. Just
last month, they banned the conversion of
hotel rooms into condominiums —the latter,
in the name of preserving union jobs.
These guys have been holding back
a break in the dike —the demand for
affordable, middle -class homeownership
in San Francisco. Now, with the advent
of individual TIC financing — courageously
developed by a few local banks (tenant
activists have sworn they will protest at
the banks' headquarters) —San Francisco is
about to enter a new era. An epic war will
likely erupt, pitting tenant activists and
their supporters at City Hall against the
forces of change.
The vacuum created by San Francisco's
lack of a coherent housing policy has
produced a situation where demand
outstrips supply for ownership housing. Add
to this the renaissance of San Francisco,
low interest rates, housing appreciation,
high vacancy rates, the return of empty
nesters and families, and we have a perfect
storm for change. Now, pioneering property
The Sheridan Report: continued on page 20
SF MSA Payroll Gains
10,000
5,000
0 ■I 1 1 1.11111 11111-1-1111111 I • I,tnill.i -I
-5,000
- 10,000
- 15,000 — - - -- - --
- 20,000
J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J
Source: California's Employment Devvelopment Department 05 Non Farm
U.S. Employment Gains
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J
'04
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
'05
Non Farm
SF Metro Area Consumer Price Index
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0 %'
-0.5%
-1.0%
r ■ All Items
17 Shelter
s? ,kl ts~
Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun
'04 '05
Bimonthly Change
Source: U.S. Department of Labor
10%
8%
F%
4%
:1.
U. S. Gross Domestic Product
-
"�
L
°
f
7.2%
— The Conference Board
—°^° -° University of Michigan
J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M
'04 '05
Sources: The Conference Board and the University of Michigan's Surveys of Consumers
J
-- 3.72/11 3.6%.
4.3%
4.0%
3.8%
34%
_3-5Jo
3.3%
.'
'
•
•
•
.
•
Q2 Q3 Q4
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce
Q1'04
Q2
Q3
Q4
01'05
Q2
110
100
80
- 70
60
J
Consumer Confidence
"�
L
°
f
— The Conference Board
—°^° -° University of Michigan
J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M
'04 '05
Sources: The Conference Board and the University of Michigan's Surveys of Consumers
J
18 September 2005 1 SF APARTMENT MAGAZINE
The Sheridan Report: continued from page 18
owrsers, - lawyers, bankers and residents
are uniting to create ownership housing
where once there was none. And for many,
the potential of reaping huge financial
rewards.
The signs have been obvious:
apartment buildings selling at sky -high
P/E ratios, housing values increasing, the
national condo - conversion craze. Now the
dike is crumbling, and after decades of
ignoring the stoney waters, the river called
ownership has finally broken through and
is unlikely to be dammed back up —at least
for the short -term.
As rumored for months, and reported
in a few local newspapers, some apartment
owners have been preparing to convert
their rental buildings into ownership
housing, by creating large -scale tenancy -
in- common arrangements, a la New York-
style co -ops. Primarily planned for trophy
properties in upscale neighborhoods, the
growth of such arrangements will likely
improve the housing imbalance in the city.
But such developments come with a price.
Already, the San Francisco Rent
Board has registered a huge jump in the
number of apartment units affected by
Ellis -Act petitions filed over the past few
months. According to Tim Lee at the
Rent Board, "The reason for the large
upswing is that larger buildings are being
Ellised." Owners could simply implement a
gradual conversion upon vacancies through
attrition or buyouts. But now there is
potential for widespread evictions across
the city. Whenever a person, a family, a
senior citizen is evicted for traditional
reasons —such as nonpayment of rent —it is
a troubling situation; reflective of not only
their failures, but society's failure as well.
By employing the Ellis Act on such a large
scale, owners will be severely disrupting the
lives of numerous tenants. They also run
the risk of prompting a political backlash
that may result in legislation not only here,
but in Sacramento as well. However, I place
the blame squarely on the recent crop of
supervisors, who, instead of harnessing
the demand for ownership housing in San
Francisco, have clung to the failed housing
policies of the past. The recriminations of
how we got here will be everywhere. They
should look in the mirror.
Median Priced Home and Condo Sales
$800 - --
8700
$600
$500
$400
$300
Thousands
- - — San Francisco
- - - Bay Area
J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J
,04
Source: DataQuick Information Systems
'05
$700
8600
8500
$400
$300
$200
Price Per Unit
Thousands
Price Per Unit
--
- -^•- -2
— -- 5 -9 Units
- --
.
Units
—3 Units
�
��
/ r
Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 '04 Q2
Source: John Oldfield - Prudential California Realty
03 Q4 Q1'05 Q2
$275
$250
$225
$200
$175
$150
$125
$100
Q2
Source:
Price Per Unit
e.
i
— -- 5 -9 Units
Thousands
�
��
/ r
,- -------- — --
-.. —'
.../le.-
— — 5-9 Units
—10+ Units
-
-
Q3 Q4 Q1'04
Phill Boersma. Arroyo & Coates
Q2
Q3
Q4 Q1'05
•
Q2
GRM
18
17
16
i5
14
13
12
11
e.
i
— -- 5 -9 Units
- ..... 10+Units
�
��
,
Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1'04 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1'05 Q2
Source: PhIll Boersma - Arroyo & Coates
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
SF - Residential Building Permits - Number of Units
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Source U.S. Census Bureau
Privately - Owned, Single - Family and Multifamily
20 September 2005 1 SF APARTMENT MAGAZINE
09/20/2005 16:07
9/20/05
5107699714
WENDY C HORIKOSHI
PAGE 01
05 SEp 20 Pl'l L ::
.hSIi\ibU!Iu
Alameda City Council
Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
The Honorable City Council, Alameda Sun and Alameda Journal.
i urge you to remember your (the City Council's) strong dislike for the Fifteen Group's
mass eviction of tenants. This process was a calculated plan to upgrade the Harbor Island
Apartments and convert them to condominiums. Approving the rl item of the Task Force
recommendations will CONDONE .ghat the fifteen Group has done and will encourage future
mass evictions.
Your choice in this matter is more about representing all people in the City. You are constantly
ruling on other development issues for the City, for example, the multi- cinplex There seems to
many persons who are for or against. What's different in this building code enforcement item.
is that the net effect drives out people who live here — renters who have built community and
helped create the community of Alameda that exists today. If you vote for the Task Force's
second recommendation, you are directly responsible for the exodus of people who are not
economically strong enough to buy a house. This will disproportionally affect many people of
color. immigrants, elderly and the disabled. You will be directly responsible for this outcome_
We look to you to provide the kind of consideration and opportunity for renters that this
proposed Task Force Recommendation gives to developers and real estate owners.
Most Sincerelv, ,
•r/
endy C 1`lorikoshi
Leadership Coach and Trainer
(510) 769 -9714
6 Ulster Place
Alameda, CA 94502
Re: Agenda Item #5 -E
9 -20 -05
1 Lara Weiskger - Statement regardin item 5 - Eon tonight's City Council Agenda
From: "Briones, Ruben, BOS Dist 3" <ruben.briones @acgov.org>
To: <clerk @ci.alameda.ca.us>
Date: 9/20/2005 6:03:07 PM
Subject: Statement regarding item 5 - E on tonight's City Council Agenda
Ruben Briones
Deputy Chief of Staff
Supervisor Alice Lai - Bitker
1221 Oak St., Ste. 536
Oakland, CA 94612
P: (510) 272 -6693
F: (510) 268 -8004
E: ruben.briones @acgov.org
CC: <bjohnson @ci.alameda.ca.us>
Submitted for the 9/20/05
meeting and provided to Council
on 9/21/05
Re: Agenda Item #5 -E
September 20, 2005
Alameda City Council
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
RE: Item 5 -E on September 20, 2005 City Council Agenda
Dear Mayor and Alameda City Council members,
Tonight, the Council will be reviewing recommendations from the housing Task Force that was
created in to prevent future mass evictions from rental housing complexes in Alameda.
I want to express concern regarding the second recommendation that came out of the Task Force.
I am a strong supporter of affordable housing and making homeownership more accessible.
However, as you consider this recommendation please examine if there are any negative impacts
on the City's affordable housing stock. In view of the history of the Task Force, to prevent mass
evictions, this recommendation merits further review to avoid hardships to the same population
the Task Force strives to assist.
Should you have further questions please do not hesitate to contact my office at (510) 272 -6693.
Sincerely,
Alice Lai - Bitker,
Supervisor, Third District
ALB: RB
Lorraine Lilley, Ph.D.
Former Tenant of Harbor Island Apartments
Co -Chair of Harbor Island Tenant Association
To: Housing Task Force Committee
From: Lorraine Lilley
Date: July 8, 2005
Re: Recommendations for Task Force Regarding Proposed
Strategies For the Prevention of Future Mass Evictions and
How to Create More Affordable Housing in Alameda
Background
On July 22, 2004 in Alameda, CA, at the Harbor Island Apartment
Complex, several thousand men, women, and children, (some disabled, elderly,
low- moderate income, and working single parents) were all given eviction
notices. The devastation, trauma, and financial hardship resulting from this
inhumane act, continues to negatively impact the lives of 386 families that are
now former Harbor Island tenants.
Finally, on April 5, 2005, at a City Council Meeting, Mayor Beverly
Johnson directed Mr. Norton, City Manager, to form a task force that would report
back to the mayor and City Council with recommendations within 60 days. The
goals of the Housing Task Force were to make recommendations for the
prevention of future mass evictions, and to make recommendations for the
creation of more affordable housing.
Evidently, there is a housing crisis in Alameda. The City of Alameda
(Housing Element 2001 -2006) revealed that the renter households that had been
surveyed were paying more than half their income on rent.
Although there are programs designed to address these issues, clearly
they are not efficient. Here are my recommendations for ways to increase
affordable rental and affordable home ownership in Alameda.
LRLilley @aol.com
510.523.3626 home ph.
510.325.5024 cell ph.
1 of 3
Re: Agenda Item #5 -E
9 -20 -05
Lorraine Lilley, Ph.D.
Former Tenant of Harbor Island Apartments
Co -Chair of Harbor Island Tenant Association
HOW TO PREVENT FUTURE MASS EVICTIONS
1. Aggressive enforcement of CA State and Local Building Codes.
a. Revise the code compliance - complaint questionnaire form and
procedure process.
i. In addition to English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Cantonese, and
Mandarin complaint forms were needed during the mass
eviction process, and continue to be needed for all residents
of Alameda.
ii. On the front page of the Building Code /Zoning Violations
Complaint Process (instructions) it states: If the form is
incomplete, this office may not follow-up on the complaint.
The health, safety, and welfare of an occupant of a building
should always be investigated whether a form is completed
or not, especially since the Planning and Building
Department do not provide any forms in the languages that
are representative of the population of Alameda, except,
English.
I propose that a / /complaints be processed and followed -up.
Some residents are sight impaired, and have other reading
disabilities. Therefore, I propose a more hands on approach
in every spectrum of fair housing. Follow -up phone calls,
letters, or visits regarding the status of a complaint should all
be parts of aggressive enforcement of CA State and Local
Building Codes.
LRLilley @aol.com
510.523.3626 home ph.
510.325.5024 cell ph.
2 of 3
Lorraine Lilley, Ph.D.
Former Tenant of Harbor Island Apartments
Co -Chair of Harbor Island Tenant Association
(continued prevent future mass evictions)
2. Amend the Condominium Conversion Ordinance to require Inclusionary
housing:
a. 5% affordable to Extremely Low Income
b. 10% affordable to Very Low Income
c. 5% affordable to Low Income
d. 5% to Moderate Income
3. Prohibit Discrimination against Section 8 recipients /tenants.
HOW TO RETAIN AFFORDABILITY OF HARBOR ISLAND UNITS
1. Facilitate acquisition of 256 of the units for affordable ownership and rental
housing.
2. Use the authority of the City of Alameda to procure resources for
acquisition.
a. Expand redevelopment area to include Harbor Island and other
appropriate West -end property.
b. Join with non - profit developer or Housing Authority to apply for
Prop. 46 funds and HOME funds.
LRLilley @aol.com
510.523.3626 home ph.
510.325.5024 cell ph.
3 of 3
comments_092005
AGENDA ITEM 5 —E
TASK FORCE REPORT
(,I I ? I'1 F,cr
05 SEP 15 PH 2: ?j
)1STRILL'TITi.
The following comments refer to the numbered paragraphs in the attached-report-from
Bill Norton dated September 7, 2005.
#1 The representative from AUSD has clarified the actual impact on a few west'
End Schools caused by the evictions at Harbor Island.
#5 We are happy to see that the term "mandatory annual inspections" has been
removed form the report. The context of the term "annual inspections ", which still
appears, is unclear. Do these apply only to troubled properties, or is the annual
inspection of all properties still a goal of the task force?
The periodic inspections by the Housing Authority of the Section 8 units at Harbor
Island revealed to the city the problems at that complex, however, it was the
failure of the city to enforce state laws which led to the continued deterioration.
so follow -up at known troubled properties is the solution, not massive annual
inspections.
Fees for inspections should only be charged to rental property owners who have
failed to correct problems.
#7 The language in which business is done and contracts are enforced are
governed by California Civil Code 1632. It states in paragraph (3) of that code
that the top five languages spoken in California other than English are Spanish,
Chinese, Tagalog, vietnamese, and Korean.
However owners who negotiate in English with a tenant who supplies his or her own
interpreter are not bound by the requirements of Civil Code
section 1632. (section 1632 (3) (h)) This is important because a prudent landlord
will use the same paperwork with all tenants. An activist organization would be
quick to claim that the non - English rental contracts were not as favorable as the
English contracts even if that were not the case. So if a tenant wants to
constructively notify a landlord of a problem, it needs to be done in a language
which the landlord understands, the same language in which the rental contract is
written. If the city Council wants to keep records in several languages, that is
their policy to decide, but it cannot be binding on the landlord.
Owners cannot be held accountable for problems about which they have not been
informed. The city forms should have a line to be checked that asks if the tenant
has notified the property owner /manager of the problem.
#14 The city should stay out of acquiring property for ownership opportunities.
The City has failed at the condominium conversion at 460 Buena vista, at estimating
the costs for ownership units within the 62 units to be built at FISC, and the
Alameda Housing Corporation has failed at the project in the 600 block at 460 Buena
vista. As for entering into agreements with other non - profit organizations, the
proforma submitted by the East Bay Asian Land use coalition for development of low
cost housing at FISC was too low by over forty million dollars. Let the private
sector take the risks.
#15 Sentinel Fair Housing has been a disappointment. The record has been
dismal. They have spent their energy on establishing picket lines, actions against
the City of Alameda, and other activities which are not useful to tenants. Alameda
needs to give the Block Grant funding to a person /organization which will help
educate and genuinely counsel tenants.
Legal Aid has been no help at all in the problems at Harbor Island. There has been
free legal counseling at the library once a month. The county also has free
Page 1
Re: Agenda Item #5 -E
9 -20 -05
comments_092005
counseling available: advice to seniors, and seminars on filing claims in small
claims court.
#19 Inclusionary housing requirements would kill all or almost all condominium
conversions. Inclusionary Housing Requirements would eliminate all but the most
high - priced conversions where there might be enough money to subsidize a few units.
It is up to the city council to determine which income groups(s) they wish to help
into ownership opportunities by easing the condominium conversion ordinance. If the
Council wishes to target the average income worker, then the lower priced
conversions are the ones to be encouraged. However, inclusionary requirements would
prevent such conversions from ever happening.
Low income ownership should be accomplished by completing the conversion of 460
Buena vista. it would be fiscally possible under an eased condominium conversion
ordinance. In addition, if the Housing authority were to sell these units, then the
proceeds would help fill the fiscal hole which was created by bailing out from the
over leasing problem.
#xx The report does not include the responsibilities and privileges of tenants.
They have standing, unavailable to the city, to pursue the legal actions against
landlords. There are two parties which sign rental contracts. one of those parties
is the tenant.
Sincerely,
Barbara Kerr
Page 2