Alameda Tenants: The emergency rent freeze and eviction moratorium due to the pandemic have ended. For more information, please see the City's FAQ on Alameda’s Covid-19 Tenant Protections.

Special Council Meeting on Capital Improvement Pass-Throughs

7pm Thursday May 11, 2023

Alameda City Hall

If you can't attend in person or on Zoom, please write Council an email by 4pm Thursday, or do both! Instructions below.

See media coverage of the South Shore CIP!

In response to tenant demands, the Rent Program has proposed a moratorium on capital improvement (CIP) pass-throughs, but they are recommending two startling exemptions: any CIP application received before April—including South Shore Apartments—and properties of fewer than 25 units. City Council is holding this special meeting to discuss and likely vote on a moratorium.

This means the South Shore pass-through may go forward very soon, and tenants of the corporate-owned complex, many of whom are black, senior, single parent families or from other groups hard hit by the housing crisis, will be forced to cough up millions of dollars for repairs. Let City Council know this is unacceptable! See previous posts for background on the Capital Improvement Plan. Sample letter/talking points below.

Join the Special City Council Meeting via Zoom.

Email: CITYCOUNCIL-List@alamedaca.gov

Sample Email to City Council

Honorable Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Members of City Council:

I am an Alameda tenant. Alameda tenants urgently need an emergency moratorium on Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) pass-throughs for ALL tenants, in ALL rental properties. CIP pass-throughs threaten tenants with displacement and should be regulated by rent control.

As the corporate owners of South Shore Apartments await approval of a CIP for up to $24 million, South Shore tenants face having to pay for these improvements in the same year that many tenants are receiving banked rent increases. Some of these tenants live in non-habitable conditions. This must be stopped for South Shore tenants, and not be allowed to happen to tenants city-wide.

Current CIP policy puts property owners in a position to attract new renters at market rate to take the place of tenants who can’t afford the additional payments. In this case, the CIP will be a gift to Blackstone, Inc., one of the largest real estate investors in the world.

Please don’t let South Shore and tenants city-wide face displacement by a flawed CIP policy that demands a major review by the City Council. We need an emergency moratorium on CIP pass-throughs now, for all rental properties city-wide, including especially the South Shore Apartments.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.

[**YOUR NAME** or An Alameda Tenant]

ARC General Meeting

Saturday, March 25, 2023

1:30 pm - 3:30 pm

First Congregational Church @ 1912 Central Ave, Alameda (enter lower level on Chestnut St.)

Alameda's rent control, only in effect since 2019, is under threat. Under a Capital Improvement Plan policy, qualifying landlords are allowed to "pass-through" 100% of the cost of major property improvements to tenants in addition to rent—regardless of how wealthy the landlord is—and still increase the rent every year! And City Council is considering adjusting the CIP policy to make it even more favorable to landlords.

WE NEED YOUR HELP TO FIGHT THIS PLAN !

Please come to Saturday's meeting to talk about what we can do. We also want to hear from you about your other concerns.

SAVE RENT CONTROL

KEEP ALAMEDANS IN THEIR HOMES

Join the ARC email list by sending us a message: AlamedaRentersCoalition@gmail.com

(or go to Join) and ask to be kept up to date on renters' issues and changes to Alameda rent control.

Urgent Letter to City Council Re. Proposed Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Policy

June 20, 2022

Dear Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Vice-Mayor Malia Vella, and Councilmembers Trish Herrera Spencer, Tony Daysog, and John Knox-White,

At a time when the City of Oakland has just lowered its allowable annual rent increase to 60% of CPI and the City of San Francisco has done a study of the impact of multiple Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) on its most vulnerable tenants to recommend policy changes to keep their residents housed, ARC asks: Why is the City of Alameda making it easier for landlords to qualify for additional capital improvement payments from tenants? 

We are still in the pandemic and renters have not had enough time to recover. Renters will soon be facing an increased AGA plus banking. A CIP requirement on top of that could be catastrophic to many renters. Whatever the different names subscribed to these additional amounts, they add up to a substantial increase completely undermining the intention of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Studies have shown that many people are still struggling financially to recover from the impact of pandemic shutdowns and exposure and the dramatic increase in prices for everyday items. In looking at the Census Bureau's most recent data from the Household Pulse Survey (HPS), the percentage of renters who are behind on rent statewide is beginning to rise. Based on the most current HPS data,14.2% of California tenants are not current on their rent. For those behind on rent, over half believe they are at risk of being evicted in the next two months. This data suggests that millions of renters across the state, including many in Alameda, are still struggling financially. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2022/demo/hhp/hhp45.html

As widely accepted, housing costs should only be 30% of income in order to be sustainable. According to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) completed in 2021, City of Alameda renters have an average hourly wage of $39.75. This is barely enough for a one bedroom apartment. The rapid escalation of rents beyond salary increases in the years just prior to COVID has placed nearly half of Alameda renters above that sustainable mark. The ACS survey showed that 20% of current renters paid over 50% of their income on rent, another 8% paid 40–50% and 15% paid 30–40%.  https://www.towncharts.com/California/Housing/Alameda-city-CA-Housing-data.html

The rate of cost-burdened renters is further supported by a recent report released by the National Low Income Housing Coalition which estimates that in order to afford a market rate 2 bedroom rental unit in Alameda, the hourly wage required is $48.65 in the 94501 zip code and $60.58 in the 94502 zip code. Out of Reach (2021) https://reports.nlihc.org/oor/zip?code=94501 and https://reports.nlihc.org/oor/zip?code=94502

In places where tenant protections have ended in California, the rate of unlawful detainer cases is increasing, which means many evicted tenants will end up in less stable living arrangements or may end up becoming homeless. We will likely see this happening at an increased rate, once the limited statewide eviction protections end June 30th. 

Besides our concern for the timing of the CIP revisions, we have these specific recommendations regarding staff’s draft proposals made in Exhibit 3:

1) A reasonable cumulative cap.  We agree that a cumulative cap is necessary. A cap on all monetary payments renters are required to make in order to stay in their homes, which includes annual rent increases, banked rent, and pass-throughs, is consistent with the intention of the most recent rent law, Ordinance 3250.  We request the cumulative cap be lowered to the original 5%, as proposed by the Alameda City Attorney’s Office during our April 28th meeting with city staff. We assert that 8% will be unsustainable for many renters, especially given that CIP pass-throughs result in increases that would continue for many consecutive years. 

We are also concerned about the potential impact of multiple pass-throughs being applied at once. A recent study conducted by San Francisco’s Budget and Legislative Analyst's Office on San Francisco’s CIP program found that CIP pass-throughs often resulted in rent increases well above the annual base increase allowed for all tenants subject to the City’s Rent Stabilization ordinance. In cases where tenants received multiple CIP passthroughs increases, annual rent was raised by as much as 13.3%. Policy Analysis Report: Rental Passthrough Petitions https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/BLA.Rent_Passthrough_Petitions.012720.pdf

Rent increases of this magnitude would add to renter financial instability and could very well lead to displacement of tenants from their homes.  Based on the findings of the LAO study, the following recommendations were made to the the San Francisco Board of Supervisors: 

1. Put a cap on CIP pass-throughs 

2. Expand the eligibility for hardship applications 

3. Limit banked rent increases

2) We strongly support  the hardship application process for low income renters as described in the current draft recommendations. 

3) A "means test" for landlords. No distinction is made between large profitable corporate landlords and small landlords. The concept that landlords should be required to prove that they need additional rent beyond the AGA in order to remain financially stable before a Hearing Officer, is already built into Ordinance 3250. The proposed CIP plan has no such guidelines, allowing the wealthiest corporations to apply for a CIP, present no financial information, and still be approved. 

4) Tenants pay less than 100% of CIP upgrades. A capital improvement is an investment in the property, so why should the tenant pay all the cost of the investment, without getting any benefit of the investment like an increase in equity?  Why should the poorest residents pay 100% of the cost of increasing the value of buildings they only temporarily reside in? The City of Oakland allows only 70% of the cost of capital improvement to be passed through to tenants.

5) Raise the per building and per unit threshold amounts. We assert that the threshold of $7500 per building and $750 per unit is too low to “materially add to the value of the property,” especially considering that most rental properties in today’s market in Alameda are worth well over a million dollars. These threshold amounts are so low that they could be used by landlords for minor improvements that should be covered by a landlord’s expenses under the AGA. We are also concerned that this low threshold may have a chilling effect on renters requesting necessary repairs to their units (e.g. not reporting a plumbing leak or going without heat).   

6) Clearly define and limit Items included under capital improvements. 

Some of the examples listed in subsection B of Section 6-58.77 of the current rent ordinance are not capital expenditures according to federal law.  Painting a building is not adding something new to the property, but is restoring the building to its original or normal condition, unless it was never previously painted. The same holds true for repairing stucco surfaces or replacing stairs or railings.  To quote the National Association of Realtors in www.houselogic.com, “Repairs, like painting a house or fixing sagging gutters, don’t count. The IRS describes repairs as things that are done to maintain a home’s good condition without adding value or prolonging its life.” The proposed low threshold will allow these repairs to be considered as capital improvements and therefore added on to the annual Maximum Allowed Rent.

We share the Council’s concern for safe, habitable buildings and stable, housed communities. We also recognize that some small landlords may require assistance to maintain both their buildings and receive a fair return. We do not accept that it can only be done by a minimally defined process that allows all landlords and investors to maximize profits through substantially increasing the total rent paid by tenants. The current CIP ordinance as well as the staff’s draft ordinance need greater balance for tenants and small landlords. 

Sincerely,

Steering Committee on Behalf of Alameda Renters Coalition

March 14 Letter to City Council Re. Ending the Rent Freeze Earlier Than Promised

March 14, 2022

Dear Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and City Councilmembers,

We oppose the ordinance amending Ord. 3275 to end the moratorium that has frozen rents during the COVID emergency. Alameda tenants and homeowners alike are contacting ARC in shock about your decision to allow rent increases while the pandemic is still in progress and to allow banking up to 8% in the near future.

City Council is not keeping its promise to tenants not to lift the rent freeze until 60 days after the local emergency, yet you’ve said you need to keep your promise to landlords to allow banking. It looks like 2022 will be the year that demonstrates the ethical problems with banking to people renting homes in this city. Tenants who are already facing highly inflated cost-of-living expenses may be hit with increases up to 8% just a few months from now.

The National Low Income Housing Coalition estimates fair market rent in Alameda for the 94501 zip code as $2050 for a one-bedroom apartment and $2530 for a two-bedroom apartment; for the 94502 zip code the estimates for one- and two-bedroom units are $2560 and $3150, respectively. An 8% increase would cost the average renting household around $160-$250 more every month, and they’ll be eligible for yet another increase 12 months later. This will not only push some tenants out of their homes but will make Alameda rents increasingly unaffordable for current and future residents.  

Program Manager Lisa Fitts acknowledged two points during the last Council meeting: Landlord maintenance and repair expenses have been stable or have declined during the emergency and, as noted by a landlord speaker, the increased expenses for landlords have been things like food and gas, increases which renters are also experiencing.

According to a recent article published in the Mercury News, over 70,000 Bay Area tenants are waiting for emergency rental assistance. The California state emergency rental assistance program will no longer accept applications for rent relief after March 31; the remaining limited statewide eviction protections will also end on the same day. The Alameda County Housing Secure Program, which is separate from the state rental assistance program, may continue to accept applications; however, the program is currently oversubscribed, with far more requests for funding than funds available. It is unlikely that the county will receive enough additional funds from the Treasury Department to bridge the gap. 

 A recent report by the National Equity Atlas has highlighted a number of problems with California’s rental assistance program:

• Only 16% of emergency rental assistance applicants have received money from the state program.

• 90% of renters who have applied and received assistance have requested additional support.

• The majority (59%) of applicants are still waiting for their applications to be reviewed.

• As of Feb 23rd, over half of those with approved applications have not yet received assistance.

In addition, recent findings from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey show an increasing number of California tenants are behind on their rent. The most recent estimate is 11% of Bay Area renters are not current on rent. Statewide, nearly half of renter households who are behind on rent think it is very or somewhat likely they will be evicted in the next two months. Nearly 30% of renter households are not confident in their ability to pay next month’s rent. Data from this survey also show that many renters who have lost income have continued to pay the rent, but have taken on debt in other forms in order to make the rent—including the use of credit cards, tapping into savings, and borrowing from family or friends. Others have utilized limited assistance such as stimulus payments and unemployment insurance. 

Since November 2021 landlords have had the ability to sue tenants for unpaid COVID-19 rental debt in civil court. Although there is no current estimate of the number of these cases being processed by the Alameda County Superior Courts, it is likely that there will be a substantial increase in case filings after the emergency rental assistance program ends. This is another financial debt that many tenants will soon be facing. 

Taken together, these data demonstrate the very precarious situation a significant number of tenants find themselves in, two years into the COVID-19 pandemic. The upcoming rent increases approved by the Council will only add to this financial burden and will result in many tenants being displaced and losing their housing.  

ARC is aware that the Council will also soon consider Capital Improvement Plan changes that would ease the way for landlords to receive even more from renters for upgrading properties, which will likely lead to even more displacement due to unsustainable rents.

Why is the City focusing on helping owners of million- and multi-million-dollar properties more than residents who are struggling to stay housed? Why the rush to ease landlords “burden” by allowing rent increases during the local emergency? When an emergency happens, you pivot for the good of the community, not worry about keeping a promise to put profits first.

We see this decision as a mistake. You have the power to correct it at the second reading. We hope you will reconsider passing this ordinance. 

Sincerely,

Alameda Renters Coalition

COVID-19 Rent Relief

If you applied for assistance through the California COVID-19 Rent Relief program, you can check the status of your application here.

Repeal Article 26

Measure Z represented a necessary step in opening up affordable housing and ending anti-black policies in our town. Article 26, the law that Z would have repealed, is also illegal in the state of California.

For a deeper dive into the history, legality, and importance of removing Article 26, watch the Town Hall video Building the Beloved Community Beyond Z on Youtube.

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE BLACK LIVES MATTER GLOBAL NETWORK: