Students Call for Tight Limits on Vacation Rentals “Research has shown that short-term and vacation rentals increase the costs of housing by reducing the supply of affordable housing available on the market…. If City Council decides to legalize short-term and vacation rentals, such as those found on Airbnb, then it must adequately regulate them in order to protect the city’s supply of affordable housing. The proposal put forward by Mayor Tom Bates and Councilmember Lori Droste, while a good start, would fail to adequately regulate short-term and vacation rentals so that they do not reduce the supply of affordable housing in Berkeley.” http://www.dailycal.org/2015/06/08/protect-housing-costs-increase-regulation-of-short-term-rentals/
Wednesday July 8 – BTU Member’s Meeting and Summer Potluck
CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday June 23, 7 PM – Short Term Rentals continues
Thursday June 25 5 PM – Community Benefits from Downtown High-rise Buildings
Tuesday June 30
Tuesday July 14
Tuesday September 15
ZONING BOARD
Thursday 6/11 at 7:00 PM
Thursday 6/25 at 7:00 PM – Demolition of 18-Unit Rent Controlled Building
Thursday 7/09 at 7:00 PM
Thursday 7/23 at 7:00 PM
Thursday 8/27 at 7:00 PM
PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday June 17
Wednesday July 1
Wednesday July 15 – possibly Short Term Rentals
Wednesday September 2
1) Rent Board Ad Hoc Committee:
Friday April 3rd @ 3 pm
Short-Term Rental Regulations
Side Entrance on Center Street @ Milvia
2) Zoning Hearing on Demolition:
Thursday April 9th @ 7 pm
Rent Controlled Triplex 1920 10th Street, UP #2007-0063
2134 Martin Luther King, Jr. Way @ Allston
3) Planning Commission:
Wednesday April 15 @ 7 pm
Short-Term Rental Regulations Edit: vacation rentals not on this agenda
1901 Hearst Ave @ MLK
4) Zoning Board:
Thursday May 14 @ 7 pm
Removing Rent Control at 2332 Channing to add 3 units.
2134 Martin Luther King, Jr. Way @ Allston
Thanks to BTU Members Who Sent in Most of These Stories
The Windfall Profits Tax on High Rents (Robin Hood) “In Berkeley, activists are in the early stage of advocating for a so-called “windfall profits tax,” which would increase the business license tax for larger property owners and thus generate revenue that could be invested into affordable housing. “This money is being extracted from tenants for the benefit of people who own real estate, and it’s windfall profits,” explained Stephen Barton, former housing department director for the City of Berkeley, who is pushing for the windfall tax. “We’re going to take some of [the money] that’s being extracted from the community … and use it to mitigate some of the harms of the system.” http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/how-east-bay-tenants-get-displaced/Content?oid=4216802
More Berkeley Seniors Threatened – Oregon Park “While much of the conflict stems from an ongoing disagreement about the board leadership, housing attorneys said they were especially concerned about the board’s attempts to evict a number of outspoken tenants. Earlier this year, Ibrahim Moss, a management consultant, served eviction notices to at least nine residents — and subsequently filed eviction lawsuits against at least four of them.” http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/an-eviction-nightmare-at-oregon-park-senior-apartments/Content?oid=4229738
San Francisco Can’t Enforce Vacation Rentals Law “To enforce the Airbnb law, the city needs booking data so the planning department can make sure rentals are registered with the city. It also needs a clear limit on the number of days a unit can be rented out each year. Currently, the law says an owner can rent 90 days if they aren’t home, but that’s difficult to prove.” http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/morning_call/2015/03/san-francisco-airbnb-law-unenforceable-rentals.html
SF Supervisors Want to Fix Airbnb Law “The legislation would prohibit all tenants or homeowners, regardless of whether or not they live in their house or apartment full-time, from renting out their spare space for more than 90 days a year. If they did, neighbors would have the right to sue them. The legislation would extend the existing 90-day limit from entire homes to smaller spaces.” http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/2-supervisors-want-to-tighten-up-law-regulating-6153957.php
California Considering Statewide Law on Short-Term Rentals “…online home-sharing companies would have to make regular reports to cities and counties about which homes in their area are renting rooms, for how many nights and how much money the homeowners are collecting for the short-term rentals.” http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article15202547.html
New York City Enforcing Vacation Rentals Law “New York’s investigators have cited over 7,000 fire and building code violations, shut down over 200 short-term apartments and sued several operators — ending an additional 250 short-term rentals — over the last nine years, according to the Mayor’s Office of Special Enforcement. With Airbnb and other websites sparking a short-term rental boom, some lawmakers now want to triple the illegal-hotel investigation staff and have it go beyond answering complaints to scour the web for suspect listings.” http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2015/03/28/in-nyc-an-unusual-task-force-fights-home-as-hotel-rentals
SF Collective Living in Commercial Space Avoids Eviction “Housing activists came out in full force March 2 to support Station 40 at a press conference to denounce gentrification and urge the Jolish family to accept an offer to buy the building from the San Francisco Community Land Trust.
Though the landlords at first denied the offer, which would keep the property available as below-market rate housing, Station 40 says the Jolish family is now willing to consider selling.” http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/housing-collective-avoids-eviction-from-mission-district-home/Content?oid=2924912
SF Rents – Cool Map! “This map from the folks at Zumper found that we reached an all time high for a 1-bedroom apartment in February, clocking in at an average of $3,460.
On top of that, it’s only going upwards. They reported that San Francisco rents have “continued upwards, increasing 1.5% month over month and 3.3% over the last quarter.” http://www.upout.com/blog/san-francisco-3/san-francisco-rents-hit-record-high-again-last-month-its-only-getting-worse
Daily Cal Housing Issue “Berkeley has the 10th-highest income inequality in the country, according to a ranking of 300 cities with more than 100,000 people in the United States by Bloomberg.
“Our city is at a crossroads,” Arreguin said. “We’re becoming the city of the haves and the have-nots.” http://www.dailycal.org/2015/03/13/berkeley-residents-priced-homes-rental-rates-rise/
On Wednesday February 18 the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the Housing Element of Berkeley’s General Plan. The hearing is at 7 PM at the North Berkeley Senior Center. BTU needs tenants to come speak out!
Berkeley’s 2015-2023 Housing Element is the basis for housing goals and policies for the next eight years. It is important that renters comment on this draft now, in order to maintain tenant protects and expand development of actual affordable housing.
Your Berkeley Tenants Union has written an extensive critique of the draft, linked below. We hope you will attend the hearing or write the Planning Commission right away supporting our goals:
Demo Ordinance: Rent controlled housing must remain protected from demolitions.
The Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee charged to developers should be high enough to actually mitigate the lower-income housing needs created by new development.
“Illegal” Units: City should provide path to legalize 4,000 rent controlled units which do not have permits – San Francisco’s program could be our model.
This is from John’s letter to the Planning Commission for the February 18 hearing:
It is clear from the Draft Berkeley Housing Element document that Berkeley is falling short of providing a mix of affordable housing for lower income AND middle income residents. I will focus on middle income residents, and particularly in my view an acute need for additional family housing within the City of Berkeley. Recent projects within the City have included a limited mix of primarily studio rentals and high-end rentals and condos, but units falling in the middle of these two extremes are, in comparison, few. I cite Table 1-1 as an example, which indicates that between the years 2000 and 2006 Berkeley provided only 4% of the Regional Housing Needs Determination as set by ABAG for moderate-income residents. Further, Table 2-14 indicates a lack of Renter Occupied 3 and 4 bedroom units, units which could be utilized by moderate to large size families.
I quote from the Objectives section of the Draft: “Berkeley residents should have access to quality housing at a range of prices and rents.Housing is least affordable for people at the lowest income levels, and City resources should focus on this area of need.”
I do not argue with the egalitarian goal of this statement, but in reviewing the documentation in this Draft it is clear to me that the middle class, and particularly moderate-income residents with children (i.e., families) are the ones primarily being squeezed for housing in Berkeley. I do not see that trend reversing without an emphasis on strategies and programs to address this essential need.
John T. Selawsky
Member, Berkeley Tenants Union
Commissioner, Rent Stabilization Board
We at the Berkeley Tenants Union need your support on Tuesday, December 9 at the City Council meeting.
First, Council are considering a suggestion to tax the benefits of rent control on any long time tenant the government decides is earning a living wage. (Item 17)
Also, BTU members have appealed a dangerous decision by the Zoning Board which would set bad precedent and put over 4,000 units in Berkeley at risk. (Item 39)
Both items are expected to be near the beginning of the meeting, as early as 7:30 PM. Council meetings take place in Old City Hall, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way.
2401 Warring Street Appeal by Harr and Stephens
This is the latest in a series of disputes BTU has fought at the Zoning Board – at the core is the interpretation of the Demolition Ordinance. In this case, a huge building on Warring near Channing has been under rent control for many years because it was used as a boarding house. Now, a new owner has removed all the renters and wants to turn it into a triplex. Rent Board staff and the owner appeared at the Zoning Board in the summertime. BTU was there as well. Everyone – even the owner Nathan George – seemed to agree that it was fair that one of the triplex units would be new construction because the owner is adding a lot of space, but that the other two units needed to stay under rent control.
Yet when the decision was written up by the staff from the Planning department, they chose to word the agreement in a way that would be legally unenforceable. This can get complex, but the gist of it is that Planning wants to give the building a new certificate of occupancy, and state law Costa Hawkins says a new COO means no rent control.
This is not what the Zoning Board intended. So BTU members Katherine Harr and Lisa Stephens filed an appeal.
Once again, the City Attorney is saying the units are empty and therefore not rent controlled units under the Demolition Ordinance. This means any building where the landlord can get the tenants out could easily be torn down with no mitigations for the loss of rent controlled housing.
The City is also saying that although Planning was aware that the building was a boarding house, it was not licensed to be one. This opens up over 4,000 units that have rent control but are not in Planning records as “permitted units” to lose rent control because they, too, could get a new certificate of occupancy.
Means Testing
Yes, you heard us right: the Housing Advisory Commission has asked Council to begin the process of means testing rent controlled tenants. Item 17 on the City Council agenda for Tuesday is the first step toward a plan by certain bitter property owners and the Council majority to tax middle income renters on their low rents.
“One approach we believe should be explored is to determine if some of the long term tenants in Berkeley’s rent controlled housing have been enjoying low rents while their incomes have been rising,” they wrote. There are many disturbing things about the proposal: the underlying assumption that rent control is a charity program and only the very poor deserve housing stability; the invasive nature of the proposal wherein longer term renters would be forced to disclose their income while owners do not have to do so; and the idea that measuring only income and rent would give the government any idea who can afford to pay more for housing, without considering medical bills, student tuition or student loans, number of dependents or other factors.
While BTU is pretty sure portions of the plan are actually illegal, and we expect the Rent Board will work to educate Council on that aspect, we need renters to stand together to show that local efforts to whittle away tenant protections and pit lower income folks against teachers, firefighters and small business owners making mid-range salaries will not be tolerated. Means testing would make Berkeley a city of just the very rich and very poor – just what rent stabilization was designed to prevent!
This type of proposal would never have been considered in the progressive Berkeley of the past and is clearly retaliation against tenants for supporting the “Robin Hood” ballot measures to tax owners of multiple rental units on their profits under vacancy decontrol.
JOIN US TUESDAY at CITY COUNCIL – items are early on the agenda
RSVP to info at berkeley tenants dot org to learn the plan!
Berkeley is one of 14 cities in California that enjoys strong protections for tenants. San Francisco has decent protections, but has seen a huge wave of evictions that use a state law, the Ellis Act, to get around local rules.
Now there is a statewide effort to reform the Ellis Act. The law was intended to allow long-term owners to “go out of the rental business” but instead allows investment companies and other speculators to buy rent controlled buildings, evict all the tenants, and sell the units as condos or tenancies-in-common at huge profits.
Activists from San Diego to Redding are hoping a reformed law might require an owner to hold the building for at least five years before they could “go out of business” – this would eliminate speculators who buy rental properties only to flip them after evictions. However, in 2007 a bill in the California legislature which called for a five-year delay failed miserably. If a broad coalition from many cities – including Berkeley – doesn’t support the current reform, we could end up with a state exemption to the law that will only protect San Francisco.
And you know what they say – “When San Francisco sneezes, Berkeley get a cold!” If SF was able to curb their epidemic of evictions, speculators will quickly turn to Berkeley. This is why the Berkeley Tenants Union wants you to join with us in supporting broad statewide reform of the Ellis Act now!
Our friends at Tenants Together have put together a petition as a first step:
A state law, The Ellis Act, is responsible for the unfair eviction of thousands of seniors and families in California. In the past few years Ellis Act evictions have surged, with thousands of long-term tenants displaced from their homes.
San Francisco is taking other steps to end their eviction crisis – Berkeley should also increase Ellis relocation payments, restrict unit mergers, and give evicted residents priority for local affordable housing – join BTU to fight for this today! Right now, the revisions to the Berkeley Demolition Ordinance proposed by Mayor Bates will make it easier to eliminate rent controlled units by merging them to create big houses for the wealthy — the exact opposite of how San Francisco is changing their law! http://sfpublicpress.org/news/2013-12/supervisors-approve-plan-to-protect-tenants-against-displacement
Scenes like this will no longer be confined to Southside if revisions to the Demolition Ordinance allow destruction of small rental properties to build expensive commuter apartments.
DATE: November 5, 2013 TO: Planning Commissioners RE: Demolition Ordinance
SUMMARY: Please preserve affordable housing by again recommending the June 4 compromise on the Demolition Ordinance. Please find attached our petition — with 270 signatures.
Respected Planning Commissioners:
The Berkeley Tenants Union is extremely concerned about proposed changes to the demolition ordinance. As you may recall, you already approved changes to this zoning code in the spring. We think it might be a bit confusing that this law is before you once again, so we have tried to provide a comprehensive summary with links to all relevant documents in this correspondence.
In December of 2011, the Berkeley City Council directed staff to draft amended language to Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 23C.08, the “Demolition and Elimination of Dwelling Units Ordinance.” (Document:Council Direction 12-6-11) In June of 2013, staff presented a draft that met all the requests Council made in 2011, and was approved by the Rent Board and the Planning Commission. The same draft has also been presented one month before, at the 4×4 Committee, and neither Mayor Bates nor Councilman Capitelli voiced any concerns with the draft. On June 4, it looked like Council was going to pass this compromise draft (Document: June 4 draft), until time ran out on the meeting.
Then something changed. The Council began to question the June 4 compromise, and considered a new draft, perhaps hastily prepared, presented at the July 2 Council meeting. (Document:July 2 Draft). The new draft appeared to be based on requests made by developer Equity Residential (Document:ER Letter to Council), who are now Berkeley’s largest landlord. Since Council got letters of objection from many civic groups, including the Sierra Club, Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, Berkeley Neighborhoods Council, and Berkeley Tenants Union, they sent the Ordinance back to the Planning Commission and the Housing Advisory Commission.
What do these drafts say?
Currently BMC 23C says “controlled rental units” cannot be eliminated unless the owner “cannot make a fair return on investment by maintaining the dwelling unit as a part of the rental housing market” and that those apartments must also be “seriously deteriorated beyond the conditions which might reasonably be expected due to normal use.” It also says that demolished rent controlled units must be replaced with permanently affordable housing. (Document: DemoCURRENT)
Problems with the current law arose because the City Attorney decided that empty units which would otherwise be under rent control are not “controlled rental units” and therefore not subject to the rules above. This means any empty unit can be torn down with no mitigation for the loss of affordable older units which would be under rent control if they were rented. Such a policy encourages owners to leave buildings to rot, promotes evictions and harassment, and may violate not only the Demolition law, but also the voter-approved Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance. (Document:NPO)
To end the controversy about the interpretation of the law, the Rent Board and the City Council called for revisions, but Council also asked that new rules require “units are replaced with an equal or greater number of new units inclusive of the current number of existing affordable units.” (Document: Council Direction 12-6-11) Likewise, the June 4 draft required developers who tear down multiunit buildings built before 1980 (those covered by rent control) replace them with “designated below-market rate units equal in number and comparable in size to the demolished units.”
However, the July and August drafts do not call for one-for-one replacement of affordable rent controlled units with housing for low-income renters. The July 2 and August 30 drafts both require developers pay a fee into the Housing Trust Fund. However, the fee in the July 2 draft is about 10% of what it costs to build an affordable unit, and the fee in the August 30 draft is unspecified and thus could be changed by City Council at any time. (Document:Worse Aug 30 draft)
There are numerous other problems with the July and August drafts. For example, one scheme outlined by developer Equity Residential was included in the July draft. This calls for replacement units in the new building which would be “designated rent increase restricted” – however, the Rent Board (Document:Berkeley Rent Board letter) and East Bay Community Law Center (Document:EBCLC Letter) have both pointed out that this violates the state law called Costa-Hawkins, because that law banned any new rent control in California, even if you call it by another name.
In addition, later drafts contradict the voter-approved Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance and may be challenged in court if they are made law. (Document:NPO)
Several community groups have sent communications on this issue that raise various additional concerns, such as the wisdom of tearing down perfectly fine small buildings at all, and the environmental impact of encouraging growth through demolition. You can find copies of public communications from The Sierra Club, Berkeley NAACP, Berkeley Neighborhoods Council, and Berkeley Architectural Heritage Assn. on our website along with all documents we have linked to in the text above.
The real question here is what kind of community benefits does Berkeley need in exchange for allowing speculators to tear down a useable rent controlled building in order to build a bigger one with market rate apartments? This is not just about what legal mitigations a nexus study might allow. We can actually choose, as Berkeley did in the 1970s, to ban demolition altogether. BTU hopes you might realize that rent control has been Berkeley’s most successful affordable housing program, and that rent controlled units should be preserved, even if they are not rented at this time.
You can choose not to allow demolition – and you should choose this if there is going to be a long wait for a Nexus study.
Please see the attached petition, with 270 signatures. Please note that, following pages with electronic signatures and comments, there are scans of the paper petitions.
Please again recommend the June 4 compromise draft.
Sincerely,
Berkeley Tenants Union Steering Committee, on behalf of the tenants of Berkeley
Oakland fights to close rent control loophole: Berkeley tenants enjoy protections against bad business decisions by owners. Here, landlords can only passthrough “capital” costs if they were not foreseeable when they set the initial rent or they can’t make a fair return on their investment. In Oakland, their weaker rent control law is further undermined by broad rules which allow landlords who paid too much for a building to then raise the rents to pay their mortgage. Oakland is fighting to close this loophole even as Berkeley tenants could see passthrough rules relaxed so that landlords can charge for seismic retrofits:
“Of the ten major jurisdictions in California that have rent control laws, only four allow landlords to pass on the costs of debt service. Of those four, Oakland is the only municipality that allows landlords to force tenants to pay up to 95 percent of their debt.”
In San Francisco, the rents are too damn high: The SF Department of Public Health made an interactive map which shows how many full-time minimum wage jobs it takes to pay rent on the average market rate apartment in each SF neighborhood. For example, in the Mission District, it would take 5.5 minimum wage jobs to pay rent on a new 2-bedroom apartment, because market rent is $2,920. The actual median income of the neighborhood is about half of what it takes to pay that rent. http://www.sfphes.org/news/211-rent-affordability-in-san-francisco
Thoughtful tech industry comments on gentrification, development, and the “Google Bus” phenomena:
“Whichever side of this issue you’re on, it’s clear that we’re looking at a reversal of the historical norm: The workers that used to live in residential suburbs while commuting to work in the city are now living in the city, while the largest technology companies are based in the suburbs and increasingly draw their labor supply from dense urban neighborhoods…That they’re young and educated and lots of them are millionaires is kind of beside the point. It’s about more than gentrification as we’ve experienced it thus far: It’s about an entirely reconfigured relationship between density and sprawl…”
Nob Hill building with 33 units would be largest Tenancy in Common: Over in San Francisco, investors would like to use the state Ellis Act to evict rent controlled tenants and turn buildings in condominiums. Only they can’t, because like Berkeley, San Francisco has tight restrictions on how many precious affordable rent controlled units can be turned into condos each year. So speculators turn them into Tenancies-in-Common, which are like condos, only not. Pretty soon investors in Berkeley will be exploiting similar loopholes, so let’s get ready! http://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/Park-Lane-tenants-protest-conversion-plans-4853226.php
Meanwhile back in Berkeley, BNC issues strong statement on Demolition Ordinance: The Berkeley Neighborhoods Council newsletter discusses how revisions to the Demo Ordinance are not only bad for tenants, but also for neighborhood stability:
“This provision puts multiple unit buildings that are well-integrated parts of neighborhoods throughout the city at risk of being demolished for no other reason than a developer sees an opportunity to replace it with a new and bigger building.”
Speculators Driving Up Rents in East and West Oakland: Big national companies are outbidding regular folk and buying up foreclosures all over Oakland’s flatlands, breaking up long-standing African American communities. Some firms just slap a new coat of paint on the “distressed property” and resell them right away, at prices working people can’t afford. Others are offering these homes at San Francisco-type rents, but plan to sell them in five to seven years. Several nonprofits – including Oakland Community Land Trust and Restoring Ownership Opportunities Together –are working to keep owners in their homes, or buy foreclosures and keep them affordable to working people. If you think this is going on in Berkeley, let us know! http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/whos-jacking-up-housing-prices-in-west-oakland/Content?oid=3726518
On September 12, the Housing Advisory Committee voted unanimously to support one-for-one replacement of demolished rent controlled units with permanently affordable housing. They recommended the good June 4 compromise draft over the more recent drafts, which provide incentive for developers to empty buildings of all tenants.
The key vote on the Demolition Ordinance will be the one by the Planning Commission on November 6. BTU will be calling all tenants to come out to the meeting. We need Planning on our side to save Berkeley from the bulldozer.
Landlords Form PAC
