City of Oakland - Measure Y - Zoo Parcel Tax --- VOTE NO
This measure proposes to amend Oakland's Municipal Code to fund Oakland Zoo operations, staffing, maintenance, and capital improvements, including but not limited to animal care and rehabilitation, educational and conservation programs, fire prevention, accessibility, and visitor services.
ARGUMENT AGAINST - Measure Y adds a parcel tax to each single-family home of $68 AND the same amount to EACH rental provider's multi-family housing units for 20 years with few exemptions. It imposes a significant financial burden on rental property owners and they are NOT allowed to pass this fee on to their renters. Many small rental providers cannot absorb this additional tax if it cannot be passed on to renters. Plus, this would generate $12 million a year for the Zoo with very little accountability for how the funds are used. If the city mismanages its spending, it can take these taxes for the zoo and place them into the City's general fund.
VOTE NO - EBRHA Opposes this measure.
City of Oakland - Measure V - Just Cause --- VOTE NO
Should the city of Oakland amend its current just cause for eviction ordinance?
ARGUMENT AGAINST - Measure V would further discourage developers from building in the city, which could harm renters by limiting new housing. Short supply is why rents are so high. It prevents rental providers from evicting their renters except for “just cause” reasons, like if a renter hasn’t paid their rent, damaged the property, or is doing something illegal in their apartment. The measure would needlessly add further regulations and red tape to the no-fault eviction process, which is already regulated by the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019. VOTE NO - EBRHA, CalRHA, and NAA Oppose this measure.
City of Oakland - Measure U - Homeless Bond --- VOTE NO
Should the city issue $850 million in general obligation bonds to invest in housing for the homeless and infrastructure projects?
ARGUMENT AGAINST - Measure U promises to put money toward the same purposes as Measure KK, which voters passed in 2016. But we still don’t know how much affordable housing was built or how many streets were repaved with the $600 million bond that resulted from that. You can read about Oakland's recent failure towards the homeless in the city auditor's report. This new measure does not include accountability benchmarks, like the number of housing units to be built or the number of streets to be repaved and at what cost. Furthermore, the repayment of the $850 million in bonds, accounting for interest, is expected to cost homeowners $1.7 billion in property taxes. VOTE NO - EBRHA, CalRHA, and NAA Oppose this measure.
City of Oakland - Measure T --- VOTE NO
Shall the measure amending Oakland's business tax rates to create a progressive rate structure that would (1) impose the highest rates on the highest grossing businesses, (2) increase Oakland's annual tax revenue by an estimated $20,900,000, and (3) generate approximately $124,000,000 in total annual revenue for municipal services by imposing business tax rates of .05% to .55% of gross receipts, and other rates as stated in the measure, be adopted?
City of Oakland - Measure Q --- VOTE NO
Shall the measure authorize the City of Oakland to develop, construct, acquire, or assist in the development of, up to 13,000 low-rent residential units in social housing projects within the City for the purpose of providing affordable rental housing be adopted?
City of Richmond - Measure P - Rent CPI Cap --- VOTE NO
Should the city of Richmond further limit annual rent increases for rent-controlled units?
ARGUMENT AGAINST - The vast majority of Richmond rental providers are small mom-and-pop owners, many with immigrant and blue-collar backgrounds. Measure P would prevent them from keeping up with rising costs, and saving for major repairs. Inflation pressure and complicated regulations have already caused many small rental housing providers to sell their properties, often to big corporations — or to just stop renting altogether. Measure P would only exacerbate this situation, while directly hurting renters. Additionally, Richmond has only met 50% of its state-mandated housing targets. That’s in part because the city’s strict rent control and expensive regulations make it financially less feasible to build rental units. The short housing supply is the reason for high rents. Measure P would intensify our housing shortage, make it harder to meet affordable housing targets, and increase rents in the long run.
VOTE NO - EBRHA, CalRHA, and NAA Oppose this measure.
Setting some "ambitious targets" to ensure affordable housing and eliminate homelessness in Alameda County, the county is looking for landlords to match with local residents in need of a home as part of its Vision 2026.
The program is part of Alameda County's efforts to maximize the countywide Measure A1 housing bond to invest approximately $340 million over the next three years.
Property owners and housing providers that are "friendly to people on a fixed income or to people with third-party housing assistance funds" are being sought. Tenants accepted for the program pay a percentage of their income towards rent, with the remaining balance supported by public and private funding. Payment is guaranteed by a nonprofit organization.
Continue reading at PleasantWeekly.com.