Category: California

EBRHA BALLOT MEASURE GUIDE

10/18/2022

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.

Imposes an annual $68 parcel tax for single-family parcels and per unit for multifamily
Estimated $500 per $100K assessed value
20 years, raising approximately $12,000,000 annually
Exemptions for low-income households and others, and citizen oversight, be adopted

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?

Extends eviction protections to tenants in RVs, new units, educators, and students
Not for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), during the 10-year period after construction
Removes failure to execute a new lease as a just cause for eviction

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?

Bond would raise $350 million for the purchase, renovation, or construction of affordable housing
$290 million for street and sidewalk fixes
Additional funds could be used for parks and open spaces, libraries, police and fire stations, and other city facilities

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?

Every business operating in Oakland pays a flat rate business tax on their “gross receipts,” or their total yearly income.
Size doesn’t matter under the current system.
The progressive business tax ballot measure would completely overhaul the city’s tax code by creating a tiered structure in which companies with higher gross receipts, or yearly incomes, pay higher tax rates.
If approved, companies with $1 million or less in gross receipts will pay lower taxes going forward, while those making more than $1 million per year will see their taxes go up.

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?

Oakland already provides grants and loans to organizations that develop affordable housing in the city
These organizations are non-profit groups, which in many cases own and manage the developments
The 13,000 units authorized by Measure Q would be "social housing," which by definition would accommodate low-income, very low-income, and extremely low-income residents. Oakland needs 13,000 affordable housing units to eliminate its deficit and meet the state's affordable housing goal by 2031

City of Richmond - Measure P - Rent CPI Cap --- VOTE NO
Should the city of Richmond further limit annual rent increases for rent-controlled units?

Measure would amend the city’s rent-control ordinance
LImit annual rent increases for rent-controlled units to 3%, or 60% of the Consumer Price Index, whichever is less
The current Annual General Adjustment for 2022 is five point two (5.2%) percent

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.

CONTRIBUTE TODAY!

LEGAL FUND CONTRIBUTION

The Legal Fund helps EBRHA fight for the rights of property owners and work on additional rental housing industry issues. This fund directly supports our daily advocacy and continued education efforts, to ensure that your rental business is supported and your voice as a property owner is heard.

EBRHA-PAC CONTRIBUTION

The political efforts of the East Bay Rental Housing Association come from the Political Action Committee (EBRHA-PAC). The EBRHA-PAC is a nonprofit and nonpartisan committee dedicated to supporting local ballot measures and candidates that have a positive impact on the rental housing industry.

Potential Taxes to Housing Providers for Current Oakland Ballot Measures - Click to View

Legislative Updates June 23, 2022

6/23/2022

EBRHA is Tracking

AB 2053 - Establishes a massive new state agency, the California Housing Authority, for the purpose of developing mixed income “SOCIAL HOUSING” (emphasis added). This bill calls into question who should own and operate “affordable” rental housing in the state. EBRHA and CalRHA affiliates strongly oppose.
AB 2383 – Protects convicted felons by creating a new class of protected individuals that are not recognized as a protected class by any other civil rights legislation (other than Oakland and San Francisco). The safety and security of tenants will be compromised as the bill treats all felonies as if they are the same. EBRHA and CalRHA affiliates strongly oppose.
AB 2597 - Requires the state Building Standards Commission (BSC) to approve mandatory building standards for the safe indoor ambient air temperature in all rental housing. Despite significant amendments, EBRHA and CalRHA affiliates strongly oppose.

Bills That Did Not Pass

AB 2469 – Establishes a massive statewide registry. Died on the Assembly floor and authored by Ms. Wicks. EBRHA and CalRHA affiliates strongly oppose.
AB 2713 - The newly appointed Assembly Housing chair, Buffy Wicks (D.-Berkeley) sought not just once, twice but three times to author a bill (AB 2713) that would have substantially revised the provisions of AB 1482 (Statutes of 2019). EBRHA and CalRHA affiliates strongly oppose.
AB 2713 - Redefines "just cause" statute. Died on the Assembly floor. EBRHA and CalRHA affiliates strongly oppose.
SB 1335 - Prohibits the use of any form of a person’s credit history/report as part of applying for a residential rental unit if that applicant provides "alternatives of financial responsibility" (not defined). The committee accepted argument that credit reports are universally used by creditors. EBRHA and CalRHA affiliates strongly oppose.

Bill That Passed

AB 1738 - Mandates the installation of EV charging stations in the parking lots of every multifamily property. To comply, residential property owners would have collectively spent billions of dollars to comply with the proposed mandate. With amendments accepted, the bill will not impose that mandate unless owners pull a building permit (new construction) and undertake major remodeling of parking lots. Amended as requested.

MORE DETAILS

Electric charging vehicle station retrofit mandate bill is massively amended
AB 1738 was just amended at our request. Up until two days ago the bill mandated the installation of EV charging stations in the parking lots of every multifamily property. To comply, residential property owners would have collectively spent billions of dollars to comply with the proposed mandate. As amended, and per our request, the bill will not impose that mandate unless owners pull a building permit and undertake major remodeling of parking lots.

Protecting Convicted Felons
AB 2383 essentially creates a new class of protected individuals that are not recognized as a protected class by any other civil rights legislation (other than Oakland and San Francisco). Members of this new class, unlike other protected classes are not in the class because of immutable characteristics. The safety and security of tenants will be compromised. The bill treats all felonies as if they have the same consequences and allows applicants that have a felony to dispute owners decision not to rent. Available rental units would be kept off the market for up to three weeks during which time the applicant presents their arguments. All other qualified applicants would be forced to wait until the “felon” applicant exhausts all of their remedies to rent. The bill will be heard in the Senate next week.

Use of Credit Reports is Preserved
SB 1335 would have prohibit the use of any form of a person’s credit history as part of applying for a residential rental unit if that applicant provides "alternatives of financial responsibility" (not defined) in instances where there is any form of government rent subsidy. This past week the bill died in a committee of the Assembly. The committee accepted our argument that credit reports are universally used by creditors. Creditors review overall debt load and the performance of debt repayment. The bill would have supplanted the lawful and purposeful use of credit reports. The use of the term “alternatives of financial responsibility” did not assure the legal obligation to always pay rent in the event of default nor did it guarantee prompt payment. Unlawful detainers would have become far more complicated than ever. We are quite pleased that the bill died along with many other bill regarding the use of credit reports.

Mandatory Cooling Standards May Become Law
AB 2597 (Bloom) was recently approved by the lower house of the legislature, the Assembly. EBRHA continues to oppose the bill, despite significant amendments. At one time the bill would have declared all existing rental housing to be substandard if at the dwelling did not provide adequate cooling (not defined!). Now, the bill charges the state Housing and Community Development Department to develop, propose and recommend new building code requirements to the state Building Standards Commission for all new and existing housing to provide for adequate residential cooling. This ill defined standard will (not could) cost thousands of dollars per existing dwelling.

AB 2053 (Lee) creates the CA Housing Authority, but more important it establishes the CA Social Housing Act. The sole purpose of the bill is for the entity to “own housing which shall be provided at sub-market prices and allocated (to tenants) according to specific rules (price control) rather than according to market mechanisms (privately owned rental housing). The entity that would be created is charged with the responsibility to buy existing rental and develop new housing. It will openly compete with private ownership and benefit by not paying any taxes, thus driving market prices of all rental housing. The bill will soon be heard in the Senate.

OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING & HOMELESSNESS LEGISLATION:

AB 2011 - The Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act. This bill would pair new opportunities to build 100% affordable housing and mixed-income housing on underutilized commercial sites with requirements that developers meet a range of responsible wage and training standards. You can read more about AB 2011 here.
AB 2244 - Reduction of Parking Requirements for Religious Institutions. This bill would reduce parking requirements for newly built religious institutions to instead allow for construction of housing developments on that space.
AB 2334 - Double Density Bonus for Affordable Housing. This bill would promote the expansion of affordable housing by increasing the sites available for higher-density affordable housing developments to include areas with low vehicle travel.
AB 2021 - Building Affordable Housing on Tax-Defaulted Properties. This bill would require county tax collectors to compile and distribute a list of tax-defaulted properties to the City, County, and qualifying non-profit organizations and offer them "first dibs" on buying those properties to use for approved purposes like affordable housing or open space, for example.

California Legislature Extends Residential Eviction Moratorium and Implements Rental Assistance Program for Landlords and Tenants

2/9/2021

Effective February 1, 2021, the California Legislature and Governor Gavin Newsom approved Senate Bill (“SB”) 91 – Eviction Protection and Relief Act in further response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. In essence, SB 91 extends core tenant protections established by August 2020’s Assembly Bill (“AB”) 3088,[1] but also establishes the State Rental Assistance Program, provides rental assistance for landlords and tenants, and closes existing loopholes in AB 3088.

Continue reading at The National Law Review.

What comes next for Bay Area's reopening? Here's what you need to know

1/25/2021

California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday lifted the regional stay-at-home order for the entire state, allowing counties to re-enter the color-coded reopening system. That means reopening will no longer be based on intensive care unit availability...

Continue reading at San Francisco Chronicle.

EBRHA BALLOT MEASURE GUIDE

CONTRIBUTE TODAY!

Legislative Updates June 23, 2022

California Legislature Extends Residential Eviction Moratorium and Implements Rental Assistance Program for Landlords and Tenants

What comes next for Bay Area's reopening? Here's what you need to know

Categories