Alameda County continues to eye increased tenant protections with no consensus brokered between landlord and tenant camps

Militant tenant advocates have put forth an ambitious agenda to strengthen renter protections. If landlord and tenant groups cannot come together to reach a compromise, the Board of Supervisors will need to break the stalemate and make a decision on their own.

In our last update on unincorporated parts of Alameda County, we expressed concerns that radical tenant groups have put forth a host of new proposals that would be detrimental to housing providers.

In their last meeting on this subject, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors decided to kick the can down the road by forming an ad hoc committee with Supervisor David Haubert and Supervisor Elisa Marquez responsible for facilitating ongoing discussions between landlord and tenant camps.

After months of fruitless discussions, this is taxing the patience of lawmakers. According to Shawn Wilson, Supervisor Haubert’s Chief of Staff, there are last-ditch meetings scheduled in May and June to hear out both Alameda County property owners and renters.

In this back and forth, we were encouraged that Supervisor Haubert is eliciting feedback from average landlords and not only industry insiders who have lawmakers on speed dial.

Among the topics of discussion are mandatory mediation when landlord-tenant disputes arise, increased relocation payments when tenants are evicted through no fault of their own, and added just cause eviction protections.

If it's not broken, don't fix it. There is a plethora of state laws already in place to protect renters. 

Chris Moore is a housing provider in Alameda County and a volunteer board member of the East Bay Rental Property Association. He reaffirms our point that many tenant protections are already codified in state law. In his words:

"Enacting more regulations on top of existing regulations only serves to drive up operating costs of housing providers and to discourage investment in the community by housing providers, in particular small community housing providers, who provide affordable housing. The end result of higher operating costs and lower investment in the community is higher rent prices, thus, the ordinances will have a negative impact on renters via higher rent prices."

We are hopeful that housing providers and tenant groups can reach a consensus in the near future, but it’s possible that both camps will not come to a compromise and a stalemate might continue.

If that is the case, the Supervisors might need to consider what's best for the community and make decisions on their own. This discourse has been going on for far too long and there has been no shortage of input for lawmakers to digest.

We would say "Contact your lawmakers," but they've already heard from you.

Of course, you can rely on informed advice from Bornstein Law whatever regulatory regime is put into place.