Lock landlord and tenant advocates in a room and tell them not to come out until an agreement is reached.
That was essentially the instructions the Alameda Board of Supervisors gave in their March 26th meeting.
No changes to report for now for housing providers in Alameda County, and that’s a good thing. We like boring and do not like to be the bearer of the bad news that there are more onerous landlording rules to follow.
If you haven’t gotten the memo by now, rent and eviction controls are spreading throughout the Bay Area. What was once an urban phenomenon has now crept into suburbia and other parts of California not traditionally associated with tenant activism. When we first began our legal careers, there were only three ordinances to contend with, namely San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley. Now, there are too many to mention.
With Oakland supplanting San Franciso as the greatest bastion of tenant rights, the lingering question is whether this activism would find its way into unincorporated parts of Alameda County. Thankfully, sober-minded Supervisors have hit the pause button, for the time being.
In a spirited debate on March 26, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors was tasked with airing out a host of proposals to expand tenant protections above and beyond state law.
Out of several proposals, a couple of them stood out.
Mandatory mediation in landlord-tenant disputes
It’s hard to dispute the notion that housing providers and tenants should come together with a third party to air out disputes, but as it was often mentioned in the Board of Supervisors meeting, “the devil is in the details.”
At what point should this requirement of mediation be triggered? Can tenants engage in stalling tactics when there is a rent increase, only to claim that there are further grievances to elongate the mediation process? Questions abound with no clear answers at this point.
In no-fault evictions, increased relocation payments to up to five months of rent or HUD’s Fair Market Rent, whichever is greater.
Several housing providers commented publicly that this is an exorbitant amount and that they cannot afford this windfall payout. Supervisor David Haubert, who has consistently empathized with the hardships of rental housing providers, echoed the frustration of landlords who have not been paid rent for years.
Is it fundamentally unfair for housing providers to pay massive relocation payments to escort a tenant out of a rental unit when they have not been paid rent in 3 years? It’s unconscionable, Haubert says, and we agree.
Where we go from here
As if by parenting children, the Board of Supervisors has put landlord and tenant advocates in a time-out to work out differences and iron out kinks in future legislation. After some rancor, it was agreed that this dialogue would take place within 75 days before the Board of Supervisors takes action.
Chris Moore is a rental housing provider in unincorporated Alameda County and also serves as a volunteer board member of the East Bay Rental Housing Association. We asked him to chime in.
It's critical for both housing providers and renter advocates to meet for both sides to understand each other's perspectives on the proposed ordinance.
As written, the ordinance will have the unintended consequence of reducing the supply of rental housing and primarily have a negative impact on those that provide affordable housing to the community.