Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Alameda, California, Measure K, Rent Control Charter Amendment (November 2018)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Local ballot measure elections in 2018
Measure K: Alameda Rent Control Charter Amendment
LocalBallotMeasures Final.png
The basics
Election date:
November 6, 2018
Status:
Defeatedd Defeated
Topic:
Local housing
Related articles
Local housing on the ballot
November 6, 2018 ballot measures in California
Alameda County, California ballot measures
Local charter amendments on the ballot
See also
Alameda, California

A charter amendment regarding the city's rent control law was on the ballot for Alameda voters in Alameda County, California, on November 6, 2018. It was defeated.

A yes vote was a vote in favor of renewing the rent control law passed in 2016—Ordinance 3148, the Rent Review, Rent Stabilization, and Limitations on Evictions law—and requiring voter approval for any changes to the law.
A no vote was a vote against this initiative to renew the rent control law, Ordinance 3148, thereby allowing it to expire on December 31, 2019.

Election results

Alameda, California, Measure K, Rent Control Charter Amendment (November 2018)

Result Votes Percentage
Yes 12,993 39.69%

Defeated No

19,743 60.31%
Results are officially certified.
Source

Text of measure

Ballot question

The ballot question was as follows:[1]

“

Shall the Charter be amended by incorporating Ordinance 3148, the City's Rent Review, Rent Stabilization and Limitations on Evictions law, with the following modifications: (a) preclude City Council from amending the law in response to changing conditions and concerns, and require voter approval instead, and (b) eliminate the December 31, 2019 sunset clause?[2]

”

Impartial analysis

The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Alameda City Attorney:

“

In March 2016, the Alameda City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3148, a rent control ordinance (“the Ordinance”). On August 8, 2016, the City Council voted to place the Ordinance on the November 8, 2016 election ballot. The voters approved the Ordinance, including a provision that the City Council retained the authority to amend the Ordinance in the future in response to “changing conditions and concerns”.

The proposed measure would incorporate the Ordinance into the City Charter and make two significant changes. First, it would eliminate the City Council’s authority to amend the Ordinance instead requiring a vote of the people for any amendment. Second, it would eliminate the Sunset Provision currently established as December 31, 2019, meaning the law would remain in effect unless the voters voted to amend or repeal it.

The current Ordinance limits rent increases to once a year, requires a review process for all rent increases above 5%, and requires landlords to pay relocation fees when terminating certain tenancies. In addition, for all rental units in the City, the Ordinance limits the grounds upon which a landlord may terminate a tenancy. Those grounds include a landlord’s right to terminate a tenancy for “cause” (e.g. failure to pay rent, breach of lease, etc.), “no fault” (e.g., owner move in, withdrawal from the rental market), or, with certain restrictions, “no cause” (no articulated basis). In cases of “no fault” and “no cause” evictions, landlords must pay relocation benefits to displaced tenants. These benefits amount to $1,595, which is periodically adjusted for inflation, plus the equivalent of one month’s rent for each year that a tenant has rented the unit capped at four months’ rent. The Ordinance remains in effect until December 31, 2019, unless the City Council affirmatively acts to extend it.

If the proposed measure is passed, the foregoing provisions of the current Ordinance will remain in effect except for the following two changes: (1) the Ordinance will not sunset on December 31, 2019; and (2) the Ordinance can only be modified by a vote of the people not by act of the City Council.

The proposed measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of Alameda voters.[2]

”
—Alameda City Attorney[3]

Full text

The full text of the measure is available here.

Support

Supporters

The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[3]

  • Anthony ("Tony") Daysog, former city council member
  • Michael Gorman, former city council member

Arguments in favor

Official argument

The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[3]

“

Whether you rent or own, the cost of housing is Alameda is too high. Measure K will protect our seniors, working families, and our most vulnerable residents.

Measure K is a common sense initiative that will protect Alameda's rent control law and will prevent politicians from changing it in the future. By putting the people of Alameda in charge, Measure K protects our rent control system and ensures it will continue to work for tenants and property owners alike. A YES vote on Measure K will:

  • Protect Rent Control: Measure K will cap rent increases at 5% annually and require a hearing before any larger rental increases can be implemented.
  • Prevent Evictions: Landlords will not be permitted to evict tenants just to raise rents. However, Measure K allows landlords to maintain their right to evict bad tenants who violate the terms of their lease - by dealing drugs or engaging in domestic violence or other criminal activity.
  • Provide Relocation Assistance to Displaced Tenants: Measure K provides relocation assistance where tenants, through no fault of their own, must relocate.

Alameda voters spoke loud and clear by passing Measure L1, the 2016 Rent Stabilization Ordinance, and rejecting the extreme, activist-sponsored Measure M1 by overwhelming margins. A YES vote for Measure K safeguards this important law for our community by placing it into the Alameda City Charter for good.

Protect Alameda's rent control law! Vote YES on Measure K.[2]

”

Opposition

Opponents

The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[3]

  • Malia Vella, vice mayor, city of Alameda
  • Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, council member, city of Alameda
  • Frank Matarrese, council member, city of Alameda
  • Jim Oddie, council member, city of Alameda

Arguments against

Official argument

The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[3]

“

We strongly urge you to vote NO on Measure K.

Measure K locks Ordinance 3148, the current law governing rent increases, into our City Charter so that it can only be changed by a costly election. This is just not a realistic or practical way to address our housing crisis.

Roughly half of Alamedans live in rental housing and most Alamedans agree that we need fair and equitable laws that protect renters from unreasonable rent increases. But nothing is perfect.

Ordinance 3148 is a good start, but needs fixes and we shouldn’t have to wait months and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to make them. And we may have to do more than just fix minor errors, and do it often. The reality is that housing policy is complicated and must adapt to everchanging State laws.

If Ordinance 3148 becomes part of the City Charter, any change would require a costly and time-consuming election, regardless of whether the change is to correct minor errors or critical changes needed to remedy major flaws.

The Registrar of Voters says an election in Alameda would cost the Alameda taxpayers a minimum of $188,000 and can go to over half a million dollars for a special election – even to correct the tiniest error in our Charter.

Let’s be practical in addressing our housing crisis and maintain the flexibility to enact laws that serve all Alamedans, while adapting to the circumstances unique to our island city.

Join us in continuing to ensure balanced and fair treatment for all – in the tradition of Alameda – by voting NO on Measure K.[2]

”

Local rent control ballot measures, 2016–2018

Between 2016 and 2018, there were 16 local ballot measures to expand or increase rent control in 13 jurisdictions in California. Seven of the proposals were approved, and nine of the proposals were defeated. Measures varied in the proposed base rents, maximum allowed annual increase in rents, and causes for tenant termination.

The passage of California Proposition 10 on November 6, 2018, could have had the effect of expanding rent control in cities where the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, rather than a municipal ordinance, defined the limits on rent control.

The following table provides a list of local ballot measures related to rent control in California:

Note: Click "show" to expand the table.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

This measure was put on the ballot through a successful initiative petition campaign.

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Alameda County, "Election Information," accessed September 5, 2018
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Alameda County, "Measure K Text," accessed September 6, 2018
v • e
Local ballot measures in California
Counties
California
Analysis
Political topics
Tax measures
Flag of California
v • e
State of California
Sacramento (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Alameda,_California,_Measure_K,_Rent_Control_Charter_Amendment_(November_2018)&oldid=7611182"