Alameda, California, Rent Control City Charter Amendment, Measure M1 (November 2016)
| Measure M1: Alameda Rent Control City Charter Amendment |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| November 8, 2016 |
| Status: |
 Defeated
|
| Topic: |
| Local rent control |
| Related articles |
| Local rent control on the ballot November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California Alameda County, California ballot measures |
| See also |
| Alameda, California |
A rent control city charter amendment measure was on the ballot for Alameda voters in Alameda County, California, on November 8, 2016. It was defeated.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of amending the city charter to create an elected Rent Control Board, provide certain limits for rent increase and termination reasons, and impose fees in the event of certain tenancy terminations, thereby competing with Measure L. |
| A no vote was a vote against amending the city charter to create an elected Rent Control Board, provide certain limits for rent increase and termination reasons, and impose fees in the event of certain tenancy terminations |
Election results
| Measure M1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| No | 23,768 | 65.93% | ||
| Yes | 12,281 | 34.07% | ||
- Election results from Alameda County Registrar of Voters
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the ballot:[1]
| “ |
Shall the City Charter be amended to (a) limit annual residential rent increases for certain units to 65% of the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index, (b) create an elected Rent Control Board separate from the City with authority to hire staff, impose fees on landlords for program funding and assess penalties, (c) limit the reasons for terminating tenancies and (d) require rental property owners to pay relocation fees to tenants when terminating certain tenancies? [2] |
” |
Impartial analysis
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Alameda City Attorney:
| “ |
In March 2016, the City of Alameda adopted an ordinance limiting rent increases to once a year, requiring mediation for all increases above 5%, limiting grounds for evictions and requiring landlords to pay relocation fees when terminating certain tenancies. This proposed City Charter amendment would replace that structure with a new, voter-elected regulatory body empowered to manage a rent control program. Candidates for the five-member Rent Control Board do not have to be landlords or tenants, only Alameda voters. The Board would budget for, hire and manage its own staff; establish rents; issue regulations; conduct investigations and hearings; impose fees on landlords; and impose penalties for non-compliance. Based on the experience of other California cities with rent control, the cost for the Board and its staff to operate would be approximately $3.3 million annually. Landlords would be assessed fees to pay for the program (estimated to be $235/unit). The City’s General Fund would be required to pay for the Board and programs until adequate fees are available. The amendment would “roll back” rents to the amount charged for a unit on May 5, 2015. That maximum allowable rent could be increased by no more than 65% of the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index each year. (For 2016, rent could be increased 1.7% over the May 2015 rent). Landlords could petition the Board for a larger rent increase. A landlord could terminate a tenancy only for the following reasons: (1) failure to pay rent; (2) breach of the lease; (3) damage to the unit or nuisance; (4) refusing access; (5) a “move-in” to the unit by the owner or immediate family as the person’s primary residence; (6) substantial repairs; (7) withdrawal of the unit from the rental market. A landlord who terminates a tenancy for reasons (5), (6) or (7) would be required to make relocation payments, ranging from $7,300 to $18,300 depending on the tenancy length and whether the tenant is over 62, disabled, or has a minor child. Tenants may sue landlords for attorneys’ fees, damages and penalties equal to three times the amount of the unlawful rent. The fiscal impact of the amendment on the City is uncertain. Once passed, the City must hold a special election in early 2017 to elect members of the Board at a cost of over $500,000. Until the Board establishes and implements another revenue source, the City’s General Fund is required to fund the program including Board-hired staff and lawyers with no budgetary control by the City Manager and/or City Council. Also, based on the experience of other California cities with rent control, the City will continue to require City staff to address rent issues and to incur costs of potential legal challenges naming the City. There are potential legal issues with the amendment as drafted. If passed, and a legal challenge is successful, the courts could void some or all of the amendment provisions. [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]
- Josie Camacho, Executive Sec. Treasurer, Alameda Labor Council AFL-CIO
- Mayme V. Mills, Property Owner
- Gray Harris, School Board
- Jeff DelBono, Firefighter/Captain/Paramedic Alameda Firefighters Assoc. L689
- Catherine Pauling, President, Alameda Renters Coalition
Arguments in favor
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[3]
| “ |
Vote YES on Measure M1 to ensure that Alameda’s seniors, working families, teachers, health care workers, and veterans can continue to live in our city. It’s a common sense measure that will keep Alamedans in their homes and preserve our neighborhoods. Measure M1 was carefully crafted to meet the specific, unique needs of Alameda. More than 8,000 Alamedans signed petitions to place Measure ___ on the ballot to implement a measured and tested solution to our current housing crisis by protecting current and future Alameda renters. Measure M1 WILL NOT unfairly burden landlords: • Exempts all single-family homes • Exempts all in-law units • Creates an independent Rent Board to administer the law That’s why both Alameda small landlords and renters support Measure M1. Measure M1 WILL protect households that rent: • Strengthens existing law • Ties rent increases to inflation • Requires just cause for eviction No one should have to suffer the kind of treatment the seniors, veterans and families of the Bayview Apartments experienced when all the residents were told to leave their homes on the same day. Alameda can do better. Alameda’s housing crisis is real. Young students are forced to switch schools as their parents search for affordable housing. Families are too frightened to report grievances to their landlords for fear of retaliatory evictions. Alameda needs Measure M1. No one who adheres to their lease should have to live with the daily fear of sudden high rent increases or eviction. Limiting evictions to just cause allows responsible tenants who pay their rent on time to safely request repairs. Tying rent increases to the rate of inflation allows families to plan for the future. Join teachers, firefighters, landlords, the Alameda Labor Council, retirees, and working families in voting YES on Measure M1[2] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[3]
- Kathleen Schumacher, President, Alameda Citizens Task Force
- Trish Spencer, Mayor, City of Alameda
- Tony Daysog, City Councilmember
- James W. Sweeney
- Dorothy Freeman
Arguments against
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[3]
| “ |
There is a rental crisis in Alameda that requires the protection of tenants from unreasonable increases in their rent. At issue, is how best to do it. Measure Y, the City Ordinance, is the better choice, because: Measure X, the Rent Control Initiative, is inflexible, not easily amendable. If passed, it will alter the City Charter. The only way to change it is to hold another time consuming, expensive election in which a majority of the City voters approve the change. The City Ordinance, Measure Y, which was implemented in March, can be changed by a simple majority of the City Council. A subject as difficult, controversial, and complex as rent control—balancing the rights of tenants and landlords—must be flexible and open to change. Measure X requires a hearing and approval by a Rent Control Board of all rent increases above 65% of the Consumer Price Index (now under 2%) regardless of tenant – landlord agreement. Measure Y allows the parties to reach agreement without a hearing, thus avoiding binding arbitration, which is why Measure X costs twice as much to implement as Measure Y. Measure X, if passed, will protect only 72% of Alameda’s rental housing (California law exempts all housing built after 1995, single family homes and condos from binding rent control.) Measure Y, the City Ordinance protects all rental housing because it requires mediation, which does not violate State law. The choice is clear. Vote no on Measure X and yes on Measure Y.[2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
This measure was put on the ballot through a successful initiative petition campaign.
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Alameda Local rent control. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
|
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Alameda County, "November 8, 2016 General Election Local Measures," accessed October 12, 2016
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 City of Alameda, "Alameda rent control initiative - impartial analysis.pdf," accessed October 27, 2016
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2026 | 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 |
