Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
Alameda, California, Rent Stabilization Ordinance Adoption, Measure L1 (November 2016)
| Measure L1: Alameda Rent Stabilization Ordinance Adoption |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| November 8, 2016 |
| Status: |
 Approved
|
| 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 measure was on the ballot for Alameda voters in Alameda County, California, on November 8, 2016. It was approved.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of the city's proposed rent control ordinance that would (1) require mediation for any annual rent increases more than 5 percent, (2) limit the reasons for eviction, and (3) require landlords to pay for relocation when ending certain leases, thereby competing with Measure M. |
| A no vote was a vote against the city's proposed rent control ordinance that would (1) require mediation for any annual rent increases more than 5 percent, (2) limit the reasons for eviction, and (3) require landlords to pay for relocation when ending certain leases. |
Election results
| Measure L1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 20,167 | 55.51% | ||
| No | 16,164 | 44.49% | ||
- Election results from Alameda County Registrar of Voters
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the ballot:[1]
| “ |
City of Alameda Measure: Shall the voters adopt the City’s March 31, 2016 Rent Stabilization Ordinance, which (a) limits residential rent increases to once annually, (b) requires mediation for all residential rent increases above 5%, including binding decisions on rent increases for most rental units, (c) restricts reasons for evictions, (d) requires landlords to pay relocation fees when terminating certain tenancies, and (e) permits the City Council to amend the ordinance to address changing concerns and conditions?[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 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 Measure, placed on the ballot by the City Council, asks the voters of Alameda to confirm that Ordinance. This Measure does not “cap” the allowable percentage of annual rent increases but does require a landlord who wants to increase rents by more than 5% to have the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC), a committee of Alameda tenants and property owners, hear the matter. California law generally allows rent restrictions on multi‐family units built before 1995, but not on single‐family homes and condominiums nor on multi‐family units built after 1995. This Measure provides that if a landlord or tenant in a pre‐1995 multi‐family unit disagrees with the decision of the RRAC, either party may have the rent increase heard by a neutral hearing officer, whose decision is final and binding. For other rental units, the RRAC acts as a mediator and its decision is advisory only. The Measure requires landlords of all rental units to: (1) provide a copy of the Ordinance to existing and prospective tenants; (2) notify tenants in writing of the availability of the RRAC process and, when the rent increase is above 5%, that the RRAC will be considering the rent increase; (3) raise rents no more than once annually; and (4) offer a one‐time one‐year lease. In addition, for all rental units in the City, the Measure limits the grounds upon which a landlord may terminate a tenancy. While landlords retain their right to terminate for “cause” (e.g. failure to pay rent, breach of lease, etc.), there is a process provided for “no fault” (e.g., an owner move in, withdrawal of the property from the rental market) and for “no cause” terminations. A landlord’s use of “no cause” terminations, however, is restricted. In cases of “no fault” and “no cause” evictions, landlords must pay relocation benefits to tenants being displaced. These benefits amount to $1,500 plus the equivalent of one month’s rent for each year that a tenant has rented the unit capped at four months’ rent. The Measure will sunset on December 31, 2019 unless the City Council affirmatively acts to retain some or all of its provisions. An annual review to assess effectiveness is required. To maintain flexibility to address changing conditions, the Measure provides that Alameda voters delegate authority to the City Council to modify or repeal the Measure. The Measure itself does not provide how the rent program will be funded and, to date, costs are being paid from the City’s General Fund. At City Council direction, a study is underway to justify assessing a program fee to landlords, a portion of which could be passed on to tenants. Cost of the rent program established by the Ordinance has been estimated by an outside consultant to be $1.95 million annually. [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]
- Arthur Kurrasch, Chair, Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
- Helen Sause, President, Alameda Home Team
- Tim Corriero, Alameda Renter
- Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, City Councilmember, Alameda City Council
- Jim Oddie, City Councilmember, Alameda City Council
Arguments in favor
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[3]
| “ |
We are facing an affordability crisis in Alameda. We must take action to protect affordable housing options for our hard working families, seniors, and school children. Measure L1 takes immediate action to stop evictions and limit rent increases, but unlike Measure M1, it does this without creating an out-of-control bureaucracy that forces the City to spend money on administrators instead of on critical services like police, fire, parks, libraries, and more. Measure L1 is the result of months of work with tenants and landlords and is a common-sense and balanced approach to the affordability crisis. Your YES vote on Measure L1 will help make housing more affordable in Alameda by continuing the following protections, giving the current city Ordinance a chance to work: 1 — Prohibit any rent increase over 5% unless agreed upon through mediation between the tenant and landlord. 2 – Prohibit mass evictions of entire buildings. 3 - Discourage evictions solely to increase rents by limiting any rent increase to the next tenant to no more than 5%. 4 - Require landlords to pay a relocation fee and cover moving expenses so tenants have the ability to move in the least disruptive manner possible. 5 - Ensure that seniors, people with disabilities, and families with children are not treated as less desirable and expensive tenants, potentially narrowing their housing choices for years to come. Measure L1 protects our most vulnerable populations from skyrocketing housing costs without creating an expensive new bureaucracy. Measure L1 saves millions of dollars that can be used to fund police, fire, ambulance response, and other essential city services. Protect our residents by supporting Measure L1, which curbs rent increases and protects our rental housing without wasting funds on an unaccountable, duplicative bureaucracy. Vote Yes on Measure L1.[2] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[3]
- Jill Broadhurst, Executive Director, East Bay Rental Housing Association
Arguments against
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[3]
| “ |
Property owners AND renters, will be affected negatively by this ordinance because it will make it significantly more difficult for owners to remove drug dealers, nuisance, and problem tenants from their buildings. Do you want to have to go to court to testify against your drug dealing, nuisance neighbor? This adds thousands of units to "Just Cause" protections, protections that keep problem renters in your neighborhood. The only remedy: to spend thousands on a lawyer, or get the city attorney's office involved. Do you live near a nuisance neighbor? This will preserve their right to stay, affecting your life situation everyday. Alameda council just approved a rent control program in March, it hasn't even had a chance to work in the city yet. Now we are looking at restricting the rules further? Do not rush these changes that fundamentally affect ALL residents in our neighborhoods. This ordinance forces owners to pay relocation costs in the thousands of dollars. How can small owners manage all these financial increases? This measure will lead to owners selling their buildings because of the layers of red tape and higher citycreated fees. In a few years, the result will be the tear down of older, quality housing and the creation of new, cheap box-designed decontrolled buildings. Some facts to remember: 70% of Alameda rental housing is owned by small mom-and-pop owners, many who create our rainbow of ethnic minorities, seniors, and immigrants. 80% of Alameda housing stock is older housing that comes with continued maintenance. No one wants to live next to a blighted eyesore but if the owner can't afford to fix the property, this will happen, through this strict measure. Preserve our diversity and the future of Alameda. Vote NO.[2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
This measure was put on the ballot through a vote of the governing officials of Alameda, California.
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.
Alameda, California, Rent Stabilization Ordinance Adoption, Measure L1 (November 2016) - Google News
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 Atabilization Act - Impartial Analysis.pdf," accessed October 27, 2016
 |
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 |
