Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Oakland Mayors Office Up To Dirty Tricks
Oaklands Mayors Office Is Up To Dirty Tricks. The S.F. IMC Lead Story Has Received Attention From The Oakland Mayors Office.
Oakland Ca--Oaklands Mayors Office is up to dirty tricks. The S.F. IMC lead story has got the attention of Oaklands Mayors Office. In the comment section of the lead story of the S.F.IMC
"Oakland City Council Meetings Heat Up" with a photo of Jerry Brown and Robert Bobb, you will find a comment from Jim Smarler. That same exact comment may also be found on the Message Boards of Just Cause Oakland, also posted by Jim Smarler. Jim Smarler has been a very busy fellow, but that is not his real name.
Keep reading and you will find 2 postings below also on the
Just Cause Oakland Message Boards. Both posted by Jim Smarler, but one of the messages is signed by JUSTIN.
Jim Smarler is the alias used by Justin Horner a staffer of the Oakland Mayors Office. Justin Horner aka Jim Smarler,
may be found at the:
Office Of The Mayor/City Of Oakland
Justin Tierney Horner 510/ 238-7257
Is it legal for the Mayors Office to hide behind the alias Jim Smarler as it communicates with others at Just Cause Oakland or on the S.F. IMC? Does the Mayor condone these actions?
Click below for story"Oaklanders Support Wilson Riles Jr. For Mayor" at Just Cause Oakland Message Board dated 6/3/01. There are 3 replies, and 2 postings/replies are listed as from Jim Smarler, but Smarler slipped and signed his real name on one of the postings as JUSTIN.
See the reply dated 6/4/01 (Time 17:26).
Posted by Jim Smarler, but signed by Justin.
Jim Smarler and Justin Horner of the Mayors Office in Oakland are one and the same.
Click below for "Oaklanders Support Wilson Riles Jr For Mayor" and it's replies... Look for "JUSTIN"
http://www.justcauseoakland.org/phorum/read.php?f=4&i=292&t=292
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Oaklanders" Support
Author: JimSmarler (host hidden)
Date: 06-04-2001 12:43
I suppose more than one Oaklander is technically "Oaklanders."
Haven't heard a peep about his campaign since I read the teeny-tiny article on page 7 or so of the Oakland Tribune (nothing in the Chronicle).
Oh, boy...
*************************************************
Reply To This Message
RE: "Oaklanders" Support
Author: JimSmarler (host hidden)
Date: 06-04-2001 17:26
Oh, also, if 65% of people geeting evicted are people of color, then that means, that WHITES are disproportionately evicted in Oakland (people of color make up more than 65% of Oakland's population).
The stat you really want to use is the eviction rate for African Americans which is, as we say, "hella" higher than their proportion of our City's population. That's the issue.
Latino and Asian eviction rates are, according to EBHO's data, below their percentages in the population.
In either case, a whole lot of people--of all colors--are being evicted.
Just a few thoughts...
Justin
*************************************************
Reply To This Message
RE: "Oaklanders" Support
Author: Skippy (host hidden)
Date: 06-04-2001 17:52
Actually Jim,
The numbers of evictions in Oakland have dropped tremendously. There were approximately 7,400 evictions in 1996, and less than 4,100 in 2000. That's a 40% decrease.
However, there has been a tremendous increase in people complaining of being displaced. My guess is this is due to the difficulty in finding a place to rent after being evicted.
However, this trend is also changing. Look at your classifieds and you'll see that the vacancy rate is increasing, and rents are dropping.
Reply To This Message
*****************************************************
"Oakland City Council Meetings Heat Up" with a photo of Jerry Brown and Robert Bobb, you will find a comment from Jim Smarler. That same exact comment may also be found on the Message Boards of Just Cause Oakland, also posted by Jim Smarler. Jim Smarler has been a very busy fellow, but that is not his real name.
Keep reading and you will find 2 postings below also on the
Just Cause Oakland Message Boards. Both posted by Jim Smarler, but one of the messages is signed by JUSTIN.
Jim Smarler is the alias used by Justin Horner a staffer of the Oakland Mayors Office. Justin Horner aka Jim Smarler,
may be found at the:
Office Of The Mayor/City Of Oakland
Justin Tierney Horner 510/ 238-7257
Is it legal for the Mayors Office to hide behind the alias Jim Smarler as it communicates with others at Just Cause Oakland or on the S.F. IMC? Does the Mayor condone these actions?
Click below for story"Oaklanders Support Wilson Riles Jr. For Mayor" at Just Cause Oakland Message Board dated 6/3/01. There are 3 replies, and 2 postings/replies are listed as from Jim Smarler, but Smarler slipped and signed his real name on one of the postings as JUSTIN.
See the reply dated 6/4/01 (Time 17:26).
Posted by Jim Smarler, but signed by Justin.
Jim Smarler and Justin Horner of the Mayors Office in Oakland are one and the same.
Click below for "Oaklanders Support Wilson Riles Jr For Mayor" and it's replies... Look for "JUSTIN"
http://www.justcauseoakland.org/phorum/read.php?f=4&i=292&t=292
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Oaklanders" Support
Author: JimSmarler (host hidden)
Date: 06-04-2001 12:43
I suppose more than one Oaklander is technically "Oaklanders."
Haven't heard a peep about his campaign since I read the teeny-tiny article on page 7 or so of the Oakland Tribune (nothing in the Chronicle).
Oh, boy...
*************************************************
Reply To This Message
RE: "Oaklanders" Support
Author: JimSmarler (host hidden)
Date: 06-04-2001 17:26
Oh, also, if 65% of people geeting evicted are people of color, then that means, that WHITES are disproportionately evicted in Oakland (people of color make up more than 65% of Oakland's population).
The stat you really want to use is the eviction rate for African Americans which is, as we say, "hella" higher than their proportion of our City's population. That's the issue.
Latino and Asian eviction rates are, according to EBHO's data, below their percentages in the population.
In either case, a whole lot of people--of all colors--are being evicted.
Just a few thoughts...
Justin
*************************************************
Reply To This Message
RE: "Oaklanders" Support
Author: Skippy (host hidden)
Date: 06-04-2001 17:52
Actually Jim,
The numbers of evictions in Oakland have dropped tremendously. There were approximately 7,400 evictions in 1996, and less than 4,100 in 2000. That's a 40% decrease.
However, there has been a tremendous increase in people complaining of being displaced. My guess is this is due to the difficulty in finding a place to rent after being evicted.
However, this trend is also changing. Look at your classifieds and you'll see that the vacancy rate is increasing, and rents are dropping.
Reply To This Message
*****************************************************
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 15:51:38 PST [Show full headers]
From: "Horner, Justin" <JHorner [at] oaklandnet.com> [Add to Address Book]
To: "'Lynda Carson'" <Lyndacarson [at] excite.com>
Subject: RE: Rent Ordinance Changes...Thanks for reply
Lynda:
I don't understand the hang-up with a tenant being able to file a notice with the Rent Board. It doesn't make any difference as far as a tenant's cause of action is concerned. As long as the tenant has a copy of the
30-day, proof of the rent they were paying and proof of the rent the new tenant is paying (or at least a good lead), they should come to the Rent Board and ask for enforcement. There's no reason why they would have to
file with the Rent Board to have the option to pursue enforcement. The tenant can enforce without a notice being filed with the Rent Board--that would actually be a further obstacle, if it were a requirement.
Also, if a 30-day notice is NOT turned-in the Rent Board, it can help the tenant: as the Ordinance currently states, a failure of a landlord to turn in the 30-day notice is a DEFENSE AGAINST EVICTION for the tenant. The Rent
Program even provides a letter to the tenant stating there is no 30-day on file for use in court. That is helpful.
Brunner's office is probably sending you a copy of the staff report, which contains all that we've been talking about and more.
Landlords cooperating: I'm saying that the Landlord Representatives side of this debate cooperate and are eager to talk and hash things out. The tenant
side is not willing or shows no interest in trying to formulate policy (well, I mean, everyone knows the tenants want Just Cause, but from what I've heard, there's not even an agreement on that: this new measure is going to be different than last year's, so there's obviously some type of thinking going on). Of course all landlords don't comply with the current law (in fact, not all people comply with every law), and I don't see how rent
registration will make them either (what if they don't register?).
The Rent Ordinance Changes also provide for a NEW minimum damages provision to make the monetary award attractive enough for lawyers to take good cases.
Then, you won't have to depend on just the City to enforce the law (although you wrote that you see no benefit in more than doubling the budget and staff of the Rent Program for enforcement, so I really don't see who exactly you hope will enforce the law).
Lynda, we are trapped in a private property system. The city cannot guarantee tenancy under any circumstances in a privately held property any more than it can deny tenants their rights to decent housing, the eviction
process and other state-mandated housing laws. I don't see exactly what you are hoping to achieve. For example, I have no idea why a Just Cause measure would stop people from evicting in hopes of getting higher rents. What makes you think the courts are so tenant friendly that they're going to give them such a great deal? San Francisco has very strong tenant protections and plenty of evictions and Berkeley, jeez, they don't even have any poor people left living there, do they? !
I don't know the all the answers. My prediction is that we will eventually have a Just Cause Ordinance, but we will also see that not all of our problems are gone.
Justin
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 17:14:18 PST [Show full headers]
From: "Horner, Justin" <JHorner [at] oaklandnet.com> [Add to Address Book]
To: "'Lynda Carson'" <Lyndacarson [at] excite.com>
Subject: RE: Hello Justin....and Mayors Office....
Lynda:
1) I have repeatedly stated that Oaklanders who want to change policy should get involved and do so: whether through pressuring Councilmembers to vote for proposals they support or putting measures on the ballot for the people of Oakland to decide.
2) You are right: the Rent Board did recommend Just Cause on two occasions; I believe (although it was, you must admit, never confirmed) that 20,000 people signed petitions for the last Just Cause measure. But, no, I am not being flooded with e-mails, phone calls, letters or anything from people wanting a Just Cause ordinance. That, I have said repeatedly, is part of the problem: tenants do not let their preferences known in numbers above a dozen. Floods of e-mails would be great: I'm at jhorner [at] oaklandnet.com, as you know.
3) The Rent Ordinance does not "protect" landlords from "stealing" money from tenants. Tenants currently have a cause of action for unlawful eviction. The problem, as you have pointed out repeatedly and correctly, is
enforcement. The current proposal triples the budget and staffing of the Rent Board to increase enforcement and guarantee the timely processing of petitions. This, I have said, is a reason to support some of the
recommendations.
4) I am not asking anyone to "support a dishonest system." If I believed the City would not follow-through to the best of its ability (which may not be saying much...), I would not ask anyone to support anything. I encourage
people to support the proposals because I believe they are better than what we have. If that is not good enough, or is an unreasonable compromise, I understand.
5) Tenants did not come up with all of the proposals offered, but they did come up with one: budget and staffing. Landlords do NOT want increased
staffing because they are afraid it will lead to bureaucracy. However, the City has a legal obligation to enforce laws it has passed. Also, landlords did not come up with any elements of the proposal either: they are against the eviction protections measure, against the staffing and budget increases, against the fee, and against the minimum damages provision.
6) I don't think it is accurate to say that you "trusted" city government when they passed the moratorium. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have always been critical of the moratorium and clear in your preference for a Just Cause measure. I don't think you (or any other tenant advocate for that matter) ever really thought the moratorium was a good idea. I don't know if that makes the City more trustworthy or what, but I do think it's a
more accurate portrayal of your views.
7) I don't agree that the proposal hurts renters, for reasons I have given you and James already.
8) In your message to James, you stated: "Justin says the Mayors Office is not sure that people want a Just Cause [ordinance]." I did not say that, but I do remember saying that there are people who may not want one or may have
other preferences. I can only think this was an honest mistake and I hope that you now understand what I said. I am also not forcing anyone to accept the proposal...how could I? Regardless of how much we talk, neither you nor
I vote: it's the Council.
Thanks
Justin
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 15:27:37 PST [Show full headers]
From: "Horner, Justin" <JHorner [at] oaklandnet.com> [Add to Address Book]
To: "'Lynda Carson'" <Lyndacarson [at] excite.com>
Subject: RE: Message to Mayors Office...
Lynda:
OK, OK, you've made your point: you want Just Cause. I suppose there's nothing else to talk about. I do, however, resent the implication that I'm trying to divide anyone. I am not asking you or anyone else to compromise
anything (and I am eager to know how you arrive at that conclusion): the question to support or not is up to you. If I were stuffing anything down anyone's throat I don't know why I would spend time clarifying the changes
and trying to show how they could be an improvement for tenants. I think if you read my comments about the proposal, I clearly and openly explain the policy's intention and the reasons for suggesting it (when I know it). I
think my problem was not limiting my comments to the staff report and verging off the topic to share my personal reflections with you. I will refrain from that in the future.
It is clear you do not agree with me or the staff recommendations, but it would be a dereliction of my duty to not follow-up and explain our side of things to people who are involved in the issue, like yourself.
I also would be more than happy to receive any and all "reports at hand" about the issue. Please forward them to me using the information below. As you and others know, I have spoken to dozens if not hundreds of tenants
and feel very confident of my assessment of what's going on out there, but am hungry for more information.
Thank you
Justin
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:06:16 PST [Show full headers]
From: "Horner, Justin" <JHorner [at] oaklandnet.com> [Add to Address Book]
To: "'Lynda Carson'" <Lyndacarson [at] excite.com>
Subject: Rent Ordinance Changes
Lynda:
Thanks for the call and the e-mail. Comments and clarifications:
1) The Ordinance has not been written yet and will not be submitted in
March. The March 27 meeting will consider the policy, which will then be
sent back to staff to be crafted into an Ordinance. The distinction is
important, because a Policy needs four votes but the Ordinance will require
five. We need a little more time to get the extra vote.
2) $500 is the fine a landlord will receive when the City becomes aware that
they did not turn in their 30-day notice. I see, maybe, how this is an
incentive for the City to enforce (a good thing), but it mainly serves as a
deterrent so landlords will follow the law (also a good thing).
3) Enforcement: the Rent Program will have its budget increased from
$400,000 to $1.5 million and staffing will increase (both demands of housing
activists for some time). Also, the rental unit fee will create a dedicated
revenue source, so the Program's funding won't be a political issue every
budget season. The Rent Program has 1/10 of one City Attorney now and only
(what) 4 or 5 staff. Increasing the staff to 11 (including two FULL TIME
attorneys and additional administrative staff) will provide the personnel
necessary to follow-up on enforcement. Berkeley: a considerable number of
their staff are dedicated to managing their Rent Registration, which is a
program we do not have.
4) Moratorium: No, to my knowledge, the City has not prosecuted any
landlords for evicting then raising rents. You can, however, call Sentinel
or anyone else and ask whether the new requirement has at least bought
tenants more time (because their landlords notice incorrectly and then learn
they have to renotice all over again). The Rent Ordinance Changes implement
a new requirement: that a landlord report the NEW RENT they are charging
within 10 days of rerenting, which was the obvious piece missing from the
original plan. If they don't report, and the city becomes aware of it, we
charge the fine and lower the rent.
This, like all things political, is a compromise. Regardless of all the
news about evictions sweeping Oakland, tenants have not been particularly
strong in advocating for themselves and their rights. The majority of folks
I talk to call about rent increases (because of new owners) and NOT
evictions. The evictions I most often hear about are the result of others
buying single-family houses that are rented out (which would be legal even
under Just Cause).
The landlords are always available to meet and cooperate with our requests
for information, and are willing to compromise when they know they're not
gonna get 100% of what they want (and believe me they don't like these
proposed changes). Many tenant folks I talk to are standoffish and refuse to
budge from Just Cause as they envision it. That's fine, that's advocacy,
but tenants really don't even have a "good cop" for the SuperAntiJerry "bad
cop," so there's nobody for me to go to to get a compromise tenant position.
You can't blame us for looking for the compromises we need to get things
done. Just Cause failed 80/20 last time around, so there ARE others in
Oakland with different opinions and preferences. Representation requires
that accommodation. It will be even harder to plead the tenant case if
nobody shows up to push for these (albeit incomplete) changes.
The one time I managed to get tenant representatives a meeting with the
Mayor, we had to change it once and then THEY cancelled, without follow-up.
I have been working hard to bring this issue to the Mayor's attention and to
bring people around to it. I certainly hope folks come out to support this
proposal: it's better than what we have and a good first step towards solid
protections. From what I reckon, the votes are NOT there to get even this
passed. I know some folks have "given up" on the Mayor and the Council, but
I think it would still be a good idea to turn out to push for these changes
to at least show that y'all are still out there (which is NOT at all clear
from City Hall's perspective).
As they say: Compromise is the art of pissing everyone off equally. These
changes, however minor one may think they are, overwhelmingly benefit
tenants and will make a substantial difference in the lives of Oaklanders of
all shapes and sizes. I think that that's reason enough to come out. And
anyway, nobody's saying "this far and no further;" I don't see how working
to get these changes passed compromises the effort to get the measure on the
ballot.
Thank you for your attention and let me know if there's anything else I can
clarify for you.
Sincerely,
Justin Horner
Aide to Mayor Jerry Brown
1 Frank H Ogawa Plaza, 3rd Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 238-7257
jhorner [at] oaklandnet.com
From: "Horner, Justin" <JHorner [at] oaklandnet.com> [Add to Address Book]
To: "'Lynda Carson'" <Lyndacarson [at] excite.com>
Subject: RE: Rent Ordinance Changes...Thanks for reply
Lynda:
I don't understand the hang-up with a tenant being able to file a notice with the Rent Board. It doesn't make any difference as far as a tenant's cause of action is concerned. As long as the tenant has a copy of the
30-day, proof of the rent they were paying and proof of the rent the new tenant is paying (or at least a good lead), they should come to the Rent Board and ask for enforcement. There's no reason why they would have to
file with the Rent Board to have the option to pursue enforcement. The tenant can enforce without a notice being filed with the Rent Board--that would actually be a further obstacle, if it were a requirement.
Also, if a 30-day notice is NOT turned-in the Rent Board, it can help the tenant: as the Ordinance currently states, a failure of a landlord to turn in the 30-day notice is a DEFENSE AGAINST EVICTION for the tenant. The Rent
Program even provides a letter to the tenant stating there is no 30-day on file for use in court. That is helpful.
Brunner's office is probably sending you a copy of the staff report, which contains all that we've been talking about and more.
Landlords cooperating: I'm saying that the Landlord Representatives side of this debate cooperate and are eager to talk and hash things out. The tenant
side is not willing or shows no interest in trying to formulate policy (well, I mean, everyone knows the tenants want Just Cause, but from what I've heard, there's not even an agreement on that: this new measure is going to be different than last year's, so there's obviously some type of thinking going on). Of course all landlords don't comply with the current law (in fact, not all people comply with every law), and I don't see how rent
registration will make them either (what if they don't register?).
The Rent Ordinance Changes also provide for a NEW minimum damages provision to make the monetary award attractive enough for lawyers to take good cases.
Then, you won't have to depend on just the City to enforce the law (although you wrote that you see no benefit in more than doubling the budget and staff of the Rent Program for enforcement, so I really don't see who exactly you hope will enforce the law).
Lynda, we are trapped in a private property system. The city cannot guarantee tenancy under any circumstances in a privately held property any more than it can deny tenants their rights to decent housing, the eviction
process and other state-mandated housing laws. I don't see exactly what you are hoping to achieve. For example, I have no idea why a Just Cause measure would stop people from evicting in hopes of getting higher rents. What makes you think the courts are so tenant friendly that they're going to give them such a great deal? San Francisco has very strong tenant protections and plenty of evictions and Berkeley, jeez, they don't even have any poor people left living there, do they? !
I don't know the all the answers. My prediction is that we will eventually have a Just Cause Ordinance, but we will also see that not all of our problems are gone.
Justin
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 17:14:18 PST [Show full headers]
From: "Horner, Justin" <JHorner [at] oaklandnet.com> [Add to Address Book]
To: "'Lynda Carson'" <Lyndacarson [at] excite.com>
Subject: RE: Hello Justin....and Mayors Office....
Lynda:
1) I have repeatedly stated that Oaklanders who want to change policy should get involved and do so: whether through pressuring Councilmembers to vote for proposals they support or putting measures on the ballot for the people of Oakland to decide.
2) You are right: the Rent Board did recommend Just Cause on two occasions; I believe (although it was, you must admit, never confirmed) that 20,000 people signed petitions for the last Just Cause measure. But, no, I am not being flooded with e-mails, phone calls, letters or anything from people wanting a Just Cause ordinance. That, I have said repeatedly, is part of the problem: tenants do not let their preferences known in numbers above a dozen. Floods of e-mails would be great: I'm at jhorner [at] oaklandnet.com, as you know.
3) The Rent Ordinance does not "protect" landlords from "stealing" money from tenants. Tenants currently have a cause of action for unlawful eviction. The problem, as you have pointed out repeatedly and correctly, is
enforcement. The current proposal triples the budget and staffing of the Rent Board to increase enforcement and guarantee the timely processing of petitions. This, I have said, is a reason to support some of the
recommendations.
4) I am not asking anyone to "support a dishonest system." If I believed the City would not follow-through to the best of its ability (which may not be saying much...), I would not ask anyone to support anything. I encourage
people to support the proposals because I believe they are better than what we have. If that is not good enough, or is an unreasonable compromise, I understand.
5) Tenants did not come up with all of the proposals offered, but they did come up with one: budget and staffing. Landlords do NOT want increased
staffing because they are afraid it will lead to bureaucracy. However, the City has a legal obligation to enforce laws it has passed. Also, landlords did not come up with any elements of the proposal either: they are against the eviction protections measure, against the staffing and budget increases, against the fee, and against the minimum damages provision.
6) I don't think it is accurate to say that you "trusted" city government when they passed the moratorium. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have always been critical of the moratorium and clear in your preference for a Just Cause measure. I don't think you (or any other tenant advocate for that matter) ever really thought the moratorium was a good idea. I don't know if that makes the City more trustworthy or what, but I do think it's a
more accurate portrayal of your views.
7) I don't agree that the proposal hurts renters, for reasons I have given you and James already.
8) In your message to James, you stated: "Justin says the Mayors Office is not sure that people want a Just Cause [ordinance]." I did not say that, but I do remember saying that there are people who may not want one or may have
other preferences. I can only think this was an honest mistake and I hope that you now understand what I said. I am also not forcing anyone to accept the proposal...how could I? Regardless of how much we talk, neither you nor
I vote: it's the Council.
Thanks
Justin
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 15:27:37 PST [Show full headers]
From: "Horner, Justin" <JHorner [at] oaklandnet.com> [Add to Address Book]
To: "'Lynda Carson'" <Lyndacarson [at] excite.com>
Subject: RE: Message to Mayors Office...
Lynda:
OK, OK, you've made your point: you want Just Cause. I suppose there's nothing else to talk about. I do, however, resent the implication that I'm trying to divide anyone. I am not asking you or anyone else to compromise
anything (and I am eager to know how you arrive at that conclusion): the question to support or not is up to you. If I were stuffing anything down anyone's throat I don't know why I would spend time clarifying the changes
and trying to show how they could be an improvement for tenants. I think if you read my comments about the proposal, I clearly and openly explain the policy's intention and the reasons for suggesting it (when I know it). I
think my problem was not limiting my comments to the staff report and verging off the topic to share my personal reflections with you. I will refrain from that in the future.
It is clear you do not agree with me or the staff recommendations, but it would be a dereliction of my duty to not follow-up and explain our side of things to people who are involved in the issue, like yourself.
I also would be more than happy to receive any and all "reports at hand" about the issue. Please forward them to me using the information below. As you and others know, I have spoken to dozens if not hundreds of tenants
and feel very confident of my assessment of what's going on out there, but am hungry for more information.
Thank you
Justin
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:06:16 PST [Show full headers]
From: "Horner, Justin" <JHorner [at] oaklandnet.com> [Add to Address Book]
To: "'Lynda Carson'" <Lyndacarson [at] excite.com>
Subject: Rent Ordinance Changes
Lynda:
Thanks for the call and the e-mail. Comments and clarifications:
1) The Ordinance has not been written yet and will not be submitted in
March. The March 27 meeting will consider the policy, which will then be
sent back to staff to be crafted into an Ordinance. The distinction is
important, because a Policy needs four votes but the Ordinance will require
five. We need a little more time to get the extra vote.
2) $500 is the fine a landlord will receive when the City becomes aware that
they did not turn in their 30-day notice. I see, maybe, how this is an
incentive for the City to enforce (a good thing), but it mainly serves as a
deterrent so landlords will follow the law (also a good thing).
3) Enforcement: the Rent Program will have its budget increased from
$400,000 to $1.5 million and staffing will increase (both demands of housing
activists for some time). Also, the rental unit fee will create a dedicated
revenue source, so the Program's funding won't be a political issue every
budget season. The Rent Program has 1/10 of one City Attorney now and only
(what) 4 or 5 staff. Increasing the staff to 11 (including two FULL TIME
attorneys and additional administrative staff) will provide the personnel
necessary to follow-up on enforcement. Berkeley: a considerable number of
their staff are dedicated to managing their Rent Registration, which is a
program we do not have.
4) Moratorium: No, to my knowledge, the City has not prosecuted any
landlords for evicting then raising rents. You can, however, call Sentinel
or anyone else and ask whether the new requirement has at least bought
tenants more time (because their landlords notice incorrectly and then learn
they have to renotice all over again). The Rent Ordinance Changes implement
a new requirement: that a landlord report the NEW RENT they are charging
within 10 days of rerenting, which was the obvious piece missing from the
original plan. If they don't report, and the city becomes aware of it, we
charge the fine and lower the rent.
This, like all things political, is a compromise. Regardless of all the
news about evictions sweeping Oakland, tenants have not been particularly
strong in advocating for themselves and their rights. The majority of folks
I talk to call about rent increases (because of new owners) and NOT
evictions. The evictions I most often hear about are the result of others
buying single-family houses that are rented out (which would be legal even
under Just Cause).
The landlords are always available to meet and cooperate with our requests
for information, and are willing to compromise when they know they're not
gonna get 100% of what they want (and believe me they don't like these
proposed changes). Many tenant folks I talk to are standoffish and refuse to
budge from Just Cause as they envision it. That's fine, that's advocacy,
but tenants really don't even have a "good cop" for the SuperAntiJerry "bad
cop," so there's nobody for me to go to to get a compromise tenant position.
You can't blame us for looking for the compromises we need to get things
done. Just Cause failed 80/20 last time around, so there ARE others in
Oakland with different opinions and preferences. Representation requires
that accommodation. It will be even harder to plead the tenant case if
nobody shows up to push for these (albeit incomplete) changes.
The one time I managed to get tenant representatives a meeting with the
Mayor, we had to change it once and then THEY cancelled, without follow-up.
I have been working hard to bring this issue to the Mayor's attention and to
bring people around to it. I certainly hope folks come out to support this
proposal: it's better than what we have and a good first step towards solid
protections. From what I reckon, the votes are NOT there to get even this
passed. I know some folks have "given up" on the Mayor and the Council, but
I think it would still be a good idea to turn out to push for these changes
to at least show that y'all are still out there (which is NOT at all clear
from City Hall's perspective).
As they say: Compromise is the art of pissing everyone off equally. These
changes, however minor one may think they are, overwhelmingly benefit
tenants and will make a substantial difference in the lives of Oaklanders of
all shapes and sizes. I think that that's reason enough to come out. And
anyway, nobody's saying "this far and no further;" I don't see how working
to get these changes passed compromises the effort to get the measure on the
ballot.
Thank you for your attention and let me know if there's anything else I can
clarify for you.
Sincerely,
Justin Horner
Aide to Mayor Jerry Brown
1 Frank H Ogawa Plaza, 3rd Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 238-7257
jhorner [at] oaklandnet.com
News, action and resources about a ballot initiative for Just Cause eviction laws in Oakland, CA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forum List | Go to Top | New Topic | Collapse Threads | Search
Older Messages
Topics
Author
Date
Open Letter to Jim Smarler newAnonymous Tenant 06-11-2001 20:48
Jerry Brown's Riders/Rile's For Mayor! No Justice-No Peace! 06-08-2001 17:15
RE: Jerry Brown's Riders/Rile's For Mayor! Andy 06-08-2001 21:20
10 K Plan VS CEQA/Update Lynda Carson 06-08-2001 05:28
10K Plan Settlers Heading To Oakland LC 06-06-2001 02:39
RE: 10K Plan Settlers Heading To Oakland JimSmarler 06-06-2001 12:53
RE: Any More Comments From The Peanut Gallery? JimSmarler 06-07-2001 12:05
Any More Comments From The Peanut Gallery? LC 06-06-2001 23:01
Take a break Jim.... LC 06-08-2001 00:48
Oaklanders Support Wilson Riles Jr. For Mayor Lynda Carson 06-03-2001 20:20
Bush Trying To Revive One Strike Policy Lynda Carson 06-03-2001 20:05
Bush Trying To Revive One Strike Policy Lynda Carson 06-03-2001 20:02
Bush Trying To Revive One Strike Policy Lynda Carson 06-03-2001 20:01
delayed access to unlawful detainer alice 05-24-2001 08:08
RE: delayed access to unlawful detainer JimSmarler 05-24-2001 11:37
RE: Talk To Attorney Fast....Smarler is idiot... JimSmarler 05-30-2001 14:02
Talk To Attorney Fast....Smarler is idiot... Lynda Carson 05-24-2001 19:34
A Prayer for Smarler.... Lynda Carson 05-31-2001 04:35
RE: A Prayer for Rand McNally Peter Pan 05-31-2001 11:02
RE: A Prayer for Rand McNally JimSmarler 05-31-2001 12:03
Smarler Has Forked Tongue! Lynda Carson 05-31-2001 20:52
No he does not JimSmarler 06-01-2001 11:47
Adding Roommates to the Lease Emily 05-22-2001 19:45
RE: Adding Roommates to the Lease Andy 05-22-2001 22:05
RE: Adding Roommates to the Lease Adam 05-30-2001 15:04
RE: Adding Roommates to the Lease Emily 05-30-2001 15:12
Roomate's.... Lynda Carson 05-30-2001 21:22
RE: Roomate's.... JimSmarler 05-31-2001 12:08
RE: Roomate's.... Althea 06-10-2001 22:04
Contact Attorney... Lynda Carson 06-11-2001 16:53
RE: Contact Attorney... newAndy 06-11-2001 20:25
Assisting Homeless Family Member Althea 06-10-2001 22:15
Forum List | Go to Top | New Topic | Collapse Threads | Search
Older Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JustCauseOakland.org
Donations | Get Signatures | Flyers/PDF/Download | Testimonials
Message Boards | Press Info | Tenant Links | Eviction Law | Contact Us
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forum List | Go to Top | New Topic | Collapse Threads | Search
Older Messages
Topics
Author
Date
Open Letter to Jim Smarler newAnonymous Tenant 06-11-2001 20:48
Jerry Brown's Riders/Rile's For Mayor! No Justice-No Peace! 06-08-2001 17:15
RE: Jerry Brown's Riders/Rile's For Mayor! Andy 06-08-2001 21:20
10 K Plan VS CEQA/Update Lynda Carson 06-08-2001 05:28
10K Plan Settlers Heading To Oakland LC 06-06-2001 02:39
RE: 10K Plan Settlers Heading To Oakland JimSmarler 06-06-2001 12:53
RE: Any More Comments From The Peanut Gallery? JimSmarler 06-07-2001 12:05
Any More Comments From The Peanut Gallery? LC 06-06-2001 23:01
Take a break Jim.... LC 06-08-2001 00:48
Oaklanders Support Wilson Riles Jr. For Mayor Lynda Carson 06-03-2001 20:20
Bush Trying To Revive One Strike Policy Lynda Carson 06-03-2001 20:05
Bush Trying To Revive One Strike Policy Lynda Carson 06-03-2001 20:02
Bush Trying To Revive One Strike Policy Lynda Carson 06-03-2001 20:01
delayed access to unlawful detainer alice 05-24-2001 08:08
RE: delayed access to unlawful detainer JimSmarler 05-24-2001 11:37
RE: Talk To Attorney Fast....Smarler is idiot... JimSmarler 05-30-2001 14:02
Talk To Attorney Fast....Smarler is idiot... Lynda Carson 05-24-2001 19:34
A Prayer for Smarler.... Lynda Carson 05-31-2001 04:35
RE: A Prayer for Rand McNally Peter Pan 05-31-2001 11:02
RE: A Prayer for Rand McNally JimSmarler 05-31-2001 12:03
Smarler Has Forked Tongue! Lynda Carson 05-31-2001 20:52
No he does not JimSmarler 06-01-2001 11:47
Adding Roommates to the Lease Emily 05-22-2001 19:45
RE: Adding Roommates to the Lease Andy 05-22-2001 22:05
RE: Adding Roommates to the Lease Adam 05-30-2001 15:04
RE: Adding Roommates to the Lease Emily 05-30-2001 15:12
Roomate's.... Lynda Carson 05-30-2001 21:22
RE: Roomate's.... JimSmarler 05-31-2001 12:08
RE: Roomate's.... Althea 06-10-2001 22:04
Contact Attorney... Lynda Carson 06-11-2001 16:53
RE: Contact Attorney... newAndy 06-11-2001 20:25
Assisting Homeless Family Member Althea 06-10-2001 22:15
Forum List | Go to Top | New Topic | Collapse Threads | Search
Older Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JustCauseOakland.org
Donations | Get Signatures | Flyers/PDF/Download | Testimonials
Message Boards | Press Info | Tenant Links | Eviction Law | Contact Us
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$190.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network