After defunding the renters' and homeowners' tax assistance program (known as the "renters' rebate") on grounds that the state could not afford to make any tax rebate payments to low-income senior, blind and disabled Californians, the Governor has signed new legislation to give $100 million in tax credits to people who buy homes between March 2009 and March 2010.
The new Home Buyer Tax Credit gives purchasers who buy a never-before-occupied single family home a tax credit of 5 percent of the purchase cost up to $10,000. The new tax credit program for homebuyers will cost the government one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000).
This credit is available regardless of the income level of the home buyer. A millionaire who buys a newly constructed house this year will get a $10,000 gift from the government.
The Governor's move is another slap in the face to low-income Californians. In September 2008 the Governor used his line item veto to eliminate all renters' rebate funds. In January 2009, the Governor released his 2009 budget, again eliminating all renters' rebate funds. The renters' rebate is a longstanding program that provides a modest annual tax rebate check to low-income senior, blind and disabled renters and homeowners. According to the Governor, the rebate program could not be funded because the state lacked money to pay for it, a claim belied by his signing of the new home buyer tax credit.
Apparently, the Governor prefers to give $10,000 each to individuals who are well off enough to be buying new homes in the current economy, rather than continue a program that provides an annual $347.50 payment to low-income senior, blind and disabled Californians.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Tenants Together Goes to DC to Partcipate in Forum on Tenants in Foreclosure and Predatory Equity
On February 13, Tenants Together participated in a forum in Washington D.C. at the U.S. Capitol building to brief Congressional staffers and other advocates about the urgent national issues facing tenants in overleveraged properties.
The forum entitled "Renters Under Assault: The Hidden Housing Crisis" was part of the Working for Change series hosted monthly by the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), and coordinated by CSS Senior Policy Fellow, Dr. William Spriggs, Chairman of the Department of Economics at Howard University.
Our director, Dean Preston was one of the presenters along with Dr. Spriggs, Deborah Weinstein of the Coalition on Human Needs, Tom Waters, CSS Housing Policy Analyst, and Danilo Pelletiere, Research Director of the National Low Income Housing Coalition.
Dean explained that the impact of foreclosures on tenants is the "most overlooked aspect of the mortgage crisis." He gave an overview of California tenants' rights in foreclosure situations and highlighted some of the difficulties experienced by tenants in these properties, including severe habitability problems, harassment and unjust evictions.
He also explained how predatory landlords such as Page Mill Properties (East Palo Alto) and Lembi Group (San Francisco) fit into the current picture. These landlords acquired rental properties at prices not justified by the actual rental income, but instead based on speculative future uses of the property that involved driving out low-rent tenants. With tenants fighting back and the real estate and credit markets in chaos, these predatory landlords are now stuck with overleveraged properties. (For example, the Lembi Group in San Francisco had to deed back 51 of its apartment buildings to the lender in recent weeks.) While noting the importance of avoiding foreclosure of renter-occupied properties, Dean cautioned that any attempt to assist landlords avoid foreclosure must not to bail out or encourage predatory landlord conduct.
Tom Waters spoke about the dire situation with predatory landlords in New York City. CCS, along with the Urban Homesteading Assistance Board (UHAB), Tenant and Neighbors, and others have been at the forefront of efforts in New York to identify and expose predatory equity schemes and to create legislative solutions to prevent them. He set forth a proposed framework for the Obama administration to use in dealing with overleveraged, multi-family rental properties.
Danilo Pelletiere, author of a comprehensive report on the impact nationally of foreclosures on renters explained that some 20% of properties in foreclosure are rentals and, due to the fact that many of these properties are multifamily, a minimum of 40% of the families affected by foreclosures are renters. Danilo also explained that the NLIHC was backing proposals to strengthen protection for section 8 tenants in foreclosed properties and require 90-days notice for evictions of renters after foreclosure.
Many congressional offices and national organizations working on housing issues were represented at the forum.
Tenants Together greatly appreciates CSS's work in putting this forum together and including Tenants Together as one of the panelists at the forum. We look forward to continuing to work with our allies in New York, Washington D.C. and other parts of the country on these crucial issues. Below are some photos from our visit to D.C.
(Left to Right) Danilo Pelletiere, Tom Waters, Deborah Weinstein, and Dean Preston
The forum entitled "Renters Under Assault: The Hidden Housing Crisis" was part of the Working for Change series hosted monthly by the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), and coordinated by CSS Senior Policy Fellow, Dr. William Spriggs, Chairman of the Department of Economics at Howard University.
Our director, Dean Preston was one of the presenters along with Dr. Spriggs, Deborah Weinstein of the Coalition on Human Needs, Tom Waters, CSS Housing Policy Analyst, and Danilo Pelletiere, Research Director of the National Low Income Housing Coalition.
Dean explained that the impact of foreclosures on tenants is the "most overlooked aspect of the mortgage crisis." He gave an overview of California tenants' rights in foreclosure situations and highlighted some of the difficulties experienced by tenants in these properties, including severe habitability problems, harassment and unjust evictions.
He also explained how predatory landlords such as Page Mill Properties (East Palo Alto) and Lembi Group (San Francisco) fit into the current picture. These landlords acquired rental properties at prices not justified by the actual rental income, but instead based on speculative future uses of the property that involved driving out low-rent tenants. With tenants fighting back and the real estate and credit markets in chaos, these predatory landlords are now stuck with overleveraged properties. (For example, the Lembi Group in San Francisco had to deed back 51 of its apartment buildings to the lender in recent weeks.) While noting the importance of avoiding foreclosure of renter-occupied properties, Dean cautioned that any attempt to assist landlords avoid foreclosure must not to bail out or encourage predatory landlord conduct.
Tom Waters spoke about the dire situation with predatory landlords in New York City. CCS, along with the Urban Homesteading Assistance Board (UHAB), Tenant and Neighbors, and others have been at the forefront of efforts in New York to identify and expose predatory equity schemes and to create legislative solutions to prevent them. He set forth a proposed framework for the Obama administration to use in dealing with overleveraged, multi-family rental properties.
Danilo Pelletiere, author of a comprehensive report on the impact nationally of foreclosures on renters explained that some 20% of properties in foreclosure are rentals and, due to the fact that many of these properties are multifamily, a minimum of 40% of the families affected by foreclosures are renters. Danilo also explained that the NLIHC was backing proposals to strengthen protection for section 8 tenants in foreclosed properties and require 90-days notice for evictions of renters after foreclosure.
Many congressional offices and national organizations working on housing issues were represented at the forum.
Tenants Together greatly appreciates CSS's work in putting this forum together and including Tenants Together as one of the panelists at the forum. We look forward to continuing to work with our allies in New York, Washington D.C. and other parts of the country on these crucial issues. Below are some photos from our visit to D.C.
(Left to Right) Danilo Pelletiere, Tom Waters, Deborah Weinstein, and Dean Preston
Monday, February 16, 2009
Advocates call for financial rescue plan to protect tenants in mult-unit buildings
Tenants Together supports the efforts of the Partnership to Preserve Affordable Housing to make sure that tenants in apartment buildings are protected in the federal bailout plan.
Here is the latest policy statement from PPAH:
Here is the latest policy statement from PPAH:
Dear Friends and Allies,
As the Obama Administration begins to release the remaining $350 Billion in TARP funds, the Partnership to Preserve Affordable Housing is calling for the creation of a Multifamily Foreclosure Prevention Program to help rescue the many thousands of over-leveraged affordable housing units now at risk in New York City and around the country.
The program should be guided by the following four principles:
1. Loans on overleveraged buildings must be reduced to a level based on the buildings' value to a responsible owner committed to operating the building for the long term for the cash flow it now produces.
2. The federal agency that administers the rescue program must ensure that tenants benefit from loan modifications by negotiating use agreements with building owners that ensures the future financial and physical integrity of the project as well as affordability and habitability for tenants.
3. Where possible, the rescue program must promote the transfer of buildings, at appropriate prices, to buyers who are committed to owning and operating the building as affordable rental housing for the long term.
4. Local housing agencies and tenants must play a role in the program to ensure preservation outcomes are consistent with local housing conditions.
PPAH is asking the administration to require participation in the Multifamily Foreclosure Prevention Program as a condition of any additional federal resources.
Please see the attached statement.
Please join us in this call!
Sincerely,
Partnership to Preserve Affordable Housing
Community Service Society
Legal Aid Society
Pratt Area Community Council
South Brooklyn Legal Services
Tenants & Neighbors
Urban Homesteading Assistance Board
Monday, February 9, 2009
Court Grants Request to Publish Decision Against Landlord
The Court of Appeal has decided to publish its decision in Clark v. Mazgani. Tenants Together, along with Bet Tzedek Legal Services, the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, and the Housing Rights Center, had successfully requested that the Court publish the opinion.
In the underlying case, a landlord evicted a long-term tenant from a rent-controlled apartment, claiming that the basis for the eviction was for the landlord's daughter to live in the apartment. The daughter did not move in, so the tenant sued the landlord for wrongful eviction and fraud. In response to the lawsuit, the landlord filed a so-called "anti-SLAPP" motion to strike the lawsuit. According to the landlord, the tenant's case arose from protected landlord conduct -- in other words, that the landlord was being sued for exercising a constitutional right. If it sounds absurd, that's because it is. However, based on a California Supreme Court case and two other Court of Appeal decisions, the trial court agreed with the landlord and threw out the case. On appeal, the appellate court disagreed, holding that the landlord was not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. The Court of Appeal reinstated the tenant's case.
The Clark case is important in that it found that a landlord who engaged in an illegal eviction was not entitled to hide behind California's anti-SLAPP statute (a law designed to get rid of "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation").
The case distinguished two other Court of Appeal decisions that had unfairly extended the anti-SLAPP statute and related "litigation privilege" to protect illegal conduct by landlords. Judges in those cases sought to create a special immunity for landlords, distorting the "litigation privilege" and anti-SLAPP laws beyond recognition.
With a split among the Courts of Appeal on the issue, California needs clarifying legislation to make sure that abusive landlords can be held accountable in court. In the meantime, the Clark case at least provides a reality check to landlords who think they can operate with impunity.
Special thanks to attorney Katie Richardson of the law firm of Jones Day for her representation of Tenants Together and the other nonprofit groups seeking publication of this opinion.
In the underlying case, a landlord evicted a long-term tenant from a rent-controlled apartment, claiming that the basis for the eviction was for the landlord's daughter to live in the apartment. The daughter did not move in, so the tenant sued the landlord for wrongful eviction and fraud. In response to the lawsuit, the landlord filed a so-called "anti-SLAPP" motion to strike the lawsuit. According to the landlord, the tenant's case arose from protected landlord conduct -- in other words, that the landlord was being sued for exercising a constitutional right. If it sounds absurd, that's because it is. However, based on a California Supreme Court case and two other Court of Appeal decisions, the trial court agreed with the landlord and threw out the case. On appeal, the appellate court disagreed, holding that the landlord was not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. The Court of Appeal reinstated the tenant's case.
The Clark case is important in that it found that a landlord who engaged in an illegal eviction was not entitled to hide behind California's anti-SLAPP statute (a law designed to get rid of "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation").
The case distinguished two other Court of Appeal decisions that had unfairly extended the anti-SLAPP statute and related "litigation privilege" to protect illegal conduct by landlords. Judges in those cases sought to create a special immunity for landlords, distorting the "litigation privilege" and anti-SLAPP laws beyond recognition.
With a split among the Courts of Appeal on the issue, California needs clarifying legislation to make sure that abusive landlords can be held accountable in court. In the meantime, the Clark case at least provides a reality check to landlords who think they can operate with impunity.
Special thanks to attorney Katie Richardson of the law firm of Jones Day for her representation of Tenants Together and the other nonprofit groups seeking publication of this opinion.
Big Brother is Watching in East Palo Alto: Police Record Call Between Tenant and Landlord
Chris Lund may be a thorn in the side of Page Mill Properties, but you've got to hand it to the guy: he's having an impact. Lund appears to be part pit-bull. He's clenched his teeth on this predatory landlord and isn't letting go. Page Mill has apparently decided that the best defense is a good offense. The company is smearing Lund in an obvious attempt to discredit one of their main opponents in this ongoing affordable housing battle in East Palo Alto.
According to a recent article, Page Mill now accuses Lund of "extortion." You've got to read this one to believe it. According to Page Mill, Lund -- a tenant of Page Mill who has refused to quietly give up while Page Mill eliminates affordable rental housing in EPA -- "tried to extort $20,000 from them in exchange for agreeing to vacate his unit and solve the company's problems with community groups and unflattering media coverage."
Page Mill's bizarre conduct is not a surprise at this point. It has become clear that the company will do just about anything to vacate its units of low-rent, rent-controlled tenants.
What is shocking, however, is the latest turn in this story. The Palo Alto police department -- yes, the same department whose chief had to resign after proudly admitting to racial profiling -- "investigated" Page Mill's extortion claim, and as part of its investigation tape recorded a call between a Page Mill representative and Lund.
There are many details that need to be sorted out. I don't buy for a minute that Page Mill is the victim of an extortion plot. But even if, and it's a huge if, Page Mill's accusation were true, where's the extortion? Page Mill wants Lund out of his apartment. According to Lund, they offered to buy him off, an offer Lund claims he turned down. According to Page Mill, Lund demanded payment to move (which Lund denies). Either way, where's the criminal extortion?
Actually, willful violation of the East Palo Alto Rent Stabilization Ordinance is a criminal offense. So, for example, if Page Mill tried to get Lund to leave without a proper notice stating cause for eviction under the ordinance, or if Page Mill has conducted a campaign of harassment and smears designed to drive Lund out, it would be Page Mill whose conduct could rise to the level of a criminal violation. Page Mill is accused of numerous other violations of the Ordinance, such as illegal utility charges and excessive rent increases. Will the Palo Alto police department be investigating these allegations and tape recording Page Mill employees?
Lund is also apparently accused by Page Mill of offering to stop the negative media campaign against Page Mill as part of this "extortion" plot. Nonsense. Lund has every right to raise hell in the media as he has been doing, so long as he's telling the truth or stating his opinion. Likewise, Lund has every right to stop raising hell if Page Mill engages in conduct he finds acceptable. Again, where's the extortion?
According to the article, the District Attorney had the good sense not to file charges against Lund. Nonetheless, the situation should set off alarm bells for those concerned with tenant rights and civil liberties. What is a police department doing tape recording an activist's call with his landlord under these circumstances?
According to a recent article, Page Mill now accuses Lund of "extortion." You've got to read this one to believe it. According to Page Mill, Lund -- a tenant of Page Mill who has refused to quietly give up while Page Mill eliminates affordable rental housing in EPA -- "tried to extort $20,000 from them in exchange for agreeing to vacate his unit and solve the company's problems with community groups and unflattering media coverage."
Page Mill's bizarre conduct is not a surprise at this point. It has become clear that the company will do just about anything to vacate its units of low-rent, rent-controlled tenants.
What is shocking, however, is the latest turn in this story. The Palo Alto police department -- yes, the same department whose chief had to resign after proudly admitting to racial profiling -- "investigated" Page Mill's extortion claim, and as part of its investigation tape recorded a call between a Page Mill representative and Lund.
There are many details that need to be sorted out. I don't buy for a minute that Page Mill is the victim of an extortion plot. But even if, and it's a huge if, Page Mill's accusation were true, where's the extortion? Page Mill wants Lund out of his apartment. According to Lund, they offered to buy him off, an offer Lund claims he turned down. According to Page Mill, Lund demanded payment to move (which Lund denies). Either way, where's the criminal extortion?
Actually, willful violation of the East Palo Alto Rent Stabilization Ordinance is a criminal offense. So, for example, if Page Mill tried to get Lund to leave without a proper notice stating cause for eviction under the ordinance, or if Page Mill has conducted a campaign of harassment and smears designed to drive Lund out, it would be Page Mill whose conduct could rise to the level of a criminal violation. Page Mill is accused of numerous other violations of the Ordinance, such as illegal utility charges and excessive rent increases. Will the Palo Alto police department be investigating these allegations and tape recording Page Mill employees?
Lund is also apparently accused by Page Mill of offering to stop the negative media campaign against Page Mill as part of this "extortion" plot. Nonsense. Lund has every right to raise hell in the media as he has been doing, so long as he's telling the truth or stating his opinion. Likewise, Lund has every right to stop raising hell if Page Mill engages in conduct he finds acceptable. Again, where's the extortion?
According to the article, the District Attorney had the good sense not to file charges against Lund. Nonetheless, the situation should set off alarm bells for those concerned with tenant rights and civil liberties. What is a police department doing tape recording an activist's call with his landlord under these circumstances?
Taxation Without Representation in Burlingame
We heard from a property owner in Burlingame, CA today who informed us that the city will begin mailing ballots this month to homeowners regarding a new flood control measure that would cause property owners to pay a fee of approximately $150 a year to fund the infrastructure for new storm drains, but that tenants will not be receiving ballots or have a right to vote on these increases. With no rent control in Burlingame, landlords will likely pass these costs onto their tenants. So basically, tenants who will feel the impact of this fee have no right to vote on whether to approve it. Our thanks to the concerned property owner who called to let us know about this unfair situation for Burlingame tenants. Click here to read a San Mateo County Times article about the mail-ballot election.
Pushing out the poor?
On Calpensions, a blog that covers "CalPERS, CalSTRS, and other government pensions," Ed Mendel recently posted a rather detailed piece titled "CalPERS: pushing out the poor" in which he addresses CalPERS $100 million investment with Page Mill Properties, a large predatory landlord in East Palo Alto that is forcing out good tenants with excessive rent hikes and unjust evictions.
In December, Tenants Together joined the East Palo Alto mayor and other activists in a delegation to address the CalPERS Board of Adminstration concerning their investment with Page Mill Properties. We urged CalPERS to do everything in their power to intervene with their investment partner and move them to cease and desist their excessive rent hikes and evictions.
While Page Mill claims they have done extensive improvements to their rental properties, Mr. Mendel met with Page Mill tenants and who showed him their units in states of serious disrepair and neglect. Tenants and activists also told of the harrassment they have experienced from Page Mill.
Learn more about the EPA tenants' fight against Page Mill Properties at the epa-tenants.org website.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)