This month we're happy to report that tenants are fighting back and it's making it in the news. Whether it's against Ellis-Act evictions in San Francisco and Santa Monica or slumlords in East Contra Costa County, tenants are speaking out and it's generating press coverage. Interested in telling your story? One way to do that is through the Tenant Voices section of our website.
News from across the state of California
San Francisco: wave of protests defending Ellis-Act evictions
Watch This Depressing Time-Lapse Visualization of Ellis Act Evictions
Landlords in San Francisco have used the Ellis Act to
evict rent-controlled tenants from their apartments. Some buildings
have been through more than one Ellis Act eviction, as the property can
be re-rented after five years. The map is available on the Bay Guardian
web site.
S.F. Family Loses Fight, Evicted after 34 Years
An elderly couple and their disabled adult daughter
were evicted from their home of 34 years. The landlord is planning to
convert the building to tenants-in-common units.
Court Quashes Eviction of Longterm Castro Tenant Jeremy Mykaels
A San Francisco court has stopped the Ellis eviction
of San Francisco tenant Jeremy Mykaels. The landlord may appeal the
decision.
Affordable Housing Debate Heats Up at City Hall
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors will look at
several proposals to increase the amount of affordable housing in the
City. Among the proposals are legalization of in-law units and stricter
protections for rent-controlled units.
East Contra Costa County: tenants fight for right to live bedbug-free
Bedbug Infestation at Concord Apartment Building Prompts Lawsuit
A Concord landlord is being sued for failing to
eradicate bedbugs in an apartment building, even after repeated
complaints by tenants. The building is also infested with cockroaches
and rodents. Tenants Together is working with the tenants.
East Bay Tenants Sue Landlord over Bedbugs
Tenants of a Concord apartment building are suing their landlord over an infestation of bedbugs, cockroaches and rats.
Other parts of the state, statewide:
Marin Housing Officials Drop Controversial Truancy Eviction Policy
Housing officials in Marin County have dropped a
proposal that would evict tenants if their children are truant from
school. Many critics felt that the policy made life more difficult for
already vulnerable families.
Brown Vetoes Bill Requiring Affordable Rental Units
Governor Brown vetoed a bill that would allow local communities to require affordable rental units as part of new developments. Upset about it? Take action here!
L.A. County is Among Least Affordable Housing Markets
A median income household in Los Angeles County can
afford only 24% of the houses in the County. Only San Francisco and New
York are more expensive.
Notable tenant news nationwide
For Low-Income Families, Substandard Housing Takes a Toll on Children
Substandard housing and residential instability are
important factors in predicting emotional and behavioral problems in
children.
Families with Kids Go Homeless as U.S. Rents Exceed Pay
Families around the country are rendered homeless
when their parents cannot afford rapidly increasing rents on
deteriorating wages.
Mayor Bloomberg Says New York City's Lack of Affordable Housing is a 'Good Sign' of a Vibrant Economy Because 'More People Want to Live Here'
In his weekly radio address, Mayor Bloomberg argued
that the lack of affordable housing there was a good thing. But the
Mayor has devoted substantial public resources to subsidies for the
development of luxury housing.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Monday, October 14, 2013
Governor Brown Veto Betrays Low-Income Tenants
Governor Jerry Brown has vetoed the most important housing bill before him this year. AB 1229 (Atkins) would have restored to cities the power to enforce inclusionary housing laws that require affordable rental units as part of new construction. The veto was immediately condemned by tenant rights organizations and affordable housing advocates.
Over 150 California cities have inclusionary housing laws. An appellate court created chaos in 2007 by ruling that a local inclusionary law was preempted by the state’s Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act, a 1996 law that had nothing to do with inclusionary housing. The California Supreme Court refused to review the case, leaving Palmer / Sixth Street Properties v. City of Los Angeles in effect. AB 1229 would have overturned the Palmer decision, clarifying that it is up to cities whether they want to adopt and enforce inclusionary housing laws as a means to increase the supply of affordable rental housing.
The governor’s track record on affordable housing has not been good. As mayor of Oakland, he opposed inclusionary housing. At the state level he vetoed a housing preservation bill (AB 1216) soon after taking office. He dismantled redevelopment and has failed to offset the loss of funding or otherwise increase funding for the development of affordable housing. He has announced no major affordable housing policy initiatives since taking office. His solution to the housing affordability crisis in California appears to be to let the free market do whatever it wants.
Many hoped that the governor would sign AB 1229 as a local control bill. Whether or not he thought inclusionary was a good policy when he was mayor, the thinking was that as governor he might let local cities decide their own fate, as they did before the Palmer decision. Instead, as is clear from his veto message, he did the opposite -- prohibiting cities across the state from adopting inclusionary laws because he didn’t like them for Oakland.
"As mayor of Oakland, I saw how difficult it can be to attract development to low and middle income communities," Governor Brown wrote in his October 13 veto message. "Requiring developers to include below-market units in their projects can exacerbate these challenges, even while not meaningfully increasing the amount of affordable housing in a given community." Apparently, the Governor believes he knows better than affordable housing experts across the state how to “meaningfully increase the amount of affordable housing.”
A broad coalition of tenant groups, affordable housing advocates, and community-minded developers, supported the bill, as did most major newspapers around the state. Big developers, mega-landlords and realtors fought it with all of their might.
Governor Brown knew the issue here. He prioritized maximizing the profits of developers and realtors over housing struggling Californians.
With rents skyrocketing, the need for affordable rental housing has never been greater. AB 1229 would have expanded the supply of affordable rental housing at no cost to the government.
Advocates cannot allow the gutting of inclusionary housing laws to stand. Through litigation, new legislation and/or a ballot measure, Palmer must be overturned so that cities can once again require affordable rental housing as part of new housing development.
Over 150 California cities have inclusionary housing laws. An appellate court created chaos in 2007 by ruling that a local inclusionary law was preempted by the state’s Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act, a 1996 law that had nothing to do with inclusionary housing. The California Supreme Court refused to review the case, leaving Palmer / Sixth Street Properties v. City of Los Angeles in effect. AB 1229 would have overturned the Palmer decision, clarifying that it is up to cities whether they want to adopt and enforce inclusionary housing laws as a means to increase the supply of affordable rental housing.
The governor’s track record on affordable housing has not been good. As mayor of Oakland, he opposed inclusionary housing. At the state level he vetoed a housing preservation bill (AB 1216) soon after taking office. He dismantled redevelopment and has failed to offset the loss of funding or otherwise increase funding for the development of affordable housing. He has announced no major affordable housing policy initiatives since taking office. His solution to the housing affordability crisis in California appears to be to let the free market do whatever it wants.
Many hoped that the governor would sign AB 1229 as a local control bill. Whether or not he thought inclusionary was a good policy when he was mayor, the thinking was that as governor he might let local cities decide their own fate, as they did before the Palmer decision. Instead, as is clear from his veto message, he did the opposite -- prohibiting cities across the state from adopting inclusionary laws because he didn’t like them for Oakland.
"As mayor of Oakland, I saw how difficult it can be to attract development to low and middle income communities," Governor Brown wrote in his October 13 veto message. "Requiring developers to include below-market units in their projects can exacerbate these challenges, even while not meaningfully increasing the amount of affordable housing in a given community." Apparently, the Governor believes he knows better than affordable housing experts across the state how to “meaningfully increase the amount of affordable housing.”
A broad coalition of tenant groups, affordable housing advocates, and community-minded developers, supported the bill, as did most major newspapers around the state. Big developers, mega-landlords and realtors fought it with all of their might.
Governor Brown knew the issue here. He prioritized maximizing the profits of developers and realtors over housing struggling Californians.
With rents skyrocketing, the need for affordable rental housing has never been greater. AB 1229 would have expanded the supply of affordable rental housing at no cost to the government.
Advocates cannot allow the gutting of inclusionary housing laws to stand. Through litigation, new legislation and/or a ballot measure, Palmer must be overturned so that cities can once again require affordable rental housing as part of new housing development.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Tenant Toolkit: Sample Letters
Tenants Together is rolling out sample letters to help tenants dealing with a variety of problems with their landlord. From requesting repairs to contesting unfair fees, having a written record is the best way to assert your rights. If your landlord tries to retaliate against you for demanding safe, habitable, harassment-free housing, making your demands in writing means you have a paper trail in your defense. Not sure if any of these letters apply to your particular situation? Call our Tenant Rights Hotline at 888-495-8020 to speak with one of our counselors.
Here's a few of our more popular sample letters:
Tailor these letters to your personal case. These DO NOT substitute for legal advice! See our directory for legal advice or call our hotline at 888-495-8020 for assistance.
Here's a few of our more popular sample letters:
- Leaking roof? Tile crumbling in the bathroom? Mold on the ceiling? Request that your landlord make necessary repairs to your home.
- Being charged $50 a day for every day your rent is late? Contest unfair fees like this.
- Has it been more than 21 days since you moved out of your last rental and still no sign of your security deposit? Demand that your landlord send it immediately, with an itemized list of any deductions.
Tailor these letters to your personal case. These DO NOT substitute for legal advice! See our directory for legal advice or call our hotline at 888-495-8020 for assistance.
- Finally, don't forget to share your story with us! These appear on our Tenant Voices page.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)