April 18, 2017
Oakland Council OKs $700,000 in Assistance for Survivors Displaced by San Pablo Avenue Fire
Survivors of the San Pablo Avenue fire that killed four and displaced over 70 households will be receiving financial assistance directly from the city by Friday.
The Oakland City Council voted unanimously on Tuesday night to reallocate $615,000 in community development block grant money to a special city fund that helps tenants relocate after they are displaced due to code violations and habitability issues caused by their landlord.
According to Michelle Byrd, Oakland's director of housing and community development, 54 residents of the destroyed building have already been approved to receive relocation assistance. The amount of benefits each resident is eligible for ranges from$6,500 to $12,375, depending on their age, how many dependents they have, and the size of their apartment unit or studio.
"We are still receiving applications," said Byrd. "Every day someone comes into the housing assistance center indicating they were a resident."
Assistant City Administrator Claudia Cappio said the city could issue checks as early as Friday. The fire, which was caused when a candle was knocked over, occurred on March 27 early in the morning. The building had a long history of code violations and had been flagged by fire inspectors as a danger just prior to the blaze.
Many survivors have been living in shelters or on the street. Tracking them down has proven difficult for the city.
Brenda Corley moved into the building in April 2012. She said that since the fire, she has had to sleep outside on the streets for several nights. "I need some help now, today," she told the council. "I'm scared."
Richard Meyers, another resident of the building, said that many of the residents scattered after the fire and still haven't been found. They're living in homeless camps or with friends and aren't aware that they're eligible for assistance.
The relocation assistance program was created in 1993. In January of this year, the council approved an update that Rebecca Kaplan had introduced in 2015, including increasing the amounts paid to tenants who are displaced due to code violations and fires.
"This has been in our law for some time," said Kaplan in an interview. "But it's done fairly rarely. I want this set up as a system, not just for the victims of this fire. I’ve asked for us to have better systems to do these in general."
The relocation assistance will be paid by the city directly to survivors of the fire who can document that they were legal tenants of the building. The city will then bill the landlord for the assistance funds. If the landlord doesn't pay the money back, the city then has the option of putting a lien on the property.
"This was never a question of whether or not to distribute the funds," said Cappio during the meeting. "It was to get authorization from the council because the relocation account had been expended."
Kaplan said it's important that the city "make it clear that it's our policy that we don't leave people out on the streets to suffer after a fire."
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/oakland-council-oks-700000-in-assistance-for-survivors-displaced-by-san-pablo-avenue-fire/Content?oid=6395924
Friday, April 28, 2017
137 City of Oakland - Schaaf stacks the planning commission with real estate industry reps
April 21, 2017
Community and Labor Groups Say Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf Has Stacked the Planning Commission with Real Estate Industry Reps
Since taking office in 2015, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf has made three new appointments to Oakland's seven-member planning commission. She’s also re-appointed two members. In each case, Schaaf put a developer, architect, or attorney from the real estate industry on the commission.
Yesterday, Schaaf nominated her fourth new pick for the board: Jonathan Fearn, a vice president with the developer SummerHill Homes.
The mayor's choices are drawing criticism from community groups and unions worried about how development in Oakland affects low-income residents and workers.
Critics say real estate industry representatives on the commission aren't always sensitive to the social and economic impacts of projects and policies, and that the board needs more diversity.
"The planning commission has historically been heavily weighted to include developers, architects, and others who have a financial interest in fast-tracking development, and who come from wealthier neighborhoods," said Ayodele Nzinga of the Community Coalition for Equitable Development and Black Arts Movement and Business District.
Over the past year, Nzinga’s coalition has negotiated community benefits agreements with developers building along the 14th Street corridor bordering Chinatown and the new Black Arts Movement and Business District. She said her group is interested in minimizing displacement, adding more affordable housing, and ensuring high paying jobs, among other priorities.
"We are disappointed in the latest appointment of a real estate developer to the Planning Commission," said Wei-Ling Huber, the president of Unite HERE 2850. "Every Planning Commissioner appointed since 2015 works for the real estate development industry as a developer, lawyer, architect, or real estate agent."
Unite HERE 2850 has advocated that project approvals be contingent on developers agreeing to uphold Oakland's labor laws, and whether a project will create living wage jobs.
Karolyn Wong of the Community Coalition for Equitable Development said that the lack of occupational diversity on the commission has caused unnecessary delays on important votes.
"The commissioners often have to recuse themselves because they are in close financial or business partnerships with the developers applying for projects, and the result has been a lack of votes to reach quorum leading to project approval delays," said Wong.
A review of planning commission records by the Express shows at least 51 recusals by different commissioners on votes concerning 31 items in 2016, due to conflicts of interest. The commission considered a total of 95 items in 2016, according to meeting minutes.
In other words, in one out of every three projects voted on by the planning commission last year, at least one commissioner had to recuse themselves.
In many cases, the recused commissioner had worked on the project under consideration, or represented a project applicant in legal proceedings in another city.
Candice Elder of the East Oakland Collective said the planning commission currently doesn't reflect the geographic diversity of Oakland. She noted that all but one of the commissioners — Jahmese Myers — live near Lake Merritt, or in North Oakland, Rockridge, and the hills above Piedmont. A review of property records by the Express confirmed Elder's observation about where the planning commissioners live.
Elder added that East Oakland residents are concerned about affordable housing. They feel the city should be doing more to ensure projects include units that are deeply affordable.
"There needs to be a balance on the commission to hold the city and developers accountable, to make sure there's affordable housing in these new projects," she said.
Naomi Schiff of the Oakland Heritage Alliance echoed Elder: "Historically, East Oakland has been wildly underrepresented on the planning commission."
"More than half of Oakland is east of the lake, and there are big issues coming up," continued Schiff. "We have the Coliseum area, Oak Knoll, and potential proposed zoning changes that will really affect the area. We also have bus rapid transit coming through, so there's a lot of real estate pressure."
Schaaf's recent nomination of Jonathan Fearn would fill a seat being vacated by landscape designer Chris Pattillo. But Fearn’s appointment would maintain a planning commission with six of the seven members hailing from the real estate industry, or having clients who frequently have matters pending before the commission. And Fearn, according to county records, lives in North Oakland.
Fearn's current employer, SummerHill Homes, has built residential housing in Pleasanton and Moraga. Fearn previously worked as a manager with EM Johnson Interest, better known as UrbanCore.
Two years ago, Pattillo had to recuse herself from planning commission meetings and votes regarding UrbanCore's controversial proposal to build an apartment tower by Lake Merritt on city-owned land. Pattillo's firm was a subcontractor on the project.
Fearn still has to be approved by the city council.
Mayor Schaaf's office didn’t respond to a request for comment for this report.
Schaaf's other recent appointments to the planning commission were Clark Manus and Tom Limon.
Manus is an architect with Heller Manus. He lives in the Trestle Glen neighborhood near Lake Merritt. His architectural firm has at least two major projects pending before the city: the Kaiser Auditorium remodel being undertaken by Orton Development, and a 23-story residential tower at 1510 Webster Street.
Limon is a broker with Newmark Grubb Knight Frank. Limon is also a member of the Oakland Builders Alliance, a developer lobbying group whose members have numerous, large development projects pending before the city.
Schaaf’s first appointment to the planning commission in June of 2015 was Amanda Monchamp, an attorney with Holland and Knight who specializes in land use law. Monchamp, a resident of Rockridge, was the planning commissioner with the most recusals in 2016.
Schaaf also re-appointed Adhi Nagraj and Emily Weinstein to the commission in June 2015. Both Nagraj and Weinstein work for Bridge Housing, an affordable housing developer.
Communities for Equitable Development launched a petition yesterday asking Mayor Schaaf to reappoint commissioner Myers to a second three-year term, and to also appoint a Nischit Hegde to the planning commission seat being vacated by Patillo, instead of Fearn.
Hegde is a staff member of the union AFSCME 3299, which represents workers at University of California campuses and medical centers. Hegde previously worked with Unite HERE.
Last year, Unite HERE 2850 asked the city planning commission to deny an application for a new hotel in downtown Oakland because the developers violated Oakland’s minimum wage and sick leave laws at other hotels they currently operate. The union implored the planning commission to consider social and economic impacts of approving a hotel run by a company accused of labor law violations. The planning commission approved the project, however.
"The Commission is desperately in need of diverse voices that can represent the interests of working-class communities of color in Oakland, who are bearing the brunt of skyrocketing housing costs and rising income inequality," said Wei-Ling Huber of Unite HERE.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2017/04/21/community-and-labor-groups-say-oakland-mayor-libby-schaaf-has-stacked-the-planning-commission-with-real-estate-industry-reps
Community and Labor Groups Say Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf Has Stacked the Planning Commission with Real Estate Industry Reps
Since taking office in 2015, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf has made three new appointments to Oakland's seven-member planning commission. She’s also re-appointed two members. In each case, Schaaf put a developer, architect, or attorney from the real estate industry on the commission.
Yesterday, Schaaf nominated her fourth new pick for the board: Jonathan Fearn, a vice president with the developer SummerHill Homes.
The mayor's choices are drawing criticism from community groups and unions worried about how development in Oakland affects low-income residents and workers.
Critics say real estate industry representatives on the commission aren't always sensitive to the social and economic impacts of projects and policies, and that the board needs more diversity.
"The planning commission has historically been heavily weighted to include developers, architects, and others who have a financial interest in fast-tracking development, and who come from wealthier neighborhoods," said Ayodele Nzinga of the Community Coalition for Equitable Development and Black Arts Movement and Business District.
Over the past year, Nzinga’s coalition has negotiated community benefits agreements with developers building along the 14th Street corridor bordering Chinatown and the new Black Arts Movement and Business District. She said her group is interested in minimizing displacement, adding more affordable housing, and ensuring high paying jobs, among other priorities.
"We are disappointed in the latest appointment of a real estate developer to the Planning Commission," said Wei-Ling Huber, the president of Unite HERE 2850. "Every Planning Commissioner appointed since 2015 works for the real estate development industry as a developer, lawyer, architect, or real estate agent."
Unite HERE 2850 has advocated that project approvals be contingent on developers agreeing to uphold Oakland's labor laws, and whether a project will create living wage jobs.
Karolyn Wong of the Community Coalition for Equitable Development said that the lack of occupational diversity on the commission has caused unnecessary delays on important votes.
"The commissioners often have to recuse themselves because they are in close financial or business partnerships with the developers applying for projects, and the result has been a lack of votes to reach quorum leading to project approval delays," said Wong.
A review of planning commission records by the Express shows at least 51 recusals by different commissioners on votes concerning 31 items in 2016, due to conflicts of interest. The commission considered a total of 95 items in 2016, according to meeting minutes.
In other words, in one out of every three projects voted on by the planning commission last year, at least one commissioner had to recuse themselves.
In many cases, the recused commissioner had worked on the project under consideration, or represented a project applicant in legal proceedings in another city.
Candice Elder of the East Oakland Collective said the planning commission currently doesn't reflect the geographic diversity of Oakland. She noted that all but one of the commissioners — Jahmese Myers — live near Lake Merritt, or in North Oakland, Rockridge, and the hills above Piedmont. A review of property records by the Express confirmed Elder's observation about where the planning commissioners live.
Elder added that East Oakland residents are concerned about affordable housing. They feel the city should be doing more to ensure projects include units that are deeply affordable.
"There needs to be a balance on the commission to hold the city and developers accountable, to make sure there's affordable housing in these new projects," she said.
Naomi Schiff of the Oakland Heritage Alliance echoed Elder: "Historically, East Oakland has been wildly underrepresented on the planning commission."
"More than half of Oakland is east of the lake, and there are big issues coming up," continued Schiff. "We have the Coliseum area, Oak Knoll, and potential proposed zoning changes that will really affect the area. We also have bus rapid transit coming through, so there's a lot of real estate pressure."
Schaaf's recent nomination of Jonathan Fearn would fill a seat being vacated by landscape designer Chris Pattillo. But Fearn’s appointment would maintain a planning commission with six of the seven members hailing from the real estate industry, or having clients who frequently have matters pending before the commission. And Fearn, according to county records, lives in North Oakland.
Fearn's current employer, SummerHill Homes, has built residential housing in Pleasanton and Moraga. Fearn previously worked as a manager with EM Johnson Interest, better known as UrbanCore.
Two years ago, Pattillo had to recuse herself from planning commission meetings and votes regarding UrbanCore's controversial proposal to build an apartment tower by Lake Merritt on city-owned land. Pattillo's firm was a subcontractor on the project.
Fearn still has to be approved by the city council.
Mayor Schaaf's office didn’t respond to a request for comment for this report.
Schaaf's other recent appointments to the planning commission were Clark Manus and Tom Limon.
Manus is an architect with Heller Manus. He lives in the Trestle Glen neighborhood near Lake Merritt. His architectural firm has at least two major projects pending before the city: the Kaiser Auditorium remodel being undertaken by Orton Development, and a 23-story residential tower at 1510 Webster Street.
Limon is a broker with Newmark Grubb Knight Frank. Limon is also a member of the Oakland Builders Alliance, a developer lobbying group whose members have numerous, large development projects pending before the city.
Schaaf’s first appointment to the planning commission in June of 2015 was Amanda Monchamp, an attorney with Holland and Knight who specializes in land use law. Monchamp, a resident of Rockridge, was the planning commissioner with the most recusals in 2016.
Schaaf also re-appointed Adhi Nagraj and Emily Weinstein to the commission in June 2015. Both Nagraj and Weinstein work for Bridge Housing, an affordable housing developer.
Communities for Equitable Development launched a petition yesterday asking Mayor Schaaf to reappoint commissioner Myers to a second three-year term, and to also appoint a Nischit Hegde to the planning commission seat being vacated by Patillo, instead of Fearn.
Hegde is a staff member of the union AFSCME 3299, which represents workers at University of California campuses and medical centers. Hegde previously worked with Unite HERE.
Last year, Unite HERE 2850 asked the city planning commission to deny an application for a new hotel in downtown Oakland because the developers violated Oakland’s minimum wage and sick leave laws at other hotels they currently operate. The union implored the planning commission to consider social and economic impacts of approving a hotel run by a company accused of labor law violations. The planning commission approved the project, however.
"The Commission is desperately in need of diverse voices that can represent the interests of working-class communities of color in Oakland, who are bearing the brunt of skyrocketing housing costs and rising income inequality," said Wei-Ling Huber of Unite HERE.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2017/04/21/community-and-labor-groups-say-oakland-mayor-libby-schaaf-has-stacked-the-planning-commission-with-real-estate-industry-reps
136 City of Oakland - 2 deadly fires yet the Oakland Fire Dept remains under-staffed.
April 24,2017
Town Business: Oakland Fire Department Still Seriously Under-Staffed
Despite recent hires, there still are not enough firefighters in Oakland, and key positions remain unfilled.
Nearly five months after the deadly Ghost Ship inferno, which highlighted the shortcomings of Oakland's poorly-resourced emergency responders, the city's ability to fight fires, provide emergency medical response, and especially to inspect buildings, remains hamstrung due to staffing issues.
According to Oakland's most recent jobs vacancy report, 36 positions, or 7.1 percent of budgeted, sworn jobs in the fire department aren't filled right now. That's worse than the police department's under-staffing, which is 2.2 percent.
However, the fire department's personnel situation has improved since last December when there were 62 empty sworn positions. Back then, Oakland was missing seventeen firefighters, six paramedics, and seven engineers.
There's now only twelve missing firefighters, three paramedics, and four engineers.
But Oakland fire is still missing key personnel, including fifteen captains.
And the department still doesn't have an Assistant Fire Marshal, and it's missing three inspectors in the Fire Prevention Bureau, which is responsible for inspecting buildings like the Ghost Ship and 2551 San Pablo Avenue.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2017/04/24/town-business-oakland-fire-department-still-seriously-under-staffed
Town Business: Oakland Fire Department Still Seriously Under-Staffed
Despite recent hires, there still are not enough firefighters in Oakland, and key positions remain unfilled.
Nearly five months after the deadly Ghost Ship inferno, which highlighted the shortcomings of Oakland's poorly-resourced emergency responders, the city's ability to fight fires, provide emergency medical response, and especially to inspect buildings, remains hamstrung due to staffing issues.
According to Oakland's most recent jobs vacancy report, 36 positions, or 7.1 percent of budgeted, sworn jobs in the fire department aren't filled right now. That's worse than the police department's under-staffing, which is 2.2 percent.
However, the fire department's personnel situation has improved since last December when there were 62 empty sworn positions. Back then, Oakland was missing seventeen firefighters, six paramedics, and seven engineers.
There's now only twelve missing firefighters, three paramedics, and four engineers.
But Oakland fire is still missing key personnel, including fifteen captains.
And the department still doesn't have an Assistant Fire Marshal, and it's missing three inspectors in the Fire Prevention Bureau, which is responsible for inspecting buildings like the Ghost Ship and 2551 San Pablo Avenue.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2017/04/24/town-business-oakland-fire-department-still-seriously-under-staffed
136 Oakland Police Dept (OPD) discriminating against rappers and music venues
April 26, 2017
Blacklisted: How The Oakland Police Department Discriminates Against Rappers and Music Venues
Artists, promoters, and civil-rights advocates say police policy bans artists and levies huge security fees on rap venues.
Last year, Philthy Rich’s hometown release-show for Hood Rich 4 was supposed to be a victory lap. The staunchly independent local rapper’s previous album, Real Niggas Back in Style, climbed to No. 5 on Billboard’s “Heatseekers” chart, and Philthy seemed poised to clinch that distinctly Bay Area rap-game ambition: local empire, national reputation.
But on the day before his November 18 gig at downtown nightclub Vinyl, venue owner Oscar Edwards says an Oakland cop visited him personally to tell him that Philthy’s show, advertised for weeks, was a “problem.”
Abruptly, Edwards and Philthy called it off. It was a familiar situation: Edwards said the department edits and censors local hip-hop lineups “all the time.”
For Philthy, it was a costly disappointment. He’d flown in three guest performers, put them up in hotels, and chartered a van with a driver and a security guard to bring everyone to the club. Philthy’s manager, PK (for Prashant Kumar) estimated the loss to be approximately $10,000.
“There’s no way it wasn’t malicious,” PK reckoned of the department’s motive. “‘Let’s let him set up the show — and then cancel it at the last minute.’
The Oakland Police Department says it “does not cancel shows,” but Philthy isn’t the only local rapper who, following police pressure on promoters, has been removed from lineups or had shows canceled outright.
In fact, several artists, promoters, and club owners who spoke to the Express in recent months described two different approaches to nightlife oversight in Oakland. They say genres besides hip-hop seldom if ever receive police scrutiny, while rap — one of the Town’s most prized cultural exports — is subjected to burdensome, costly regulations that critics call discriminatory.
Oakland rappers aside from Philthy, including Birch Boy Barie and Project Poppa, even have the impression that they’re banned from performing in their home city — a prospect that alarms civil-rights advocates.
“It’s very disturbing,” said Oakland attorney Dan Siegel. “Even if some of these guys have had run-ins with the cops, what does that have to do with whether or not they can play a show?”
The rap shows in question are legitimate concerts at permitted Oakland venues, not underground gigs or secret warehouse parties. And while Oakland city code requires police to provide written explanations for denying special-event applications, venue owners say they’ve never been offered such documents, and police nightlife overseers declined to be interviewed for this article.
San Francisco attorney John Hamasaki, whose defense of Richmond artist Laz tha Boy brought attention to government prosecutors’ punitive use of rap lyrics as evidence in criminal trials, said the opacity with which Oakland police censor shows “indicates that OPD knows they’re infringing on these artists’ right to perform.”
Even the City of Oakland’s cultural affairs manager, Roberto Bedoya, is troubled by the apparent uneven enforcement. “The city’s commitment to racial equity needs to be considered when it comes to how these policies are enforced,” he told the Express. “Any racial bias at play in policing artist speech — that’s worth looking at.”
Philthy, born Philip Beasley, 34, supported Hood Rich 4 with an incident-free, seventeen-date West Coast tour earlier this year. Conspicuously absent was a gig in Oakland, the subject of affection in so many of his songs. Last November, the day after his canceled local show, the rapper and his out-of-town friends handed out 500 turkeys at the Rainbow Recreation Center in his East Oakland neighborhood of Seminary.
His charity didn’t go unnoticed: The Alameda County Board of Supervisors formally proclaimed November 19, 2016, as “Philthy Rich — H.U.G.S./F.O.D. Thanksgiving Day.” The supervisors also thanked the rapper and his co-organizers for their “philanthropic hearts.”
“I’d love to play Oakland, but I’m not even trying to talk to a promoter about doing shows there,” he told the Express while on the road. “I don’t want to disappoint people when I’m not allowed to show up.”
“It is heartbreaking. Usually tours end in your hometown.”
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/blacklisted-how-the-oakland-police-department-discriminates-against-rappers-and-music-venues/Content?oid=6482231
Blacklisted: How The Oakland Police Department Discriminates Against Rappers and Music Venues
Artists, promoters, and civil-rights advocates say police policy bans artists and levies huge security fees on rap venues.
Last year, Philthy Rich’s hometown release-show for Hood Rich 4 was supposed to be a victory lap. The staunchly independent local rapper’s previous album, Real Niggas Back in Style, climbed to No. 5 on Billboard’s “Heatseekers” chart, and Philthy seemed poised to clinch that distinctly Bay Area rap-game ambition: local empire, national reputation.
But on the day before his November 18 gig at downtown nightclub Vinyl, venue owner Oscar Edwards says an Oakland cop visited him personally to tell him that Philthy’s show, advertised for weeks, was a “problem.”
Abruptly, Edwards and Philthy called it off. It was a familiar situation: Edwards said the department edits and censors local hip-hop lineups “all the time.”
For Philthy, it was a costly disappointment. He’d flown in three guest performers, put them up in hotels, and chartered a van with a driver and a security guard to bring everyone to the club. Philthy’s manager, PK (for Prashant Kumar) estimated the loss to be approximately $10,000.
“There’s no way it wasn’t malicious,” PK reckoned of the department’s motive. “‘Let’s let him set up the show — and then cancel it at the last minute.’
The Oakland Police Department says it “does not cancel shows,” but Philthy isn’t the only local rapper who, following police pressure on promoters, has been removed from lineups or had shows canceled outright.
In fact, several artists, promoters, and club owners who spoke to the Express in recent months described two different approaches to nightlife oversight in Oakland. They say genres besides hip-hop seldom if ever receive police scrutiny, while rap — one of the Town’s most prized cultural exports — is subjected to burdensome, costly regulations that critics call discriminatory.
Oakland rappers aside from Philthy, including Birch Boy Barie and Project Poppa, even have the impression that they’re banned from performing in their home city — a prospect that alarms civil-rights advocates.
“It’s very disturbing,” said Oakland attorney Dan Siegel. “Even if some of these guys have had run-ins with the cops, what does that have to do with whether or not they can play a show?”
The rap shows in question are legitimate concerts at permitted Oakland venues, not underground gigs or secret warehouse parties. And while Oakland city code requires police to provide written explanations for denying special-event applications, venue owners say they’ve never been offered such documents, and police nightlife overseers declined to be interviewed for this article.
San Francisco attorney John Hamasaki, whose defense of Richmond artist Laz tha Boy brought attention to government prosecutors’ punitive use of rap lyrics as evidence in criminal trials, said the opacity with which Oakland police censor shows “indicates that OPD knows they’re infringing on these artists’ right to perform.”
Even the City of Oakland’s cultural affairs manager, Roberto Bedoya, is troubled by the apparent uneven enforcement. “The city’s commitment to racial equity needs to be considered when it comes to how these policies are enforced,” he told the Express. “Any racial bias at play in policing artist speech — that’s worth looking at.”
Philthy, born Philip Beasley, 34, supported Hood Rich 4 with an incident-free, seventeen-date West Coast tour earlier this year. Conspicuously absent was a gig in Oakland, the subject of affection in so many of his songs. Last November, the day after his canceled local show, the rapper and his out-of-town friends handed out 500 turkeys at the Rainbow Recreation Center in his East Oakland neighborhood of Seminary.
His charity didn’t go unnoticed: The Alameda County Board of Supervisors formally proclaimed November 19, 2016, as “Philthy Rich — H.U.G.S./F.O.D. Thanksgiving Day.” The supervisors also thanked the rapper and his co-organizers for their “philanthropic hearts.”
“I’d love to play Oakland, but I’m not even trying to talk to a promoter about doing shows there,” he told the Express while on the road. “I don’t want to disappoint people when I’m not allowed to show up.”
“It is heartbreaking. Usually tours end in your hometown.”
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/blacklisted-how-the-oakland-police-department-discriminates-against-rappers-and-music-venues/Content?oid=6482231
135 City of Oakland - Condo Conversions are displacing renters and undermining affordability
April 26, 2017
Condominium Conversions in Oakland Displace Renters and Undermine Affordability, According to Tenants and Housing Experts
When Karen Dick signed her lease in 2012, she thought she was moving into an affordable, rent-controlled apartment. But last year, her landlord delivered surprising news: Her modest one-bedroom had been turned into a condominium while she was living in it.
Now she will either have to pay as much as $450,000 to buy the condo, or move out when someone else purchases it.
Dick says her options are all bad. She doesn’t have enough money to buy, and doesn’t think the converted condo is worth the price. She’ll have to find a new apartment.
But rents have shot dramatically upward since 2012, so there won’t be anything available for the roughly $1,200 a month she was paying, thanks to Oakland’s rent control. Living on a social worker’s salary, and having spent 32 years in the East Bay, she fears she’ll be displaced.
“If I had been told they purchased in 2007 and started to convert it to a condo, I never would have been stupid enough to sign a lease,” Dick told the Express
Oakland law requires landlords to notify tenants when they convert their apartments into condos. But in Dick’s case, she didn’t move in until five years after the conversion began in 2007. Her landlord, Mosswood Builders, paused the conversion during the recession and only completed it last year. Dick said she sought answers from city officials about the legality of the conversion without notification, and her rights, but according to emails she shared with the Express, various city officials didn’t respond.
Her apartment-turned-condo was one of 53 rental units affected by condominium conversion in 2016, according to Oakland’s department of planning and building. Another 46 apartments were converted to condos in 2015. Far more were converted in the early 1980s and again in the mid-2000s. Many worry conversions will spike again, and Oakland’s laws won’t protect tenants.
Housing-policy experts say the steady drip of conversions is eliminating affordable rental housing in Oakland. Most affected units are subject to rent control — but once they become condos they’re no longer covered, per the state’s Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. The new owners can rent them out at whatever prices they want, or move into them. Either way, cheap apartments permanently disappear.
“The city does need to take this up soon, since we need every tool possible to preserve the dwindling amount of relatively affordable rental housing still remaining in Oakland,” said Gloria Bruce, the executive director of East Bay Housing Organizations.
For years, Oakland officials have said they want to amend the city’s Condominium Conversion Ordinance, which was originally passed in 1981 in response to a spike in conversions that led to hundreds of residents losing their homes.
But in 2006, several councilmembers, with urging from the real estate industry, proposed easing conversion rules in the name of expanding homeownership opportunities. Others pointed out that the average Oakland renter simply can’t afford a mortgage. The proposed changes were scrapped.
Most recently, Mayor Libby Schaaf’s 2016 housing policy report, called “Oakland at Home,” proposed amending the condo-conversion ordinance to protect rental housing. And Councilmember Dan Kalb has reportedly been working on amendments to the law for several years now.
But it’s unclear when updates will be brought to a vote. Schaaf didn’t respond to questions from the Express and Kalb would only say, in an email message, that he’s hoping to bring amendments to the council in several months. He didn’t state specifically what his legislation would change, however.
Jeffrey Levin of East Bay Housing Organizations said there are major loopholes in the existing condo-conversion law. For instance, there’s a lack of concrete benefits for displaced tenants required under the law. And two-to-four unit buildings in most of the city are exempt from the law’s requirement that converted apartments be replaced with new rentals, a provision that’s designed to prevent a net loss of rental-housing stock.
“Many of the conversions in the past were in these smaller buildings,” Levin wrote in an email. “There are thousands of units that are potentially at risk.”
Oakland also doesn’t have a cap on the total number of apartments that can be converted in a given year in the entire city. Berkeley and San Francisco both have caps to prevent the sudden loss of apartments.
Another problem is that the city’s “conversion credit” system, which was designed as a market-based mechanism that replaces converted apartments with new rental units, has been criticized as a shell game.
Specifically, the existing law states landlords who convert apartments into condos, in what are called the “primary” and “secondary” impact areas — neighborhoods around Lake Merritt and Rockridge where higher property values make conversions more likely — have to either build an equivalent number of new rental-housing units, or buy conversion credits. For five-unit and larger buildings throughout the rest of the city, the same replacement requirement is in effect.
But landlords who convert their apartment buildings into condos rarely build new rental housing to fulfill these requirements. Most of the time, they purchase conversion credits.
The credits are generated by other landlords who build or preserve rental housing. Each credit therefore supposedly represents a new replacement rental unit, so that, in theory, there’s no net loss of rental housing.
But the current law allows developers who build condos to also sell conversion credits, so long as they operate their condos as rentals for seven years. After seven years, they can sell the units, leading to a loss of affordable apartments.
In a report issued last year, several Berkeley researchers with the Urban Displacement Project characterized this as a way to “get around” the intent of the regulations, resulting in “no permanent replacement housing.”
Another problem is that many of the landlords selling credits haven’t actually built new rental housing.
For example, in the case of Dick’s apartment, Mosswood Builders opted to purchase condo conversion credits. But the credits weren’t from a developer who recently built new rental housing. Rather, the seller was a landlord who owned a house that was built in 1915. The house was transformed into a seven-unit apartment building before 1967, according to city records.
In other words, the condo-conversion credits — which Mosswood Builders purchased for $30,000 — didn’t actually represent new rentals.
Dick also said Mosswood Builders ran some of the neighboring apartments in her building as Airbnb pads for several years, instead of putting them on the market for permanent residents. The building felt at times more like a hotel than her home, she said, with strangers constantly coming and going.
Josh Whitkin of Mosswood Builders didn’t respond to an interview request for this story.
Today, Dick is the last tenant in her building. The assistance plan written by her landlord and approved by the city in 2007 states that she has the right to purchase her apartment before it’s marketed to the general public. It also states that, if she voluntarily elects to vacate her apartment, she may qualify for $2,000 in relocation assistance, and that her landlord will provide a list of similar rentals nearby.
But for Dick, this amount of assistance doesn’t help.
After contacting her councilmember, Kalb, as well as Councilmember Lynette Gibson McElhaney, Schaaf, the Oakland housing-assistance office, and numerous pro bono housing attorneys, she says no one has stepped forward to help her understand the law or advocate for her rights as a tenant.
“I could have saved myself a lot of problem from the start,” Dick said. “I should have never signed a lease.”
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/condominium-conversions-in-oakland-displace-renters-and-undermine-affordability-according-to-tenants-and-housing-experts/Content?oid=6482524
Condominium Conversions in Oakland Displace Renters and Undermine Affordability, According to Tenants and Housing Experts
When Karen Dick signed her lease in 2012, she thought she was moving into an affordable, rent-controlled apartment. But last year, her landlord delivered surprising news: Her modest one-bedroom had been turned into a condominium while she was living in it.
Now she will either have to pay as much as $450,000 to buy the condo, or move out when someone else purchases it.
Dick says her options are all bad. She doesn’t have enough money to buy, and doesn’t think the converted condo is worth the price. She’ll have to find a new apartment.
But rents have shot dramatically upward since 2012, so there won’t be anything available for the roughly $1,200 a month she was paying, thanks to Oakland’s rent control. Living on a social worker’s salary, and having spent 32 years in the East Bay, she fears she’ll be displaced.
“If I had been told they purchased in 2007 and started to convert it to a condo, I never would have been stupid enough to sign a lease,” Dick told the Express
Oakland law requires landlords to notify tenants when they convert their apartments into condos. But in Dick’s case, she didn’t move in until five years after the conversion began in 2007. Her landlord, Mosswood Builders, paused the conversion during the recession and only completed it last year. Dick said she sought answers from city officials about the legality of the conversion without notification, and her rights, but according to emails she shared with the Express, various city officials didn’t respond.
Her apartment-turned-condo was one of 53 rental units affected by condominium conversion in 2016, according to Oakland’s department of planning and building. Another 46 apartments were converted to condos in 2015. Far more were converted in the early 1980s and again in the mid-2000s. Many worry conversions will spike again, and Oakland’s laws won’t protect tenants.
Housing-policy experts say the steady drip of conversions is eliminating affordable rental housing in Oakland. Most affected units are subject to rent control — but once they become condos they’re no longer covered, per the state’s Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. The new owners can rent them out at whatever prices they want, or move into them. Either way, cheap apartments permanently disappear.
“The city does need to take this up soon, since we need every tool possible to preserve the dwindling amount of relatively affordable rental housing still remaining in Oakland,” said Gloria Bruce, the executive director of East Bay Housing Organizations.
For years, Oakland officials have said they want to amend the city’s Condominium Conversion Ordinance, which was originally passed in 1981 in response to a spike in conversions that led to hundreds of residents losing their homes.
But in 2006, several councilmembers, with urging from the real estate industry, proposed easing conversion rules in the name of expanding homeownership opportunities. Others pointed out that the average Oakland renter simply can’t afford a mortgage. The proposed changes were scrapped.
Most recently, Mayor Libby Schaaf’s 2016 housing policy report, called “Oakland at Home,” proposed amending the condo-conversion ordinance to protect rental housing. And Councilmember Dan Kalb has reportedly been working on amendments to the law for several years now.
But it’s unclear when updates will be brought to a vote. Schaaf didn’t respond to questions from the Express and Kalb would only say, in an email message, that he’s hoping to bring amendments to the council in several months. He didn’t state specifically what his legislation would change, however.
Jeffrey Levin of East Bay Housing Organizations said there are major loopholes in the existing condo-conversion law. For instance, there’s a lack of concrete benefits for displaced tenants required under the law. And two-to-four unit buildings in most of the city are exempt from the law’s requirement that converted apartments be replaced with new rentals, a provision that’s designed to prevent a net loss of rental-housing stock.
“Many of the conversions in the past were in these smaller buildings,” Levin wrote in an email. “There are thousands of units that are potentially at risk.”
Oakland also doesn’t have a cap on the total number of apartments that can be converted in a given year in the entire city. Berkeley and San Francisco both have caps to prevent the sudden loss of apartments.
Another problem is that the city’s “conversion credit” system, which was designed as a market-based mechanism that replaces converted apartments with new rental units, has been criticized as a shell game.
Specifically, the existing law states landlords who convert apartments into condos, in what are called the “primary” and “secondary” impact areas — neighborhoods around Lake Merritt and Rockridge where higher property values make conversions more likely — have to either build an equivalent number of new rental-housing units, or buy conversion credits. For five-unit and larger buildings throughout the rest of the city, the same replacement requirement is in effect.
But landlords who convert their apartment buildings into condos rarely build new rental housing to fulfill these requirements. Most of the time, they purchase conversion credits.
The credits are generated by other landlords who build or preserve rental housing. Each credit therefore supposedly represents a new replacement rental unit, so that, in theory, there’s no net loss of rental housing.
But the current law allows developers who build condos to also sell conversion credits, so long as they operate their condos as rentals for seven years. After seven years, they can sell the units, leading to a loss of affordable apartments.
In a report issued last year, several Berkeley researchers with the Urban Displacement Project characterized this as a way to “get around” the intent of the regulations, resulting in “no permanent replacement housing.”
Another problem is that many of the landlords selling credits haven’t actually built new rental housing.
For example, in the case of Dick’s apartment, Mosswood Builders opted to purchase condo conversion credits. But the credits weren’t from a developer who recently built new rental housing. Rather, the seller was a landlord who owned a house that was built in 1915. The house was transformed into a seven-unit apartment building before 1967, according to city records.
In other words, the condo-conversion credits — which Mosswood Builders purchased for $30,000 — didn’t actually represent new rentals.
Dick also said Mosswood Builders ran some of the neighboring apartments in her building as Airbnb pads for several years, instead of putting them on the market for permanent residents. The building felt at times more like a hotel than her home, she said, with strangers constantly coming and going.
Josh Whitkin of Mosswood Builders didn’t respond to an interview request for this story.
Today, Dick is the last tenant in her building. The assistance plan written by her landlord and approved by the city in 2007 states that she has the right to purchase her apartment before it’s marketed to the general public. It also states that, if she voluntarily elects to vacate her apartment, she may qualify for $2,000 in relocation assistance, and that her landlord will provide a list of similar rentals nearby.
But for Dick, this amount of assistance doesn’t help.
After contacting her councilmember, Kalb, as well as Councilmember Lynette Gibson McElhaney, Schaaf, the Oakland housing-assistance office, and numerous pro bono housing attorneys, she says no one has stepped forward to help her understand the law or advocate for her rights as a tenant.
“I could have saved myself a lot of problem from the start,” Dick said. “I should have never signed a lease.”
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/condominium-conversions-in-oakland-displace-renters-and-undermine-affordability-according-to-tenants-and-housing-experts/Content?oid=6482524
134 Oakland Bldg Dept - Code Enforcement strategies were adopted but never implemented.
April 24, 2017
Oakland Must Re-Imagine Code Enforcement As Advocate For Community Health and Safety
The recent fire tragedies in Oakland have shined the light on deplorable housing conditions in which many Oakland residents live. This problem is exacerbated with the growing diminishment of renters’ bargaining powers in a tightening housing market. To address Oakland’s housing habitability problems and prevent more tragedies require us to re-imagine Code Enforcement as an advocate for community health and safety. The City of Oakland and Code Enforcement had embraced such a vision several years ago, but the momentum stalled.
What happened and what can be done now?
Tasked by former Oakland City Administrators to lead Code Enforcement’s transformation in response to the 2011 Grand Jury Report, I had witnessed firsthand how Code Enforcement serves as an implementer for political values. The “get tough on blight” approach, highlighted in the Grand Jury Report, appeared rooted in former Mayor Brown’s vision of Oakland as a bedroom community for San Francisco. It was also driven by the City’s budget mandate that Code Enforcement operations be 100% revenue generating. The prior punitive rules resulted in quickly accruing expensive penalties for lower income homeowners who lacked the resources to fix up their blighted homes. Code Enforcement liens were then attached, transmitted over to the County Tax Collector for collection, and sometimes resulted in homes lost to investors at tax auctions. For example, the 2013 County tax auction included 75 vacant lots that had previous structures demolished by Code Enforcement.
The Grand Jury report served as an opportunity for Code Enforcement staff to be empowered to design a new vision. The staff, supported by a team that included the City Administration, City Attorney, City Council, County Health, and community groups, re-imagined Code Enforcement as a vehicle for community health and safety. To achieve this new vision required Code Enforcement to change its policies, create new partnerships, be less driven by revenue concerns, and allow its staff to operate as caring human beings.
The changes made meant that an elderly, low-income property owner with a damaged roof, rather than receiving a blight notice and subsequent fines, would instead receive referrals to rehab resources from Code Enforcement staff. It meant that Code Enforcement staff received trainings from County Health on health impacts from mold, were lent humidity reading new technology by San Francisco Health, and developed a case management team with County health workers.
However, sustaining the transformation of Code Enforcement required three strategies, two of which the City adopted in theory but never implemented.
First, Code Enforcement critically needs a full-time leader with expertise in health/community development and program/financial management. We had developed a job description for a new Code Enforcement Manager but the position was later eliminated.
Second, the City Council needs to adopt a Proactive Rental Inspection (PRI) ordinance that empowers Code Enforcement to proactively inspect rental units rather than the current flawed complaint system, target limited City resources towards the worst offenders, include anti-displacement strategies, and generate an ongoing new revenue source that’s spread broadly across rental units. Cities like Sacramento and Los Angeles have effectively implemented PRI programs, resulting in improvements to habitability and health.
Third, the City can use part of its new Infrastructure Bond $100 million for housing for a landlord rehabilitation fund in exchange for long-term affordable rents to counter the displacement crisis.
Councilmember Lynette McElhaney has been trying to advance a PRI policy. There’s an informational report from the City Administration headed to the Council CED Committee on April 25th. But there’s only so much the Administration can do—we need City Council action to pass a PRI ordinance, include a Code Enforcement Manager in its new budget, and create a Landlord Rehab/Anti-Displacement Fund. Without all three measures, Oakland’s housing habitability problems, as highlighted by the recent fire tragedies, will go unabated.
Margaretta Lin served as Deputy City Administrator for the City of Oakland and currently serves as Executive Director of the Dellums Institute for Social Justice.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/oakland-must-re-imagine-code-enforcement-as-advocate-for-community-health-and-safety/Content?oid=6467985
Oakland Must Re-Imagine Code Enforcement As Advocate For Community Health and Safety
The recent fire tragedies in Oakland have shined the light on deplorable housing conditions in which many Oakland residents live. This problem is exacerbated with the growing diminishment of renters’ bargaining powers in a tightening housing market. To address Oakland’s housing habitability problems and prevent more tragedies require us to re-imagine Code Enforcement as an advocate for community health and safety. The City of Oakland and Code Enforcement had embraced such a vision several years ago, but the momentum stalled.
What happened and what can be done now?
Tasked by former Oakland City Administrators to lead Code Enforcement’s transformation in response to the 2011 Grand Jury Report, I had witnessed firsthand how Code Enforcement serves as an implementer for political values. The “get tough on blight” approach, highlighted in the Grand Jury Report, appeared rooted in former Mayor Brown’s vision of Oakland as a bedroom community for San Francisco. It was also driven by the City’s budget mandate that Code Enforcement operations be 100% revenue generating. The prior punitive rules resulted in quickly accruing expensive penalties for lower income homeowners who lacked the resources to fix up their blighted homes. Code Enforcement liens were then attached, transmitted over to the County Tax Collector for collection, and sometimes resulted in homes lost to investors at tax auctions. For example, the 2013 County tax auction included 75 vacant lots that had previous structures demolished by Code Enforcement.
The Grand Jury report served as an opportunity for Code Enforcement staff to be empowered to design a new vision. The staff, supported by a team that included the City Administration, City Attorney, City Council, County Health, and community groups, re-imagined Code Enforcement as a vehicle for community health and safety. To achieve this new vision required Code Enforcement to change its policies, create new partnerships, be less driven by revenue concerns, and allow its staff to operate as caring human beings.
The changes made meant that an elderly, low-income property owner with a damaged roof, rather than receiving a blight notice and subsequent fines, would instead receive referrals to rehab resources from Code Enforcement staff. It meant that Code Enforcement staff received trainings from County Health on health impacts from mold, were lent humidity reading new technology by San Francisco Health, and developed a case management team with County health workers.
However, sustaining the transformation of Code Enforcement required three strategies, two of which the City adopted in theory but never implemented.
First, Code Enforcement critically needs a full-time leader with expertise in health/community development and program/financial management. We had developed a job description for a new Code Enforcement Manager but the position was later eliminated.
Second, the City Council needs to adopt a Proactive Rental Inspection (PRI) ordinance that empowers Code Enforcement to proactively inspect rental units rather than the current flawed complaint system, target limited City resources towards the worst offenders, include anti-displacement strategies, and generate an ongoing new revenue source that’s spread broadly across rental units. Cities like Sacramento and Los Angeles have effectively implemented PRI programs, resulting in improvements to habitability and health.
Third, the City can use part of its new Infrastructure Bond $100 million for housing for a landlord rehabilitation fund in exchange for long-term affordable rents to counter the displacement crisis.
Councilmember Lynette McElhaney has been trying to advance a PRI policy. There’s an informational report from the City Administration headed to the Council CED Committee on April 25th. But there’s only so much the Administration can do—we need City Council action to pass a PRI ordinance, include a Code Enforcement Manager in its new budget, and create a Landlord Rehab/Anti-Displacement Fund. Without all three measures, Oakland’s housing habitability problems, as highlighted by the recent fire tragedies, will go unabated.
Margaretta Lin served as Deputy City Administrator for the City of Oakland and currently serves as Executive Director of the Dellums Institute for Social Justice.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/oakland-must-re-imagine-code-enforcement-as-advocate-for-community-health-and-safety/Content?oid=6467985
133 City of Oakland - Victims of Deadly West Oakland Fire sue landlord and housing non-profit
April 26, 2017
Fifteen former tenants of 2551 San Pablo Avenue are suing the building's owner and several housing nonprofits that leased the complex.
The three-story structure was destroyed by a fire last month that claimed four lives. Approximately 100 people were displaced.
According to the lawsuit, landlord Keith Kim and the nonprofits Urojas Community Services, House of Change, and Dignity Housing West, were all aware of serious building and fire code violations, but they didn't remedy the problems.
"Keith Kim made a decision not to have the fire safety and fire prevention systems in operation in the years leading up to the fire, including the fire alarm and sprinkler systems," reads the complaint, which was filed today in the Alameda County State Superior Court. "[T]here were missing smoke detectors in units, rooms, dorms and common areas and missing fire extinguishers and blocked fire exits."
The tenants claim that they also repeatedly told the nonprofits running the building about the code violations, but that the problems weren't fixed.
Kenneth Greenstein of the Greenstein and McDonald law firm is representing the tenants.
They're seeking $125,000 in damages per plaintiff, rental reimbursements, compensation for loss of personal property, among other relief.
"At this point I have not seen the lawsuit yet so I cannot comment on it," said Kim's attorney William Kronenberg in a press statement issued today. Kronenberg also said that Kim had been "unfairly criticized" in the media due to the negligence of Urojas Community Services.
In press release sent last month, Kim stated that he was "trying to protect the residents and improve the management of the building by removing Urojas as its manager and operator," when the fire broke out.
Kim claims that Urojas Community Services had failed to maintain the building, which he said the nonprofit was required to do as part of its lease agreement.
The Express was unable to reach Jasper Lowery, the executive director of Urojas Community Services, for comment about Kim's allegations and the lawsuit.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2017/04/26/tenants-sue-landlord-and-housing-nonprofits-over-deadly-west-oakland-fire
Fifteen former tenants of 2551 San Pablo Avenue are suing the building's owner and several housing nonprofits that leased the complex.
The three-story structure was destroyed by a fire last month that claimed four lives. Approximately 100 people were displaced.
According to the lawsuit, landlord Keith Kim and the nonprofits Urojas Community Services, House of Change, and Dignity Housing West, were all aware of serious building and fire code violations, but they didn't remedy the problems.
"Keith Kim made a decision not to have the fire safety and fire prevention systems in operation in the years leading up to the fire, including the fire alarm and sprinkler systems," reads the complaint, which was filed today in the Alameda County State Superior Court. "[T]here were missing smoke detectors in units, rooms, dorms and common areas and missing fire extinguishers and blocked fire exits."
The tenants claim that they also repeatedly told the nonprofits running the building about the code violations, but that the problems weren't fixed.
Kenneth Greenstein of the Greenstein and McDonald law firm is representing the tenants.
They're seeking $125,000 in damages per plaintiff, rental reimbursements, compensation for loss of personal property, among other relief.
"At this point I have not seen the lawsuit yet so I cannot comment on it," said Kim's attorney William Kronenberg in a press statement issued today. Kronenberg also said that Kim had been "unfairly criticized" in the media due to the negligence of Urojas Community Services.
In press release sent last month, Kim stated that he was "trying to protect the residents and improve the management of the building by removing Urojas as its manager and operator," when the fire broke out.
Kim claims that Urojas Community Services had failed to maintain the building, which he said the nonprofit was required to do as part of its lease agreement.
The Express was unable to reach Jasper Lowery, the executive director of Urojas Community Services, for comment about Kim's allegations and the lawsuit.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2017/04/26/tenants-sue-landlord-and-housing-nonprofits-over-deadly-west-oakland-fire
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)