In Oakland, It’s Landlords Who Are Unhappy With a Plan To End Eviction Ban
Under a proposal that city officials will begin discussing Tuesday, the ban on evictions that has now lasted for over three years would come to an end on Sept. 1, part of a gradual process that seeks to ease struggling tenants back into their rent obligations.
The new proposal has sparked a political firestorm among landlord and renter advocacy groups alike, with dual rallies planned and lobbying efforts underway, in the hopes of influencing which of the robust tenant protections included in the moratorium ultimately remain.
Oakland’s leaders had initially held off addressing the question of when their eviction ban will end, but pressure grew after California concluded its COVID state of emergency in February, and Alameda County decided its own moratorium would expire at the end of this month.
The new laws, though, will be rolled out in phases in order to “avoid a surge of evictions leading to an increase in homelessness, and allowing property owners to proceed with urgent evictions,” a city staff report states.
Some property owners believe the new ordinance is too bureaucratic and would be unnecessarily slow in its implementation, despite bringing the eviction ban to an end.
“We’re not really pleading for the right to evict people,” Chris Moore of the East Bay Rental Housing Association said in a recent interview. “It’s super expensive, it’s the last thing we want to do, and it’s also a pain in the butt. But we want there to be pressure for people to pay at least some rent.”
In addition to the eviction moratorium, the city on Sept. 1 will also stop waiving late fees incurred by pandemic-related financial losses. Rent increases in excess of the consumer price index will remain prohibited until the end of June 2024.
The new rules will include “just cause” protections that block evictions of tenants who owe less than a month of what’s considered fair-market rent for a housing unit of the same size in Oakland.
Plus, landlords will have to prove that the tenant’s lease violation “caused substantial actual damage to the landlord,” their behavior was “unreasonable” and the two sides had agreed to a “reasonable, legal” lease.
Accessibility