Action/Advocacy

  The June Ballot Measures.  Blue Ribbon Housing Commission (1-31-08).  Public Ethics Commission (11-07).  Support Blue Ribbon Commission Recommendations (9-9-07).  Condo Conversion (7-10-07).  Housing - LWVO Statement.

The League of Women Voters has two separate and distinct roles.

• Voters Service/Citizen Education: we present unbiased nonpartisan information about elections, the voting process, and issues.

• Action/Advocacy: we are also nonpartisan, but, after study, we use our positions to advocate for or against particular policies in the public interest. We never advocate for candidates.

This page is the Action/Advocacy role

The LWVC Positions on June 2008 Ballot Measures

The June 3, 2008 ballot features two propositions on the subject of eminent domain.

The first, Proposition 98, The California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, is similar to Proposition 90, which the LWVC opposed on the November 2006 ballot. However, it goes much farther in limiting the ability of public agencies to acquire land to provide water resources, to regulate land use, to protect natural resources, and even to continue rent control laws. The League OPPOSES Proposition 98, and has signed the ballot argument against the measure. Any League member wishing to work on the campaign should contact Meghan Callahan via email mcallahan@bickerassociates.com or by calling 916-443-0872.

The second, Proposition 99, The Homeowners Protection Act, simply addresses a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision by clarifying that single-family occupied properties may not be condemned for transfer to other private parties. It reinforces the right of local governments and others to regulate land use and to acquire property for valid government purposes. The League SUPPORTS Proposition 99, and signed the ballot argument in favor of the measure.

These two propositions will be discussed at our April Stir-the Pot on April 28th. click here for more information

Blue Ribbon Housing Commission (1-31-08)

January 31, 2008

Oakland City Council

Dear Councilmembers:

The League of Women Voters had observers at each of the City of Oakland Inclusionary Housing Blue Ribbon Commission meetings. We commend the Commission members for the hours that they spent working together, the care with which they listened to each other, and the diligence that they showed in working towards consensus on each of their recommendations.

The Commission reached consensus on several of their recommendations. However, on the condo conversion recommendation there was no consensus. There were two distinct philosophies represented on this topic. One group wants to provide new home ownership opportunities, while the other wants to preserve the current stock of affordable rental housing. What is shown by the hours of discussion that the Commission spent on this topic is that there is no real middle ground to be found except to maintain the current compromise situation of allowing a limited number of conversions each year. Recognizing these two distinct philosophies, the Commission chose to present two reports to the City Council. The Commission has distilled the two points of view very well, and now the City Council will need to make a choice.

There have been accusations of lack of good faith between Commission members and failure of the Commission. These accusations are spurious. Commission members should be commended on a very thorough job completed with good spirit and little animosity towards one another. It is now the job of the City Council to use their findings to create a fair, workable policy that will benefit the residents of Oakland, both renters and owners.

Sincerely,

Helen Hutchison President

Public Ethics Commission (11-07)

November 26, 2007

Public Ethics Commission, City Hall, 4th Floor, One Frank Ogawa Plaza, Oakland, CA 94612

Re: Public Ethics Commission Authority and Organization

The League of Women Voters of Oakland is pleased to see in the November 5, 2007 Enabling Ordinance so many of the points we emphasized in our October 17, 2006 letter to the Commission. These points include retention of the three-year term for commissioners with the possibility of reappointment, jurisdiction over the Port and School Board, and restrictions on commissioner activities and financial interests.

We are pleased at the addition of authority to initiate investigations, audits, and public hearings; authority to determine the merit of complaints and reach a decision that is final and unappealable; and the emphasis on input from the public on governmental laws.

We would like to see these points addressed:

• The Commission should have authority to place proposed changes in ethics laws on the ballot
• The Commission should establish a program of public education on issues related to governmental ethics
• Commissioners should receive training in areas where the Public Ethics Commission has authority and jurisdiction
• If the Commission retains authority to set City Council salaries, its decisions should be final and not reviewed by those affected, namely the City Council. In the long term a separate City Compensation Board or other mechanism should be established to adjust the salaries of all elected officials.
• The Commission should have authority over joint powers agreements.

We would like to see the Commission and its Executive Director more clearly separated from the City Administration and City Attorney. It is hard to see how the Public Ethics Commission and its Executive Director can sit in judgment on the very offices to which it owes its power. There is a hint of conflict of interest on the part of legal advisors placed, as they are, between City agencies and the Ethics Commission. The issue of more independence for the Commission has to include an increased budget, especially for investigations. A two person staff cannot possibly implement needed reforms and conduct investigations in a timely way. Involving previous commissioners in training new ones could help free staff time for other work. The League commends the Commission on the progress made and hopes for more of the same.

Helen Hutchison
President, League of Women Voters of Oakland

Support Blue Ribbon Commission Recommendations (9-9-07)

September 9, 2007

Oakland City Council Oakland City Hall, 2nd Floor 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza Oakland, CA 94612

Dear Councilmembers,

Introduction: The City of Oakland Inclusionary Housing Blue Ribbon Commission was asked to provide recommendations to the City Council on several important housing policies. The fact that these all deal with policies for affordable housing, and are coming from a single commission, does not mean that these must be linked in any way. These policy recommendations can each stand alone.

The Commission reached consensus on several of their recommendations. We commend them for the hours of meetings they spent listening carefully to each other, and working towards recommendations on which they could reach a consensus. However, on the condo conversion recommendation there was no consensus. There were two distinct philosophies represented. One group wants to provide new home ownership opportunities, while the other wants to preserve the current stock of affordable rental housing. There is no real middle ground to be found between the two except to maintain the current compromise situation of allowing a limited number of conversions each year. Recognizing these two distinct philosophies, the Commission chose to present two reports to the City Council.

There were accusations of lack of good faith negotiations from some Commission members that we find spurious. We had observers at all the meetings. We were impressed by the fact that people listened to each other carefully, and over the course of the meetings, even seemed to come to respect each other's view point.

League Recommendations: The League supports the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendations:

1. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Recognizing that this is already a compromise between strong advocates on both sides of the issue, we would ask that the Council not weaken the policies any further.

2. Increase Redevelopment Agency contribution to the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund from 25 to 35 percent.

3. Target projects and programs funded from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund to households at or below 60 percent of area median income.

4. Sponsor a ballot measure for bonds to raise funds to assist rental and ownership housing.

5. Use real estate transfer tax revenues to support affordable housing.

The League of Women Voters has long advocated for a variety of housing opportunities in each neighborhood in Oakland, including housing which is affordable to a range of income groups. To that end, we support the recommendations of the presentation: "Increasing & Preserving Affordable Housing Opportunities - a Balanced Approach to Condominium Conversions". We find that it does a good job balancing the needs of both the renter and the first time home buyer. The recommendation begins by looking at the current ordinance and assessing what we have. It addresses the major deficiencies. The recommendation to extend the coverage to include buildings with fewer than 4 units makes sense in Oakland where we have so many 4-plexes. In 2006 alone, we lost almost 400 rental units in buildings of 4 or fewer units to condo conversions - with no replacement rental units.

We support the recommendations for replacement housing - the "Cap and No-Net-Loss" policy. By providing an exemption for buildings in which at least 75% of the current tenants purchase units, and for units reserved for affordable housing, the actual number of units converted could well exceed the cap.

We also support the recommendation on conversion fees. This will bring Oakland's fees into line with other communities in the area, and will help provide some of the funds needed to construct the replacement rental units.

Finally, we support the recommendations on tenant protections and assistance.

One recommendation we would like to make that was not covered by the Commission: we recommend that any condo conversion ordinance include language that requires that an existing building being converted to a condominium be brought up to current building code.

Sincerely,

Helen Hutchison
President, LWV Oakland

cc: Ron Dellums, Mayor
Claudia Cappio, Deputy Director City Planning

Condo Conversion (7-10-07)

July 10, 2007

To: Members of the City Of Oakland Inclusionary Housing Blue Ribbon Commission From: League Of Women of Women Voters of Oakland

The League of Women Voters of Oakland commends the members of the Blue Ribbon Commission for your long hours, hard work and careful consideration of many issues.

The League supports policies and programs which improve the variety of housing opportunities in each neighborhood. To further this goal, we urge that the "No Net Loss" provision of the Condo Conversion policy be retained.

We believe that the discussion of this policy needs to include a fuller discussion of the consequences of any potential change. Early in these meetings the question was raised about whether or not you wanted to change the ratio of rental to owned housing in Oakland. There has not yet been a discussion of this topic, and therefore no answer to this question.

The City of Oakland has a large population of renters. Where are the current renters going to go when their apartments are converted to condominiums? Some may be able to buy their apartments, but many will not be able to do so. We need to meet the housing requirements of all of Oakland's residents - not just those who can be homeowners. Further, some people who are able to buy a home choose to rent; we need to respect that choice also.

When we say "No Net Loss", remember that there is already a fairly large loophole in the current ordinance, in that it applies only to buildings that have 5 or more units, so in 2006, we lost almost 400 rental units in buildings of 4 or fewer units to condo conversions - with no replacement rental units.

You have data on where conversions have occurred recently. We think it important that you carefully review what is happening now before recommending policy changes which will affect the supply of rental housing in Oakland in the future.

Finally, we hope that you will consider adding a provision to the current condo conversion ordinance requiring that all buildings being converted be brought up to current building code - with no exceptions for small buildings.

Sincerely,

Helen Hutchison, President

cc: Hon. Ron Dellums, Oakland City Councilmembers, East Bay Express, Montclarion, Oakland Tribune, Oakland Post, Oakland Globe, East Bay Housing Organizations

LWVO statement re: Condo Conversion

The League of Women Voters of Oakland supports maintaining Oakland's Condominium Conversion Ordinance. We emphasize the importance of:

(1) the requirement that a replacement rental unit be produced for any existing rental unit converted to a condominium, including the requirements for the City's designated "impact" areas; and

(2) protections for tenants who become evicted as a result of conversion, so as to assist them to find affordable replacement housing and prevent homelessness.

Oakland has a high percentage of tenants and a limited supply of affordable rental housing. Approximately 60% of Oaklanders are tenants. Oakland's tenants come from all walks of life and all income levels. Census statistics show the median income of a tenant household is $32,000 per year. Some rent by choice, but many rent because they are unable to buy a home - whether a house or a condominium.

While a converted rental unit may allow some tenants to become owners, it must be noted that household incomes in Oakland are significantly below the average for the region, which means that less than 7% of current Oakland tenant households can afford the average price of a market-rate condominium. More likely, the conversion of a rental unit will be at the expense of the current tenant.

Oakland has a shortage of affordable rental housing; the shortage is especially acute for low-income and very low-income households. City statistics show that the majority of Oakland tenants pay more than 50% of their incomes for rent, thus, finding it impossible to save enough to buy their apartments. In addition to mandates under the California's Housing Element's law, the City owes it to these citizens to maintain the stock of rental housing -- particularly, affordable rental housing.

Furthermore, the League opposes unrestricted conversion of rental apartments to condominiums because:

(1) the condominium market is not consistent and

(2) once rentals are converted to condominiums, affordable rental housing is lost forever.

Only a few years ago there was a glut in the condo market and people wanting to sell experienced much difficulty. There is concern that if many units are converted to condominiums when these owners start to sell, another glut could be created. In all likelihood, converted units will again become rentals. Condominiums are exempt from both Oakland's Rent Arbitration Ordinance and the Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance. Thus, what is now affordable rental housing could become non-affordable rental housing.

Since the League believes there should be a variety of housing of for all income levels throughout the city, we also support special restrictions in highly desirable, or "impact" areas of Oakland. Lacking these protections, rental units in highly desirable areas would be the first to be converted, using "condominium conversion credits" from new rental housing built in other parts of the City.

In summary, Oakland needs to protect its limited supply of affordable rental housing. Any weakening of the Condominium Conversion Ordinance does not contribute to that goal.

Comments, suggestions, questions? Contact our webmaster. Last revised: April 26, 2008 16:13 PDT.

© Copyright League of Women Voters of Oakland, California. All rights reserved.