City Government

City Guts Affordable Housing Funds for Low-Income Oaklanders

Published

8 years ago

March 25, 2016

Oakland City Council’s Community and Economic Development (CED) Committee on Tuesday approved an ordinance sponsored by Mayor Libby Schaaf that affordable housing advocates say will “gut” low-income housing funds by expanding the definition of “affordable housing” to include moderate-income housing.

The council chamber was packed as low-income residents and housing groups spoke against the ordinance’s shifting of priorities from assisting low-income renters to people in the higher income scale.

The ordinance itself would implement Oakland’s first citywide housing impact fees, which are one-time fees imposed on market-rate housing developers that can add up to millions of dollars for the city to build much-needed affordable housing.

The organizations at Tuesday’s committee meeting generally supported the implementation of impact fees but were outraged by the last-minute and secretive modification to the ordinance that redefines affordable housing to include housing for households earning up to $110,000 a year.

As a result, this would mean less money to build housing for those earning less than $70,000 a year. Currently, the median household income for Oakland renters is $40,250 annually.

Organizations that opposed this change included SEIUUSWW, East Bay Housing Organizations, East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy, Causa Justa: Just Cause, Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment and Oakland Community Organizations.

The CED committee listened to over 50 speakers who said the shift of funding should not be written into the ordinance, but council members approved the resolution and sent it to the full council.

If passed by City Council, the ordinance would divide Oakland into three zones: Zone 1 for downtown Oakland and the hills, Zone 2 for parts of West Oakland and Coliseum City, and Zone 3 for East Oakland.

Each zone would have different impact fees that would be charged to developers. During a four-year phasing process that begins on Sept. 1, Zone 1 fees would gradually increase from $7,000 per market-rate unit to $24,000 by 2018.

Zone 2 would increase from $5,500 to $19,250 per unit by 2018, and Zone 3 would increase from $750 to $13,000 per unit by 2020.

By comparison, Emeryville and Berkeley have had housing impact fees in place for years, which are currently set at $28,000 per unit regardless of where in the city they are located, considerably more than what Oakland’s fees would look like in 2018 if the council passes the ordinance.

Speakers also opposed a modified provision that would allow developers to forego paying the impact fees if they include 10 percent affordable or moderate-income housing units on site.

“Given the choice to build an equal number of moderate-income units as affordable units, the developers will only build moderate-income units and it won’t generate money for trust funds,” said Gloria Bruce, executive director of East Bay Housing Organizations.

Since developers are likely to choose building moderate-income units, there would be no affordable housing being built on site and no fees going into the city’s affordable housing trust fund, which would also be competing with moderate-income housing for funding, said housing activists.

Housing advocates are calling the ordinance’s overall redistribution of funds for very low-income and low-income housing to moderate-income housing a “Robin Hood in Reverse,” meaning the city is taking money from the majority of Oaklanders who are low income and giving it to the more affluent.

Housing activists say this ordinance – backed by the mayor and city staff – would further displace Oakland’s poorest populations, which are disproportionately communities of color, while incentivizing middle class households to move to the city with the city’s assistance.

Lifelong Oakland resident Gregory Ward told the council members that it seemed they did not want to acknowledge what is currently happening in Oakland as a housing crisis.

“We voted for you because we thought you’d represent and address our needs,” said Ward. “I’m tired of having to come here and say the same thing over and over again. We need housing for the people who are living here right now.”

Another longtime Oakland resident, Theola Polk, said that due to skyrocketing housing prices and rent increases, her grandchildren will not be able to afford to live in the city they grew up in.

“We need to keep the families of low-income residents here so that their families will have a future here,” said Polk. “We do have a housing emergency. It’s an emergency.”

Councilmember Anne Campbell-Washington justified the shift to moderateincome housing in the proposal, saying she had teachers in mind when she backed the change.

The top household limit would be $110,000 for four people. “That’s a family of four with two teachers as parents. That’s who we’re trying to house,” said CampbellWashington. “It’s very important for me to keep our teachers here in Oakland.”

But according to Kitty Kelly Epstein, a longtime Oakland teacher, the councilmember’s ideas are misconceived.

“The typical Oakland teacher doesn’t make anywhere near $70,000 a year so making that number affordable doesn’t make any sense,” said Epstein. “It takes decades for an educator to earn $72,000 a year and the idea that there’s a few families that have two educators in them is not typical.”

“Teachers are concerned for their students,” she said. “They face a constantly rotating set of students because their families are being evicted. What teachers want is a classroom of students who are housed and able to sleep at night.”

Council President Lynette McElhaney responded negatively to the public comments. She said she felt heartbroken seeing low-income residents “vilifying” middle class people who have “finally made it out of the poverty cycle.”

According to James Vann, co-founder of the Oakland Tenants Union, Oakland currently has 6,000 housing units in its pipeline and 98 percent of them are for moderate- to high-income households.

By 2020, the pipeline will have 20,000 moderate- to high-income units, said Vann.

“Nobody is looking out for low-income people,” said Vann. “You’re raising the limit to $72,000 (for one person), and the average income is $30,000. So who are you housing and who is concerned about the people who live here now?”

Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan abstained from the vote, criticizing the city’s lack of transparency in making these last-minute modifications to the ordinance.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Councilmember Gallo Explains Why He Stood Alone to Oppose E. 12th Street Project

Don't Miss

Warriors Unveil Newly Renovated Gym AT EOYDC

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Bay Area

Advocates Hold Rally to “Issue a Citation” to City to Stop Homeless Encampment Sweeps

Advocates in San Francisco held a rally Thursday afternoon in front of City Hall to issue a symbolic citation to Mayor London Breed, urging an immediate end to the sweeps of homeless encampments in the city. “What do we want? Housing! When do we want it? Now!,” the group chanted. The group of allies and advocates originally intended to start their rally off on Jessie Street, where a sweep of an encampment was going to take place around noon. But, the group had to change their plans because the city allegedly heard about the rally and chose to sweep the area earlier in the day.

Published

2 days ago

September 16, 2024

Oakland Post

San Francisco homelessness advocates held a rally in front of City Hall to issue a symbolic citation to Mayor London Breed to stop sweeping encampments. Photo by Magaly Muñoz.

By Magaly Muñoz

“What do we want? Housing! When do we want it? Now!,” the group chanted.

The group of allies and advocates originally intended to start their rally off on Jessie Street, where a sweep of an encampment was going to take place around noon. But, the group had to change their plans because the city allegedly heard about the rally and chose to sweep the area earlier in the day.

The streets adjacent to Jessie St., such as Mission and Market St, are lined with multiple encampments and unhoused individuals. Many stand in groups or walk along the streets by themselves.

One member of the group, Leah, said she lived in District 6 and what politicians claim is an “open drug market” area. She criticized the extra funding that has gone to the San Francisco Police Department to “solve homelessness” but no positive results have been shown.

“If giving the police more money actually solved the housing crisis, the homelessness crisis…then it would’ve gotten better, but it has actually just been getting worse and worse as more services for poor people have been cut,” Leah said.

Other speakers said the problem with sweeping and citing people for living on the streets is that the homeless problem is being exacerbated, and it’s ultimately not helping those who are struggling.

In order to help alleviate the problem, advocates have called for expansions to permanent supportive housing, resources and services, housing vouchers, and rent relief for struggling residents.

According to the 2024 Point in Time Count, 8,323 people were experiencing homelessness in San Francisco. A seven percent increase since 2022 where there were 7,754 sheltered and unsheltered homeless individuals.

In her mission to get people off the streets, Mayor Breed has directed city crews to clear encampments more frequently than before. This decision comes after the landmark case, Grants Pass v. Johnson, was overturned by the U.S Supreme Court and cities were given the authority to ban people from camping or sleeping on the streets.

The mayor also instructed city workers to offer transportation tickets to people before offering shelter with the intent that those who are not originally from San Francisco can return to family or friends elsewhere and services can then be used for long-time residents.

A former homeless resident, Yolanda, in attendance at the rally said it was difficult to get off of living on the streets because of the barriers to housing and services.

Yolanda told the Post that she had grown up in the city with her family, but once her father passed away, there was no one to maintain the bills so they had to relocate to Oakland for a few years. She said her family stayed there for a few years before returning to San Francisco.

As she got older, she found herself living on the streets or in temporary shelter. But these shelters would only allow people to stay for a few months at a time and were very restrictive in what people could do, such as leave when they wanted or have guests with them.

After some time, Yolanda and her boyfriend were selected for housing through a housing allocation program, where she still currently lives now. She said they were one of the lucky ones, but others do not get to experience this same fortune.

She shared that at one point in her journey to find a housing placement, there was a 2,000 person waitlist, making it nearly impossible and disheartening for those looking for a roof to put over their heads.

Yolanda said it was unfair to criminalize people for not being able to afford housing, considering the extremely high costs of living in the area.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Bay Area

Libby Schaaf, Associates Stiff Penalties for ‘Serious’ Campaign Violations in 2018, 2020 City Elections

According to the proposed settlement agreements, which are on the agenda for the Monday, Sept. 16 Public Ethics Commission (PEC), Schaaf and many of those with whom she was working, have cooperated with the investigation and have accepted the commission’s findings and penalties. “Respondents knowingly and voluntarily waive all procedural rights under the Oakland City Charter, Oakland Municipal Code, the Public Ethics Commission Complaint Procedures, and all other sources of (applicable) procedural rights,” the settlement agreement said.

Published

5 days ago

September 13, 2024

Oakland Post

Libby Schaaf served as Oakland’s mayor from 2012 to 2020. Courtesy Photo.

Ex-Mayor, Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce Are Not Disputing Findings of Violations

By Ken Epstein

Former Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, currently a candidate for state treasurer, faces thousands of dollars in penalties from the City of Oakland Public Ethics Commission for a “pattern” of serious campaign violations in 2018 and 2020 city elections

“Respondents knowingly and voluntarily waive all procedural rights under the Oakland City Charter, Oakland Municipal Code, the Public Ethics Commission Complaint Procedures, and all other sources of (applicable) procedural rights,” the settlement agreement said.

“If respondents fail to comply with the terms of this stipulation, then the commission may reopen this matter and prosecute respondents to the full extent permitted by law,” according to the agreement.

Schaff and co-respondents were involved in three related cases investigated by the PEC:

In the first case, Schaaf in 2018, without publicly revealing her involvement as required by law, working with the Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and others, created, lead, and raised funds for a campaign committee called “Oaklanders for Responsible Leadership, Opposing Desley Brooks for Oakland City Council.”

The “respondents,” who were responsible for the violations in this case were: the campaign committee called Oaklanders for Responsible Leadership; Mayor Schaaf; the Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce; OAKPAC; which is the chamber’s political action committee; Barbara Leslie and Robert Zachary Wasserman, both leaders of the Oakland chamber; and Doug Linney, a campaign consultant who was brought on by Schaaf to organize and lead the campaign to defeat Desley Brooks in her 2018 campaign for reelection.

Linney reported in his interview with the PEC that Schaaf had approached him and said, “Let’s do an Independent Expenditure (IE) campaign against Desley and let me see if I can get some other folks involved to make it happen.”

Linney developed a plan, which hired staff to organize field canvassing and phone banking. He said Schaaf told him the budget should be more than $200,000 because “I think raising $200K shouldn’t be hard and could shoot for more.”

None of the original group, which met weekly, included anyone who lived in District 6, the section of the city that Brooks represented. They waited to start the committee until they could find a District 6 resident willing to be the face of their campaign.

During her tenure, Brooks was instrumental in establishing the city’s Department of Race and Equity.

Among the violations reported by the PEC:

Respondents reported contributions as being received from the chamber’s political action committee, OAKPAC, “rather than the true source of the contributions,” in order to hide the identities of contributors.
Failure to disclose “controlling candidate,” Libby Schaaf, on a mass mailer.
Failing to disclose the controlling candidate, Libby Schaaf, on official campaign filings.
Receiving contributions in amounts over the legal limit. For example, the State Building and Construction Trade Council of California PAC donated $10,000, which is $8,400 over the limit; and Libby Schaaf donated $999, which is $199 over the limit.

Total contributions were $108,435, of which $82,035 was over the limit.

“In this case, Mayor Schaaf and her associates’ action were negligent. All of them were fully aware that Mayor Schaaf and significant participation in the IE campaign against Brooks, including its creation, strategy, and budgeting decisions, and selection of personnel.”

Further, the PEC said, “The respondents’ violations in this case are serious. The strict rules applying to candidate-controlled committees go directly to the very purpose of campaign finance law.”

In her interview with the PEC, Schaaf, who is an attorney, had received incorrect legal advice from Linney, her campaign consultant, that her activities were legally permissible, because she was not the “final decision-maker.”

Total recommended penalties for all those involved in this case were $148,523.

The PEC also found violations and is recommending penalties in two other cases.

The second case involves the Oakland Fund for Measure AA in 2018, which established a parcel tax to fund early childhood initiatives in Oakland. Looking into this case, PEC investigators found that Schaaf used her position as mayor to benefit the campaign, though without revealing her involvement.

A contractor who made a large contribution was Julian Orton of Orton Development, which was in negotiations with the city to redevelop the Henry J. Kaiser Convention Center. Orton donated $100,000

Schaaf, for failing to disclose that the campaign committee was “candidate controlled,” may face a $4,500 penalty. For violating the rule against contractor contributions, the campaign committee and Schaaf face a possible $5,000 penalty.

Orton has agreed to pay a $5,000 penalty.

The third case involved a campaign in 2020, the Committee for an Affordable East Bay, which raised thousands of dollars to support Derrick Johnson’s campaign for Councilmember-at-Large position and to attack the incumbent, Councilmember-at-Large Rebecca Kaplan.

Investigators found that Schaaf was extensively and secretly involved in the work of this committee.

She received a $100,000 donation from Lyft, which had a contract with the city at the time and was therefore legally prohibited. Lyft recently agreed to pay a $50,000 fine.