EAST BAY EXPRESS - Berkeley, California · unfair advantage landlords have in rent board disputes -...
Transcript of EAST BAY EXPRESS - Berkeley, California · unfair advantage landlords have in rent board disputes -...
Harr September 2014
EAST BAY EXPRESS OAKLAND , BERKELEY, AND EAST BAY NEWS, EVENTS , RESTAURANTS, MUSIC, & ARTS NEWS & OPINION » NEWS AUGUST 27, 2014
How Oakland Landlords Fight Rent Control One longtime tenant's battle against rent increases sheds light on the unfair advantage landlords have in rent board disputes - and the procedural loopholes they can manipulate .
By Sam Levin Cl @SamTLevin
~ Email Tweet ~ Print
Mark Sherman, a 72-year-old retired shop owner, has lived in the same North
Oakland apartment for thirty years. His unit has been protected since 1985 by
the city's rent control law, which protects tenants from high rent increases.
But that could soon change if his landlords, a couple based in Contra Costa
County, are successful in their push to get his property exempt from rent
control in a case that advocates say sheds light on the unfair battle Oakland
tenants often face in rent disputes.
Last year, Sherman's landlords, Harold and Diane Michelsen, filed a petition
with the Oakland Rent Board alleging that the property should not be subject
to rent control restrictions because it became a residential unit after 1983.
Properties built after that year - or ones that were not previously residential -
are exempt from Oakland's rent control law.
The petition surprised Sherman, because he knew his apartment had been
occupied by tenants in the 1970s. To prove it, he provided Oakland Rent Board
officials with phone book records and tracked down two former tenants who
submitted official statements for his case confirming that they had lived at his
Occidental Street address during the 1970s.
But a hearing officer for the city's Rent Adjustment Program, which mediates
disputes and enforces the city's rent control law, dismissed the evidence that
Sherman presented and ruled in favor of the Michelsens. And the Oakland
Rent Board, which reviews appeals, upheld the decision in favor of the
landlords in July and is expected to finalize its ruling in September.
If that happens, the Michelsens can raise Sherman's rent by as much they
want. The rent board's decision, Sherman and his attorneys fear, could prompt
his landlords to argue in court that they also have a right to evict him. "I feel
beleaguered. I feel like the weight of the system is on me," said Sherman, who
provided the Express with extensive documentation of his case, including
transcripts of rent board hearings and letters from former tenants, signed
under penalty of perjury.
Tenants' advocates say Sherman's battle highlights numerous ways in which
the rent board process is unfairly biased toward landlords. And this alleged
bias is of great concern in the current housing market, as rents are rapidly
rising and property owners are increasingly looking for ways to avoid rent
control and attract higher-paying residents.
"The thing that is so striking about this case is that he went above and beyond,"
said Sherman's lawyer Derek Schoonmaker, citing the extensive research
Sherman did to bolster his case. Schoonmaker, a staff attorney with Centro
Legal de la Raza, an Oakland-based nonprofit, noted that the process can be
significantly harder for tenants who don't speak English or don't have the time
to search for supporting evidence: "He was in some ways exceptional, and that
wasn't good enough."
Tensions between Sherman and his landlords first escalated when he
discovered that his landlords had been violating the city's rent control law for
years. They had not given him an official Rent Adjustment Program notice as
required by law. From 1985 to 2010, the landlords had gradually raised his
monthly rent from $1,225 to $1,687, based on cost-of-living increases allowed
under the city's rent control ordinance - but had failed to provide him with the
proper notice.
In 2012, Sherman filed a petition contesting the increases, and last year, a
program hearing officer ruled in his favor, awarding him $15,036 to cover the
invalid rent hikes and mandating that his landlord revert back to the 1985 rate.
But the landlords then filed a separate petition with the rent board, arguing for
the first time since Sherman moved in that his unit shouldn't be subject to rent
control laws in the first place based on city law exempting units "newly
constructed" after 1983.
The four-unit building was built in the early 1900s and was at one point used
as a printer's warehouse, before being converted to residential housing,
according to Sherman. At his first hearing in the exemption case, he presented
to hearing officer Linda Moroz a letter from a former tenant who stated that he
had lived at Sherman's address from 1976 to 1978. Phone book records also
corroborated this evidence.
Moroz, however, rejected the evidence because it was not signed under penalty
of perjury. But according to Schoonmaker, there is no formal requirement in
this type of administrative hearing that written statements be sworn testimony.
In addition, Moroz misquoted an email from a city official, writing in her
decision that the building added housing "in [the] mid-Sos," when the email
from the city official - which was not signed under penalty of perjury - had
simply noted that there was housing in the structure "by the mid-Sos."
"The exemption was improperly given because of the serious errors that the
hearing officer made," said Leah Hess, a private, Oakland-based housing
attorney also representing Sherman. "There was very strong evidence that
there might be something amiss with what the landlord was claiming."
It was at Sherman's appeal to the rent board, however, that the flaws in the
process really became clear, his attorneys said. Sherman returned with a new
letter from the former tenant signed under penalty of perjury and a second
sworn letter from another former tenant who said he lived at the address in the
1970s. But the rent board declined to consider the new evidence, and decided
not to overturn the hearing officer's decision or even send it back for another
review.
The rent board is made up of six members - two tenant representatives, two
landlord representatives, and two others who are supposed to be neutral.
Those latter two members, however, are generally homeowners who often side
with landlords in controversial cases, according to tenants' advocates . (The
mayor nominates candidates and the city council approves them). In
Sherman's appeal, only the two tenant representatives voted in his favor.
This was despite the fact that Richard Illgen, an Oakland deputy city attorney
who advises the board, stated at the hearing that administrative officers have in
the past accepted as evidence letters that were not signed under penalty of
perjury. Connie Taylor, the city's Rent Adjustment Program manager, also
noted at the hearing that Moroz arbitrarily accepted an unsworn declaration
the landlord presented (the email from a city official) , but rejected the similarly
unsworn statement of the tenant (the former resident's letter) .
"There is no rhyme, no reasoning behind why she treated them differently,"
Taylor said, according to a transcript provided by Sherman.
At the hearing, Schoonmaker also pointed to a past rent control exemption
dispute in which the Oakland Rent Board ordered a new hearing specifically to
allow the landlord to submit new evidence that he did not originally provide.
"It seems dysfunctional to not consider clear evidence in front of them. It just
seems really unfair," Sherman told me.
In a brief phone interview, Diane Michelsen said, "The facilities were never
rented as a living space prior to 19S3," adding that she and her husband did
rent the property to artists to use as a studio.
"There was no one living there with our permission," she continued. Regarding
the letters from former tenants, she added: "I don't think they are valid."
The six board members either declined to comment on Sherman's case or did
not respond to inquiries for comment for this report. Moroz, the hearing
officer, did not respond to a request for comment. Taylor declined to comment
on the specifics of the case, but said that when landlords seek exemptions
based on the new construction exemption, they have to prove that "it wasn't
previously used as a residential unit."
East Bay housing lawyers, including Hess, noted that they are increasingly
getting calls from tenants concerned about their landlords' efforts to raise rents
or evict them.
According to an annual report from the city, 43 landlords in Oakland requested
exemption certificates in fiscal year 2012-13. The report, however, does not
include data on the outcomes of these cases, and Taylor said she was unable to
provide that information by press time. Of the total 355 cases resolved by the
rent board during the 2012-13 fiscal year, tenants prevailed in 53 percent of
them, while landlords won 47 percent.
But James Vann of the Oakland Tenants Union said that tenants only win
appeals in cut-and-dried cases - for example, when landlords don't appear or
miss deadlines. Nuanced cases involving the history of a property are very
difficult for tenants, he said. "The board is unfortunately very biased against
tenants."
It's especially important, he continued, that exemption cases are fair and
thorough, considering the broad and long-term impact of a ruling in the
landlord's favor. "Unless it somehow gets overturned, it means that forever
that property is removed from [the rent control program] and that no tenant in
that building can ever have any protection. So you have to be very, very careful
when you grant an exemption."
Vann, who is not directly involved in Sherman's case, but sat in on the
hearings, added: "They did absolutely everything wrong in that case. That was
a terrible decision, and it needs to be reconsidered."
Correction: The original version of this report incorrectly stated the
percentage of rent board cases won by tenants and landlords in 2012-13.
Tenants prevailed in 53 percent of cases while landlords won in 47 percent.
Contact the author of this piece, send a letter to the editor, like us on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.
« Letters for the Week of August ... Obamacare and Immigration »