ADVOCATE

EXAMINING THE EVICTION MORATORIUM

Alameda County Retains Eviction Moratorium and Gives Renters a Free Ride

By Michelle Gamble

If you walk around these days, you will see some people still wearing masks. It reminds us about COVID-19. It’s easy to forget about the pandemic because people still wearing masks are in the minority. Not to mention that large, indoor venues, which attract huge crowds, don’t require masks anymore. People feel protected and safe and are eager to resume their pre-pandemic routines and interactions with others. These observations would indicate that COVID health emergency mandates are no longer needed.

Despite these positive indicators, rental property owners were surprised to read the news that Alameda County had voted 2-3 on July 20, 2022 to not consider modifying the county’s eviction moratorium. This decision couldn’t have been based on renters’ abilities to pay, not when you consider our robust economy and historically low unemployment rates as of July 2022. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the state of California unemployment rate was at 3.5%, which is the lowest it has been since February 2020 (pre-pandemic) and significantly lower than its peak in April 2020 when it reached 14.7 percent.

Since most cities and counties have lifted COVID restrictions, why didn’t Alameda County’s moratorium get lifted too? Why is the Board of Supervisors using the pandemic to give thousands of renters a free ride at the expense of property owners – people who also have families to feed and count on rental income to pay bills related to property management maintenance and repairs?

Cities like Los Angeles, Oakland and San Diego still have significant eviction restrictions or bans, along with Alameda County. In an article titled “Emergency Bans on Evictions and Other Renter Protections Related to Coronavirus” by Ann O’Connell, an attorney, it provided a chart of states that still had bans on evictions. No other state has eviction bans in place.

This makes perfect sense, because we have vaccines and the rates of new COVID cases have declined. In the state of California, we have an average daily number of cases at 11,289, which means much like the flu, this is a manageable illness. As we move forward, COVID will be a part of the virus family in which we get vaccinations. It’s not a crisis or an emergency. It’s a part of life. One look at China where SARS became a problem long before COVID-19, the Chinese learned to cope through mask-wearing by choice not mandate.

What is obvious, and certainly irrational, is the Board of Supervisors seemingly adopted a mentality that in their county the mere existence of the virus should make the eviction moratorium permanent. What’s next? Is Monkey Pox going to be the new excuse, a virus that is far more containable than COVID, as it’s spread skin to skin? If we pose the argument that the virus hasn’t gone away, therefore, the eviction moratorium should stay in place then the supposition about Monkey Pox applies … and then the next virus … and then the next virus, and so on.

What is the thinking behind this irrational decision? In reviewing documents provided by the county, a clear bias toward renters’ rights revealed a gross lack of consideration toward rental property owners. It’s a type of social programming that hurts the market while permanently victimizing renters. Property owners are not heartless and they care about renters, too, but this is “stinken’ thinken”.

Recently EBRHA initiated a request for documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Why does the Board of Supervisors only lean toward renter concerns? Because the documentation provided about their decision clearly showed bias. In a correspondence to the Clerk of the Board, Leo Esclamado, co-director of My Eden Voice, emphasized that the pandemic isn’t over and renters still suffer. Esclamado contends that renters are often one paycheck away from being behind and get harassed by property owners. Complaints were also directed toward property owners who don’t keep up with maintenance and safety hazards. (Note: Esclamado expressed no concerns in the FOIA information about property owners’ economic and tenant-related struggles during the pandemic.)

An unfair and unbalanced mentality prevails that renters’ rights should overrule property owners’ basic business rights. Yes, businesses should have rights, too. No one works or should provide services for free or doesn’t have to pay bills. Yet renters, whose leases often include utilities and maintenance expenses paid by the property owner, aren’t being required to pay for housing and related services – not yet anyway. Retailers, grocery stores, insurance companies and auto lenders have not been mandated in the same way.

“Free” rent sounds appealing. Some renters took the money provided by the federal government under the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and used it not to pay rent but to purchase cars, go on vacation or even buy a home. No rent payment and a new home, and as Larry David would say in HBO’s Curb Your Enthusiasm, “Pretty, pretty good.” Now why wouldn’t anyone take advantage of this great opportunity? Other renters just took the ERAP money or vacated the rental property and left owners with tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid rent. Judgment, morality and fairness are principles that the Board of Supervisors didn’t apply in making their decision.

In a letter written by Dan Pan, a representative from an organization titled BAHN, he articulated it perfectly. He said, “We are one America, suffering together. Our legislators can’t use COVID-19 as a cover to continue punishing one particular group – housing providers.” Pan is right. As noted by Escalmado, a mentality exists that rental property owners harass renters and don’t make repairs. Let’s break that down a bit. How would any other business owner feel when their finances have been drained by consumers who aren’t paying and they’re expected to continue providing services? As small property owners, how are we supposed to pay mortgages and expenses without income – paying renters’ maintenance services and utilities while not being able to pay our own?

In Alameda County, it’s okay to give renters a pass when most California municipalities and all other states have lifted the moratorium. The economy is booming, and the virus is in decline, and the situation is not as dire, compared to 2020. But, it’s completely unreasonable for property owners to demand fair business practices be applied to them. The prevailing mentality and belief is that small property owners, which most of our members are mom-and-pop businesses, should completely subsidize renters. Rental property owners are evil slum lords who don’t deserve to be paid for their services, and their needs don’t matter, is simply wrong, misguided and flawed.

Clearly most of the Board of Supervisors feel they should only represent the majority of constituents that are renters versus property owners. The board is more interested in keeping their positions of authority than doing the right thing and being good public servants for everyone.

Michelle Gamble is the editor of Rental Housing Magazine.