CAA opposes ordinance to protect Section 8 renters from discrimination

CAA opposes ordinance to protect Section 8 renters from discrimination

Marin County law prohibiting discrimination against section 8 tenants passes on 1st reading

By Lynda Carson- October 26, 2016

The California Apartment Association (CAA) stepped up to the plate to oppose a proposed ethical ordinance prohibiting discrimination against section 8 tenants in Marin County. The CAA has taken an unethical position against the ordinance to protect section 8 renters, as well as opposing some ethical renter protection ballot measures in 6 cities in the Bay Area recently.

According to the CAA mission statement it says, “The organization’s mission is to represent the ethical members of the rental housing industry in all aspects of government affairs within the State of California, and to provide information, products and services which contribute to the success of their businesses.”

A source of income protections ordinance in Marin County to fight against discrimination by unscrupulous landlords discriminating against veterans, the poor, elderly, sick and disabled renters with section 8 vouchers (Housing Choice Vouchers), that was opposed by the CAA, was passed unanimously by the Marin County Board of Supervisors in a first reading on Tue. October 25, 2016. Reportedly, the second reading and final vote is scheduled for Nov. 8, according to the Marin Independent Journal.

According to the Marin Housing Authority, between Jan. 1, 2014, and Aug. 31, 2016, the authority issued 2,194 Section 8 vouchers. Almost half of the recipients totaling 1,063, were not able to find any landlords that would rent to them and they lost their vouchers as a direct result. Voucher holders have to return their vouchers if they can not find a landlord willing to accept them in a certain period of time. Of the 1,063 voucher holders, 239 of them transferred their voucher, and the federal funding that came with it, out of Marin County.

Reportedly, “Under the proposed ordinance, a landlord could still choose not to rent to a specific individual receiving a third-party subsidy; but the landlord would have to fairly consider that individual’s application and not reject him automatically just because he was using a voucher.”

In an October 16, 2016, letter from Caroline Peattie, Executive Director, of Fair Housing of Marin, in part she wrote; “Fair Housing of Marin wholeheartedly supports such a fair housing ordinance, and believes it is a crucial step to preserving affordable housing for the most vulnerable populations in the county who are protected under federal and state fair housing law.”

“I’ve previously addressed the fact that the burden of unaffordability in Marin County is borne by tenants who are harmed by the current lack of affordable housing, and that many devote half or more of their monthly income towards their rent. At worst, they are forced out of Marin altogether or face homelessness. We continue to see those tenants at our agency. For those who choose to stay near the jobs, schools, or support systems that sustain them, the choice is sometimes living in a car or couch-surfing. For families with children or people with disabilities, staying housed becomes exponentially more difficult.”

“In previous letters to the Board of Supervisors, I’ve written about the history of Marin County and how federal and local policies caused segregation in this county, and that tenant protections would actually help reverse government-sponsored segregation and inequality. During World War II, African-Americans moved to Marin City in large numbers to work in the shipyards. The housing projects in Marin City were the only integrated housing project built in the Bay Area, not integrated purposely, but only because the rapid expansion of the shipyard gave officials no time to design the project’s occupancy patterns. The integrated character of the project was maintained, at least until private housing in the area became available (to whites only), at which point the housing project became predominantly black. Once materials for civilian housing construction became available, subdivisions in Marin County were created that excluded African-Americans, leaving them in the housing project. Any development approved by the FHA or the VA after WWII specifically required the builders to exclude African-Americans; most deeds included restrictive covenants that did not allow people to sell their properties to people of color.”

“Today, Marin’s African-American population (only 3% of the entire county) is heavily concentrated in one area, the unincorporated Marin City. Despite having less than 1% of Marin County's total population, Marin City is home to more than 20% of the county's Black residents. Blacks represent 43% of the population in Marin City - but less than 1% in the adjacent city of Sausalito.”

“Low-income people are comprised of a disproportionate number of African-Americans, Latinos, families with children, and people with disabilities, all protected classes under federal and state fair housing law. Virtually all section 8 voucher holders fall into one or more of these protected classes. Currently landlords in Marin County can decide whether or not they want to accept section 8. Studies have shown that refusal of Section 8, given the demographics of section 8 voucher holders, is often a pretext for for race , familial status, or disability discrimination. This keeps African-Americans, Latinos, families, and people with disabilities in poor, segregated, and low opportunity neighborhoods. Passing this ordinance will not require landlords to rent to housing choice voucher holders; they must, however, consider their applications. All rental applicants, including section 8 voucher holders, would be held to the same standards and the same screening process.”

“Both the County and Marin Housing Authority have obligations under federal law to affirmatively further fair housing. HUD’s Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) Department as well as advocates around the Bay Area are watching very closely to see what steps the County will take to create and preserve affordable housing and promote integration throughout the county. Adopting this fair housing ordinance is an important step toward making housing more affordable in Marin County for the extremely low income, and positively impact people of color, families with children, and people with disabilities. I urge the Board to adopt the fair housing ordinance.”

It is unethical for unscrupulous landlords to discriminate against veterans, the poor, elderly, sick and disabled renters with section 8 vouchers (Housing Choice Vouchers), however that did not stop the California Apartment Association (CAA) from taking a stand against the proposed ordinance that would offer source of income protections to section 8 voucher holders.

Reportedly, in opposition to the ordinance to protect section 8 renters from discrimination, according to the Marin Independent Journal, Mallori Spilker, CAA’s vice president of public affairs, said “Santa Monica’s fair housing ordinance is being challenged in court by the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles. She urged supervisors to wait until the resolution of that litigation before moving forward.”

“Spilker also said the board should allow more time for the county’s new landlord partnership program to bear fruit.”

The California Apartment Association (CAA) is a wealthy organization that represents the interests of realtors, speculators, and greedy landlords, not the tenants.

Taking an unethical stand recently against Senate Bill 1053, which if passed into law would have helped to protect section 8 renters from discrimination by unscrupulous landlords, the CAA fought against the bill on behalf of all the unscrupulous landlords who opposed the bill meant to protect section 8 renters.

Taking an unethical stand against source of income protections for section 8 renters, the CAA has long opposed protections for section 8 renters that face discrimination from unscrupulous landlords even though the CAA claims to be representing ethical landlords in their 990 tax filing, and on their website.

According to the CAA mission statement it says, “The organization’s mission is to represent the ethical members of the rental housing industry in all aspects of government affairs within the State of California, and to provide information, products and services which contribute to the success of their businesses.”

Questioning the ethics of the CAA, as recent as Thursday October 13, tenant activists around the Bay Area joined together outside the Hayward regional office of the California Apartment Association (CAA) and the Prometheus Real Estate Group in San Mateo to protest against the lies and deceit of the CAA being used to fight against ethical renter protection ballot measures in the cities of Richmond, Oakland, Alameda, San Mateo, Burlingame, and Mountain View. Reported also by the New York Times, the activists also filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission against the CAA.

During 2015, the CAA was meddling in the affairs of Richmond with big money to block renter protections from taking effect.

Not showing any ethics whatsoever, the CAA used signature gatherers that lied to the residents of Richmond and tricked them into signing a petition that was used to block renter protections from going into effect. The signature gatherers hired by the CAA misled many of the residents and told them the petition would strengthen renter protections. It was a bold faced lie. Presently, the City of Santa Rosa has hired a special investigator to probe into voter fraud that involves the CAA and it’s partners in a situation that appears very similar to what happened in Richmond in 2015.

The tricksters used by the CAA and it’s partners in Santa Rosa to gather signatures for an anti-rent control petition recently were so corrupt that it is possible that they may not have turned in enough valid signatures according to the Press Democrat, on 10/25/2016. Reportedly, there were 151 people who requested to have their signatures removed from the petition because they were allegedly tricked into signing the petition by signature gatherers who lied to them.

Due to a lack of ethics on the part of the CAA, the struggle for renter protections in Richmond has been an epic battle against the lies and deceit of the California Apartment Association (CAA), and it’s corrupting influence on local politicians.

Presently the California Apartment Association (CAA) is running attack ads against the renter protection ballot measures in the cities of Richmond, Alameda, Mountain View, San Mateo and Burlingame.

The CAA attack ad against Measure L in Richmond, uses lies and deceit by claiming that Measure L would require landlords to subsidize the renters. This is patently false. Measure L helps to stop the landlords from engaging in price gouging and blocks the landlords from engaging in the eviction-for-profit system. Measure L makes the landlords accountable for their actions when engaging in price gouging.

The same types of lies and deceit are reportedly being used by the CAA in all of the cities with renter protections on the ballot in the Bay Area, and there seems to be little that the public can do to stop the lies and deceit. More about the lies and deceit used by the CAA may be found at the website of Tenants Together, an organization that helps renters to organize for renter protections that would help to stabilize communities and protect families from displacement.

Renters need strong renter protections in the State of California to protect themselves from the activities of the CAA and the unscrupulous realtors, speculators, and greedy landlords being represented by the CAA, and their big money.

Additionally, renters need strong renter protections to protect them from notorious landlords in the Bay Area who are involved in mass evictions including Nemat Maleksalehi, and Scott Sternberg, James Kilpatrick, Matt Sridhar and Danny Haber and Alon Gutmon.

Renter protections will be on the ballot in 6 cities during November in the Bay Area. No matter how hard the landlords and the California Apartment Association are trying to stop the renters movement, tenant advocates across the Bay Area are urging renters to vote on strong renter protections during the upcoming November elections in the cities of Richmond, Oakland, Alameda, Burlingame, San Mateo, and Mountain View. The activists are urging people to vote “no” against any weak proposals placed on the ballot by the City Council in Alameda, and Mountain View.

Lynda Carson may be reached at tenantsrule [at] yahoo.com

>>>>>>
>>>>>>