During the pandemic, Alameda County supervisors approved some of the strongest protections in California for tenants facing evictions. But last month, the board abruptly changed course — rejecting a slate of proposals designed to keep renters in their homes.
The turn comes amid backlash from property owners that could signal future resistance statewide, some tenant and landlord advocates say.
“What it feels like is really a turning back of a lot of work and conversations, a lot of hope and trust,” said Leo Esclamado, an organizer with the community group My Eden Voice, which lobbied hard to extend renter protections in the county.
The measures would have banned landlords from doing criminal background checks on potential tenants, created a rental registry meant to help the county enforce code violations and rent-control laws, and only allowed “just cause” evictions for things like not paying rent or violating lease terms.
The supervisors also voted to cut off funding for the county’s Housing Secure program, which has provided legal services to both tenants and homeowners since 2018.
Tenants rights advocates and county housing department staff are reeling from the decisions, which they said signal a profound philosophical shift. Meghan Gordon, who runs the East Bay Community Law Center’s housing program, said the board appeared to be reacting to landlords’ complaints without consideration of tenants’ needs.
“They have lost sight of planning for the realities and implications of their decisions,” she said. “There’s no plan for moving forward, and there’s no discussion of what could happen to the community.”
Anne Tamiko Omura, executive director of the Eviction Defense Center, said the decisions come at the worst possible time — with the county’s eviction moratorium set to expire at the end of April.
“I understand that the landlord lobby has a loud voice and the financial backing, but our elected leaders still have a duty to protect the most vulnerable residents in our community,” she said. “This will directly result in an immediate rise in homelessness.”
The board’s about-face follows the recent deaths of two of its members, Wilma Chan and Richard Valle, who both championed tenants’ causes. While Valle’s seat remains unfilled, Chan’s replacement, Lena Tam, who abstained from voting on the three ordinances, has proved friendlier to real-estate interests.
“I want to make sure that what we’re putting in place is not a solution in search of a problem,” Tam said of her decision, noting that California’s Tenant Protection Act of 2019 already places limits on evictions and rent hikes. She said she’d like to see a revised version of the tenant protection measures with changes that are more palatable to landlords.
Tenant advocates have accused Tam of bowing to the interests of property-owner groups after receiving campaign contributions from them, an allegation she disputes.
According to campaign finance records, Tam received at least $34,000 — or roughly 13% of total contributions to her campaign last year — from real-estate interests, and got an additional boost from the California Apartment Association, which raised over $241,000 to defeat her rival, Oakland City Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan.
Russell Lowery, executive director of the California Rental Housing Association, which represents around 24,000 landlords statewide, said there has been a sea change in how property owners are responding to public policy.
“It’s a matter of survival for them to show up, explain their business to elected officials and get a hearing,” he said. “No one wants to be at a city council meeting at 8:30 [p.m.] protesting a rental ordinance. But it’s become necessary to our business.”
Lowery said he has seen attendance surge at the association’s monthly organizing meetings, where landlords receive advocacy training. And he said more property owners are now paying attention to state and local policy proposals and meeting with lawmakers.