Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Just Cause Eviction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alameda supervisors deadlock and fail to adopt 'Just Cause' eviction ordinance
Summary
After hours of public testimony and debate, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors failed on a second‑reading vote to adopt a local Just Cause for Evictions ordinance that would have added protections beyond state law; vote was 2 yes, 2 no, 1 abstention.
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors on Dec. 17 failed to adopt a local “just cause” eviction ordinance on its second reading after an emotional public hearing that drew tenants, tenant‑rights lawyers and landlords to the dais.
The ordinance would have added local rent‑stability and relocation provisions beyond recent state law changes and, in proponents’ words, closed gaps that leave many unincorporated renters without meaningful protections. Supporters urged the board to approve the measure as written; opponents, including landlord trade groups, warned it would impose costly requirements on small property owners.
Tenant advocates who spoke at the hearing described personal harm from evictions and harassment. “Just because landlords spent $115,000,000 to defeat Just Cause doesn’t make it right,” read a poem by Dave Thompson of My Eden Voice, who called for the ordinance to pass “because people over profit.” Samantha Beckett, co‑directing attorney of Centro Legal’s tenants’ rights practice, urged passage, saying the measure would extend protections to tenants living in some single‑family homes when the owner holds five or more units and provide up to two months’ relocation assistance in certain no‑fault evictions.
Landlord groups and small rental‑owner speakers opposed the proposal’s relocation requirement and some notification provisions. “Two months of relocation costs using fair market rate—what is the definition of fair market rate?” asked a small owner, warning that ambiguous terms could spur litigation.
After extended debate, Supervisor Marquez moved to adopt the ordinance and Supervisor Carson seconded. The roll call recorded Supervisor Halbert voting No, Supervisor Marquez Yes, Supervisor Tam Abstaining, Supervisor Carson Yes, and President Miley No. The ordinance did not pass on the second reading, with the vote recorded as 2 Yes, 2 No, 1 Abstain.
Board members acknowledged the compromise at hand and signaled further work ahead. Several supervisors urged the immediate pursuit of other tenant protections—such as enhanced tenant education and mediation—while opponents said they hoped to revisit the ordinance language to address landlord concerns. The board did not schedule a specific date for reconsideration.
The public hearing and vote drew clear divisions among tenant advocates, landlord associations and several supervisors over whether the county should add local protections beyond strengthened state law and how to balance tenant stability against costs to small property owners.
