Despite tenant complaints of landlord neglect at last Monday night’s Rent Stabilization Board meeting, the city of Berkeley is not currently requiring the landlord of the apartment building at 2441 Haste St. to financially assist those displaced by the Nov. 18 fire.
Some tenants — many of whom expressed difficulty at the meeting in contacting the building’s owner Kenneth Ent — have called for compensation through the city’s relocation ordinance, which requires that the landlord provide financial assistance for the temporary relocation of tenants when mandatory repairs on a building are under way.
UC Berkeley junior Ian Goh, who moved into the building this summer, said many problems with the apartments resurfaced no matter how many times tenants complained.
“It’s pretty obvious that the building was not in a good condition, the elevator … would get stuck in between floors and stop moving,” Goh said. “Every time I called into management to complain, they told us to write a letter, and I’d written about (my apartment repairs) five or six times, and it would never get solved.”
Under the ordinance, tenants of the apartment building would receive compensation from the building’s owner only if he decided to rehabilitate it. But because Ent was issued a demolition permit Wednesday, he is exempt from providing further financial assistance for the relocation of his tenants.
“The relocation ordinance’s purpose is to assist for temporary relocation that (is caused) as a result of property owner’s making proper repairs,” said Jane Micallef, director of the city’s housing and community services. “The relocation ordinance is really providing remedy for temporary relocation situations — if the property ceases to exist, the property owner doesn’t have to pay the tenants anything.”
The one thing city staff has guaranteed is that tenants will receive their original security deposits and November rent as soon as possible, but Goh said Ent has yet to reach out to tenants after the fire occurred to notify them of their legal rights.
“When people saw him on the street, he was being shady about the issue and would say ‘The most I can do is return your security deposit and November rent, the minimum legal ability,’” Goh said.
Micallef said that though the ordinance may not apply in this situation, she still foresees tenants pursuing legal remedies for their predicament with the landlord in the near future.
According to rent board Executive Director Jay Kelekian, although the tenants of 2441 Haste St. are not eligible for benefits under the ordinance since the building will be demolished, the tenants of the neighboring building located at 2435 Haste St. — also owned by Ent — may receive assistance from Ent if he decides to rehabilitate that property.
“At our meeting we discussed … that under either ordinance, the tenants from the smaller building of 2435 would be entitled for benefits under the relocation ordinance since those tenants were evacuated temporarily due to smoke exposure,” Kelekian said. “The city’s interpretation would be that the benefits of relocation ordinance would only kick in for the larger building were it not demolished — the relocation ordinance only applies if the building was rehabilitated.”
The city is currently still trying to work out plans with Ent, who has established an office at Remy’s Mexican Restaurant at 2506 Haste St., according to Micallef.
Anjuli Sastry covers housing.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
The Rent Board can’t make laws. However, at the meeting last week, the rent board authorized staff to spend a special reserve fund to assist tenants, perhaps even with obtaining legal council. Tenants should call 981 RENT ASAP.
Clearly the city of Berkeley must establish a new municipal board to deal with any future calamity such as this. Otherwise it would be wasting the opportunity advanced by the fire.
The new board would allocate funds to the victims of the fire according to their gender, race and sexual orientation. Clearly white, straight males would get the least assistance, if any.
Second, the board should be comprised exclusively by tenants who are members of protected classes as described above and reflect the progressive views of the city at large.
Third, the new board would be compensated financially at taxpayer expense and paid salaries at the level of other city employees. They would also enjoy the same benefits (health care, pensions, etc.) as other municipal workers. They would also enjoy the protections afforded by a “no layoff policy” to these same employees.
Since the city is facing financial headwinds, it should tax landlords to support this new board, much as the Rental Housing Safety Program (RHSP) was created and funded. It could also increase the fee periodically, as is done with RHSP, to cover costs not associated with the duties of the new board.
Another board should be created to determine why the RHSP failed so miserably the tenants of 2441 Haste, using the same guidelines suggested above and similarly funded.
Actually there is no Rental Housing Safety Program. All there is is the fee. I was suspicious of it when I heard that it was being created, largely because the excuse to create it was a fire that occurred IN OAKLAND, and a fire in a single family house (exempt from the program), so I attended every single meeting about it. The program was a way to get landlords to fund the existing Housing Department with its complaint-based inspection program. Members of the Housing Advisory Commission would occasionally blow it and mention during the meetings that they’d been planning for years to do this.
So, there’s no program. You can complain to the Housing Department if your landlord is negligent, but unless your landlord is a very small landlord, i.e., not rich, prepare to be ignored.
wow, repugs REALLY ARE clowns. The Republican owner of this building did what many of his kind (thieves) do–> rake in the cash (including Raleigh’s & Intermezzo, which were HIS) and do nothing to improve the building over the decades of slum-lordship…
Rake in cash from rent controlled units with nightmare tenants who had been there for decades? Hardly.
If you think the owner of a building like that was “raking in the cash” from his apartment rentals you’re off your gourd.
Most of the tenants there were students, and the turnover rate on those is an average of 1-2 years. Every time a new student moves in, he can adjust the rent to market rate (i.e. whatever they’re dumb enough to pay). Cut the “poor poor landlord” schtick–if the building wasn’t profitable, he would have closed or sold it.
If it was Yudof’s mansion that us taxpayers paid $11,000 per month to rent for him there would be no problem ptting him in another one- probably costing more. Are there any emergency grants for at least the UC students who were burned out? $11,000 could do a lot for them.
It’s too late for the fire victims now but renter’s insurance would have covered a few months of relocation expenses. Renter’s insurance costs anywhere from $50-$100 per year. It’s even cheaper if you bundle it under your current insurance provider for your parents’ house, car, or whatever.
Libs don’t want to spend their own money, they want other people to pick up the tab.
Personal responsibility Cal kiddies.
Of course, if you major in race, ethnic, gender studies, you probably don’t know what renters insurance is.
Thank you Mr. What-It-Is – very thoughtful.
Why is it the landlord’s responsibility to financially support displaced tenants?
because the fire was caused by his negligence in maintaining a safe building?
Ah, gotcha. I was just confused. Scummy landlord.
Prove it.
sounds like you’re Kenneth Ent
Let’s see….they haven’t determined the cause of the fire yet, but it supposedly started in the basement. Interesting, considering this other fun fact: The property would have likely been foreclosed on after years of the owner fighting with the city over liens and building plans.
Sure sounds like the owner is better off without the building now.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
So the basically the building owner gets off on a technicality….by sleazily taking advantage of some loophole? Why on earth would the rent board allow this?
Troll Slayer?
bahahahh.
Isn’t it swell to live in a city that has rent control”