Vote ‘no’ on costly, inflexible measure
I’m a homeowner here in Alameda, but I haven’t always been. In 2008, I was a renter who was forced from my home of less than a year by a 60-day notice. Things would have gone differently for our family if this had happened in 2018. I am grateful for the small comfort that our existing law (Rent Stabilization Ordinance no. 3148) offers. The current law provides some stabilization to our community, and for the City Council’s action in finally listening to renters, I say thank you.
There is no good argument, however, for enshrining the current law into the City Charter. It’s akin to putting the vehicle code into the Constitution: bad governance as a start, and frankly, that should be enough to disqualify Measure K from serious consideration by anyone who cares about good governance. Vote “no” on K: it’s unnecessary.
There’s a second good governance reason to vote “no” on Measure K. When language goes into the City Charter, a vote by the people is required to make changes. Elections are expensive. I encourage voters to ask: Why are K proponents so interested in forcing the people of Alameda to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to make basic and minor fixes in a law? Who benefits when our city is forced to pay for this additional governmental hurdle? Vote “no” on K; it’s inflexible and costly.
Alameda is our home and a jewel in the bay. The things that make us love this place — our homes and beaches, our tree-lined streets, our good schools and our proximity to San Francisco — are empty without our friends, family and neighbors. What truly makes Alameda a jewel is the care we have for each other and the community we have made together here. We have a responsibility to each other to protect each other, to ensure this community is stable.
The organization “No on K” includes homeowners like me, community-minded landlords, tech workers, nonprofit workers, renters, child care providers, the financially comfortable and those of us at the margins. There’s a reason why so many Alamedans are saying “no” on Measure K; it’s unnecessary, inflexible and costly.
As a current homeowner, I can speak out to say “no” on K when so many of my friends cannot — because they are afraid of the consequences to their own housing security. Alameda, vote “no” on K.