MEASURE

H

Shall an ordinance be adopted imposing a 35-hour work week for all employees in Berkeley, making overtime in excess of 35 hours a week voluntary and payable at twice the hourly rate, and prohibiting City contracts and business licenses to noncomplying businesses?

THE SITUATION

Salaries of all employees, both public and private, working within Berkeley city limits are currently based by law on a 40-hour work week. Overtime is paid at

1-¹/₂ the base rate for work over 40 hours a week. No city in the United States has such an ordinance or a 35-hour work week.

THE PROPOSAL

This initiative, Measure H, would reduce the basic work week from 40 to 35 hours for all employees working within the geographical boundaries of Berkeley. Constitutionally-exempt entities such as the University of California would not be covered. Employee compensation for the 35-hour work

A YES vote means that the City would incur the increased cost of additional employees, both to "share the work" throughout City departments and enforce the provisions as they apply to private businesses operating in Berkeley or in contract with the City. Alternatively, City services could be cut back.

A NO vote means the status quo of salaries and work hours for City employees would continue and private businesses operating in Berkeley would not be affected.

· This initiative would create work for additional employees.

· It would enhance the quality of life for working families.

·Measure H would compensate for the drop in real wages.

· This initiative would increase City costs $17million to $23 million.

· It would force businesses to leave Berkeley.

· Measure H would require cuts in essential city services.

Roger Wilkins, Share the Work Committee; Michael Delacour, Share the Work Committee.

MAJOR OPPONENTS

Shirley Dean, Mayor; Linda Maio, Councilmember; Jeffrey Shattuck Leiter, former Mayor.

MEASURE

I

Ordinance Regarding Eviction Procedures

Shall the Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Ordinance be amended to remove the need for landlords to prove that the premises are habitable and in compliance with rent ceiling and registration requirements, in the case of tenants who are violating the lease by subleasing, assigning, disturbing other tenants, comitting a nuisance or using the premises for illegal purposes including selling illegal drugs?

THE SITUATION

When the safety and quality of life of Berkeley residents are threatened by tenants who engage in unlawful activities such as drug dealing and violent or disorderly behavior, it is the landlord's legal responsibility to evict such tenants. Neighborhood residents have successfully sued landlords for failure to evict such disruptive tenants.

In fighting such evictions in the courts, however, tenants have used the Rent Stabilization Board's requirements for habitability and registration compliance to delay the resolution of the matter for as long as two years.

THE PROPOSAL

This initiative, Measure I, would liberalize eviction procedures so that a landlord need not prove that the rented premises are habitable or are in compliance with rent registration requirements and rent ceilings imposed by the ordinance where the following situations exist:

• a tenant has continued, after written notice to cease, to engage in disorderly behavior which disturbs the peace and quiet enjoyment of other tenants or occupants of the rented premises; or
• a tenant has assigned, sublet, or committed waste on the leased property contrary to the terms of the lease; or
• the tenant has committed or maintained a nuisance on the leased premises, or permitted the maintenance of a nuisance; or
• the tenant has used the premises for an unlawful purpose, including the illegal sale of controlled substances.

A NO vote means the current law would be unchanged and such compliance would have to be proved in order to evict tenants in any of the situations listed above.

· The stringent rules of the Rent Board designed to protect good tenants from unfair evictions should not be used to delay evictions of those few who threaten their neighbors.

· Habitability problems and registration compliance can be addressed through the Individual Rent Adjustment process. These issues are not relevant to combatting drug dealing or violence.

· This measure applies to fewer than 1% of eviction cases a year in Berkeley, but those are the ones most damaging to other tenants and neighbors, and the situation should be resolved as quickly as possible.

· In the other 99% of eviction situations, habitability and registration proof are still required before the case can proceed to court where the landlord must still prove "good cause".

· This initiative is not about "Safe Shelter" or evicting drug dealers. It is designed to weaken eviction protections so landlords can evict tenants and raise rents.

· No provision in the current law has ever been successfully used to prevent a drug eviction in Berkeley.

· Current law already allows the eviction of drug dealers and people who create disturbances.

· The language is too broad and lacks precise definition of "causing a nuisance" or "disturbing the peace". Landlords have too much latitude in finding a reason to evict a tenant so the rent can be raised.

Jim Smith, past President, Black Property Owners Association; Douglas Bibby, former Rent Stabilization Board Commissioner; Kurt Schoeneman; Eula Lekas.

MAJOR OPPONENTS

Kriss Worthington, Councilmember; Linda Maio, Councilmember; Marsha Feinland, Schoolteacher and Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board Commissioner; Sulaiman Ahmad, Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board Commissioner; Maxwell G. Anderson, Jr., Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board Commissioner; boona cheema, Building Opportunities for Self-Sufficiency; Irami Osei-Frimpong, ASUC President; Bernida Reagan, East Bay Community Law Center; the Green Party of Alameda County.