The document discusses a 1987 case called Tenants v. Alameda, in which low-income tenants in Alameda, California sued the city for discriminatory housing policies. Specifically, the tenants argued the city's policies discriminated against low-income renters and African Americans and did not comply with state housing laws. The case was settled out of court with the city agreeing to exempt certain housing developments from restrictive policies and contribute funds to affordable housing. However, the document notes that low-income tenants still face significant political, economic, and social barriers to accessing affordable housing. While litigation provides a mechanism for change, it also has limitations in addressing tenants' immediate needs.

1. TENANTS V. ALAMEDA:
HOW LOW-INCOME TENANTS CHALLENGED
HOUSING DISCRIMINATION IN
ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA
REGINALD L. JAMES
DEPARTMENT OF AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY
LEGAL STUDIES UNDERGRADUATE CONFERENCE
APRIL 26, 2013

3. ‘FEDERAL SUBSIDIZED
HOUSING AT RISK’
ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA (1987)
• In 1964 and 1965, owner of Buena Vista Apartments
received 40-year, low-interest
• Subsidized rents for minimum 20 years
• After 20 years, owner prepays mortgage and opts out
of rent restrictions, plans to double rents
• No Rent Controls in Alameda
• Tenants plead with City Council, owners
• Owners, leaders obtain Section 8 vouchers for 260
very low-income residents

4. 1980S HOUSING CRISIS
• Expensive California Housing Market
• Increased Population Growth
• Reduced Federal Housing Funds
• Municipality Competition
• Low-Cost Housing Competition

5. GUYTON V. ALAMEDA
• Low-income tenants sue city of Alameda for
land-use policies:
• Discrimination against low-income renters
• Discrimination against African Americans
• Non-compliance with state housing laws
• Judge’s preliminarily rules policies
discriminate against low-income peoples
• Parties eventually settle case out of court

6. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
• What encouraged and enabled low-income
tenants to pursue litigation during struggle to
maintain affordable housing?
• What possibilities and limitations exist within
legal system to compel localities to adopt
inclusionary policies that encourage
affordable housing development?

7. OVERVIEW
Background on Land Use Laws
Methodology
Historical Analysis
Conclusion
Update

8. LAND USE LAWS
• Local land use controls
• Cities ‘creatures of the state’
• State Housing Element Law (1969)
• Regional ‘Fair Share’ Housing Needs
• Alameda’s ‘Measure A’ (1973)

9. METHODOLOGY
• Court Filings
• Government Documents
• Newspapers
• Oral History Interviews

10. ‘The residents of Alameda don’t want
Measure A tampered with. There will
be no more apartment complexes
built in this city.”
- Alameda Mayor Chuck Corica (1988)

11. POLITICAL PLIGHT OF
LOW INCOME TENANTS
Low-income tenants in suburbs face uphill
political battle from political elites, homeowners
class and real estate interests
• Alameda City Council
• Homeowners
• Developers

12. JUDICIAL LIMITATIONS
• Tenants lack funds for civil litigation
• BVCA used Legal Aid Society
• Moderate income peoples lack ‘legal aid’
• Litigation does not address immediate needs
• Litigation can be lengthy
• Litigation outcomes unpredictable

13. ‘By filing the suit, Guyton and Henderson hope
to eliminate all city policies that limit the ability
of the city to fulfill its obligations to provide
housing for low-income families.
They also hope to educate and go at least part of
the way towafd changing the attitudes of some
city residents who would see Alameda as the
exclusive province of middle- and upper-income
homeowners.’
-Michael Rawson, attorney, Legal Aid Society of Alameda County
(1989)

14. JUDICIAL POSSIBILITIES
• Judge able to revoke localities’ land use
controls to compel compliance
• Anger of homeowners, developers
• Desire for local control
• Low-income tenants accessed Legal Aid

15. SETTLEMENT
• Exemption to Measure A to replace ‘lost’
units during Buena Vista conversion
• Developers contribute to Affordable Housing
Development Fund or provide affordable
housing units for period of 59 years
• City will apply for state Rental Housing
Construction Funds
• City to pay Legal Aid’s attorneys fees

16. CONCLUSION
• Tenants seeking low-income housing face
social, political, and economic barriers
• Cities best positioned to assist development of
affordable housing through inclusionary land
use policies
• Although limited, judicial enforcement best
mechanism to encourage localities to comply
with fair share housing laws

17. UPDATE
• In 1992, Alameda refused to apply for state
Affordable Housing Funding
• From 1995 through 2011, Alameda’s Housing
Element did not comply with state law
• After Renewed HOPE Housing Advocates
threatened to sue in 2011, the city of Alameda
adopted Housing Element
• Measure A still legally in place, but arguably
limited by state law

18. WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
CLAYTON GUYTON MODESSA HENDERSON

19. MORE INFORMATION
Tenants v. Alameda:
How Low-Income Tenants Challenged Housing
Discrimination in Alameda, California
http://tenantsvsalameda.blogspot.com