Connect with us

Activism

Tenant Union Demands Landlords Negotiate, Protest in Piedmont

Published

on

The Lonay Tenant Council (LTC) and supporters formed a caravan of over 40 vehicles and several bikes that started in Oakland last Sunday to protest at two large homes in Piedmont belonging landlords Linda Lonay and Mohommad and to deliver a list of tenant demands.

One member read those demands outside Lonay’s home through a loudspeaker. Those demands include: rent cancellation for those who need it during the pandemic; rent reduction for all until the end of the year; approval of all new tenants moving in; an end to rent increases when a lease signatory tenant leaves, and fixing all mold and disrepair.

LTC and supporters went to Lonay’s home because she has not responded to their requests to negotiate. They attached signs to vehicles and honked loudly while driving through Piedmont.

Shortly after, much of the approximately 60 person crowd chanted “cancel rent.”

“It felt like a release for all of us,” said Michelle Mitchell*, a tenant of Lonay and Hooshmand’s and LTC member. “For the last few months we’ve been under a lot of pressure from Lonay to fork over a lot of money. But we have a lot of people. We know each other. We know what [she’s] doing to us. [She] can’t just knock us around.”

LTC is a group of Lonay and Hooshmand’s tenants who have unionized to make collective demands. Since Lonay communicates with tenants, most of LTC’s organizing has been directed towards her.

Lonay served on Oakland’s rent board from 2011 to 2014. At a City Council committee meeting in 2014, she spoke in favor of a measure she said made it easier for “small-time landlords” to compete with large corporations by limiting rent increases based on capital improvements to 10% per year.

The Oakland Post e-mailed Lonay questions about her requirements for adding new tenants, how she has handled rodent outbreaks, and whether she recognizes the tenant council. She answered with this statement:

“We are committed to complying with all the obligations of rental housing providers, and we are proud of our record,” the statement read.

“We care about our residents, and have been providing financial accommodations to many of them since mid-March, based on their individual circumstances.  We don’t address everyone at once because all of our tenants are individuals, each with their own circumstances.  We take pride in our maintenance record, often receiving commendations for our quick service.  We are all in this together.”

When LTC looked into Lonay’s public records they did not see her as a small-time landlord. She and Hooshmand rent out at least 28 buildings in Oakland and Berkeley and one of their two personal homes in Piedmont is worth approximately $3 million. Under increased economic pressure from the COVID-19 pandemic, many LTC members are withholding rent.

Knowing about Lonay’s wealth and experiencing stress due to her neglect as a landlord has them especially frustrated at what they see as pushy efforts to collect.

Mitchell says Lonay has called her cell phone repeatedly to pressure her for money, but tenants can’t be evicted for rent owed during this time due to city, county, and state legal protections related to COVID-19.

Tenants say Lonay has harassed them by pressuring tenants to move out in the past.

“She has showed up at my house at odd hours,” said LTC member Justin Gilmore. “One time, she arrived at our home unannounced at around 11:00 p.m. wearing all black. That time she came to demand that we vacate and accept a buy-out for a few thousand dollars.”

LTC member Sofía de Leon,* who lives with Mitchell, said they’ve experienced intense rodent infestations. De Leon said she “even found rodent poop in [her] bed.”

“The exterior of our house was never properly sealed. But [Lonay] continued to tell us the problem was that we were keeping bags of rice in our kitchen,” said Mitchell.

Some LTC members who have occupied Lonay and Hooshmand’s units for years pay lower than average area rent for rooms because they’re under rent control. But tenants share total costs of multi-room homes and when one tenant moves out, it’s difficult to find a replacement tenant.

De Leon said Lonay demands a credit score of 750 or above to rent a room from her. Other LTC members say she’s rejected potential tenants without reasonable explanation, and that it’s been especially difficult to get Black tenants and other people of color approved. In comments from a 2017 East Bay Express story, Lonay said she sought “young professional” tenants.

The difficult approval process means rooms sit empty and remaining tenants have additional rent burden. When a tenant on the lease moves out and other tenants not on the lease remain, Lonay has raised their rent.

Andrew Levin said Lonay displaced him in 2017 when she raised the rent on his two- bedroom apartment from $2,400 to $3,295, two weeks after his roommate, who was the lease signatory, moved out. Levin then moved out as well. The rent was too high.

LTC said they are fighting back. They have connected with lawyers to make each other aware of their rights. They have used the threat of collectively withholding rent for leverage to negotiate with Lonay, as it is expensive to evict a lot of tenants at once.

The protesters found some support in the community.

“I enjoyed the horn-honking” said Piedmont resident Elise Marie Collins on Twitter, who was teaching an online yoga class as the caravan passed. “I knew it wasn’t a graduation celebration. I could feel the dissent in the sounds.”

Collins also suggested people squat at one of Lonay and Hooshmand’s two homes.

LTC left a list of demands and a “three-day notice to negotiate” with tenants.

*Both Michelle Mitchell and Sofía de Leon are pseudonyms used because they fear retaliation from Lonay and Hooshmand for speaking about them.

Lonay Tenant Council and supporters protest outside the Piedmont home of landlord Linda Lonay and Mohommad Hooshmand’s  after delivering a list of tenant demands outside their door.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Activism

OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare. 

Published

on

Rhonda M. Smith.
Rhonda M. Smith.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners

Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”

That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.

That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.

The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.

These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.

I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.

About the Author

Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.

Continue Reading

Activism

OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

Published

on

Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.
Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners

In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.

In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.

A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.

This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.

This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values. 

“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.

Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.

“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.

Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.

“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.

As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.

Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.

It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.

When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.

About the Author

Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.

Continue Reading

Activism

Newsom, Pelosi Welcome Election of First American Pope; Call for Unity and Compassion

“In his first address, he reminded us that God loves each and every person,” said Newsom. “We trust that he will shepherd us through the best of the Church’s teachings: to respect human dignity, care for the poor, and wish for the common good of us all.” Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.

Published

on

Pope Leo XIV. Screenshot.
Pope Leo XIV. Screenshot.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

Gov. Gavin Newsom and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom on May 8 issued a statement congratulating Pope Leo XIV on his historic election as the first American to lead the Catholic Church.

The announcement has drawn widespread reaction from U.S. leaders, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called the moment spiritually significant and aligned with the values of service and social justice.

In their statement, the Newsoms expressed hope that the newly elected pope would guide the Church with a focus on compassion, dignity, and care for the most vulnerable. Newsom said he and the First Partner joined others around the world in celebrating the milestone and were encouraged by the pope’s first message.

“In his first address, he reminded us that God loves each and every person,” said Newsom. “We trust that he will shepherd us through the best of the Church’s teachings: to respect human dignity, care for the poor, and wish for the common good of us all.”

Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.

“May he remind us that our better angels are not far away — they’re always within us, waiting to be heard,” he said.

Pelosi, a devout Catholic, also welcomed the pope’s election and noted his symbolic connection to earlier church leaders who championed workers’ rights and social equality.

“It is heartening that His Holiness continued the blessing that Pope Francis gave on Easter Sunday: ‘God loves everyone. Evil will not prevail,’” said Pelosi.

Continue Reading

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the Oakland Post

* indicates required

CHECK OUT THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE OAKLAND POST

ADVERTISEMENT

WORK FROM HOME

Home-based business with potential monthly income of $10K+ per month. A proven training system and website provided to maximize business effectiveness. Perfect job to earn side and primary income. Contact Lynne for more details: Lynne4npusa@gmail.com 800-334-0540

Facebook

Trending

Copyright ©2021 Post News Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.