HACLA's Reflections Portfolio is Scattered Throughout Los Angeles

HACLA's Reflections Portfolio is Scattered Throughout Los Angeles
Six Reflections Senior 55+/Disabled Properties, located throughout Los Angeles in Boyle Heights, Eagle Rock, Mission Hills, Mt. Washington, North Hollywood, and Reseda, are owned by the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) Asset Management Division, which states because they are exempt from the L. A. Rent Stabilization Ordinance, they intend to issue (unlimited, unregulated) RENT INCREASES YEARLY to bring their Reflections Portfolio (unsubsidized) units up to Market Rates (which is sometimes 2 to 3 times the current rent of the majority of tenants who are on fixed, low, and Social Security incomes, causing fear of future unaffordability and homelessness). HACLA stated that they are unable to meet their operating expenses, because they cannot manage (via the John Stewart Company) their Reflections Glenalbyn units within their current operating budget, which they state is $50,000 MONTHLY for 58 1-bedroom units.

Featured Post

Los Angeles City Council Housing Committee January, 10, 2018 Motion relative to request to amend the RSO to apply HACLA owned market rate buildings...

HOUSING COMMITTEE Wednesday , January 10, 2018  ROOM 1010, CITY HALL -   3:00 PM 200 NORTH SPRING STREET, LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 ...

Pages

HACLA IN THE NEWS & PRESS COVERAGE

More News Reports about HACLA's Rent Increases in Excess of RSO, HACLA's Misappropriations of Funds, HACLA's Fraud, & Mismanagement, and L.A. Affordable Housing Articles

Labels

08-23-2016 HACLA's Board of Commissioners' Posted Announcement Electing to Issue the 2016 Rent Increase In Line with the 3% RSO for All Reflections Portfolio Properties

HACLA Board of Commissioners Announcement
8-23-2016


The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles has owned its six Reflections (Barbara Ann, Brittania, Glenalbyn, Sepulveda, Wyandotte and Yosemite) senior/disabled properties since 1995. These 394 units are not part of a rental subsidy program. For this portfolio, 20% of the units are restricted to low income households, and the remaining 80% of the units are market rate. The rents from the market rate units help fund the low income units and provide for services for all residents. Current rents for existing residents in these buildings are well below comparable area rents. In consideration of concerns expressed by our residents including at a recent Agency Plan hearing, the HACLA has decided to reduce the 6% rent increase that had been previously announced. While the Agency is exempt from the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO), the Housing Authority has elected to implement an increase of 3% in line with RSO. All tenants will be notified of these changes.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

LA RSO Section 151.02 that needs the HACLA LOOPHOLE EXEMTPION AMENDMENT

SEC. 151.02. DEFINITIONS.

Rental Units. (Amended by Ord. No. 157,385, Eff. 1/24/83.) All dwelling units, efficiency dwelling units, guest rooms, and suites, as defined in Section 12.03 of this Code, and all housing accommodations as defined in Government Code Section 12927, and duplexes and condominiums in the City of Los Angeles, rented or offered for rent for living or dwelling purposes, the land and buildings appurtenant thereto, and all housing services, privileges, furnishings and facilities supplied in connection with the use or occupancy thereof, including garage and parking facilities. (Sentence Amended by Ord. No. 170,445, Eff. 5/6/95, Oper. 7/5/95.) This term shall also include mobile homes, whether rent is paid for the mobile home and the land upon which the mobile home is located, or rent is paid for the land alone. Further, it shall include recreational vehicles, as defined in California Civil Code Section 799.29 if located in a mobile home park or recreational vehicle park, whether rent is paid for the recreational vehicle and the land upon which it is located, or rent is paid for the land alone. (Sentence Amended by Ord. No. 181,744, Eff. 7/15/11.The term shall not include:

5. Housing accommodations owned and operated by the Los Angeles City Housing Authority, or which a government unit, agency or authority owns, operates, or manages and which are specifically exempted from municipal rent regulation by state or federal law or administrative regulation, or housing accommodations specifically exempted from municipal rent regulation by state or federal law or administrative regulation. This exception shall not apply once the government ownership, operation, management, regulation or rental assistance is discontinued. This exception shall not apply to rental units for which rental assistance is paid pursuant to the Housing Choice Voucher Program codified at 24 CFR part 982, and those units are subject to the provisions of this article to the fullest extent allowed by law. (Amended by Ord. No. 177,587, Eff. 7/5/06.)

About Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance 151.02

The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles takes the position that the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance has explicitly exempted HACLA from the Allowable Rent Increases with which any other for profit landlord in Los Angeles complies.

Congressman Xavier Becerra in his Coffee with the Congressman, Town Hall Meeting of 7/19/2016, supported the concept that HACLA should comply with the RSO 3%. Councilmember Gilbert Cedillo's staff, Sharon Lowe, has opined that the rent increases of July 2016 were "outrageous". David Pallack of the Neighborhood Legal Services reportedly sent a letter to HACLA stating that HACLA is not exempted from rent control for their unsubsidized rental units.

The former HACLA President and CEO on October 25, 2008 stated that HACLA would not raise rents more than 4% for its Reflections Glenalbyn Units, and that in some years there would be no rent increases, based on the Cost of Living Adjustment. (In 2016 there were zero Cost of Living Adjustments.)

We are calling upon Councilmember Cedillo and the other members of the Los Angeles City Council to pass a motion to CLOSE THE HACLA EXEMPTION LOOPHOLE FOR ITS LOW and FIXED INCOME TENANTS, so that these seniors and disabled residents can live peacefully, without fear of homelessness, under the protection of the Rent Stabilization Allowable Rent Increases, based upon the Consumer Price Index, just like all the other Los Angeles apartment dwellers. No one receiving Social Security benefits who does not receive a Cost of Living Adjustment should be given any rent increases, and it would be helpful if those rent increases be allowed only in January, when the Social Security Administration increases beneficiaries' amounts, based on COLA, regardless of the type of their benefit (SSI, SSDI, or Retirement) or their previous move-in dates.

HACLA receives 95% of its funds from Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which is a Federal Agency. Social Security is a Federal Agency. It is only common sense that since the majority of the Reflections residents receive Social Security and only get rent increases in January per COLA, that the rent increases be issued in synchroneity with those increases in income. As it stands now, HACLA claims they can give unlimited, rent increases at any time of the year, with just a 30-Day Notice, and if it is more than 10% with a 60-Day Notice per California Code 827. This means that although the average rents today are $774, HACLA can issue as many unlimited rent increases as they want in the future. Heretofore, the residents and public officials have thwarted HACLA's proposed double or more than triple the RSO Allowable Rent Increases Stabilization standards rent increases of 2002, 2005, 2008, 2012, and now in 2016.

It is stressful, time-consuming, and not fair that these seniors, the majority of which are over the age of 62, live on Social Security benefits, and are mostly woman, have to use their precious senior years combating these "outrageous" Notices of Rent Increases over and over again. It's time to call for a City Council Motion to Close the HACLA Exemption Loophole, and we hope that this site will enable that process to begin. The Model Amendment, Section 173,953 was proposed in February of 2005, and was passed and in full effect by May, 2005, in just 3 short months.

Many of our residents are ill and disabled, about 30% are actually disabled. Some of us have been battling serious illnesses like Cancer, Parkinson's, Heart Conditions, Strokes, Glaucoma, Arthritis, and recovering from surgical procedures. We need our elected officials to put a stop to these excessive rent increases by closing creating a Motion to Close the HACLA Exemption Loophole on its non-subsidized senior/disabled units, to stop these attempts to bring the units up to "Market Rate" in a time when 44,000 residents of Los Angeles are Homeless, about 16,000 people a month become homeless, and the rents are at record heights, as in no other time in the history of Los Angeles.


RSO 175,953 Amendment: Good Example of How RSO Can Be Reformed to Prevent HACLA's Abuse of Exemption

9. Non-Profit Housing Accommodations. Housing accommodations operated by a non-profit organization or owned and operated by a limited partnership in which the general partner is a non-profit organization exempted from City business taxes, as long as these accommodations are available to low income households as evidenced by a government imposed regulatory agreement, covenant agreement or like document which is recorded against the property, which imposes conditions consistent with those contained in the Rent Stabilization Ordinance and is in full force and effect. (Amended by Ord. No. 175,953, Eff. 5/17/04

2004 Model "Loophole Exemption" Documents to Amend LA RSO Section 175,953 for Motion Approval

05-01-2016 LAHCID Allowable Rent Increases RS Bulletin

LAHCID ALLOWABLE RENT INCREASES

ALLOWABLE
RENT INCREASES




Rent Stabilization Bulletin




The Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) which became effective May 1, 1979, was designed to protect tenants from excessive rent increases while allowing landlords a reasonable return on their investments. The following information reviews the allowable rent increases for those rental units subject to the Ordinance.

AUTOMATIC ADJUSTMENTS
The rent for a rental unit may be increased without the permission of the Rent Adjustment Commission (RAC) or the Rent Stabilization Division under the following circumstances by:

1.Three percent (3%) to eight percent (8%) every 12 months in accordance with the annual rent increase percentage, which is based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) average for the twelve (12) month period ending September 30 of each year. The annual adjustment may be applied once each year. The 3% to 8% annual increase is NOT cumulative or retroactive. THE CALCULATED ANNUAL INCREASE PERCENTAGE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2016 IS THREE PERCENT (3%). For allowable rent increase amounts in previous years, refer to the table on the next page. This annual increase may be imposed only if twelve (12) months or more have elapsed since the last such rent increase.

2. An increase of 3% to 8% of the security deposit is allowed at the same time and by the same percentage as the annual rent increase.

3. An additional 1% for gas and 1% for electric service into the dwelling unit when service is provided by the landlord.

4. Nineteen percent (19%), plus 2% if the landlord provides the gas and electricity, for a rental unit which has not had a rent increase since May 31, 1976.

6640 VAN NUYS BLVD.
VAN NUYS, CA 91405
2215 N. BROADWAY AVE.
LOS ANGELES, CA 90031
690 KNOX ST., SUITE 125
LOS ANGELES, CA 90502
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
3550 WILSHIRE BLVD.
15TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90010
8475 S. VERMONT AVE.
2ND FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90044
1645 CORINTH AVE.
SUITE 104
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
P.O. BOX 17280, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017-0280 § _866-557-RENT § _866-557-7368 § _HTTP://HCIDLA.LACITY.ORG

















5. Thirteen percent (13%), plus 2% if the landlord provides the gas and electricity, for a rental unit which has not had a rent increase since May 31, 1977.

6. Ten percent (10%) for each additional tenant exceeding the number of tenants allowed by the original rental agreement. Owners must notify the tenant/s of the rent increase with-in 60 days of having obtained actual or constructive knowledge of the responding reduction in rent is required when the additional tenant vacates the unit. Security deposits may also be increased by 10% for the additional tenant/s.

7. A landlord may collect a monthly surcharge of $3.61 from the tenant to recover the paid Systematic Code Enforcement fee.


RENT ADJUSTMENTS THAT REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE RENT STABILIZATION DIVISION
CHRONOLOGY OF ALLOWABLE RENT INCREASES SINCE 1979
DATE
PERCENTAGE
ALLOWED
DATE
PERCENTAGE
ALLOWED
5/1/79 - 6/30/85
7%
7/1/00 - 6/30/01
3%
7/1/85 - 6/30/86
4%
7/1/01 - 6/30/02
3%
7/1/86 - 6/30/87
5%
7/1/02 - 6/30/03
3%
7/1/87 - 6/30/88
4%
7/1/03 - 6/30/04
3%
7/1/88 - 6/30/89
4%
7/1/04 - 6/30/05
3%
7/1/89 - 6/30/90
5%
7/1/05 - 6/30/06
3%
7/1/90 - 6/30/91
5%
7/1/06 - 6/30/07
4%
7/1/91 - 6/30/92
5%
7/1/07 - 6/30/08
5%
7/1/92 - 6/30/93
5%
7/1/08 - 6/30/09
3%
7/1/93 - 6/30/94
3%
7/1/09 - 6/30/10
4%
7/1/94 - 6/30/95
3%
7/1/10 - 6/30/11
3%
7/1/95 - 6/30/96
3%
7/1/11 – 6/30/12
3%
7/1/96 - 6/30/97
3%
7/1/12- 6/30/13
3%
7/1/97 - 6/30/98
3%
7/1/13 – 6/30/14
3%
7/1/98 - 6/30/99
3%
7/1/14 – 6/30/15
3%
7/1/99 - 6/30/00
3%
7/1/15 – 6/30/16
3%


8. A $12.25 surcharge may only be collected in the month of June with advance notice to recover half of the $24.51 paid registration fee. Landlords are required to serve tenants with a written 30-day notice for rent increases that are less than 10% of the tenant’s rent, or a 60-day notice for rent increases over 10% of the tenant’s rent within a 12-month period.

RENT ADJUSTMENTS THAT REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE RENT STABILIZATION DIVISION
The rent for a rental unit may also be increased through the proper submission to and
approval of an appropriate cost recovery application to the Rent Stabilization Division for:

1. Capital Improvement - Additions or replacements to the rental unit or to the property’s common areas, provided that the improvement has a useful life of five years or more.

2. Rehabilitation Work — Work or repairs done by the landlord due to changes in the housing code since January 1, 1979, or to repair damage resulting from fire, earthquake or other natural disasters.

3. Just and Reasonable Rent Increase — Based on a financial review of the Net Operating In-come (NOI) for a property when the automatic adjustment prescribed by the RSO does not provide a just and reasonable return on the rental unit or units. (Refer to the Just and Reasonable Regulations issued by the Rent Adjustment Commission.)

4. Primary Renovation — Upgrades to major building systems which require a permit such as, but not limited to, central heating/air conditioning, water and sewage piping, wiring in-side walls, elevators, or reinforcement of the building structure. It also includes work that is undertaken to abate hazardous materials such as lead-based paint or asbestos. Re-quires a Tenant Habitability Plan (THP) accepted by the Department in advance of commencement of work.

RENT LEVEL AFTER A VACANCY


The allowable rent level after a vacancy depends on the reason for the vacancy. The RSO provides that the rent may be raised to any amount upon re-rental if the vacancy resulted because:

1. The tenant voluntarily vacated the unit.

2. The tenant was evicted for non-payment of legal rent.

3. The tenant was evicted for violating the terms of the rental agreement and failing to cure the violation.

The RSO requires the rent to a new tenant to remain the same, if the vacancy occurred for any other reason. Examples of circumstances under which the landlord MAY NOT raise the rent upon re-rental include the following:

¨ An eviction of the previous tenant to recover the unit for the use of the landlord, his immediate family or resident manager.

¨ An eviction for occupancy by the landlord, his immediate family or resident manager, where the landlord, his family member or resident manager subsequently vacated the rental unit.

¨ An eviction for using or permitting the rental unit to be used for an illegal purpose, unless the eviction is based upon information provided by a law enforcement agency.

¨ An eviction based on the tenants refusal to enter into a new written rental agreement, with similar provisions, and terms which are not inconsistent with the Ordinance.

¨ An eviction based on the tenant’s refusal to allow the landlord reasonable access to the rental unit.

¨ The rental unit is the land upon which a mobile home is located and it is a new tenant renting a mobile home already in place at a mobile home park. (Rent increase limited to 10 percent or the highest rent of a comparable unit whichever is lower.)

THIS INFORMATION IS OFFERED FREE OF CHARGE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
While this publication is designed to provide accurate and current information about the law, readers should consult an attorney or other expert for advice in particular cases, and should also read the relevant statutes and court decisions when relying on cited material. Laws and guidelines are frequently amended. The HCIDLA recommends that you verify information in the event that new changes are not yet reflected in this publication. The HCIDLA does not assume and hereby disclaims any liability to any party for any loss, damage, or disruption caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident, or any other cause.

LAHCID TENANT HABITABILITY PLAN for Primary Renovation Program Information & Instructions




TENANT

HABITABILITY PLAN FOR PRIMARY RENOVATION PROGRAM



INFORMATION & INSTRUCTIONS

Rent Stabilization Bulletin


STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

The City of Los Angeles has adopted the Tenant Habitability Program (Program) to facilitate landlord

investment in Primary Renovation Work without subjecting tenants to either an untenantable housing

condition during such renovation work or forced permanent displacement. The Program requires

landlords to mitigate such temporary untenantable conditions, either through actions to ensure that

tenants can safely remain in place during construction or through the temporary relocation of tenants

to alternative housing accommodations. These two options should not be regarded as mutually

exclusive but rather as complementary approaches that might be appropriate to different stages of

the renovation process.

GOVERNING AUTHORITY

The Program went into effect on May 2, 2005. The requirements of the Program are set forth in Los

Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) Section 152.00 and in Rent Adjustment Commission (RAC) Regulation

710.00. Both of these documents provide more detailed information about the THP than is presented

in this program summary.

Primary Renovation Work is work that is performed either on a rental unit or on the building

containing the rental unit that improves the property by prolonging its useful life or adding value,

and involves either or both of the following:

1. Replacement or substantial modification of any structural, electrical, plumbing or

mechanical system that requires a permit under the LAMC.

2. Abatement of hazardous materials, such as lead-based paint and asbestos, in accordance

with applicable federal, state, and local laws.

Related Work includes any improvement or repair which in and of itself does not constitute Primary

Renovation Work, but which is undertaken in conjunction with and is necessary to the initiation and/

or completion of Primary Renovation Work.

Tenant Habitability Plan is a document submitted by a landlord to the HCIDLA identifying any

impact that Primary Renovation Work and Related Work will have on the habitability of a tenant’s

permanent place of residence and the steps the landlord will take to mitigate the impact on the

tenant and the tenant’s personal property during the period that the Primary Renovation Work and

Related Work are undertaken.

Rent Stabilization Bulletin

Temporary Relocation is the resettlement of a tenant from the tenant’s permanent residence to a

habitable housing accommodation in accordance with a Tenant Habitability Plan (THP). The

temporary relocation of a tenant fro his/her permanent place of residence shall not constitute the

voluntary vacation of the unit and shall not terminate the status and rights of a tenant, including the

right to reoccupy the same unit, upon the completion of the Primary Renovation Work and any

Related Work, subject to any rent adjustment as may be authorized under the Ordinance.

Notice of Primary Renovation Work is a written notice, using a form established by the Los Angeles

Housing + Community Investment Department (HCIDLA), that is served by the landlord upon a tenant or tenant household at least 60 days prior to commencing any Primary Renovation Work or Related Work advising the tenant of forthcoming Primary Renovation Work and Related Work, the impact of such work on the tenant, and measures the landlord will take to mitigate the impact on the tenant.


FURTHER CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING PRIMARY RENOVATION WORK

The following criteria shall be used to determine whether proposed permitted work constitutes

Primary Renovation Work:

• The proposed work includes the replacement of existing water or gas supply lines, the

replacement of existing drain waste lines, or the installation of additional new supply or waste

lines.

• The proposed work includes the replacement of electrical wiring or circuits, the replacement of

an electrical service panel, or the addition of new wiring or circuits.

• The proposed work includes the replacement or upgrading of a heating, ventilation, or air

conditioning (HVAC) system or the replacement, upgrading, or initial, installation of an elevator

system.

• The proposed work includes additions, modifications or improvements to the foundation or to the

structure (including the roof) that expose the building frame or compromise the building’s

security, weather protection or fire protection.

• The proposed work includes the abatement of hazardous materials, such as, but not limited to

lead-based paint and asbestos, in accordance with applicable federal, state and local laws.

TEMPORARY RELOCATION

In completing a Tenant Habitability Plan (THP), a landlord must indicate whether the temporary

relocation of one or more tenant households is necessary. Temporary relocation is required whenever

Primary Renovation Work will (a) make the rental unit an untenantable dwelling outside of the hours

of 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday, (b) expose the tenant at any time to toxic or

hazardous materials including, but not limited to, lead-based paint and asbestos, or (c) otherwise

endanger the health or safety of the tenant.

The temporary relocation of a tenant under the Program does not constitute the voluntary vacating

of that rental unit and does not terminate the status and rights of a tenant, including the right to

reoccupy the tenant’s rental unit upon the completion of the Primary Renovation Work. A tenant who

is temporarily relocated as a result of Primary Renovation Work continues to pay rent in the manner

prescribed by any lease provision or acceptance in the course of business between the landlord and the tenant. The landlord, in turn, pays for all temporary housing accommodation costs regardless of whether those costs exceed rent paid by the tenant.

PER DIEM PAYMENT TO TENANTS

A landlord and tenant may mutually agree to allow the landlord to pay the tenant a per diem amount

for each day of temporary relocation instead of the landlord providing temporary replacement

housing. A landlord and tenant may also agree for the landlord to pay the tenant a fixed payment to

cover moving and temporary storage of tenant personal property. In either case, the agreement shall

be written in the language in which the original lease was negotiated, signed by the landlord and

tenant, and contain the tenant’s acknowledgment that the tenant received notice of tenant rights

under the Program and understands those rights. The landlord shall provide the Department with a

copy of this agreement within 15 days of its execution. Agreement forms for both purposes are

included in the Notice of Primary Renovation Work.

PERMANENT RELOCATION

Any tenant, who will be affected by Primary Renovation Work for a period of 30 days or more, may

elect Permanent Relocation Assistance provided the tenant notifies the landlord of the decisions

within 15 days from the service of the Notice of Primary Renovation Work. In addition, a tenant may

demand Permanent Relocation Assistance following written notice from either the landlord or the

HCIDLA that the Primary Renovation Work and Related Work will continue for 30 or more days longer than the projected completion date stated in the THP or any modifications thereto accepted by the Department.


The landlord has 15 days from the receipt of an eligible request for relocation assistance to provide

same, either through a direct payment to the tenant or through payment to an escrow account.

Relocation amounts are households which include a senior citizen or disabled person or minor

dependent child are qualified tenant households. All other households are eligible tenants.



Relocation Assistance Amounts

Effective July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015

Tenants

Tenants

with Less Than 3 Years

Tenants

with 3 or More Years

Low Income Tenants

Eligible Tenants

$7,700

$10,200

$10,200

Qualified Tenant

$16,350

$19,300

$19,300


2015 HUD Low Income Limits for Los Angeles

(Formerly known as 80% of AMI)

Household

Size

1 Person

2 Person

3 Person

4 Person

5 Person

6 Person

7 Person

8 Person

Income

Limit

$46,500

$53,150

$59,800

$66,400

$71,750

$77,050

$82, 350

$87,650


South Pasadena Tenants Union

South Pasadena Tenants Union

SUPPORT RENT CONTROL

IN SOUTH PASADENA

SPTU is a grassroots organization dedicated to defending tenant rights and interests.

We are a community of activists that believe in fair and affordable housing.

We are in support of Rent Control and Just Cause Eviction for South Pasadena.

We aim to spread awareness, support and education for tenants throughout our City.


Anyone believing in our core values is welcome to join!

We are accepting Support, Volunteers and Donations.


10 FACTS ABOUT RENT CONTROL

IN CALIFORNIA


FACT 1: Rent control laws limit annual rent increases

Without rent control, landlords are free to raise rents in any amount as often as they want.


FACT 2: Rent control promotes stability

Tenants stay in their homes longer and are more invested in their local neighborhoods and communities.

Tenants stay in their homes longer and are more invested in their local neighborhoods and communities.


FACT 3: Rent control leaves tenants with more money to spend in the local economy


FACT 4: Rent control does not protect tenants who fail to pay the rent

or violate their lease from eviction

Tenants can also be evicted if an owner wants to live in the property.


FACT 5: Rent control has no impact whatsoever on the development of new housing

New construction is exempt from rent control under state law.


FACT 6: Twelve cities in California have some form of rent control

Berkeley, Beverly Hills, East Palo Alto, Hayward, Los Angeles, Oakland, Palm Springs, San Francisco, Santa Monica, San Jose, Thousand Oaks, and West Hollywood.


FACT 7: Rent control laws are popular with voters

In 2008, California voters defeated a landlord attack on rent control by a decisive 22 point margin statewide.


FACT 8: Landlords do just fine under rent control

All rent control laws are required to allow landlords to earn a fair return on their investment.


Landlords are allowed to raise the rent every year by a set percentage, pass through a certain additional costs, and charge any amount at the start of a new tenancy.


FACT 9: Rent control can be cost neutral for cities

Any cost to administer the program can come through a low per unit fee paid by the landlords

(or shared with tenants).

FACT 10: Rent control is perfectly legal

Courts have upheld rent control laws for decades.


SOURCE: "Communities Thrive with Rent Control: a Guide for California Cities,"


Downloadable PDF toolkit from TenantsTogether.org


CHECK OUT: RESOURCES page for more information and our NEWS page to stay up-to-date with our efforts to fight for Rent Control

10-11-2016 Tenants Face a Mass Eviction Because They Are Not Protected by the L.A. RSO

LOS ANGELES TIMES

October 11, 2016

Protesting tenants of a Highland Park apartment complex face a mass eviction (because they are not protected by L.A. RSO)


Doug Smith

The sandblasting contractor was in a bind. It was almost 9 a.m. and his crew was waiting for instructions. But the people wouldn’t leave.

They sat on folding chairs under his scaffolding, ate potluck offerings and danced to Cumbia music.

His boss, the stucco contractor, faced off with a leader of a group of tenants who say they have formed a union.

“We’re asking you in solidarity to move on to another site,” she said. “There’s plenty of other sites.”

“You’re stopping us from work,” he said. “We’ve got bills to pay too.”

She gave no ground.

“We’re going to mask the windows and we’re going to fire up the rig,” he said.


The late August confrontation outside the 60-unit Marmion Royal apartments in Highland Park marked a flashpoint in L.A.’s slow-burning drama over income inequality, cultural identity, housing affordability and neighborhood preservation.

With its rents and real estate prices rising dramatically in recent years, Highland Park has become the latest front in the wave of gentrification that has swept nearby communities such as Echo Park and Atwater Village, uprooting working-class Latinos from neighborhoods they have called home for decades.

“Highland Park is now ground zero, not only in L.A., but in the whole country,” said Peter Dreier, professor of urban and environmental policy at Occidental College in Eagle Rock.

“Hedge funds and private equity firms are gobbling up properties all over the country,” he said. “They buy buildings for speculation. There’s enormous pressure on landlords to get rid of tenants.”

In the first half of this year, 20 multi-family buildings changed hands in Highland Park, five more than the same period last year, according to the real estate data firm CoStar.

Many of those buildings are rent-controlled, limiting raises to 3% a year and requiring owners to pay relocation fees to anyone evicted for renovations.

But Marmion Royal was built in 1987, years after the city’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance went into effect, making the apartment complex exempt.


When a new owner began renovating units and asked to negotiate higher rents, tenants saw it as a move to force out longtime low-income residents. They banded together and demanded de facto rent control — long-term leases with limited increases.


“They’ve stood up,” said John Urquiza, a freelance photographer and designer who organizes for an anti-gentrification group called the North East Los Angeles Alliance. “That’s a lot different from what’s been going on, people negotiating their way out and retreating.”

Skya Ventures, a Tarzana investment company, bought the complex in May from Azusa Pacific University. The university had acquired the property as a donation and remained a distant landlord, allowing rents and maintenance to lag.

The boxy, two-building complex was no beauty on the outside. But at $14.3 million — and free of city rent controls — it was full of potential.

A Gold Line station is across the street, and the long-sleepy North Figueroa Street business district, which sits a block away, is stirring with trendy restaurants catering to Highland Park’s burgeoning influx of urban professionals.

Skya planned to upgrade the apartments and bump up the rents 50%, said the firm’s management agent, Chris Gray. The idea was a gradual renovation, allowing tenants to re-lease a few at a time as vacant units were refurbished, Gray said.

For Rudy Rosales, a 50% increase would be the same as an eviction notice. A cook who works double shifts in West Hollywood, Rosales lives with his children, ages 3, 5 and 7, in a one-bedroom apartment costing $1,000 a month.

Rosales said he had turned down a move into a two-bedroom unit because he couldn’t afford the $1,500 rent.

Tenants contend Skya has negotiated with only the few white and well-off families in the complex.

Gray disputes the contention. He said he attended a tenant meeting and asked all present to contact him.

“The only people we have negotiated with are people who have approached us,” Gray said.

One of those, Marmion Royal resident Hannah Weinstein, a Pasadena labor lawyer, said she met with Skya just to see what was on the table.

The landlord offered to rent her a two-bedroom unit for more than $2,600 a month, Weinstein said, “but they told us to please negotiate.”

The price was eventually dropped to $2,100, an increase of just over 50% over her current rent, but Weinstein wasn’t taking.


“We see ourselves as part of the union,” she said. “We want our neighbors to stay in the neighborhood they’ve lived in all their lives.”

In late June, guided by a tenant advocates group called the Eviction Defense Network, residents declared their intention to withhold rent until Skya met their condition to re-lease to them under the terms of rent control.

As a show of good faith, they are holding cashiers’ checks for each month’s rent.

Since then, the tenants’ union had been engaged in an escalating tit-for-tat with Skya and its management over piecemeal evictions, pest infestations and the scheduling of repair work.

The tension erupted in late August over sandblasting. Workers set up scaffolding along the outside walls and reduced the two-tone, beige-and-sandstone finish to a base of gray stucco.

Tenants complained that even with the windows masked, their homes were penetrated by dust, aggravating health conditions.

Then the workers erected steel and wood plank walkways in the narrow courtyard of one building and notified residents they would have to stay indoors or leave the building from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. on four consecutive days.

The tenants asked to be relocated to a hotel during the sandblasting. Gray said Skya offered rent credits to individuals who had identified health problems. But the tenants wanted Skya to deal with all of them equally.

On Aug. 29, a picket line of mostly men blocked the gated entrance on Marmion Way. Police arrived and warned the tenants that they could be arrested for preventing the workers from entering the building. By then the sandblasting crew had left.

Urquiza, the tenant organizer, came up with a new strategy: Instead of facing off with the workers, the tenants would throw a party.

The next morning, they were waiting when Gilbert Nuñez, owner of Elite Sandblasting in of Monte, arrived with his truck and crew to play an elaborate bluff that would shortly be called.

“We bid the job; I’m here to complete it,” Nuñez told two women who met him on the sidewalk.

Out front, a smartly dressed woman walked the sidewalk with a cellphone to her ear.

She was Gelena Skya-Wasserman, founder and owner of Skya Ventures.

As the crew began unrolling high-pressure hoses, Skya-Wasserman aimed the cellphone at an anti-Skya sign the tenants had hung above the courtyard entrance.

Two young women on the stairs gave her looks.

“Take my picture,” one said, striking a modeling pose.

“You can give me the middle finger,” Skya-Wasserman said. “That’s OK.”

The ice was broken. Ten minutes later, Skya-Wasserman was sitting in a folding chair in the courtyard surrounded by stony-faced young men, women with infants in their arms and toddlers playing under the scaffolding.

She tried to show empathy.

“I respect where you are coming from,” she said at one point. “I respect your needs. To whatever extent I can get it, I get it.”

But the tenants’ positions remained hardened.

“What’s important to say, if you’re not paying rent, nothing can be negotiated,” Skya-Wasserman concluded.

By then the sandblasting crew had pulled down the masking and reeled in the hoses.

Nuñez said he called the sandblasting off.

Later in the day, a process server arrived and handed out 60-day “no fault” eviction notices to many of the remaining tenants, a procedure that is legal in non-rent-controlled buildings.

Gray, Skya’s agent, said the move was planned and had not resulted from the day’s confrontation.

Urquiza called it an escalation.

The next night the tenants met in the nearby All Saints Episcopal Church. Urquiza rallied those who were shaken by the mass eviction.

Elena Popp, the tenants’ lawyer, assured them that the earliest they could be summoned to court would be January.

If they stuck together, and kept putting their deposits into the trust account, they could win, she said.

At the end of the night, they reached a consensus to stick together and be ready the next morning for the return of the sandblasters.

On Thursday morning, the courtyard was more crowded than before with supporters in solidarity from the L.A. Tenants Union, Union de Vecinos of Boyle Heights, North East Los Angeles Alliance and even Occidental Students United Against Gentrification.

The sandblasters didn’t show.

“We’ve won the day,” Urquiza told the tenants. “But we have to keep our vigilance up.”

Since then, the outside walls have been painted, the scaffolding has been removed without sandblasting and several tenants have received unlawful detainer notices, beginning the court process to evict them.

L.A. DISTRICT ATTORNEY SETTLES LANDMARK MGMT CASE for $10 Million

City District Attorney Delgadillo Settles Landmark Equity Management Rent Stabilization Case for $10 Million

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

Anat Rubin, Daily Journal Staff Writer

Daily Journal

LOS ANGELES - City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo announced a $10 million settlement Tuesday with a real estate management company accused of driving low-income tenants from hundreds of rent-controlled units throughout the city in order to raise rents.

Delgadillo sued Landmark Equity Management in June 2006, at which time the company owned more than 40 properties in Los Angeles built before 1978, making them subject to the city's Rent Stabilization Ordinance.

The ordinance limits annual rent increases, restricts grounds on which landlords can evict tenants and requires landlords to pay relocation fees when making renovations or converting the rental properties into condominiums. These restrictions do not apply to new renters, giving property owners a powerful incentive to evict long-term tenants.

"The new type of slum cases are about getting people out of rent control" said Tai Glenn, directing attorney for the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles' Housing Unit. "Landlords actively put the building into disrepair and make conditions so bad that people leave and they can raise the rent."

The settlement requires Landmark to pay a $1 million fixed civil penalty and establish a $9 million tenant restitution fund.

"We see this as a model that we can use in similar cases," said Janet Karkanen, who handled the Landmark case and is in charge of Rent Stabilization cases that the city's Housing Department refers to the city attorney.

Delgadillo accused Landmark owner Darren Stern and affiliates of allowing properties to fall into disrepair, shutting off utilities, illegally increasing rents, refusing to accept rent payments in order to sue tenants for failure to pay rent and refusing to pay tenants' relocation.

Delgadillo first brought criminal charges against Landmark in 2004 for rampant habitability violations.

He filed the 2006 civil suit alleging rent control violations in the wake of sharp criticism from housing advocates and legal aid attorneys, who accused Delgadillo of failing to prosecute a single Rent Control Ordinance violation when the city was hemorrhaging affordable housing.

Advocates said they were encouraged by the settlement but wish Delgadillo would sue unscrupulous landlords more often.

"We applaud the city attorney for going after Landmark," said Larry Gross, executive director of the Coalition for Economic Survival. "We think the case should serve as an example of the aggressive approach the city attorney should take to the numerous landlords that are victimizing tenants throughout the city of Los Angeles."

Gross said the city has lost 15,000 rent-controlled units since 2001 to condo conversions or demolition. That number doesn't include units lost as a result of illegal evictions.

"There's no record of that," Gross said.

The Landmark case is the city attorney's only prosecution on the grounds of Rent Control Ordinance violations in the last two years, Karkanen said.

"We've had a large number of cases referred to us," she said. "We invite the landlord and the tenant to our office and resolve the issues on a tenant-by-tenant basis."

Karkanen said she hopes the Landmark case will send a message.

"One of the primary motivations in bringing this type of case is it lets other landlords in the city know that this type of case could be brought," she said.

"When we bring a landlord into our office, sure, he will resolve that issue quickly. But it doesn't mean he won't do it again."

Delgadillo won a preliminary injunction in December 2006 requiring Landmark to bring all properties into compliance with habitability codes and the Rent Stabilization Ordinance. When Landmark failed to comply, Delgadillo brought civil contempt charges. Landmark has since sold some of its properties and brought others into compliance. There are still nine properties in violation.

The Legal Aid Foundation and other legal nonprofits brought separate cases against Landmark in 2006 for the company's handling of two of the properties still in violation.

One of those properties is a downtown residency hotel.

"From what I understand, not a lot has been done there," said Legal Aid Attorney Barbara Schultz. "So we're looking forward to the city attorney's enforcement of the settlement."

Shultz said conditions at the Huntington, a residential hotel, are still deplorable.

"The rats are as big as horses," she said. "There are cockroaches, there's no heat."

FAIR USE NOTICE.This document may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Tenants Together is making this article available on our website in an effort to advance the understanding of tenant rights issues in California. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.