Correspondence - #33 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 33 "We disagree with their interpretation."The court noted that the resolution also refers to a statement from Baar's report that "there is no evidence of any extraordinary circumstances existing at the time the Ordinance was enacted and no such evidence was presented by the applicant prior to the hearing on May 15." (Italics added.) Taken together, these statements indicate that the Rent Board based its rejection of the base year rent on Baar's opinion regarding the requirement for extraordinary (or special or unique) circumstances to justify a base year rental adjustment. The Rent Board did not refer to the requirements of its own Ordinance or Guidelines for a base year rental adjustment --"where the rent increases ... could have been made, but have not been made because of the landlord's rental policies or purposes not in accord with the intent or purpose of the Ordinance or guidelines as amended." (Guidelines, § 2.04.) The court therefore rebuffed the City and Baar with the following comment: "If the court determines that Stardust can present admissible evidence concerning this issue, the court shall remand the case to the Rent Board to reconsider Stardust's application for a Vega adjustment in base year rents." Santa Ana may face many Vega adjustment petitions from landlords and park owners, and despite the ability to set rents without any rollback provision, many may continue choosing not to do so until the confiscatory rent restriction formula compels them to litigate with the city for fair adjustments. It may be expected that this will become a widespread practice as the confiscatory downward spiral property owners will fall victim to while intentionally paltry annual adjustments continue to take their toll. 6. THERE ARE NO CONSTITUTIONAL FACTS WHICH CAN PROVE THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH AND IMPOSE MANDATORY RENT CONTROL. SANTA ANA IS AN ECONOMICALLY FUNCTIONING COMMUNITY THAT HAS NOT SHOWN EVIDENCE OF FAILURE IN THE HOUSING MARKET --THE LEVEL OF MANIFEST DYSFUNCTION NECESSARY BASED UPON THE EXPLOITATION OF A HOUSING SHORTAGE TOGETHER WITH THE IMPOSITION OF EXCESSIVE RENTS UNRELATED TO ECONOMIC CONDITIONS It is clear that the housing market in the city of Santa Ana, like the rest of Orange County, is functioning quite regularly and without disruption, failure, or adverse consequence. Park owners cannot be blamed for the pandemic, the economic conditions in California, the shut down of businesses caused by the prevailing administration, or any factors which have contributed to the increase in rental values, housing values, or the extraordinarily low interest rates spurring on unprecedented activity in the housing market. Park owners did not do this. They cannot be blamed for it. Nor can they be blamed for responsibilities that are those of the city, county, and state government to provide more affordable housing. Rent control is an unfair delegation of municipal responsibility for a failure not of the park owner's making. -33-