Correspondence - #33 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

tenant counselor that it is likely that many tenants do not post reviews either positive or negative for fear of retaliation by landlords or their servicing agents. Nonetheless, I will address the points that they have offered in opposition: -"lack of community and stakeholder outreach. Especially since rent control has historically lacked community interest and voter support. The residents of Santa Ana have rejected rent control four times." Tenants United Santa Ana has knocked on over 10,000 doors in this city in garnering support for a local renter's protections and just cause ordinance since 2018. Furthermore in 2020, there was community workshops held in the Willard neighborhood where over fifty residents offered their experiences as tenants and shared their input as to the types of protections they need at the local level. Many residents who were interested in signing to support the cause to be put to ballot could not do so because voter eligibility in our nation and state require Citizenship and a clean criminal record in order to vote. Thus many who wish to be a part of the democratic process are excluded by law. Nonetheless, in 2018, Tenants United Santa Ana collected almost 10,000 signatures of voters in the city which was just shy of the required 10 percent of all registered voters in the city. There is not a lack of community interest by any means in our renter majority city. Certainly, voters have not even yet been given the chance to voice their support. Thus it is flat out incorrect to state that the residents of Santa Ana have rejected rent control four times if they never had the chance to. I don't see any record of the above -mentioned individuals nor their affiliated business entities having carried out intense levels of such work to ensure that residents remain able to afford housing in our City. -"The price controls are excessive. They will not allow housing providers to generate enough income to keep up with the cost of inflation or our actual expenses of operating rental housing" The price controls are not excessive and courts have upheld the legality of rent stabilization and just cause ordinances nationwide time and time again. If a three percent max on rents increasing year over year isn't enough for a business to keep up with the costs of doing business, imagine how hard it is for a low income family to keep up with putting food on the table and paying for rent. Whereas the RSO will allow for a fair rate of return — a guaranteed return for landlords and property investors, tenants' incomes are not guaranteed to increase at the same rate of either the rent increase cap or inflation. Because rents upon new tenants cannot be regulated in the state of California, there exists a big incentive for landlords to further destabilize the community by attempting to bully or evict tenants out of their homes — even when the tenant is a star model tenant. Thus, any RSO needs just cause protections to ensure that Landlords cannot so easily destabilize not only the local community, but the local market as well. Additionally, the price controls are certainly not excessive. If these landowners were to sell their properties, the equity gains more than likely exceed double the profits they're already receiving under the currently unregulated local rentals market. The oppositions' business models being financially unsustainable should not be the reason we see ever increasing rent unaffordability in our city. Lastly on this point, the RSO allows for individual petitions to raise rents above the max allowed increase for any sorts of capital improvements provided that the landlord can furnish proof of such substantial improvements to be made to any property owned. However, in many other cities where this exists, very few landlords are able to prove that the local ordinance doesn't already provide enough of an allowable increase to raise rents past the locally allowed max. In other words, because the capped increase allows for more than enough funds to make substantial repairs (coupled with the ability to establish market rate rents upon new tenants) landlords who need to raise rents substantially for the actual purposes of improving the quality of their rental housing tend to qualify because the local rent control board can agree with a landlord that the improvements to be made warrant an increase past the allowed amount. -"Current state law at least provides a balance by allowing for a fair and reasonable rate of return and a cap against excessive rent increases."