Correspondence - #33 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The opposition makes no legal reference to what exists at the state level. However, I suppose they are referring to AB1482's tenant protections act which caps rent increases at 5%+local CPI (inflation) with a ceiling of 10% overall. Additionally, a tenant must live in a unit for at least 12 months in order to qualify for this cap. Despite this law's existence, just last month I had to move across town because after having lived in a unit subject to AB1482, the property management still sent me a notice of increase in the amount of almost 16% which of course is contestable only after the landlord serves a legal eviction notice and proceeds with the case in court. I suspect that there are very few who know about their rights under this law let alone how to assert any of their rights before a case against them is filed in court. Many residents wind up paying an egregious increase with no legal recourse to pursue these costs after all is said and done. Furthermore, this statewide cap and tenant protections is not permanent and is insufficient for the residents of Santa Ana. Thus the necessity of a strong local ordinance responsive to the needs of our residents still exists. This state law affords the ability of local governments the explicit power to enact protections that are stronger than what is afforded at the state level. The needs of Santa Ana residents do not match the needs of residents of San Francisco, Fresno, Los Angeles, San Diego, or even our neighbor cities of Garden Grove, Costa Mesa, Tustin, Orange, and Irvine. Thus the city council can and should do what is within their power to protect our residents and stabilize the local housing market permanently. -"In addition, the city of Santa Ana has $35 million to help renters who are in need" Firstly, these funds arise from the federal and state government programs attempts to ensure that tenants and homeowners are able to maintain a roof over their heads during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. They were never something to be relied upon before the pandemic, and yet the opponents are seemingly using it as a cop out to skirt enactment of strong local tenant protections. Certainly, distribution of such a massive amount of money into the community per the requirements and bureaucracy is no easy task. To that extent, Judson Brown's team has sought to make the process less arduous and more easily navigable. One of the issues Mr. Brown's team aimed to alleviate stemmed from non -cooperation by landlords. Thus many if not most delays are easily remedied where Landlords participate in the process to ensure they are able to meet their obligations. Where landlords failed to cooperate with the distribution of these funds, Mr. Brown's team (and the contracted organizations assisting with the applications process) have been able to give checks directly to tenants to pay rent or utilize as a deposit for a new place to live due to landlord non -cooperation. These funds are not permanent nor were they ever meant to be. I don't know how many if any of the above mentioned opponents of the RSO have participated in the distribution of these funds. If they haven't had any lapse of rents during the pandemic, the $35 million they mention is a moot point for their arguments. To the extent that any opposition has not experienced any lapse of rent payments from tenants during the pandemic, the RSO will simply serve to ensure that they may be able to enjoy stabilized growth and profitability from their investments and assets (and tenant rents). However, I do know from having read through the agendized item that many of the strong mobilehome owner protections that were drafted and presented to the city council failed to be included on this agendized item. Much of what is lacking arises from the incentive of park land owners to sell the land and displace the long term mobile home owning and renting residents of our city. In one interaction with an individual outside of the Food For Less on First Street near downtown in 2018 when I was canvassing for signatures, the individual used to own a mobilehome in Santa Ana for almost 30 years and was forced to sell their mobile home to the park owner move to Huntington Beach after experiencing unregulated space rent increases and not finding any comparable parks to relocate her home to. Enacting processes that must be followed by park owners should they desire to sell or redevelop a mobile home park will ensure that our residents who live in mobile home parks in our city (the majority of which are low-income senior citizens whose first language is not English) may receive fair compensation to relocate or enjoy the ability to remain. Where state mobile home residency laws fail to protect our residents, our council ought to step in to make sure no one is left behind.