Correspondence - #33 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-"The just cause ordinance creates too many loopholes for bad actors to vandalize our properties and endanger other renters without consequence. This just cause ordinance makes it nearly impossible to remove dangerous elements from the community without a bureaucratic and lengthy process" The opponents fail to establish exactly how this might take place. I'd actually argue that without the proposed protections as agendized, there exists more incentive currently for bad actors to vandalize units and endanger lives of others. Because tenants have no local enforcement agency to hear their case, many tenants make modifications or skirt local fire and density regulations without knowledge or consent of a landlord due to fear that making any request might result in increased rents or retaliatory evictions by landlords. For good landlords who don't intimidate tenants, and for good tenants who inform their landlords of any proposed changes of lease or rental agreements, the protections hold both tenant and landlord accountable to a third party. Likewise, civil penalties will be imposed upon landlords who act in bad faith which is what has been the unfortunate status quo of many landlords in the city. In one recent scenario, the tenant I was working with was illegally locked out of her home despite paying rent on time all throughout the pandemic as a single mother. All of her belongings had also been illegally removed from the unity. Upon gaining re-entry to the unit, the property manager showed up to bully intimidate and harass her and her children which resulted in a physical altercation due to the manager refusing to leave. The SAPID refused to issue a restraining order against the manager. Sadly, in Santa Ana, illegal lockouts and utility shutoffs bully and intimidation tactics by landlords and property managers are all too common. No one should fear their physical or emotional safety simply because they are a renter. The just cause ordinance makes certain that landlords aren't abusing their power or influence; dangerous elements will be more easily remedied when all parties are held accountable. -"The few cities in California that have adopted rent control spend millions of dollars per year on regulatory enforcement. This money could be better used to improve parks, libraries, and public safety." It is absolutely true that regulatory enforcement requires money. Much if not all of the funds will come from landlords paying a fee to fund the regulatory agency to be charged with enforcement of the ordinances. The local regulatory and enforcement agency is necessary to ensure that tenants have local recourse before a case may proceed to the California Superior Court. These eviction courts are swamped not only with landlord -tenant disputes, but other types of cases involving real property disputes. It will reduce the burden upon the Superior Courts so as to ensure that local protections are being followed before a case can proceed to court. All laws in the interest of protecting residents' health and safety necessitate regulatory enforcement. However, it should not be conflated with other community needs. The question these opponents pose is a false dichotomy at best and at worst, an attempt to unnecessarily pit unrelated community causes against one another. It should be noted that landlords and property owners enjoy a cap on their property tax increases which directly fund things like parks, libraries and public safety. Yet, I don't see the same willingness to increase funding for these community assets if and when it comes from their wallets. The funding of parks, libraries, and public safety have nothing to do with the funding of an agency to ensure that tenants have protections to remain housed and that communities and local economies become stabilized. The above mentioned opponents are afraid of being held accountable to the very residents and communities they purportedly serve. They are afraid of any curtailing of the excessive profits they have been enjoying as a result of an unregulated rental market. Just as the tobacco industries in the 1950s fought hard to ensure a smoke screen against the ever mounting evidence that smoking was detrimental to one's health, landlords and their associated groups are afraid that their reigning monopolies on rent prices is coming to an end. Yet somehow, tobacco industry remains profitable. So too will real estate in California. I'm willing to bet that there has never been a time in California's history (California meaning the state as we know it today) when housing costs or availability for low-income people of color wasn't a burden. These protections will ensure that residents in our city, which is and has been composed of mostly low-income, mixed status families (and all the other beautiful aspects therein), are able to remain. Adam Smith of all people once wrote "As