HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - #26Alcala, Abigail
From:
Sue Loftin <
Sent:
Tuesday, October 17, 2023 10:42 AM
To:
eComment
Cc:
Assistant
Subject: Hearing October 17, 2023, Agenda Items 26 & 27 Opposition
Attachments: 2023.10.17 Items 26&27 Opp. Exh..pdf
Dear Ms. Hall, City Clerk,
The attached correspondence is offered in Opposition to agenda items 26 and 27.
Thank you for your assistance with this matter.
Sue Loftin, Esq. LOFTIN I BEDELL P.C.
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Tel:
Direct Tel:
Fax:
Email:
Attention: This email has limited purposes. It may not contain the full extent of any conversation related to a specific
topic and may not represent legal advice on a specific topic. Emails are abbreviated means of communication and as
such cannot be relied upon for a full and complete response to any factual or legal issue.
Privileged and Confidential Communication: This email message and its contents are legally privileged and confidential
information that is intended solely for the use of the intended addressee. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this email message in error, please contact the sender by reply email immediately
2023.10.17 Items 26&27 Opp. Exh..pdf
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Electronic Transmission (eComment@santa-ana-org)
October 17, 2023
Honorable Mayor Valerie Amezcua, Mayor Pro Tem Jessie Lopez and Council Members Thai Viet
Phan, Genjamin Vazquez, Phil Bacerra, Johnathan Ryan Hernandez and David Penaloza.
City of Santa Ana
c/o Office of the City Clerk
20 Civic Center Plaza M-30
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Re: Hearing Date: City Council Meeting, October 17, 2023
Agenda Items 26: Oppose and
Request the Matter be Removed from Consent Calendar
Agenda Item 27: Oppose
Request the Measure proposed be denied.
Request: Amend the Existing Ordinance No. 3027 to Comply with
Existing State and Federal Statutory, Regulatory and Case Law and to
Comply with 2023 approved State Statutory Changes.
Dear Honorable Mayor Valerie Amezcua, Mayor Pro Tem Jessie Lopez, and Councilmembers Thai
Viet Phan, Benjamin Vazquez, Phil Bacerra, Johnathan Ryan Hernandez and David Penaloza:
This Firm represents Kingsley Management Corporation, and its affiliated companies, which
manage, own, and operate, with care and concern for the Homeowners (residents) multiple
mobilehome parks within in the City of Santa Ana.
To reiterate what has been said in correspondence and litigation, this Firm and its Client never
said the City could not pass rent control. In fact, has stated the opposite in court pleadings and to the
City. The request has been to engage in consultation with all interested parties, not just renters, and
to pass rent control that complies with State and Federal Laws including the related regulations and
the cases arising from said statutes and regulations, specifically related to mobilehome owners/space
renters and mobilehome park owners. Additionally, rental owners and organizations representing
rental owners, including Kingsley Management Corporation, have requested to meet and discuss the
issues to arrive at a fair, balanced, and legal program for all — renters and rental property owners.
The staff report for these two agenda items 26 and 27 do not provide additional substantive
factual or legal information to support the amendment to Ordinance No. 3027 to distinguish this Staff
Report from the Staff Reports of October 3, 2023 and October 17, 2023; therefore, the Opposition to
agenda items 26 and 27 include all Opposition submitted to the October 3, 2023 agenda item 16
• Carlsbad • California • 92009
T: • Direct: • www.loftinbedell.com •
LOFTIN I BEDELL P.C.
Santa Ana Mayor and Council Members
c/o City Clerk
October 17, 2023
Page 2 of 3
and October 17, 2023, agenda item 26 which are hereby incorporated as the Opposition to this
Agenda Item. (October 3, 2023 Opposition to Agenda Item 16 is attached for your convenience)
As further Opposition to this Agenda Item This Firm, on behalf of Kinsley Management
Corporation and its affiliated companies, has noted in its correspondence to the City that
commencing January 2, 2020, to the present, violations Government Code sections 54950 and
36934, and potential violation of Government Code section 84308 in communications,
correspondences, and statements related to and presented to the City Council at various stages of the
City Council's consideration and adoption of the various rent control and eviction protection
ordinances and related policies. Such prior violations and deficiencies noted previously in the public
record are incorporated herein as though set forth in full, however, were presented in the following
public records: (i) City Council Hearings held on September 21, October 5 and November 19, 2021
("2021 Record") for the adoption of Ordinance Nos. 3009 and 3010 ("2021 Ordinances"); (ii) City
Council Hearings held on October 5, 2022 and October 18, 2022 ("2022 Record") for the adoption
of Ordinance No. 3027. ("2022 Ordinance"); (iii) City Council Hearings August 29, 2023 and
September 19, 2023 ("2023 1st Amendment Hearings") and the opposition orally and in writing,
including the correspondences dated August 28, 2023 from Sue Loftin, LoftinjBedell P.C. and Terry
Dowdall, Dowdall Law to the attempted modification of the Ordinance, see record for City Council
Hearing September 29, 2023, (iii) adoption all regulations, policies, retention of third -party
vendors/agents, including the adoption of all Resolutions from 2021 to current date including all
oppositions related thereto ("2023 Resolutions"). The public records commencing approximately
January 2, 2020 of the meetings, communications and hearings include all memorandums, electronic
transmissions, letters between and among staff, consultants, and members of the public, excepting
attorney -client privileged materials; and between any City staff person, consultant or elected or
appointed official with any third party, and all opposition letters, emails and verbal presentations
and the video recording of those hearings are hereby incorporated for the record in this matter.
Additionally, the Pleadings for cases naming the City of Santa Ana as the defendant in the Federal
District Court Cases Nos. 8:22-cv-00076-CJC-JDEx and 8:33-cv-00102-CJC-JDE and the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeal for Case No. 8:22-cv-00076-CJC (JDEx) are hereby incorporated into
this record.
The Staff Report as well as all others submitted related to Rent Control and Just Cause
Eviction Ordinances and related matters do not disclose, include, reference or otherwise include
in the Staff Report or at the Open Meeting Oppositions to the actions, including suggestions
for amendments, among other factual and legal matters. The general public and those attending
the hearing are generally unaware of the positions of those in opposition.
Sincerely,
LOFTIN I BEDEL�I., P.C.
By: L. Sue Loftin' ,Nsq.
LOFTIN I BEDELL P.C.
Santa Ana Mayor and Council Members
c/o City Clerk
October 17, 2023
Page 3 of 3
cc: Client
Encl: October 3, 2023 Opposition to Agenda Item 16.
Electronic Transmission (eComment@santa-ana-org)
October 3, 2023
Honorable Mayor Valerie Amezcua, Mayor Pro Tem Jessie Lopez and Council Members Thai Viet
Phan, Genjamin Vazquez, Phil Bacerra, Johnathan Ryan Hernandez and David Penaloza.
City of Santa Ana
c/o Office of the City Clerk
20 Civic Center Plaza M-30
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Re: Hearing Date: City Council Meeting, October 3, 2023
Agenda Item 16: Support Option 1
Opposed to Proposed Options 2-5
Request: Do Nothing or Amend the Existing Ordinance No. 3027 to Comply with
Existing State and Federal Statutory, Regulatory and Case Law and tc
Comply with 2023 approved State Statutory Changes.
Dear Honorable Mayor Valerie Amezcua, Mayor Pro Tem Jessie Lopez, and Councilmembers Thai
Viet Phan, Benjamin Vazquez, Phil Bacerra, Johnathan Ryan Hernandez and David Penaloza:
This Firm represents Kingsley Management Corporation, and its affiliated companies, which
manage, own, and operate, with care and concern for the Homeowners (residents) multiple
mobilehome parks within in the City of Santa Ana.
SUPPORT OPTION 1
Take NO Action
To reiterate what has been said in correspondence and litigation, this Firm and its Client never
said the City could not pass rent control applicable to mobilehome parks. In fact, has stated the
opposite in court pleadings and to the City in the numerous communications submitted over the last
approximate two and one-half (2 1/2 ) years. Rather than restate two and one-half (2 1/2 ) of law and
facts, and the objections to the Ordinances and related actions occurring during that time, the public
record is hereby incorporated 1
The request has been to acknowledge the specific bodies of State and Federal law pertaining to
mobilehome parks and the relationship between the owners of mobilehome parks and mobilehome
owners who rent spaces in the Park ("Body of Law") and incorporate that Body of Law into the
Footnote 3, sgLm.
• Carlsbad California • 92009
T: • Direct: • www.loftinbedell.com •
LOFTIN I BEDELL P.C.
Santa Ana Mayor and Council Members
c/o City Clerk
October 3, 2023
Page 2 of 6
proposed Ordinances and related actions or create separate Ordinances applicable to that Body of
Law. This body of law impacts both rent control and just cause eviction ordinances and is
distinguishable from law applicable to other residential rental properties. Combining the two distinct
bodies of law has created facial issues related to both types of housing rental properties. to engage
Additionally, rental owners and organizations representing rental owners, including Kingsley
Management Corporation, have requested to meet and discuss the issues to arrive at fair, balanced,
and legal program for all — renters and rental property owners.
To take the actions proposed under the four remaining Options based on the existing Ordinance
No. 3027 ignores the fact the State legislature has passed statutes which will require Ordinance No.
3027 to comply with statutes approved by the Governor, who has approved some but has until
October 14, 2023 to consider all of the legislative passed statutes. Approving Options 2, 3, 4, and 5
will have as the basis an Ordinance which has portions of it that conflict with State law.
Based on the foregoing, the following objections to Options 2, 3, 4, and 5, and the incorporate
record in this matter, please approve Option 1, which is to take no action. Please consider sending
Ordinance 3027 to the City Attorney for either separating the two distinct rental property bodies of
law or amending Ordinance 3027 to comply with both bodies of law.
No comment or assertion contained herein or below is a waiver or amendment of the assertions,
contentions and allegations presented in opposition contained in the incorporated Record of the
related proceedings before the City or other actions by elected officials or staff and/or in court
pleadings filed in the actions, as incorporated in footnote 3. Nothing said herein waives any legal or
regulatory rights of Kingsley to oppose City actions related to the adoption of Resolutions,
Ordinances, Measures, or regulations and policies related to the same.
GENERAL OBJECTION TO ALL OPTIONS 2, 3, 4, and 5.
1. TIMING OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE CONFLICTING
WITH 2O23 STATE STATUTES : There have been 2023 state legislative bills passed and
signed by the Governor will be effective January 1, 2024 which statutes will amend the
state statutory scheme related to the Ordinance. The Ordinance attached is in conflict with
the new statutes and may be in conflict with the numerous other bills pending the Governors
consideration no later than October 14, 2023. Therefore, the action taken at this time will
require further amendment to the Ordinance to comply with 2023 State Statutes.
The foregoing does not concede the Ordinance complies with current state or federal law.
Therefore, all proposed Resolutions and attached proposed ordinances should be denied or
referred back to the City Attorney for amendment to the Ordinance.
2. GOVERNMENT CODE sections 54950, 36934 and 84308. All prior objections to the
adoption of the 2021, 2022 and attempted amendment in contravention of City Charter in
KMC700426.CCH9.3.2023
LOFTIN I BEDELL P.C.
Santa Ana Mayor and Council Members
c/o City Clerk
October 3, 2023
Page 3 of 6
2023 related to violations of the listed Government Code sections, except Government Code
84308 did not apply to the City Council until January 1, 2022. The City Attorney's blanket
statement ("No") that Government Code section 84308 does not apply is not sufficient to
support that conclusion and this correspondence is a rejection of that conclusion.2
3. INCORPORATION OF THE COMPLETE RECORD RELATED TO THE
ADOPTION OF THE FIRST TWO ORDINANCES IN 2021 (Ordinance Nos. 3009
and 3010) THROUGH THE CURRENT DATE, (INCLUDING THE ADOPTION
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE (Ordinance No. 3027 and all implementing
Resolutions and/or Policies and Regulations prepared by City Staff and/or third Party
Vendors on behalf of the City) AS SET FORTH IN THE FOOTNOTE BELOW.3
For purpose of reference, the materials referenced in Footnote 3 shall be known as the "Record". As
stated, supra, the extensive law and facts presented in the incorporated record will not be reiterated
herein but is incorporated as delineate below with a few exceptions as noted in this correspondence.
STAFF RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
The Staff Report was organized with a numbering system of the Options which may be
confusing. The following comments will be divided into "First Set of Options: Options 2 or 3, and
Second Set of Options: 4 and/or 5 with the assumption the intent that either Options 2 or 3 and/or in
addition Options 4 or 5 are subject for consideration by Council for approval.
First Set of Options
2 See, San Diegans for Open Government v. City of Oceanside (2016) 4 Cal.App.51637, 643.
3 This Firm, on behalf of Kinsley Management Corporation and its affiliated companies, has noted, commencing January 2, 2020, to the
present, violations Government Code sections 54950 and 36934, and potential violation of Government Code section 84308 in
communications, correspondences, and statements related to and presented to the City Council at various stages of the City Council's
consideration and adoption of the various rent control and eviction protection ordinances and related policies. Such prior violations and
deficiencies noted previously in the public record are incorporated herein as though set forth in full, however, were presented in the
following public records: (i) City Council Hearings held on September 21, October 5 and November 19, 2021 ("2021 Record") for the
adoption of Ordinance Nos. 3009 and 3010 ("2021 Ordinances"); (ii) City Council Hearings held on October 5, 2022 and October 18,
2022 ("2022 Record") for the adoption of Ordinance No. 3027. ("2022 Ordinance"); (iii) City Council Hearings August 29, 2023 and
September 19, 2023 ("2023 1st Amendment Hearings") and the opposition orally and in writing, including the correspondences dated
August 28, 2023 from Sue Loftin, LoftinlBedell P.C. and Terry Dowdall, Dowdall Law to the attempted modification of the Ordinance,
see record for City Council Hearing September 29, 2023, (iii) adoption all regulations, policies, retention of third -party vendors/agents,
including the adoption of all Resolutions from 2021 to current date including all oppositions related thereto ("2023 Resolutions"). The
public records commencing approximately January 2, 2020 of the meetings, communications and hearings include all memorandums,
electronic transmissions, letters between and among staff, consultants, and members of the public, excepting attorney -client privileged
materials; and between any City staff person, consultant or elected or appointed official with any third party, and all opposition letters,
emails and verbal presentations and the video recording of those hearings are hereby incorporated for the record in this matter.
Additionally, the Pleadings for cases naming the City of Santa Ana as the defendant in the Federal District Court Cases Nos. 8:22-cv-
00076-CJC-JDEx and 8:33-cv-00102-CJC-JDE and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal for Case No. 8:22-cv-00076-CJC (JDEx)
are hereby incorporated into this record.
KMC700426.CCH9.3.2023
LOFTIN I BEDELL P.C.
Santa Ana Mayor and Council Members
c/o City Clerk
October 3, 2023
Page 4 of 6
These Options are presented in the Alternative: Either adopt Option 2 or Option 3.
OPTION 2
Resolution Affirming Prior Adoption of Ordinance NS-3027
OPPOSITION: REQUEST TAKE NO ACTION
The Option to approve the current version of the Ordinance is "presented by staff ...in order to
affirm the former Council's action and cure against allegations concerning the validity of the adoption
of the Ordinance. In summary, the goal is to affirm the actions of the prior council in the adoption of
an Ordinance which remains in violation of the various State and Federal statutes including the
implementing regulations and case law. The assumption is this is an effort to attempt a defense of
"mootness" related to the pending litigation and among other allegations, the continuing violations of
the Brown Act and the violations of Federal statutes constitutional issue. This proposed attempt to
"cover" for prior actions of other city council persons and staff, by affirming their adoption of a
defective Ordinance further enhances the challenges to the City's actions. This action does not correct
the defects in the Ordinance highlighted at the City Council Hearing, October 4, 2022, the City Council
disregarded the Judson, City Housing Division Manager, explanation that there was a lack of evidence
in support of an imbalanced [rent] Boards, stating "Based on our research of other jurisdictions, there
aren't other jurisdictions with an imbalanced board ... where there's either more tenants or more
landlords. There is a reason for that. We found in our research that most boards are equitably balanced
between tenants and landlords and that serves the best interest of tenants and landlords as they are
following the due process rights under the law.4 The "affirmation" of this Ordinance likewise will not
erase the violations of the Government Code sections enacted to protect the public.
Therefore, affirming the existing Ordinance affirms its provisions contrary to law and endorses
the actions exhibited at hearings and reasonably assumed behind the scenes of the enactment of this
Ordinance and the other prior and continuing related Ordinances.
Based on the Record of this matter and for the foregoing reasons, the request is to TAKE NO
ACTION.
OR
OPTION 3
Adopt the Resolution Amending Ordinance NS-3027
OPPOSITION: REQUEST TAKE NO ACTION
The amendment proposed is to require two-thirds (2/3) council members' approval for specific
changes to Ordinance NS-3027. The detailed legal and factual Opposition to the amendment was
presented to the council on August 29, 2023 and September 19, 2023 by among others, correspondence
a Comments by Councilmember Pham and Judson Brown, City Council Meeting, Oct. 4, 2022, 5:48:35 to 5:51.
W[� a;.w.UU kl'C ?C �Ju� u`�_UI!G w x �'h7— 01) 2. See, also Correspondence from LoftinlBedell P.C. dated October 13, 2022, in
Opposition to Hearing, Oct. 18, 2022, Item 21; also, Correspondence from LoftinlBedell P.C. and Dowdall Law dated
September 19 and August 29 in Opposition to City Council Hearing, Agenda Item 21,
KMC700426.CCH9.3.2023
LOFTIN I BEDELL P.C.
Santa Ana Mayor and Council Members
c/o City Clerk
October 3, 2023
Page 5 of 6
from LoftinlBedell dated August 28, 2023 and September 19, 2023, and from Terry Dowdall dated
August 28, 2023. Rather than repeat the content of the referenced correspondence, the correspondence,
including all other written, electronic and oral opposition positions presented are hereby specifically
incorporated forming the legal and factual Opposition to this Option 3.
Based on the Record in this matter and for the foregoing reasons, the request is to TAKE NO
ACTION.
Second Set of Options
Options 4 and 5 are presented as "and/or". The assumption is the Counsel could pass Option 2
or 3 and pass one or both of Options 4 and 5.
GENERAL OBJECTION TO BOTH OPTIONS 4 & 5: This set of Options relate
to Option 3: "affirming Ordinance NS-3027 and Option 4: limiting the City Council members ability
to amend Ordinance NS-3027 by changing the voting requirements in the City Charter for approval for
the adoption or amendment of an Ordinance from approval by a majority to approval by a
supermajority. The Proposition required under California Election Code section 9222 for Option 3 is
Ordinance No. NS-3027 and for Option 4 the basis of the Proposition is Ordinance No.-3027 with the
voting requirement amends. Therefore, both Ballot Measures depend upon the legal and factual validity
of Ordinance NS-3027. The assumption appears to be that through this mechanism the City will be
protected from litigation and the tenants will have long term ordinance protection. Unfortunately, a
Ballot Measure with its Proposition invalid, if passed, does not protect a City from litigation challenging
the Ordinance created by the Ballot Measure. The additional assumption appears to be that through this
mechanism the actions and conduct by certain elected officials and City staff related to the adoption of
the Ordinances since 2021 will be protected. The Ballot Measures proposed do not meet the
requirements for a City directed Ballot Measure and the staff report presents essentially no factual or
legal support for the Ballot Measures.6
OPTION 4
Resolution Giving Notice of a General Municipal Election Affirming Ordinance NS-3027
OPPOSITION: REQUEST TAKE NO ACTION
This is a proposal to place Ordinance NS-3027 on the ballot to affirm the actions of the prior
City Council actions and approve an Ordinance which currently is legally and factually defective. This
is an attempt to circumvent the City Council process and obligation to all members of the public. The
opposition to First Set of Options:2 and 3 form the factual and legal basis for the Opposition to this
Second Set of Options: 3. The passage of "Measure" at an election will not protect the City from
litigation based on the substance of the "Measure", an Ordinance which is defective both legally and
5 Ordinance Nos. 3009, 3010, 3027 and Long Term Implementation Plan, adopted September 6, 2022.
6 Both proposed "Measure Ballots" are incomplete and misleading; Section 20, a standard language provision, but does not
protect the Ordinance; Evid.Code sec. 9222 et seq.
KMC700426.CCH9.3.2023
LOFTIN I BEDELL P.C.
Santa Ana Mayor and Council Members
c/o City Clerk
October 3, 2023
Page 6 of 6
factually, and will require amendments prior to implement the new State Statutes effective January 1,
2024.
Based on the Record in this matter and for the foregoing reasons, the request is to TAKE NO
ACTION.
OPTION 5
Resolution Giving Notice of General Municipal Election to Amend Ordinance
NS-3027
OPPOSITION: REQUEST TAKE NO ACTION
This is a proposal to place Ordinance NS-3027 on the ballot as the Proposition for the Ballot
Measure. The amendment proposed is to require two-thirds (2/3) council members' approval for
specific changes to Ordinance NS-3027. The proposed Proposition and the Ballot Measure do not
clearly disclose this action is also an amendment to the City Charter.' The detailed legal and factual
Opposition to the amendment was presented to the council on August 29, 2023 and September 19, 2023
by among others, correspondence from Sue Loftin, LoftinjBedell P.C. dated August 28, 2023 and
September 19, 2023, and from Terry Dowdall, Dowdall Law dated August 28, 2023. Rather than repeat
the content of the referenced correspondence, the correspondence, including all other written, electronic
and oral opposition positions presented are hereby specifically incorporated forming the legal and
factual Opposition to this Option 4.
Based on the Record in this matter and for the foregoing reasons, the request is to TAKE NO
ACTION.
Sincerely,
LOFTIN I BEDELL P.C.
By: L. Sue Loftin, Esq.
cc: Client
7 Cal.Const.Art.11, § 11; Cal.Elea.Code § 9222; and case law thereunder related to the constitutionality and requirements
related to Citydirected Measures, as to the Proposition (Ordinance 3027, "interpretation of a local ordinance is a legal
issue: People ex rel. Feuer v. Nestdrop 2016) 245 Cal.App.4t', 664, 672;
KMC700426.CCH9.3.2023
Alcala, Abigail
From:
Nathaniel Greensides <
Sent:
Tuesday, October 17, 2023 2:03 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
Item 26
I write in support of this item.
Sincerely,
Nathaniel Greensides
Ward 5 resident and volunteer with Tenants United Santa Ana
Alcala, Abigail
From: Michelle Gonzalez <
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 3:41 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Item #26 (Super -Majority Vote)
10/17/2023
Hello, City Council Members of Santa Ana,
My name is Michelle Gonzalez and I am here to
give a voice to the mom-and-pop landlords that have been,
and will continue to be, greatly affected by the Rent Stabilization Ordinance.
My mom who has been a landlord for over 30 years, immigrated here to raise a family and pursue the American
dream.
She has valued long-standing tenants over price gouging, and has had 3 evictions in total.
She has provided housing for her tenants from generation to generation and it is wrong to group her
in the same category as a corporate landlord.
She is being punished for doing all these years what you are trying to accomplish with this RSO
and sadly enough, there hasn't been any attempt to correct the imperfections but rather,
the focus is on a Super Majority Vote that will lock it into place.
Currently, the allowable rent increase is 2.54 percent, which does not cover the cost of inflation
with property tax, insurance, inspection fees, the cost of maintenance not to mention the utilities that are
included in her rent.
At this rate, it will take her over 30 years before her rents reach Fair Market Rent according to HUD for 2023
Small business owners are beginning to feel discouraged and are considering selling
or doing a 1031 exchange to relocate their investment.
Unfortunately, the ones who are interested in these building are corporate giants.
The political drama occurring here in Santa Ana, has overshadowed the importance
of protecting these mom-and-pop landlords during the rushed efforts to implement the RSO
and enforce a Supermajority Vote.
Also, it doesn't make sense for a Rental Registry Board that is made up of more tenants than landlords,
to be making decisions for a business they may not have any experience in.
Not to mention a Rental Registry that can be harmful to the residents of Santa Ana if made public.
Take a look at Inglewood's RSO Section 8-128.
They have taken the time to include provisions for the landlords Below Market Rent
Inglewood is allowing them to increase their rents until it reaches 81 % of Fair Market Rent according to HUD.
This is in addition to the Fair Return and Capitol Improvement Petition.
So these provisions can be achieved and Inglewood is proof of that.
The Fair Return and Capitol Improvement Petition should not be the only tools available
for landlords in this complex situation.
These petitions are difficult to navigate, time consuming, intrusive, cost money and hold much uncertainty.
The RSO was initially created to protect from the uncertainty of COVID
but it is far from perfect and we must recognize future unwanted consequences
and focus on amending them before it is too late.
If you believe the RSO is fair and just, there would not be the Urgency or Need
to create a Supermajority Vote.
I ask that you please vote no on item 426.
Thank you,
Michelle Gonzalez