Written Comment — Santa Monica City Council, August 23, 2022

Item 10.G
08/23/22
1 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 1:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: August 23 Agenda Item 10G - Comment

EXTERNAL
The 6% rent increase is authorized by the terms of City Charter. The Council cannot circumvent rights and benefits conferred by a Charter provision by passing an ordinance. Landlords have bills to pay on a current basis. The proposed ordinance would excuse all rent based on a minimal incremental increase of the amount between 3% and 6%. It allows renters who are not financially challenged to defer rent. The Constitution guarantees landlords to a fair return on their property. Compelling landlords to house tenants without any return or a current fair return violates state and federal constitutional rights to fair compensation when government takes their property or denies them the right to exclude people from their property. Consider how such an ordinance would affect you if applied to your sales revenues or salary. If the City wants to help tenants in financial distress, do so with City tax dollars, not by usurping the property and Charter rights of property owners who invested their capital to buy private property in the City.

If you really think this is lawful, why don’t you simply pass an ordinance that all tenants can live in their apartments forever rent free. You do not have the authority to deny landlords rights under the Charter or state and federal constitutions.
‐Mary
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
Item 10.G
08/23/22
2 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 2:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: August 23 Agenda Item 10G - Comment
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 2:00 PM
To: Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: August 23 Agenda Item 10G ‐ Comment

This kind of activity that is proposed is a further disincentive to people from investing their capital in residential housing which further aggravates the housing crisis. I am tired of your Soviet approach ‐ I have tenants in arrears and am happy to work with them ‐ pass this unlawful and unwise ordinance and I will be evicting them and exiting the rental business. If you really think this is lawful, why don’t you simply pass an ordinance that all tenants can live in their apartments forever rent free. You do not have the authority to deny landlords rights under the Charter or state and federal constitutions. ‐Mary
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
Item 10.G
08/23/22
3 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22
Item 10.G
08/23/22
4 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22
Item 10.G
08/23/22
5 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22
Item 10.G
08/23/22
6 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22
Item 10.G
08/23/22
7 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22
Item 10.G
08/23/22
8 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22
Item 10.G
08/23/22
9 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22
Item 10.G
08/23/22
10 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22
Item 10.G
08/23/22
11 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22
Item 10.G
08/23/22
12 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22
Item 10.G
08/23/22
13 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22
Item 10.G
08/23/22
14 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22
Item 10.G
08/23/22
15 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22
Item 10.G
08/23/22
16 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22
Item 10.G
08/23/22
17 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22
Item 10.G
08/23/22
18 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22
Item 10.G
08/23/22
19 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22
Item 10.G
08/23/22
20 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22
Item 10.G
08/23/22
21 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 3:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: August 23 Agenda Item 10G - Comment

EXTERNAL
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
Begin forwarded message:

On Monday, August 22, 2022, 3:00 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

I note the proposed ordinance states:

WHEREAS, reducing the rent cap from 6% to 3% would strike the correct balance in times of higher inflation given that property owners continue to have the benefit of setting the initial rents at any amount upon a vacancy and, thus, can account for any maintenance cost increases; This is utter nonsense. My tenants have resided in their units for decades. Most are behind in their rent and I can deal with that without the city’s intervention. But inflation is greater than 3% and landlords have to deal with that in terms of their building’s and personal expenses. And the law is clear that a fair return requires that inflation be taken into account on a current basis. You are providing an incentive to landlords to evict their tenants in order to keep up with inflation by exercising their Costa Hawkins rights. You are providing an incentive to landlords to file rent increase petitions to keep up with inflation which will also seek to capture the administrative costs of pursuing the petition. You cannot eliminate a landlord’s constitutional right to a fair return that keeps up with inflation by passing an ordinance or amending the charter.

I and other landlords sick of your abuse of housing providers. You control the prices, and impose numerous obligations. Pass this ordinance and the tenants will pay the price by more landlords exercising their eviction and Ellis rights. If you want to protect tenants, do it with your tax dollars, not other peoples’ private property. Perhaps the City should require the Mayor to house the homeless in her spare bedrooms or in an ADU she will build on her property at her expense. If you don’t want to house the homeless yourselves, don’t force landlords to do it without being paid a fair return on a current basis.
‐Mary.

Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
On Monday, August 22, 2022, 2:00 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

Item 10.G
08/23/22
22 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22
2 The 6% rent increase is authorized by the terms of City Charter. The Council cannot circumvent rights and benefits conferred by a Charter provision by passing an ordinance. Landlords have bills to pay on a current basis. The proposed ordinance would excuse all rent based on a minimal incremental increase of the amount between 3% and 6%. It allows renters who are not financially challenged to defer rent. The Constitution guarantees landlords to a fair return on their property.

Compelling landlords to house tenants without any return or a current fair return violates state and federal constitutional rights to fair compensation when government takes their property or denies them the right to exclude people from their property. Consider how such an ordinance would affect you if applied to your sales revenues or salary. If the City wants to help tenants in financial distress, do so with City tax dollars, not by usurping the property and Charter rights of property owners who invested their capital to buy private property in the City.

You do not have the authority to deny landlords rights under the Charter or state and federal constitutions.
‐Mary
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
Item 10.G
08/23/22
23 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 8:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: August 23 Agenda Item 10G - Comment
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 3:00 PM
To: Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: Re: August 23 Agenda Item 10G ‐ Comment

EXTERNAL
I note the proposed ordinance states:

WHEREAS, reducing the rent cap from 6% to 3% would strike the correct balance in times of higher inflation given that property owners continue to have the benefit of setting the initial rents at any amount upon a vacancy and, thus, can account for any maintenance cost increases;
This is utter nonsense. My tenants have resided in their units for decades. Most are behind in their rent and I can deal with that without the city’s intervention. But inflation is greater than 3% and landlords have to deal with that in terms of their building’s and personal expenses. And the law is clear that a fair return requires that inflation be taken into account on a current basis. You are providing an incentive to landlords to evict their tenants in order to keep up with inflation by exercising their Costa Hawkins rights. You are providing an incentive to landlords to file rent increase petitions to keep up with inflation which will also seek to capture the administrative costs of pursuing the petition. You cannot eliminate a landlord’s constitutional right to a fair return that keeps up with inflation by passing an ordinance or amending the charter.

I and other landlords sick of your abuse of housing providers. You control the prices, and impose numerous obligations.

Pass this ordinance and the tenants will pay the price by more landlords exercising their eviction and Ellis rights. If you want to protect tenants, do it with your tax dollars, not other peoples’ private property. Perhaps the City should require the Mayor to house the homeless in her spare bedrooms or in an ADU she will build on her property at her expense. If you don’t want to house the homeless yourselves, don’t force landlords to do it without being paid a fair return on a current basis.
‐Mary.

Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
On Monday, August 22, 2022, 2:00 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

Item 10.G
08/23/22
24 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22
2 The 6% rent increase is authorized by the terms of City Charter. The Council cannot circumvent rights and benefits conferred by a Charter provision by passing an ordinance. Landlords have bills to pay on a current basis. The proposed ordinance would excuse all rent based on a minimal incremental increase of the amount between 3% and 6%. It allows renters who are not financially challenged to defer rent. The Constitution guarantees landlords to a fair return on their property. Compelling landlords to house tenants without any return or a current fair return violates state and federal constitutional rights to fair compensation when government takes their property or denies them the right to exclude people from their property. Consider how such an ordinance would affect you if applied to your sales revenues or salary. If the City wants to help tenants in financial distress, do so with City tax dollars, not by usurping the property and Charter rights of property owners who invested their capital to buy private property in the City.

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
For those of us age 65 and older with 4 rental units or fewer, depending upon this income in retirement, nonpayment of rent is an unsustainable hardship. a solution that would please all parties would be for the City of Santa Monica to cover all rent that tenants currently owe, similar to the way the state did during COVID.

Please consider this,
Thank you,
Marie Iding
Item 10.G
08/23/22
26 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF GREATER LOS ANGELES
AAGLA
“Great Apartments Start Here!”
621 S. WESTMORELAND AVE., LOS ANGELES, CA 90005 | 213.384.4131 | AAGLA.ORG Danielle Leidner-Peretz
Director, Government Affairs &
External Relations
[email protected]
213.384.4131; Ext. 309
August 23, 2022
Via Electronic Mail
Hon. Mayor Sue Himmelrich and
Members of the Santa Monica City Council
City Hall – Council Chambers
685 Main Street, Room 250
Santa Monica, California 90401
Re: Introduction and Adoption of an Emergency Ordinance to Add Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.27.080 to the Santa Monica Municipal Code (Agenda Item 10G) Dear Hon. Mayor Himmelrich and Members of the Santa Monica City Council:

At today’s Santa Monica City Council meeting, the Council will consider adoption of an urgency ordinance prohibiting evictions due to non-payment of rent where a renter receives a rent increase that is more than 3% above the maximum allowable rent (MAR) in effect prior to September 1, 2022 and the renter self-certifies that due to financial distress they are unable to pay the rent.

The Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (Association) is strongly opposed to the proposed ordinance and strongly urges the City Council to reject its adoption.

Our Association is extremely concerned with the manner in which this item is being brought forth, as it was added to the meeting agenda sometime on Friday, August 19th which allows for only limited opportunity for stakeholder review and engagement. Important and necessary components of the legislative process are government transparency and stakeholder engagement which serve to inform the Council on the key issues involved and facilitates the adoption of balanced solutions for the betterment of all City residents. Moreover, this proposal is being advanced following the Council’s approval of a ballot measure, subject to voter approval, that would amend the 2022 general adjustment and permanently limit future annual allowable rent increases to 3% or $70 per month, whichever is less. This ballot measure was advanced because the City Council does not have the authority to bypass the City Charter relative to this matter. Yet, the Council is now seeking to circumvent the City Charter by imposing additional restrictions on rental housing providers’ ability to collect the full 2022 general adjustment, to which they are legally entitled based upon the existing City Charter rent control formula.

The 2022 general adjustment, in effect as of September 1, 2022, allows for a rent increase Item 10.G
08/23/22
27 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF GREATER LOS ANGELES
AAGLA
“Great Apartments Start Here!”
621 S. WESTMORELAND AVE., LOS ANGELES, CA 90005 | 213.384.4131 | AAGLA.ORG of 6% or $140, whichever is less. The proposed ordinance impedes a rental housing provider’s ability to collect the full legally permissible rent increase by allowing any renter in a rent stabilized unit, regardless of household income and with no requirement for the submission of supporting documentation to simply assert that they are unable to pay rent due to financial distress.

Additionally, the proposed ordinance’s definition of financial distress bears no correlation to the COVID-19 pandemic and is broadly defined as “lacking sufficient funds to pay the rent while foregoing or without foregoing adequate food, shelter, healthcare, childcare, necessary transportation, or other life necessities for oneself or one’s dependents”. The City’s current local emergency is founded up the COVID-19 pandemic, what is the City’s legal authority to adopt what is essentially another “eviction moratorium” category outside the scope of the current local emergency? Low-income Santa Monica renters who are financially impacted due to the COVID-19 pandemic are already covered by the Los Angeles County eviction moratorium in effect through the end of 2022.

Equally significant, renters are only required to provide notice and “self-certify” that they are experiencing financial distress as defined in the ordinance, regardless of the renter’s household income and the financial dynamics that may have precipitated the current circumstances.

Throughout the pandemic, our members have generally worked with their renters who have been financially impacted by COVID-19, but have also witnessed circumstances where renters, who have not been impacted by the pandemic, have taken advantage of the situation, and simply not paid rent due despite having the financial ability to do so. Renters should be required to provide supporting documentation. Moreover, how can the City Council disregard a renter’s household income in assessing financial distress? Most significant, the U.S. Supreme Court has found self-certification to be improper and unconstitutional.

The Association has repeatedly raised the severe financial challenges of the City’s housing providers and related impacts that will ultimately affect the very renters that the City seeks to protect.

Rental housing providers are reeling from the financial impacts caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, related government mandates and challenging rent collections over the last several years, and with many small business “mom and pop” property owners already on the verge of selling or losing their property. This adverse financial situation has only been compounded by runaway inflationary pressures effecting the whole economy with the current inflation rate which is now at 9% or more.

The exit of these small business, “mom and pop” housing providers that furnish the bulk of the City’s affordable housing units, would be an enormous loss to the City and a potentially devastating reduction in much needed affordable housing.

During highly inflationary periods, such as we are currently experiencing, where cost of all goods and services are rapidly escalating, it is critical that the rent increases provide independent “mom and pop” rental housing providers with the ability to properly maintain their buildings. Extreme action, as the one being proposed by the City Council will most certainly drive out small business rental housing providers, drastically reducing the already scarce affordable housing, and exacerbating the City’s housing problems. Instead of seeking solutions that alleviate financial hardships of one group at the expense of another, the City Council should assist vulnerable Item 10.G
08/23/22
28 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF GREATER LOS ANGELES
AAGLA
“Great Apartments Start Here!”
621 S. WESTMORELAND AVE., LOS ANGELES, CA 90005 | 213.384.4131 | AAGLA.ORG residents through City funded rental assistance programs and not by further infringing on responsible Santa Monica rental housing providers ability to collect permissible rent increases.

To reiterate, the proposed ordinance serves to bypass the City Charter and the 2022 General Adjustment, calculated utilizing the City Charter’s rent control formula, exceeds the City Council’s authority by imposing restrictions on owner’s ability to collect legally permissible rent with no correlation to the COVID-19 local emergency and allows renters to self-certify their inability to pay rent which is contrary to U.S Supreme Court ruling. We strongly urge the City Council to reject adoption of the proposed ordinance and provide Santa Monica renters in need with city-funded assistance.

Thank you for your time and consideration of these matters. If you have any questions, please call me at (213) 384-4131; Ext. 309 or contact me via electronic mail at [email protected].

Very truly yours,
Danielle Leidner-Peretz
Danielle Leidner-Peretz
Item 10.G
08/23/22
29 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

Santa Monica City CouncilAugust 23, 2022

Santa Monica City Council
August 23, 2022