LOS ANGELES – Despite voters rejection of Proposition 10, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 Tuesday in favor of an ordinance to temporarily limit rent increases to 3 percent in unincorporated areas of the county, including Littlerock, Lake Los Angeles and Quartz Hill.
Supervisor Sheila Kuehl, who championed the plan to limit rents while the county considers longer-term solutions, said an estimated 200,000 renters would be protected by the county ordinance.
“Several recent local studies indicate that rent stabilization, thoughtfully adopted with other market regulation measures, can successfully protect tenants at risk of eviction with minimal negative impact on the housing market,” Kuehl said.
“If we want to stem the tide of people falling into homelessness and be sure our seniors, as well as other renters, are protected from eviction, we have to curb unrestricted growth in rents.”
The board had also backed the statewide measure, which would have given local jurisdictions more leeway to impose rent controls by repealing the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act that limits rent control to older housing stock. However, less than 40 percent of California voters were in favor of the proposition, which required a majority to pass.
As a consequence, the county ordinance will not apply to older housing stock.
Emotions ran high among dozens of supporters and opponents who appeared before the board, with both sides aiming to claim the moral high ground.
“Rent control will be a terrible burden,” said Gail Maltun, who said the ordinance amounted to a housing subsidy for “every applicant that walked in the door,” something she said the board would never approve.
Other opponents accused rent control advocates of being paid to appear before the board.
“Nobody paid me to be here,” said Yesenia Miranda Meza, who told the board she was a single mother of three boys. Right after Proposition 10 failed, “my landlord decided to give me a three-day pay or quit (eviction) notice … we need your help to put an end to these greedy landlords.”
Another single mother who is a landlord became emotional as she told the supervisors, “I cannot afford a rent freeze … I’m not a big commercial anybody … this is a person and you’re just basically taking money out of my pocket … hindering my ability to make a living is not going to help.”
Others in opposition urged the board to honor the will of voters and take the rejection of Proposition 10 as a rejection of rent control measures.
Property owner Vanetta Barton said it was clear voters care about affordable housing for low-income residents. She pointed to voters’ approval of Proposition 1, which authorizes $4 billion in bonds for housing programs, loans and grants.
“Voters do want our government to assist … but we oppose our government taking our rights away from us via rent control,” Barton said.
Rent control advocates said the vote on Proposition 10 didn’t reflect residents’ true views, accusing the measure’s opponents of running misleading ads on Univision, Telemundo and elsewhere.
The limit on rent hikes is retroactive to Sept. 11. Some advocates said it doesn’t go far enough.
“We’ve heard from many tenants whose landlords have tried to take advantage of this” by boosting rents 20 percent or more as soon as they heard about the proposal, said Jonathan Jager of the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles.
Supervisor Kathryn Barger cast the dissenting vote against the interim ordinance, which is expected to go into effect Dec. 20.
Barger has said loosening regulations is a more effective way of boosting housing supply and ultimately lowering rents.
The research is mixed. In evaluating the effects of Proposition 10, the non-partisan state Legislative Analyst’s Office concluded that rent control would likely lower rents but also reduce new construction and lower property values.
–
D J says
Is anyone here interested in exploring the legality of this? I am a landlord. Both of my properties are rented out below market value but I don’t want the government telling me what I can and can’t do. I would like for all of us to band together and sue the board of supervisors if possible. Surely I can rent out my own property as I see fit. The ordinance has been imposed on us after already establishing investment rentals in these cities and that is not okay. The government here in California has become altogether too oppressive.
Alfredo Vasquez says
What about a recall voter for fraud by corrupt the lobbyists -against an overwhelming amount of low-income renters at all levels of populations.
Tim Scott says
FWIW, I’ve always said that if I won the lottery the first thing I would do is buy a hundred houses in Palmdale and rent them out at several hundred dollars below the current market. With the election of Hofbauer I’d have to do that elsewhere, but I’d still do the same thing.
Tim Scott says
The intention would be to reinvest profits into buying more houses that could then be rented similarly below market value. And I wasn’t interested in apartments because I believe that families with kids should be able to have yards and pets and all that good stuff. They shouldn’t be price forced into apartments.
Not like I’m winning the lottery any time soon, but that’s the plan if I do. I was just suggesting that there is some possibility that the person you are excoriating for greed might not be as bad as you think.
Propositions says
“Despite voters rejection of Proposition 10, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 Tuesday in favor of an ordinance…”
Why bother having propositions?
4Justice says
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!! IF THEY WANT TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO WHY ASK FOR THE PUBLIC OPINION??? THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED TO PROPOSITION 8 IN 2008: THE MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC VOTED “NO” BUT THE BASTARDS IN CHARGE HAD TO CHANGE IT TO THEIR CONVENIENCE ANYWAY! HOMEOWNERS DO NOT HAVE ANY HELP FROM LEGISLATORS TO BUY, PAY AND MAINTAIN THEIR PROPERTIES SO WHY DO WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM CONTROL ON HOW TO MANAGE IT??? THEY WANT TO LIMIT THE RENT INCREASE BY THEY ARE NOT LIMITING THE PROPERTY TAX INCREASE! HOW ABOUT THAT?THIS IS SOCIALISM TO THE HIGHEST DEGREE!!! WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO STOP IT!
Tim Scott says
“As a consequence, the county ordinance will not apply to older housing stock.”
Hey look! Right in the article it points out that they are complying with the law that the proposition was trying to repeal.
I guess that’s why they have propositions, so that the law didn’t change and the county had to comply with it.
4Justice says
Exactly!!! If our opinion doesn’t count, why bother?
Tim Scott says
A ballot proposition isn’t a request for opinions, it’s an open call for the voters to directly impact the law. In this case the proposition was for the voters to choose to repeal a law, and they chose not to.
There was absolutely nothing in Prop 10 that said or suggested that a no vote would create a law banning all rent control. Bottom line, a no vote didn’t really do anything. The existing law still stands, and has to be complied with.
The board of supervisors has therefore had to obey that law. They undoubtedly waited to enact this ordinance because they had a different one they would have put in place if they had been allowed to do so.