Santa Monicans fear end of rent control
CITYWIDE In a city well-known for tenant rights, there’s a sense of fear among civic leaders and long-time rent control advocates that 29-year-old housing protections could soon be abolished if a proposed ballot measure in the upcoming June election is successful.
Proposition 98, the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, would make it illegal for government entities to seize private land through eminent domain for private purposes. Proponents of the initiative, which is sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, argue the proposition will protect private property rights, pointing out that 41 other states have already adopted such reforms.
But the provision in the measure that has caught the attention of policymakers and residents in cities like Santa Monica and San Francisco is one that would slowly phase out rent control over time, allowing units that currently fall under the Rent Control Ordinance to be priced at market rate once they are vacated and remain at market rate for the entire life of the unit.
“Rent control is an issue of private property rights as well,” Marko Mlikotin, spokesman for the Yes on Prop. 98 campaign, said on Thursday. “What Prop. 98 would do is phase out rent control over the long term, allow the market to work so the rent stabilizes and more affordable housing can come on to the market.”
The Santa Monica City Council this week unanimously adopted a resolution opposing Prop. 98 and endorsing its counter measure, Proposition 99, which was drafted by opponents in response to the anti rent-control measure. Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights, the ruling political party in Santa Monica and the force behind rent control, has held a majority on the council for nearly 30 years. “One thing that 98 is pretty clear about is it would eliminate rent control,” Councilmember Ken Genser said.
Prop. 98 supporters say that rent control laws are archaic and were mainly instituted during the World War II era as a program to deal with short-term housing shortages. Proponents of the measure point out that rent control is illegal in 44 states and California is one of three states that still permits it.
The measure is being supported by apartment owners associations across the state, including the Action Apartment Association in Santa Monica and the Apartment Owners Association of Greater Los Angeles.
Carl Lambert, the president of the Action Apartment Association and chairman of the California Apartment Association Los Angeles, argued that Prop. 98 is necessary to stop governments from taking homes and handing them over to developers to generate more tax revenue.
“It means when someone moves out of the unit, it is no longer rent control and that will generate more tax revenue than taking a bunch of homes from little old ladies and giving them to developers,” Lambert, a property owner in both Santa Monica and L.A., said.
Prop. 98 would also lift a $10,000 relocation compensation cap on those affected by eminent domain, which the authors of the measure say does not go far enough, specifically for businesses whose properties are acquired.
The counter to the measure, Prop. 99, would take the eminent domain concerns of Prop. 98, but leave out any impacts on rent control, according to the initiative’s proponents, which includes SMRR.
The Homeowners Protection Act would prohibit governments from taking private homes for private developers without eliminating rent control.
The measure also excludes other provisions in Prop. 98 that rent control advocates say are harmful, including jeopardizing environmental protections and limiting the state’s ability to build water projects.
Prop. 98 advocates called the counter proposal a sham, arguing that it doesn’t protect most homes and affords none for businesses or places of worship.
Kathy Fairbanks, spokeswoman for the No on Prop. 98/Yes on Prop. 99 campaign, said on Thursday that other tenant protection laws could suffer and that all 14 million renters in the state will be affected, rent control or not.
“They’re using a popular issue like eminent domain and hiding behind it to enact a number of hidden agendas,” Fairbanks said.
What’s certain in Santa Monica is that Prop. 98 would affect rent control, but what remains unclear is the extent, City Attorney Marsha Moutrie said during the council meeting on Tuesday.
Moutrie drafted an impact report of both Prop. 98 and 99 for the council, pointing out that “just cause” evictions could be prohibited and certain Ellis Act eviction protections, such as relocation benefits, could be eliminated.
Protections for disabled residents and senior citizens, who are usually granted an extended time to vacate their units if served with a notice to move out, would also be jeopardized, Moutrie said.
She mentioned that city regulations could be challenged under Prop. 98, including its power over the location, density, design, height and extent of development and ability to assess development fees.
“It would be a dramatic erosion of local control,” Moutrie said at the meeting.
SMRR was among 200 groups that petitioned for Prop.99.Only one of the two measures can win out in the election.
“SMRR and the city of Santa Monica have worked since 1979 to improve conditions for poorer segments of our community,” SMRR member Michael Tarbet said at the meeting. “This goal is under attack like never before.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on May 2, 2008. Read the original PDF.