> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # High court backs renters - URL: https://www.smdp.com/high-court-backs-renters/ - Published: 2005-08-24T15:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T07:36:52.000Z - Author: Ryan Hyatt - Tags: Real Estate & Housing, Downtown, #archive-import *Original rent control law was enacted in ’79* DOWNTOWN LA — A group of property owners claiming Santa Monica’s 26-year-old rent control law is unconstitutional because it doesn’t distinguish between poor and financially capable tenants may have a tough time proving its case, based on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision over gas prices in Hawaii. A lawsuit filed against City Hall in December on behalf of Action Apartment Association, a group of 1,000 area landlords, and Mat Millen, a Santa Monica property owner and resident, was recently amended in light of a U.S. Supreme Court decision, which upheld rent control law on gas stations in Hawaii. Arguments for and against why the amended complaint should be tried in court are expected to be heard on Monday by U.S. District Court Judge A. Howard Matz. Attorney Rosario Perry, working on behalf of the landlords, said the lawsuit wasn’t designed to raise the rent on poor tenants, only those who are able to pay market-rate rents. He added that a judge could establish some sort of scale in which income would be weighed against the right to rent control protection. That “means test” is used in public housing programs. Perry argues that such a test needs to be added to Santa Monica’s rent control law, otherwise the law is unconstitutional because it fails to fulfill its promise to provide sufficient affordable housing. Only available at: Perry argues that allowing wealthy tenants to occupy rent controlled apartments makes the affordable housing shortage in Santa Monica worse. However, the lawsuit, filed in December, was largely affected by Lingle vs. Chevron, a case that was the basis of Perry’s argument. In that May 23 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the rent control law and posed a major obstacle to Perry’s original complaint. At issue in that case was whether the Hawaiian government had a right to set rental rates for gas stations as a way to offset rising consumer gas prices. Oil companies, which served as the gas station landlords, challenged Hawaii’s attempts to control the rents on the grounds the state did not “substantially advance” its assertion to regulate gas prices for the public’s benefit. The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the state of the Hawaii. As a result, Perry’s claim that Santa Monica’s rent control law actually makes the affordable housing shortage worse had to be restated, he said. Because of Lingle vs. Chevron, Perry said he amended his previous lawsuit against City Hall. Meanwhile, City Hall has made a motion for the U.S. District Court to dismiss the case, particularly in light of the most recent ruling. If the case is dismissed, Perry said he could appeal, a scenario he said he and his clients would consider. “I think no matter what standard is applied, there is no justification whatsoever for the city to have a rent control law that protects wealthy tenants, which encourages them to use their apartments part-time and exacerbates the housing shortage,” Perry said. Perry’s most recent court brief claims “the rent board’s bureaucracy is so oppressive that it has shrunk the affordable housing supply, raised overall rents and resulted in sub-standard housing conditions.” Since its original 1979 enactment, rent control restrictions “limit the rental earnings of Santa Monica housing providers”; consequently, all housing providers “are limited in their ability to improve, maintain and finance their investments.” David Pettit, an attorney hired by City Hall to help defend its rent control law, called Perry’s complaint in a recent brief a “grab-bag of arguments that are two decades past the statute of limitations.” “He had a narrow theory, and faced with a choice of dropping the lawsuit or continuing somehow, I think he went with the choice to rehash a bunch of old arguments. “There is nothing new that hasn’t been brought up in courtroom litigation.” Pettit said Perry’s intent to establish a means test by which wealthy and poor tenants might be differentiated under rent control was largely shot down by the Lingle vs. Chevron decision, which showed Santa Monica’s determination to not incorporate a means test was a political issue, not a constitutional one. “It is constitutional to have rent control with a means test, like a lot of housing projects have,” Pettit said. “It is also legal not to have it. “The electorate or City Council gets to choose.” *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on August 24, 2005.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/082405.pdf?ref=smdp.com)