New laws put the onus on tenants
Landlords would also be exempt from paying benefits in the event of an earthquake or other natural disaster.
For tenants, the changes will impose a deadline for payment of benefits and create a built-in escalator to match inflation. Previously, relocation benefits were adjusted “periodically” by the City Council, leaving fees unadjusted for years at a time.
“It seems like we are doing a very good thing,” said Councilman Kevin McKeown, a staunch supporter of renters rights, about the annual, automatic adjustment.
Changes also establish per diem limits for food and other expenses, clarify the duties of city building officials, landlords and tenants, and set up an appeals process.
Tenants would still have to pay rent to their landlord while repairs are being completed.
Current relocation fees that must be adjusted are: Bachelor or single, $3,000; one bedroom, $3,750; two bedrooms, $4,250; three bedrooms, $5,250; four or more bedrooms, $5,500, according to a city staff report. Fees are expected to be raised by 20 percent.
If the rental housing unit from which the tenant is being evicted is furnished, $250 shall be deducted from that amount. If one or more of the displaced tenants is a senior citizen or disabled person, or is a tenant with a child under the age of 18, and the displaced tenant has occupied the rental housing unit on or before Nov. 17, 1999, an additional $1,000 shall be added.
If a landlord does not pay up, they can be sued in civil court and forced to pay the relocation benefits plus a $500 penalty and attorneys fees. A judge could also award punitive damages.
City officials looked to make changes last year when City Hall’s building officials sought advice from the City Attorney’s Office regarding a lack of clarity in both state and local law. For instance, the obligation to determine fault was vague under state law and that local law left unclear how relocation rights should be determined in specific cases.
A lawsuit was filed shortly after in which a landlord sued the city over the temporary relocation law, calling it unconstitutional and in conflict with state law. The case arose from an unusual situation in which two units in a building were rendered temporarily uninhabitable as a result of fire. The Santa Monica Fire Department determined that the fire was caused by a tenant’s smoking in one of the units.
The owner was ordered to rehabilitate the units and a dispute arose as to which tenants were entitled to relocation benefits.
The landlord claimed that the city’s temporary relocation law effectuates an unconstitutional taking of property because it requires that benefits be paid in “unlimited amounts,” that it violates the due process rights of landlords by denying them adequate notice or a right of appeal, and that it conflicts with health the safety codes, in that it requires relocation payments even though a tenant is at fault.
The lawsuit was eventually dismissed once the plaintiff learned of the council’s attempt to change the laws dealing with relocation.
Some landlords called for a cap on benefits paid, citing examples of rent controlled tenants who would be paid benefits that are double, perhaps triple, what they are paying in rent.
City Attorney Marsha Moutrie said some cities do have caps, however, one was not included in the changes to Santa Monica’s law because the council said in a previous discussion that creating a cap would not create an incentive for landlords to repair units as quickly as possible.
The changes are expected to go into effect in less than 30 days.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on May 29, 2007. Read the original PDF.