Board hears first cases under new 3304 ordinance
The city’s rent control board ruled against landlords in a pair of cases Thursday night, stating that tenants are still entitled to rent control protection even though they spend much of their time living elsewhere.
The two cases, stemming from a controversial new housing law designed to curb rent control abuses by allowing property owners to charge market value on units that are not used as primary residences, were being heard for the first time. Members claimed the landlords interpreted the ordinance too broadly.
The tenants, who rented their apartments 11 and 20 years ago, respectively, applauded the rulings. But representatives of the landlords said the board’s actions prove who’s really in charge in Santa Monica.
“It’s business as usual for the rent board,” said lawyer Rosario Perry, who is handling many of the cases for landlords. “They took a giant step forward to try to make rent control fair and reasonable, and the political pressure has just buried them in criticism.”
“It’s business as usual for the rent board.” — — ROSARIO PERRY Lawyer
The new law, passed in March, states that in order to be entitled to rent control, a unit must be used as the tenant’s “residence of return.” That broad language has left the ordinance open to interpretation by people on both sides of the issue and left some residents concerned they will be targeted by overzealous property owners.
Landlord groups, who originally lobbied Sacramento for a tougher law, estimate that 3,000 apartments throughout Santa Monica are being “hoarded” at rent control prices by people who live elsewhere. Tenant advocates, on the other hand, place that figure closer to 200.
The rationale behind the law was that rent control was intended to stabilize people’s living expenses, but not as an added protection for people who live elsewhere and keep second homes in Santa Monica.
Attorney Andrew Zanger, who represented the renters in both of the cases on Thursday, said the new law is unfair and reiterated his commitment to fighting against it.
“The rent control board is going to be inundated by appeals,” he said. “They’re going to start finding out that... this vast amount of apartments that aren’t being used in Santa Monica is untrue.”
Since March, 117 cases have been filed by landlords with the rent board under the new law, called “3304.” Of those, the vast majority are waiting to go before a hearing officer. The majority of the 20 cases that were heard by a hearing officer and ruled on have been appealed by the losing party to the rent board, which heard the first two appeals from landlords on Thursday.
A third appeal by tenants Robert and Jan Bisno was continued until December at the tenants’ request.
At issue in both of the appeals this week was whether or not the apartments were used as a primary residence. In one, landlord Leslie Gibbs filed a claim against tenant Carol Noonan, who pays $630 for a two-bedroom, one-bath apartment in Ocean Park she first rented in 1983.
In 1989, Noonan, a schoolteacher in Baldwin Park, and her longtime boyfriend, Michael Kobrick, bought a single-family house with a swimming pool in Pasadena. Perry argued the house — as well as the fact that until 3304 passed Noonan listed the Pasadena house as her residence in most of her business and legal documents — proves the Santa Monica apartment is not Noonan’s residence of return.
“It goes to where you really live,” he told the board, adding that if Noonan had to choose one residence she would clearly choose to live in Pasadena with her long-time boyfriend and near her work.
“I think that’s the test you should apply, the ‘give-up test.’”
But Zanger, who earned the unanimous backing of the rent board to defeat the appeal, pointed to a recent investigation conducted by City Hall that showed many of Noonan’s belongings were in the Ocean Park apartment. He said that despite the fact that the couple sometimes likes to use the apartment as a weekend getaway, it’s also Noonan’s home.
The fact that Noonan is also on the paperwork for the Pasadena home, Zanger argued, is irrelevant.
“The only alteration was her boyfriend gave her an incredible gift when he dies,” Zanger said.
Perry said information gathered by City Hall is tainted because Noonan was made aware investigators were coming weeks ahead of time. He said it is unfair to both Gibbs and the city, which is suffering from a housing shortage, that Noonan continues to pay $630 for an apartment that could command $2,000 on the open market.
“I was very discouraged last night,” Perry said. “You can twist anything if you want. You can play this George Orwellian game and say, ‘It looks this way, but it’s really that.’ It makes a mockery of the regulation.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 4, 2003. Read the original PDF.