Beverly Hills man may no longer enjoy his rent-controlled beach apartment
SM COURTHOUSE — A Santa Monica judge tossed out a lawsuit levied by real estate investor Robert Bisno, who sued City Hall for allowing his landlord to raise the rent on his rent-controlled beachfront apartment.
Bisno, a Beverly Hills homeowner, claimed class discrimination in the lawsuit. He sought to overturn a year-old law that allows landlords to charge market rates on rent-controlled units used as vacation homes, or office and storage space. Bisno pays $1,094 for a penthouse in the Shores Apartments on Santa Monica Beach that could command as much as $5,000 on the open market.
The ruling by Santa Monica Superior Court Judge James Bascue follows a 10-month dispute that prompted the Santa Monica Rent Control Board to redraft Regulation 3304, which was passed in March of 2003. Now, officials set the higher rent levels — not landlords. Before, it was up to landlords to choose rent levels for part-time tenants, something Bisno argued was unconstitutional.
Doris Ganga, an attorney for the rent control board, said the ruling affirms the strength of Reg. 3304, which was passed under lobbying pressure from landlords.
“We vigorously defend our own regulations. When we pass something, we don’t do it frivolously,” said Ganga, who now must draft a judgment for Bascue to sign. “Frankly, we get sued a whole lot more often by landlords than we do by tenants.”
“Frankly, we get sued a whole lot more often by landlords than we do by tenants.” — – DORIS GANGA Attorney, Rent Control Board
Tenants initially feared the law would be an invasion of privacy because it encourages landlords to keep tabs on their comings and goings, even rifle through their refrigerators and mailboxes looking for signs that tenants are using the units part-time. Those fears dissipated when Reg. 3304 case filings dropped off after the first few months.
The law requires landlords to serve eviction notices to tenants whom they believe are part-timers. They then must file a complaint with the rent control board, which reviews the matter and determines if there is a legitimate case. Tenants are then given a chance to respond. If there is a disagreement, the case goes before an administrative hearing officer. That officer’s ruling can be appealed to the Rent Control Board.
To date, City Hall has received 121 cases from landlords. Of those, 31 were dismissed because they failed to establish a case against the tenants and another 17 were granted automatically because the tenant didn’t object.
Of those that have gone before a hearing officer, 28 were granted and 15 were denied. Another 15 were withdrawn, presumably because the tenant moved out or agreed to the rental hike. Fifteen cases are pending, said Tracy Condon, a spokeswoman for the Rent Control Board. There are 17 cases currently on appeal, 13 of which were from tenants, including Bisno.
In the lawsuit, Bisno argued Reg. 3304 is illegal because it was approved by City Hall without going before voters.
“By carving out a class of persons defined by their use of the units, the Santa Monica Rent Control Board is creating a governmentally created discrimination of class,” the lawsuit reads.
Bisno couldn’t be reached for comment. While he is appealing the administrative officer’s ruling, it’s unknown whether he will appeal Judge Bascue’s ruling.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on April 26, 2004. Read the original PDF.