> ## 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.

# Rent Control Board sees profit in ‘shack in the back’
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/rent-control-board-sees-profit-in-shack-in-the-back/
- Published: 2003-01-07T16:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-23T01:16:39.000Z
- Author: Guest Author
- Tags: Real Estate & Housing, Santa Monica, #archive-import

*Landlord argues board can’t charge for non-rented units*

*By DAVE DANFORTH Daily Press Staff Writer*

A leading Santa Monica landlord attorney has raised eyebrows in City Hall because a home he called an unrented “shack” is housing a woman.

The discovery came Dec. 19 when a city investigator visited a Yale Street home to check on a request by Gordon Gitlen, its owner, to remove it from the city’s list of rent controlled residences. Gitlen had said the unit wasn’t being rented, and called it a “shack” in a court statement. He said the structure has been used to house a “caretaker.”

Gitlen said he wasn’t collecting rent from the tenant, who refused to talk to the investigator. The current city file on the property includes a photograph of the modest residence with a sleeping dog outside. Under current rent-control guidelines, the 800-square-foot unit would rent for $312.

Gitlen is being sued by the Rent Control Board for more than $1,000 in past-due annual rent control registration fees, and hefty late fees amounting to over 60 percent each year. He argues the rent control board shouldn’t charge fees on units which aren’t rented out. The board’s policy is to charge the $132 annual registration fee as long as the property is on its eligible list. But Gitlen is challenging Santa Monica’s insistence that its fee ordinance applies to all rent-controlled homes, whether rented or not.

At issue is whether a “controlled residential rental unit,” under city law, must have a rent-producing tenant in order to make it liable for the $132 annual fee.

Commissioner Donna Groman, who heard the court case Dec. 20, hasn’t ruled on it yet.

Gitlen is an attorney who serves as president of the Action Apartment Association, a group which backs landlord rights and opposes Santa Monica’s rent control administration. Rent control has been a fact of life here since the Santa Monicans for Renters Rights were elected as the city’s ruling party in 1979.

Rent control can be run by city governments in California, although the state’s Ellis Act regulates the circumstances under which homes enter and leave rent control. In 1995, the state legislature allowed owners of rent-controlled units to raise rents to market levels if a tenant leaves voluntarily. Before then, the rents were kept in check regardless of whether a vacancy occurred.

When rent control investigator Pete Savino visited Gitlen’s “shack” last month, it was to check on the lawyer’s request to remove it from the rent control inventory. The removal process takes 120 days, and the City checks on the units near the end of that period to make sure no one is being displaced. That’s when Savino found a female resident “who stepped out of a back door.” Savino said that when he identified himself, the woman referred him to Gitlen.

Gitlen was addressing Commissioner Groman in court when he referred to the Yale Street property as a “lot with a shack in the back.” He said the lot, which he bought in 1989, at one time had a larger home there as well. But he won permission from the City to demolish the structure after it was damaged beyond repair in the 1994 Northridge earthquake. It hasn’t been rebuilt, leaving only the “shack in the back.”

“I don’t need permission not to rent it,” Gitlen insisted. “But I do to demolish it.”

Gitlen charged that the city’s late fees, which amount to 4 percent per month compounded, are “a little bit outrageous” and shouldn’t apply to units which aren’t rented. The city already allows landlords to pass on the $132 annual fee to tenants in the form of an $11 monthly fee, tacked on to the rent, for administration of the Rent Control Board.

The 4 percent monthly fee, compounded, amounts to 60.1 percent annually — an amount even Rent Control officials concede would make credit card companies green with envy.

“Rent control has been here since 1979, but that doesn’t give the Rent Control Board the authority to over-regulate the industry to the extent of deprivation of constitutional rights,” Gitlen said.

The Rent Control Board is located in City Hall, where a staff lawyer said last week that the city won’t withdraw anything from rent control “until we’re certain none of the units are occupied.”

Staff attorney Keith Kresge noted that there’s no evidence the woman living in Gitlen’s “shack” is paying rent.

“He’s an attorney, after all. He knows the definition of ‘rent’ and ‘tenant’ and knows the procedure. He knows we’re investigating on the 120th day,” Kresge said of Gitlen.

Gitlen opposes rent control altogether, but his landlord rights group has won only small victories since the advent of rent control here. His group successfully challenged Santa Monica’s mandate requiring landlords to pay interest on tenant security deposits. An appeals court eventually agreed with his claim that such payments amounted to a “taking” or property without due process. Gitlen noted that landlords were unable to get banks to pay anywhere near the 3 percent the city mandated they pay tenants.

Gitlen claims that rent control, and the Ellis Act requirement of “relocation fees,” create a black market in which tenants can offer to move out of rent controlled units in exchange for a multi-thousand-dollar payoff. His group maintains that government, not private owners, should provide low-cost housing.

Rent control cases are so politically sensitive in Santa Monica, Gitlen said, that his group chose to file its case in downtown Los Angeles rather than in Santa Monica’s Superior Court. Kresge said the California Supreme Court refused to hear the interest payment case, letting the appeals ruling stand. He said settlement discussions are nearing conclusion.

In court last month, Commissioner Groman offered little in the way of hints on how she would rule in the politically-charged case. She did ask Marti Padilla of the Rent Control Board whether Gitlen should be required to pay if he “didn’t realize” that his empty unit still carried the fee, and whether the city could exempt it “retroactively.”

Padilla maintained that the city wouldn’t lift the fee until the unit was successfully removed from rent control at the end of the 120-day application period.

Gitlen said he had assumed the vacant unit wouldn’t carry the fee and didn’t realize that his law office was automatically paying it. When he awoke to the charges, he declined to pay. Gitlen filed to have the “unrented” shack removed from rent control in August. Such a move requires a promise that it won’t be rented in the future. The 120-day period since the application expired in mid-December. The Rent Control Board says Gitlen owes the controversial fee until the day the “shack” is successfully off its rent control rolls.

The visit of the City’s Savino to the Gitlen property came the day before the fee case went to trial. But Kresge called that a “coincidence” and said the visit was timed for the end of the 120-day de-listing period and had nothing to do with the trial in the case.

![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/55/9f/559f9abc-8372-4a2e-8c2d-27386da4e363/content/images/2026/10/010703-04_01.jpg)

This shack located at Yale Street and Santa Monica Boulevard appears to be accomodating a tenant, but the landlord insists it is vacant. (Photo: Carolyn Sackariason/Daily Press)

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on January 7, 2003.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/010703.pdf?ref=smdp.com)