Dozens of cases being filed by landlords
Nearly 70 cases have been filed in City Hall by landlords looking to raise the rent on tenants who don’t live in their rent control apartments full time.
Landlords were given that right in March, when a new law was passed that excludes part-time residents from enjoying the protection of rent control.
Since then, the board has been inundated with applications by landlords who say some tenants use the low-rent apartments as vacation homes or office space.
Of the 69 cases filed, 13 have been dismissed for lack of evidence. Landlords are responsible for establishing a case against their tenants before it is heard by a hearing officer.
The rest of the cases — except two involving tenants who admitted they weren’t occupants and agreed to a rent hike — are pending with the Santa Monica Rent Control Board.
Though no rulings have been handed down, the board has conducted seven hearings so far and is scheduled to hear several more cases this week, said Tracy Condon, a rent control board spokesperson.
Rent Control Board staffers say the new law has left them with a hefty workload of new assignments. An outside contract worker has been brought on to accompany the three full-time officers who hear the cases, which can sometimes last an entire day.
The added costs associated with enforcing the new law were not immediately available on Monday.
Under the law, tenants must first be served with notices from their landlords, who also are required to file a formal complaint with the board. The board then reviews the complaint and either dismisses the case or notifies the tenants, who are then allowed to respond.
If the tenant challenges the petition, a hearing date is set and the board sends an investigator to the apartment to gather third-party information. Though final rulings can be appealed to the board, landlords are not barred from raising the rent during the appeal process.
The rent control law allows renters to own other property but demands that the unit in question be their “residence of return” in order for them to be eligible for rent control.
Andrew Zanger, a tenants’ rights attorney who has defended five of the rent control cases, said the hearings generally seem to be in favor of his clients.
Zanger echoed a common complaint among renters that Fourth Amendment rights are being violated by landlords and investigators who sift through underwear drawers and rifle through refrigerators to determine if tenants actually reside in their rent-controlled units.
He added that some of the cases brought by landlords were plainly absurd.
One involved a legislative lobbyist who works in Sacramento and commutes to Santa Monica on the weekends. Another involved a woman whose residency was challenged because her boyfriend had put her name on a house he owned without her knowing it.
But not all landlords are being accused of acting irrationally.
Some renters, initially concerned about people snooping into their personal lives, now say they actually feel sorry for their landlords.
“People who use the Shores as their second unit are abusing the law,” said Jack Neworth, a resident of the 532-unit Santa Monica Shores apartments in Ocean Park for the past 28 years. “My concern is one day people who really do live here will suffer some consequence. It’s fortunate to have a second unit, but I don’t think those people are entitled to rent control.”
“People who use the Shores as their second unit are abusing the law.” — — JACK NEWORTH Santa Monica Shores apartments, resident
Apartments at the Shores have for years been rent controlled but as they become vacant, the landlord, Douglas Emmett Co., is able to charge market rate. As a result, the same-sized unit can go for as low as $641 a month while others rent for more than $3,000.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on June 10, 2003. Read the original PDF.