By Vincent Michael Solo Santa Monica
In the spirit of constructive public dialogue, I would like to respond to Alan Toy’s response to my letter to the editor, which concerns the Santa Monica Rent Control budget (SMDP, June 15, page 4). To briefly reiterate my objective observation of the budget (SMDP, June 13, page 4), I specifically pointed out 27.8 staff employees who earn an average of $99,000 per year, with additional benefits of $11,302 in health benefits and an average of $15,915 per year in retirement contributions. The total salaries and wages is $3,693,372, including benefits, with a total board budget of $4,448,321; which means salaries and wages comprise 89 percent of the budget. Toy’s response did not dispute these figures. Instead, he took the defensive position of justifying these salaries and increased registration fees that go mainly for the benefit of the board staff.
I am not aware of the recent “hits” the board has taken lately or why my figures are based upon “faulty understanding” and generated by some “political agenda,” as Toy states. Historically, rent control has always been an economic and political issue. Do a simple “Google” (Internet search) on rent control and you will find dozens of studies done by credible economists, to see that rent control, in the long run, is bad for the economy of any city. The rent control board must eventually self-destruct because as rental units are being taken off the market, the registration fees must increase to meet the board’s budget requests. But this was not the issue of my initial letter. Nor was it the issue of attacking dedicated employees, as Toy suggests. To quote a movie on the intent of my letter, “it’s not personal — it’s just business.” I really don’t mean to be glib by that. But, I do mean to create questions that generate answers for public accountability for what I feel is a “bloated and overpaid staff” for a public-supported agency, with seemingly no public accountability and, in my opinion, one that has become self-serving. Toy, will you allow a public audit of the accounting and workings of this board?
The board states its mission is to keep rents affordable for the poor and elderly. I am told by a rent control staff employee that there are 27,000 rent-controlled units in Santa Monica. Actually, if you divide the increased $13-per-month, per-unit registration fee ($156 per year) into the 2006-07 board budget, you get 28, 515 rent-controlled units. Hundreds, if not maybe thousands of these units are rented by tenants who have lived in them for 20 years or more and are still paying rent in the $500 to $600 range per month. Some of these are also being sub-rented — against the rent control ordinance — for $1,500 to $2,000 per month, making a nice side income for these old-time rent-controlled recipients. I venture to say most of these long-term rent-controlled tenants are not poor or elderly. I understand many rent-control staff have been with the board for more than 20 years. I really do not want to be overly cynical here, but do any of these employees live in any of these low-rent units?
The board Web site states it responded to more 18,000 people requesting information about the rent control law last year. I visited the board office last week, and at 2:30 p.m., I was the sixth person on the sign-in sheet for that day. This must mean most of these potential 18,000 people phoned in. The hour I spent at the board office, the receptionist answered the phone twice. While there, I was told three times by an information coordi-nator that she could not answer my simple rent control ordinance question because she was not an attorney. I requested to speak to an attorney and was refused. Back to the 18,000 — let’s be conservative and say that each of these 18,000 respondents is given 15 minutes of the board’s time. This would be 270,000 minutes, or 4,500 hours, or 562.5 working days per year. The board office is open 290 days per year. After you deduct days off for staff vacations, sick leave, and personal time off, I question that there is enough time or people to service that 18,000-plus number.
I could go on with this type of analysis, but let me suggest this: Toy, if you and the dedicated staff really care about the poor and elderly of Santa Monica, what better use could more than $4 million a year be put to other than supporting the salaries and benefits of 27 employees? I could suggest many needed public causes. I would like to ask the public who have followed this discussion to give their thoughts on this subject to the press. Let me mention again, I am not writing against the good intentions of rent control or its board staff. I’m writing about what I consider is an overly expensive, self-serving, self-financing by self-regulation, virtually non-accountable, government agency, that hides behind the façade of helping the poor and elderly.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on June 26, 2006. Read the original PDF.