Lincoln Place built for WWII veteran households
VENICE — Tenants of Lincoln Place are challenging their landlord’s right to evict them following a recent court ruling that supported the property owner’s right to demolish the affordable housing in which they live.
The California Court of Appeals on July 13 ruled on two separate lawsuits that favored redevelopment plans for Lincoln Place, a 38-acre affordable housing site located east of Lincoln Boulevard near Rose Avenue. The property owner, Apartment Investment and Management Company, as well as previous investors have been attempting for more than a decade to turn the large-scale rental site into a more lucrative condominium complex.
The court’s ruling last week approved the redevelopment of Lincoln Place. It contended that assertions by tenants and other organizations that the site was a historical landmark protected from demolition had not been proven.
At the same time, the court ruled demolition permits previously used to raze five buildings at Lincoln Place were not properly issued by the city of Los Angeles.
In light of the rulings, AIMCO spokeswoman Patti Schwayder said her company is in good position to carry on with redevelopment plans, as long as it follows the court-ordered stipulation to abide by “pre-conditions” from now on before the buildings are destroyed.
“All we have to do is take pictures of the buildings and put them on the national market to see if anyone wants to buy the buildings,” Schwayder said. “Clearly, the court ruling favors our position.”
Lincoln Place, a garden-style campus of 52 buildings built in 1951, was originally backed by the Federal Housing Authority when it was built in 1951 to support World War II veterans and their families. However, it has always been privately owned.
Once offering 795 affordable apartments, the site has been largely abandoned in the face of an ongoing legal debacle that began shortly after 1991, when the property owner proposed a redevelopment plan that called for 850 total units to be built on the site, most of which would be market-rate condominiums.
Currently at 20 percent occupancy, Lincoln Place continues to be rented by approximately 170 tenants. These residents make up the Lincoln Place Tenants Association, which along with other organizations are fighting AIMCO’s redevelopment plans.
AIMCO said it has offered a “generous” relocation package to the tenants, which has played a large part in the site’s declining occupancy.
“We moved some to Hawaii, others took the money to buy houses,” Schwayder said.
Invoking the Ellis Act, AIMCO sent the remaining tenants eviction notices last fall. In addition, AIMCO offered to provide affordable housing for the 170 tenants within its new development. Schwayder said tenants refused the proposal, and the offer was taken off the table in March.
Now, the majority of tenants have until October to find a new home. Seniors and the disabled have until March.
This move, however, is being challenged in court by the tenants. Within two days of the July 13 court decision, Lincoln Place residents Frieda Marlin, 81, and her son, Spike, 53, filed for declaratory relief in Los Angeles Superior Court, where they are asking for clarification as to how AIMCO can use the Ellis Act to evict them.
The Ellis Act, passed by the California legislature in 1986, was designed as a way for landlords to sell their property in order to get out of the rental business. LPTA legal advocates contend AIMCO — a corporate landlord that owns 50 apartment complexes in California — is not going out of the rental business. Therefore, they argue, AIMCO is forfeit from exercising the Ellis Act.
Jan Book, an attorney working for Eviction Defense Network, the law firm representing the Marlins, said there is an “epidemic” throughout Los Angeles of landlords using the Ellis Act to sidestep land-use regulation.
Book said it is an issue her group is willing to take to the California Supreme Court.
“The Ellis Act was intended to help mom-and-pop landlords get out of the rental business, and now it is being totally misinterpreted and exploited by developers,” Book said.
Schwayder said AIMCO believes it is acting within the full legal parameters of the Ellis Act.
Santa Monica-based attorney Rosario Perry, who deals with affordable housing issues, said Lincoln Place tenants will have a hard time proving their case.
“The parameters of how you can and can not use the Ellis Act has already been defined by the California Supreme Court,” Perry said. “There is a misconception tenants have that it can only be used by a rental getting out of business.
“That’s not entirely true.” Perry said the law allows the property owner to go out of the rental business for a period of time as long as five years, during which the building can be redeveloped. If a property owner can successfully ride out the moratorium period — investing in the redevelopment while not receiving income from it — it is possible after several years to go back into business on the same site.
Books said it is just this kind of misinterpretation of the Ellis Act her group intends to challenge as proceedings begin in coming months.
“They’re gutting out the middle class,” Books said. “They want to change the project to condominiums and reduce the number of affordable housing units available when there is already an affordable housing crunch.
“This court case is about our rights as tenants that AIMCO can’t use the Ellis Act against us.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on July 25, 2005. Read the original PDF.