Most everyone would agree that the political “power center” of Santa Monica is the Santa Monicans for Renters Rights (SMRR) organization. They have reigned supreme here for nearly two dozen years.
It’s election time and you hear “Ding-a-ling,” so, you answer the phone. “I’m from Santa Monicans for Renters Rights. You’ll be evicted if you don’t support SMRR...” the voice warns. The message is always the same: (a) you’ll lose your rent controlled apartment, (b) you’ll pay much higher rents or (c) be evicted if those nasty hotel owners, landlords and developers take control of the city.
Gullible and uniformed renters swallow this lie hook, line and sinker. That is until they really have a legal problem with their landlord and call SMRR who will tell them to call the city’s Rent Control administration who will tell them there’s not much they can do, either.
Take, for example, my friend, Bill, who has been living in a small, one-bedroom, 14th Street bungalow and paying $300 rent. His building was sold, and the new landlord sent him notice that his new rent would be $1,150!
Isn’t rent control supposed to protect long-term tenants? Maybe not, says rent control administration. When Bill moved in 15 years ago, the city’s rent control administration set a base rent for his apartment at $250. This rent is called the “Maximum Allowable Rent” or MAR. Every city apartment has a MAR.
With the allowable rent increases over the years, Bill’s unit’s MAR had risen to more than $1,100, even though his landlord had kept his rent low. The law says that a landlord — and it doesn’t have to be a new owner — can raise low rents to the MAR at any time with a 60-day notice under most circumstances.
In the case of Bill and other tenants who pay less than the MAR (plus about $15 in rent control fees and taxes), the ax could fall at any time. Bill will probably leave town because he can’t afford to pay the higher rent.
Yet, isn’t it SMRR and its sycophants who spend millions to build low-income housing for low-income seniors like Bill? Yet, because of an obvious hole in the law, a housed, long-term resident is kicked out. If SMRR really cared about renters, this kind of stuff wouldn’t happen.
It’s unfortunate that the SMRR monopolized Rent Control Board (members Betty Mueller and Alan Toy are seeking reelection) haven’t bothered to plug this loophole.
What would you expect? Like the rest of the SMRR leadership, they have other agendas.
They’re too busy supporting a proposed ordinance that would require homeowners to make their homes handicapped accessible when remodeling, unionizing hotels or supporting the living wage. SMRR has been so tight with “big labor” that they should rename themselves SMUR, Santa Monicans for Union Rights.
The two SMRR co-chairs also don’t have renters on their minds. They’re too busy either fattening their wallets or pursuing their own political ambitions.
SMRR co-chair Denny Zane is being paid $25,000 by the “Yes on Measure EE” people to promote a $300 school parcel tax increase, according to the citizen committee’s campaign budget. One of his first orders of business was to get SMRR’s membership to endorse it at their convention. But did Denny ever inform his party that he was on the “EE” payroll? I doubt it.
Last spring, Zane was hired as campaign manager for Measure U, the $160 million Santa Monica College bond. He also was paid a similar amount by the college for his services on Measure U and is paid to promote SMC’s proposed Madison Theater complex.
The other SMRR co-chair, Nancy Greenstein, abruptly adjourned the annual convention last month, cutting off a second ballot for endorsements for the college board. She is one of only two SMRR endorsees for the post. Word is she didn’t want anyone sharing the endorsement and diluting her vote come election day.
So, when your phone or doorbell rings and someone says, “I’m from SMRR we care about renters.” You can truthfully respond, “In a pig’s eye.”
Bill Bauer is a freelance writer and longtime Santa Monica resident.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on September 13, 2002. Read the original PDF.