> ## 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.

# Towers owner demands Kates buck up on rent
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/towers-owner-demands-kates-buck-up-on-rent/
- Published: 2003-11-07T16:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-23T03:10:12.000Z
- Author: John Wood
- Tags: Real Estate & Housing, Ocean Park, #archive-import

*Real estate magnate is accused of skirting rent-control abuse law*

Real estate magnate Lawrence Kates may soon be asked to dish out nearly $10,000 extra each month to keep his five rent-controlled apartments at the Shores towers, which he once owned.

That’s because landlord Douglas Emmett & Co. wants to increase Kates’ below-market rates under a new law designed to protect landlords against rent-control abuses. According to the law, only full-time residents are entitled to rent-control prices.

Kates, who officials said actually lives on two side-by-side properties in Newport Beach, pays between $738 and $1,087 each month for the one-and two-bedroom apartments on Santa Monica Beach south of Ocean Park Boulevard. Similar units at the Shores command as much as $3,000 on the open market, said Mike Boge, a Douglas Emmett official who is handling the petitions against Kates.

Douglas Emmett bought the Shores from Kates in 1999 for a reported $93 million. Neither Kates nor his Corona Del Mar-based attorney returned calls seeking comment.

Santa Monica Rent Control Board officials dismissed Douglas Emmett’s petitions against Kates in August, saying the landlord didn’t establish enough evidence to prove that Kates isn’t living in the apartments. The matter was dropped before it ever went before a hearing officer. Even though Kates is accused of holding onto five units, which is more than anyone else targeted under the new law, Douglas Emmett officials didn’t provide any evidence that Kates actually lives elsewhere.

Because Kates listed himself, his wife and their four daughters on all of the leases, the simple fact that he rents five apartments and owns two properties elsewhere is not enough, Rent Control Board officials said.

The dismissal by the rent board notes that, “The only evidence presented regarding the Newport Beach addresses is deeds for those properties which show they are owned by Hillside Balboa LLC, of which Lawrence Kates is a member or manager.

“No evidence was presented to show the Kateses do not occupy the subject units. The petitions allege only that the tenants rent more than one apartment at (the Shores), and the number of occupants is less than the number of bedrooms in the combined apartments...”

One of Kates’ daughters rents a sixth apartment at the Shores that officials will not seek to raise the rent on. Boge said it’s undisputed that she actually lives there, but the other five units are used only as storage or for office space.

While Douglas Emmett considers filing an appeal, some have criticized the law, which was adopted this past March, for being too weak.

Prominent landlord attorney Rosario Perry said when the board first came out with the law, there were high hopes for it. Renters would have access to apartments that for years had been hoarded at low rates and landlords would be able to turn a profit on units that were being used as vacation homes or for storage space, proponents of the law said.

But in recent months, Perry said it’s once again status quo at the Rent Control Board, which has ruled in favor of tenants in two of the three appeals it’s heard.

Under the law, landlords are required to notify their tenants if they plan to file a petition in City Hall for a rent increase. Once filed, the petitions are reviewed to determine if a basic argument, called a “prima facie” case, is made against the tenant. If a prima facie case is made, the tenants are notified. If the tenants object to the rent hike, a rent control board officer will hold a hearing and make a ruling. Those rulings can then be appealed to the Rent Control Board itself.

To date, 119 cases have been filed with the rent board. A total of 30 have been dismissed for not making a prima facie case, 17 rent hikes have been immediately granted because the tenants didn’t object, six cases have been withdrawn by owners and a total of 33 decisions have been handed down, said Tracy Condon, a spokeswoman for the rent control board.

The rest of the cases are waiting to go to a hearing officer.

Of the decisions that have been handed down, 22 were for the owner and 11 were for the tenant. A total of 16 appeals have been filed to the rent board, which upheld the hearing officer’s findings in each of three instances it’s heard. Another 13 appeals are waiting to go before the board — eight from landlords and five from tenants, Condon said.

The law was passed by the rent board under pressure that lawmakers in Sacramento would approve a law even friendlier to landlords. At first, there was a great deal of concern among residents that landlords would be overzealous in targeting tenants. Those fears were quickly neutralized when landlord petitions dropped off sharply after the first few months.

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on November 7, 2003.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/110703.pdf?ref=smdp.com)