LA is considering tougher rules regulating rent control evictions

Residential street with apartment buildings at night in Los Angeles.

As the number of Los Angeles residents evicted from rent-controlled units continues to climb, city officials are contemplating new ways to protect tenants and hold landlords accountable to laws governing units protected under the city’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance.

The City Council’s Housing Committee on Wednesday unanimously approved a preliminary ordinance tightening restrictions on how and when landlords can evict tenants under California’s Ellis Act. The controversial law, passed in 1985, allows building owners to mass-evict all the occupants if the units are being removed from the rental market.

Anne Ortega, who heads the Rent Stabilization Division of the city’s Housing and Community Investment Department, told the committee that the department received more than 300 Ellis Act applications in 2016, resulting in the removal of around 1,400 rent-controlled units from the market.

The loss of these units has an effect on the cost of housing citywide, and the proposed new rules include a provision requiring that developers replace rent-controlled units with affordable housing in projects built following the demolition of buildings vacated under the Ellis Act.

Under the regulations, landlords would also have to pay for the relocation of all evicted tenants and file annual reports with the city on the status of units withdrawn from the rental market.

Tenants rights advocates in attendance at the meeting praised the new requirements, but questioned whether they could be properly enforced. One speaker, a member of the LA Tenants Union, told the committee she had been evicted under the Ellis Act only to find her unit listed on Airbnb.

Anecdotal reports of similar violations of the law have become relatively common, but as Ortega told the committee, prosecutions are rare and conclusive evidence of landlord infractions can be hard to find.

In addition to approving the proposed ordinance, the committee also asked the City Attorney to work with HCID and the Department of City Planning on strategies for improving enforcement of Ellis Act violations.

“This is a crime that we have that is almost never [prosecuted] in LA,” Councilmember Marqueece Harris-Dawson said. “The onus is upon us to decide what kind of city we want to live in and to decide what kind of laws we’re going to enforce and what kind of laws we’re not going to enforce.”

Comments

Incredible. People are still trying to sell the "mandate affordable units" stuff as an effective solution? Do they not realize that if they are not one of the special lottery winners of an affordable unit, that the overall rental market becomes more expensive for them? Or are we just going full socialist in the hopes that ALL units will have a cap on cost?

Just go back to basics – allow the market to BUILD MORE (and stop allowing NIMBY’s to halt progress in our city!).

Not to mention there is no means testing, so someone making six (or seven) figures still enjoys the market-distorting benefit of low rent at the expense of both the landlord and everyone else’s affordability.

Rent control has helps create a large city government bureaucracy which acts in its own self-interest to keep their jobs. Six-figures + city pensions type jobs. Many people don’t realize we have a huge department called Los Angeles Housing + Community Investment Department (HCIDLA) which charges annual fees on every rent control unit in the city.

According to their website they charge landlords $24.51 annual per unit for a Rent Stabilization Fee, and an annual $43.32 for a Systematic Code Enforcement Program fee. There are also fees for various one-offs. This is for all rent control units…118,000(?) units. It serves the department’s financial interest to keep and expand the number of rent control units in the city.

We shouldn’t even have rent control in the first place. It is a failed policy that has led to higher prices, less development, and the deterioration of our housing stock.

So, you’d turn down a rent controlled apartment if one was offered to you, right? Out of principle?

bet you blew his mind with this one, chomsky

Considering I own and don’t rent, yes, I would turn down an offer to rent a place. I’ve also voted to raise my own taxes for the greater good – it’s about what is the smartest large scale policy, not what benefits your selfish interest individually. Having read your posts, you would be happy being a little dictator when it comes to who gets to build and live where, even though you don’t seem to own any property.

protecting tenants from being totally abused makes sense however, we also don’t want policies that essentially keep old run down buildings from being replaced by newer nicer ones or you’ll never see any development.

Look at the cities that don’t have rent control; doesn’t seem to be as much of a housing problem there.
Totally weird that the landlord should be subsidizing the tenant.
Let the market prevail, it will all work out fine!

RC only benefit very few. Who is paying (ultimately) for the cost of RC?

it’s "rein" not "reign"…

Of course Rent Control is a massive failure. So many (hard working) people need housing yet only a few get special lotto tickets = a terrible system. Let the market create the price and all levels will come down. Lastly, move to where you can afford.

The Ellis Act has been so abused here in San Francisco. And yet rent control has been the sole savior of our working class (teachers, nurses, service workers, etc.). Ignore the real estate trolls that leave b.s. comments ad nauseum and push on with your fight, Angelenos!

Yeah, do it for La Raza homes!…forget these practical, logical solutions with proven results.

You mean the working class that were lucky enough to get into San Francisco a long time ago? Because the rest of the working class cannot afford to live in San Francisco due to rent control. Glad you got yours, though!

View All Comments
Back to top ↑