The eviction letter was addressed to Giselle Martinez—and her nine-year-old son—with orders to leave by December.
“It’s a punch to the gut,” says Martinez, who has lived in Burbank for 27 years. “It’s dehumanizing because when you hear eviction you think you did something wrong, but you did nothing wrong.”
Martinez pays $1,470 for a one-bedroom apartment, and as a one-income household, she says she can’t afford to pay more. On Tuesday evening, she rallied in front of Burbank city hall to put pressure on city leaders to intervene.
She joined a group of about 20 tenants and community organizers calling on the Burbank City Council to place a temporary freeze on evictions and a 3 percent cap on rent increases. They’re also urging the council to enact protections for tenants from “no-fault” evictions.
After the rally, the City Council voted to direct city staffers to prepare a “first step” report exploring a temporary interim tenant protection ordinance. It will be presented to the council on October 29, according to city spokesperson Simone McFarland.
The rally was organized by the Burbank Tenants Rights’ Committee, which is seeking to have protections in place until January, when California’s new rent control will go into effect.
Last week, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the statewide rent control legislation Assembly Bill 1482 into law. In cities such as Burbank that do not have local rent control laws, it will go into effect January 1, limiting rent increase to 5 percent, plus the local rate of inflation, which averages about 2.5 percent in Los Angeles County.
Konstantine Anthony, who chairs the tenants rights’ committee, says that state cap isn’t strong enough to be considered control.
“It’s anti-gouging,” he says, meaning it’s designed to protect against the steepest of rent hikes.
Many Burbank residents, Anthony says, can not afford even a 5 percent rent increase.
The Burbank Rights Tenants’ Committee was formed by residents in 2018 after multiple failed attempts to urge the City Council to pass a rent stabilization ordinance, says committee treasurer Margo Rowder.
The committee is gathering signatures in an effort to place a permanent rent control measure on Burbank’s November 2020 ballot.
“We took it upon ourselves to create a nonprofit that would be pushing our own ordinance,” says Rowder.
The committee also hosts monthly “Know Your Rights” clinics with the state-wide coalition Tenants Together to offer one-on-one tenant counseling and attorney referrals.
Jorge Rivera, an organizer with Tenants Together, says until AB 1482 goes into effect, tenants, like Martinez, are likely to continue receiving rent increases or eviction notices.
“It’s up to local jurisdictions like Burbank to pass interim rent freezes,” says Rivera.
Burbank would follow a growing list of LA jurisdictions enacting rent control or tenant assistance programs, including unincorporated Los Angeles County, Inglewood, Culver City, and Long Beach. On Tuesday morning, the Los Angeles City Council moved to bar rent hikes and no fault evictions at properties not already covered by the city’s rent stabilization ordinance.
Comments
"Martinez pays $1,470 for a one-bedroom apartment, and as a one-income household, she says she can’t afford to pay more."
Then get a roommate or move farther east where it is cheaper. Just because she can’t afford it doesn’t mean the landlord’s expenses are any less. Selfish and self-serving.
By LADude on 10.16.19 1:51pm
Inland Empire awaits her
By LAwastheplace on 10.16.19 2:07pm
You’re missing the point. She’s being evicted without sufficient cause. The fact she can’t afford more than $1,470 is a footnote.
On another note:
The statewide rent control bill going into effect in January is going to cause havoc between now and then.
By subaruwrx on 10.16.19 3:04pm
Is there a sufficient cause requirement in Burbank? I thought that’s what those 20 people were protesting about.
By MyrnaMinkoff on 10.16.19 3:49pm
The fact the landlord wants them out IS sufficient "cause", until January 01, 2020. And them, maybe not, depends on the type of property and/or when it was first constructed.
By nobody_in_particular on 10.16.19 4:06pm
Well, not if a tenant is in the middle of a lease.
By Greyvagabond on 10.16.19 4:46pm
A logical assumption is that she’s a month to month tenant, and therefore a 60 day notice to quit is all that’s necessary. Otherwise she would have nothing to worry about.
By nobody_in_particular on 10.16.19 5:28pm
This is what happens when landlords don’t raise rents regularly to around market rate.
Her personal situation sucks, but she’s been getting a bargain.
By Constituents on 10.16.19 5:22pm
the new state law is retroactive, whatever the tenants rents was on March 15, 2019 becomes her "base rent". From the LA Times - The law will retroactively apply to increases on or after March 15, and it will also ban landlords from evicting tenants without cause.
By REinvestments on 10.16.19 9:09pm
Yes, the rent increase restriction is retroactive to March 2019, but not the no-fault eviction ban. Hence the workaround for landlords to effectively raise rents beyond the limit before law goes into effect.
My guess is this loophole was one of the many compromises among lawmakers\lobbyist to get the bill passed,
By Mr_Hand on 10.17.19 10:30pm
There are only 3 studios (no 1-bedroom) in Burbank in her price range.
Zillow
By Ivan III on 10.17.19 11:31am
If only renter’s rights groups would advocate for building more apartments, we might actually get our arms around the problem.
By corner soul on 10.16.19 3:35pm
Oh they do, provided the rents are cheap with no rent increases, and locals have first dibs on the units. It goes without saying that white people are not welcome to apply. They will never get that type of housing….at least not from the private sector.
By nobody_in_particular on 10.16.19 4:08pm
The state cap of 5% plus CPI is the maximum a landlord can raise rent. But the law still allows cities/counties to pass lower rent control rates. Be prepared to see demonstrations in from of city halls up and down the state demanding a lower rent increase. Still, any rent caps would be subject to Costa Hawkins and wouldn’t apply to building built after 1995.
The day Costa Hawkins is overturned is the day it’s all over. Expect the biggest prize in such a situation to be doing away with vacancy decontrol protections.
By nobody_in_particular on 10.16.19 4:15pm
The Ninth Circuit ain’t what she used to be, and SCOTUS hasn’t heard a good 13th Amendment case in a long time.
Incredibly, Sacramento was actually paying attention when they went off the deep end and passed 1482 – they didn’t want to create something so radical that would draw an easy and broad rebuke by the courts.
But keep trying. You’ll get there. Just be careful what you wish for.
By smartalex on 10.17.19 12:08am
The situation is definitely a conundrum. I don’t understand why these tenant advocates and SJWs aren’t addressing the real issue which is uncontrolled immigration. I am referring to the onslaught of skilled workers on H1-B visas and others from around the world who overstay their visas. And corporations who move offshore should be heavily taxed instead of rewarded. Lobbying should be illegal as the politicians are bought and sold to pass laws which favor the wealthy. And by the way, what has happened to the $1.2 billion (measure HHH) which we passed for homelessness/low income housing? The last time I posted about this issue, my comment was deleted.
By LATEACHER1X on 10.18.19 11:02am