Nora Sanchez has been renting a unit in a 1920s bungalow court perched above Guisados on Sunset Boulevard in Echo Park for a decade. In that time, she’s made the one-bedroom feel like home for her and her son. It’s festooned in Christmas lights, and, at some point, she paid to have a wood fence enclose the yard, which she decorated with potted plants.
“I never moved because I pay $878 a month,” says Sanchez, 53, who cleans homes for a living. Her rent stayed affordable, because the bungalows are rent-controlled, a benefit she will not have for much longer.
Sanchez and the other tenants at the bungalow court received eviction notices in May, with orders to leave by December.
“Seeing so many homeless people, it’s the first thing that came to mind,” says Sanchez, of receiving the eviction notice.
It’s difficult to kick tenants out of rent-controlled buildings. But Sanchez and her neighbors are getting the boot to make way for a larger development. Property owner AYM Investments plans to raze the 10 bungalows to build 70 apartments, including six income-restricted units—apartments that Los Angeles desperately needs, especially along busy corridors like Sunset. (AYM Investments did not return messages seeking comment).
But local housing advocates and now a couple of city lawmakers say Los Angeles should not build at the expense of people who already live there.
In a proposal moving through LA’s City Hall, not only would landowners replacing rent-controlled buildings have to offer tenants space in their new complexes, the units would have to be offered at below market-rate.
Mark Pampanin, a spokesperson for Los Angeles City Councilmember David Ryu, who coauthored the proposal, said he was amazed these provisions don’t already exist.
“This should have been in place yesterday,” he said.
The proposal seeks to reform the Ellis Act, a state law that allows landlords to decommission their rent-controlled properties when they want to tear them down and rebuild.
It would make one other big change, ending the ability of developers to “double dip” into affordable housing requirements.
Right now, developers have to replace the rent-controlled units they demolish with affordably-priced units in their new buildings. But they can also use those affordable units to qualify for exemptions into the city’s zoning codes under programs such as the new transit-oriented communities guidelines. Essentially, they’re rewarded for displacing tenants, say Ryu and Councilmember Mike Bonin.
“The Ellis Act is causing a major hemorrhage of our affordable housing, and... we are determined to explore and try anything to restrict its application or lessen its horrendous impacts,” Bonin said in a statement.
The Sunset Boulevard bungalows were among the 657 rent-controlled units that property owners sought to decommission this spring. Ellis Act applications for an additional 398 units were filed in the third quarter of 2019, according to data released by the Coalition for Economic Survival, a tenants’ right group.
In Sanchez’s bungalow court, most tenants are non-English speakers who work low-wage jobs in factories, construction, and housekeeping. They were not offered units in the new building.
The Ellis Act requires landlords to pay relocation assistance, and Sanchez says she was offered $20,450, pre-tax. But, she says, it was not enough, given the cost of housing in the neighborhood.
According to CoStar, the median rent is $1,518, nearly double what Sanchez pays.
“We’ve worked with some of the bungalows on Sunset, there’s a whole bunch of them, from Echo Park to Downtown,” says Larry Gross, executive director of the Coalition for Economic Survival. “This is clearly part of the gentrification of Echo Park.”
While trying to figure out her options, Sanchez and another resident attended a free legal clinic. But they say they were advised they’d have a better chance fighting or delaying their evictions if more tenants were willing to join them. Some tenants, however, didn’t think it was worth it.
Mario Abeles has lived at the Sunset property for 20 years with his wife and three kids. He says he plans to buy a home, even if that means moving to a different neighborhood closer to his construction job in Sylmar.
“Why fight when they already won?” Abeles says.
Comments
"Essentially, they’re rewarded for displacing tenants, say Ryu and Councilmember Mike Bonin."
No, they’re rewarded for adding a lot of new housing to our housing supply, which is the only thing that will actually keep prices down in the long run. Preventing this sort of redevelopment that adds a lot more density near the city core is just a feel-good band-aid for these asshole politicians to kick the can further down the road and ignore the larger, structural issues.
By disqusted on 11.04.19 3:56pm
Ryu and Bonin are consistently clueless.
By MyrnaMinkoff on 11.04.19 6:45pm
I support densification, but building housing for the rich is not a solution to the problem of the displaced poor, and saying "the rents will become affordable at some point in the future… maybe…" just doesn’t cut it. Don’t link me to the Australia example either, because we don’t live in Australia, and the prevailing trend in OUR country has been widespread gentrification and displacement. San Fran is getting rid of waiters because waiters can’t live there anymore. This is something we need to deal with yesterday.
If the government built high rise apartment buildings to house those displaced from neighborhood densification, and built enough of them, this problem would disappear. New York realized this about 70 years ago, and despite the initial disruptions, today nearly 400,000 New Yorkers who would otherwise be living in tenements or Wichita enjoy decent housing courtesy of NYCHA. Public housing works. We in the US are just scared of the concept because white flight and Reaganite nonsense drained cities’ revenues to maintain public housing and as such they turned into slums. So yes, as long as we don’t intentionally cripple it, public housing is the solution.
By mittim80 on 11.05.19 8:51am
I think public housing is a good solution too. But I disagree with the characterization of market-rate housing as just housing for the rich. Of course new construction will have higher rents than older buildings, but these one-and-two bedroom apartments will be for the decidedly (for LA) middle class young professionals who flock here.
All new housing limits pressure on existing housing. The 65 market-rate units here means there are 65 fewer people in their 20s, flush with Netflix money, bidding up apartment prices in Boyle Heights and Chinatown.
By Greyvagabond on 11.05.19 9:29am
Might help if it were actually legal to build cheaper forms of housing like it was back in the day. Under current zoning, the government builds "affordable" units for $500k a unit. That will never scale to solve the problem.
I’m a pretty liberal voter, but most progressives in California seem to be totally confused on what’s actually driving this problem… it’s definitely not a lack of regulation (quite the opposite.)
By corner soul on 11.05.19 10:59am
One, the government does not build affordable housing, it just subsidizes it. Two, affordable housing and public housing are two wildly different things. For instance, public housing doesn’t suddenly become market rate housing after a set period of 30 to 55 years. "Affordable housing" is another reaganite neoliberal scam and is currently being used to destroy the little public housing stock LA already has. See: jordan downs, rose hill courts.
By mittim80 on 11.05.19 11:37am
Be that as it may, public housing doesn’t scale… and if it doesn’t scale it doesn’t matter.
By corner soul on 11.05.19 12:50pm
pure ideology.
By mittim80 on 11.05.19 7:44pm
It actually sickens me to read this reply. It speaks to the impunity of the landlord/developer class that you feel such a blase and thoughtless response addresses legit policy proposals from a left perspective. Taking to the streets is the only way to make you people listen.
By mittim80 on 11.05.19 8:03pm
oh, believe you me, we‘re listening.
how about you?
hear that? sound of footsteps heading for the exits, just like anyone with half a brain before the ’59 revolution.
don‘t fret, the "evil capitalists" will be gone in short order, then you can build your socialist utopia that‘s 100% diverse, just like detoilet. i‘m sure it‘ll be twice as nice as port-au-prince.
By Prepare Your Angus on 11.06.19 2:53am
we won’t let them leave this time. They’re guilty of crimes against the public good and will face extradition and prosecution.
By mittim80 on 11.06.19 1:25pm
lmfao @ "won’t let them leave"… oh, like cuba, east germany, soviet union, north korea, etc?
looks at his ds-4083
too late!
By Prepare Your Angus on 11.07.19 7:03am
Spare me the sermon, I’m a liberal too… just one that understands math. Holding up signs in the streets doesn’t change the fact that it costs upwards of $500k per unit to build housing in LA (and probably more if the government is involved.)
By corner soul on 11.06.19 2:33pm
Um, this… you can build your way out of unaffordablity. One bold move of legislation and the city would explode with affordable housing. There’s no true desire for affordable housing at the moment.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2016/08/12/tokyos-affordable-housing-strategy-build-build-build/#10ccc62348d5
By ReggDunn on 11.05.19 2:30pm
I must not have been clear. Examples from all countries other than the US are not pertinent, not just Australia. Show me an American city that has achieved a decrease in rents through pure private sector development.
By mittim80 on 11.05.19 7:48pm
They are actually pertinent. In fact, relevant. Actually a simple blue print. They also potty train their children much younger over there.
Amazon and Walmart started selling lots of almost everything in the world and almost everything in the world got cheaper. Simple concept.
By ReggDunn on 11.06.19 7:10am
Amazon and Walmart? Why are you all incapable of staying on topic? The Los Angeles housing market is not analogous to foreign housing markets (much less big box stores) because of history, geography, law and social mores, topics you are clearly ignorant of.
By mittim80 on 11.06.19 1:28pm
Oh, they’re getting rid of this garbage, graffiti and urban blighted stretch of Sunset? About time.
By ReggDunn on 11.04.19 4:02pm
This is a great example of how rent control is completely wrong and actually makes the problem worse. So she rented a 1 bedroom in 2009 – during a time when rents were at their absolute lowest in recent history – and a decade later she only pays $878 per month which is well below market because the landlord has only been permitted to raise her rent 3% per year. Now the landlord wants to replace 10 units with 70 units, including 6 low-income units – so effectively a loss of 4 rent control units. The landlord was significantly subsidizing these people’s rents for the better part of a decade and is now taking flak for wanting to add 60 additional units to the city’s housing stock. Idiot Councilmembers take note, the reason there is a housing crisis is because instead of promoting increasing the housing supply you are making rent control more onerous.
By LADude on 11.04.19 4:12pm
The landlord subsidizes the tenants? That’s funny. You make it sound like the landlord is the one sending off a check every month for the privilege of not being kicked out of a ratty echo park apartment.
By mittim80 on 11.05.19 8:54am
The landlord sends off many checks every month to maintain and finance a property for the privilege of owning it.
By LosFeliz$ean on 11.05.19 10:18am
Do you now. Don’t send off too many, though, or you wont be able to flush out the rent-controlled tenants and flip the building to market-rate by subjecting them to unlivable filth.
By mittim80 on 11.05.19 11:40am
living in an echo park shithole isn’t a right. it’s a periodic or fixed-term tenancy.
if you hire a car, you’re not entitled to keep it forever.
go to the dealer, and buy your own.
how is this any fucking different? how many drugs are you on? usa needs to implement a eugenics programme, and purge 85% of the population.
By Prepare Your Angus on 11.05.19 10:25am
If we’re going to purge 85% of the population we should start with assholes like you.
By WilliamCWallace on 11.05.19 10:47am
that‘s precisely what‘s happening, prepare for the exodus. watch what happens when industry REALLY starts leaving (not the small fry offshoring that‘s been going on for decades).
china‘s sitting on 20+ tonnes of gold (probably A LOT more), they are NOT going to bail america out again like they did during the gfc.
you leftist clowns are killing the goose who laid the golden egg, just too stupid to realise it.
By Prepare Your Angus on 11.06.19 3:00am