Los Angeles officials are moving to provide free legal representation to tenants facing eviction.
The city’s budget and finance committee last week asked the chief legislative analyst to identify $2 million to help launch a right-to-counsel initiative.
The program was first proposed by Los Angeles City Councilmember Paul Koretz and has the support of Mayor Eric Garcetti, who already set aside $936,000 for the effort, according to Koretz spokesperson Alison Simard. Koretz has also introduced two motions asking the City Council to allocate $10 million to the program.
It’s estimated that with a budget of $3 million, about 195 tenants could get eviction defense services. That number could soar to as many as 6,600—if the $10 million is allocated, Simard says.
“The ultimate, ideal goal is to be able to serve 20,000 a year, for a budget between $30 and $40 million,” she says.
By the end of the year, Koretz expects a right-to-counsel program to be up and running, and with it, the city will join a larger movement to try to keep tenants in their homes.
“If they have a lawyer, [tenants] have a decent chance of staying, but with no representation, they will be evicted almost all of the time,” Koretz says.
San Francisco, New York City, and Newark, New Jersey, are a few of the cities that have established right-to-counsel programs, with the Philadelphia City Council taking steps to fund a similar initiative, and Cleveland, Washington D.C., Seattle, and Detroit considering similar efforts.
“When you ask people, ‘Why are you homeless?’ what you find most often is the precipitating cause is that they couldn’t pay the rent, they got evicted,” says UCLA law professor Gary Blasi, who specializes in public interest law. “Sometimes it’s through the court process, sometimes they got kicked off somebody’s couch.”
More than 9,000 people in LA County experienced homelessness for the first time last year, according to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, a 16 percent jump from 2017. To interrupt the flow of Angelenos in and out of homelessness, the city must be proactive, Blasi says.
The right-counsel program can lead to more mediation between landlords and tenants who hit a rough patch, he says, and it could have a broader impact on the housing market. When tenants are evicted, it gives landlords the opportunity to raise rents, making affordable units even more scarce.
Joe Donlin, associated director of Strategic Action for a Just Economy, an economic justice advocacy group, is part of a coalition of organizations that support a right-to-counsel program in Los Angeles.
“Every day, households are experiencing eviction,” Donlin says. “We run a tenant clinic, and people are coming from all over the city feeling increased harassment and pressure to leave their homes, tremendous and rent increases, all of which contribute to this rise in displacement.”
In 2016, the most recent year for which data is available, there were 51,203 unlawful detainers filings (that’s the legal process for an eviction) in Los Angeles County, according to a report from the advocacy group Tenants Together.
Donlin says many of these eviction filings are meritless or flawed in some way, but most go unchecked, because tenants don’t have legal representation. He points out that even when tenants face eviction for not paying rent, an attorney might be able to help them remain in their homes.
“Sometimes, landlords refused to accept payment,” he says. “There’s a lot of different ways that the nonpayment justification can be false and used against tenants.”
Donlin predicts that the right-to-counsel program will also stop vulnerable communities from being gentrified or experiencing other forms of upheaval.
While the right to legal representation is the core of the right-to-counsel program, advocacy groups are also pushing the city to make eviction prevention services part of the effort.
That could include a robust public education campaign to make tenants aware of renters’ rights, especially in neighborhoods where evictions are disproportionately high, Donlin says. The coalition that supports LA’s right-to-counsel program also want tenants to have access to emergency rental assistance.
Nisha Vyas, directing attorney of the homelessness prevention law project at Public Counsel, says such measures are needed in LA County, where landlords tend to have an upper hand, because of the region’s housing shortage and lack of affordable housing.
“If you don’t know your rights, and you are negotiating with a sophisticated party, it’s really incredibly challenging to achieve your goals, and get more time to move out [or stay in your home],” she says. “In New York City, evictions have dropped by 14 percent. Right-to-counsel has had a real impact there.”
It’s not just a drop in the number of eviction filings. According to John Pollock, coordinator for the National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel and staff Attorney at the Public Justice Center, 84 percent of New York tenants who fought their evictions in court ultimately stayed in their homes. That statistic has also been cited by Steven Banks, head of the New York City Department of Social Services.
“Right-to-counsel has been transformative in a city the size of New York City, and it really does open the door to other jurisdictions to try the program,” Pollock says. “It’s just staggering.”
New York City’s right-to-counsel program has been active for about a year in several zip codes. Other cities are still developing programs.
Vyas says it will be interesting to see how each metro area, especially those in California—the state with the highest number of homeless residents—approaches right-to-counsel.
“We have particular crises,” she says of California. “Our larger urban areas lack affordable housing, and we have high rates of evictions and homelessness at the same time. These are crises that all sort of overlap and may take some tailoring, but we still have things we can learn on the East Coast, where right-to-counsel is the farthest along.”
Comments
"It’s estimated that with a budget of $3 million, about 195 tenants could get eviction defense services. That number could soar to as many as 6,600—if the $10 million is allocated, Simard says."
Is this that "new math" they’re teaching in school? How on earth do you reconcile these numbers?
And why shouldn’t someone get evicted if they don’t pay their rent? The bank forecloses when you don’t pay your mortgage.
By disqusted on 05.16.19 1:29pm
Yes, I was wondering about that number too. Seems a pittance number of people for 3 million. As far as not paying rent, if the person was dead-weight and never paid bills, they should not get help. But, if they live in non-rent controlled units and their rent hikes were crazy, then they should be able get assistance.
I live in Southbay. I moved to an apartment 4 years ago which was high already. I asked about rent increases and was told it would be about $50 a year. That was important to me as I didn’t want to get priced out of the place a year later. Well, low and behold, after one year I was handed a $300 rent increase! I could not afford to move, so what I had to do was get rid of my very nice car and downgrade to a cheap one so I could cut down on my expenses. That worked, but it was still a struggle. Then the next year, they raised it ANOTHER $300! I had to move. I ended up on a friend’s couch until I could find a cheaper place and come up with deposit. If I didn’t have a friend, I could have been homeless myself.
That is why these types of programs are needed.
By CodyAmore on 05.16.19 3:28pm
How would a lawyer have helped in your situation though? This is about providing attorneys to people facing eviction proceedings, not providing rent subsidies. If you had an attorney, you would still have faced a shortfall, it sounds like.
That being said, I’m fine with rent assistance to lower income folks, that’s a way better system than rent control, which incentivizes screening out lower income tenants since there’s no means testing. If a tenant is otherwise a good tenant and can pay market rate, no landlord is going to boot them out, as turnover costs money too.
By disqusted on 05.16.19 4:09pm
How would they have helped? They may have riddled and harassed the property owner with legal attacks aimed at faux property violations, stating it was unhabitable in an effort to buy time and concessions. Just sad.
By Not Curbed on 05.17.19 4:53pm
"When you ask people, ‘Why are you homeless?’ what you find most often is the precipitating cause is that they couldn’t pay the rent, they got evicted,"
How does providing access to legal counsel help in that situation? Failing to pay rent is the main reason for lawful evictions.
By LADude on 05.16.19 1:32pm
Dunning-Kruger much? Try observing UD court.
By LosFeliz$ean on 05.16.19 2:07pm
Read the entire article. Like it says ""Sometimes, landlords refused to accept payment," he says. "There’s a lot of different ways that the nonpayment justification can be false and used against tenants.""
This is true. I’ve seen it in action. I personally have watched landlords turn down money even after an agreement was made in front of a judge, and the judge let it slide anyway. Had the tenants had legal representation, I doubt that kind of crap would fly.
The Law and what happens in court are two different things. Especially since there are no transcripts unless requested, which is the case in UD court, but most tenants are unaware of that fact and don’t know how to request transcripts or submit evidence or file motions or how to protect their rights in general unless they have a lawyer.
Like LosFeliz$ean said, sit in and observe UD court one of these days.
By Cocomonstr on 05.16.19 2:37pm
When tenants are short on money now the first person they short is the landlord. Cell phone gets cut off quick. Cable gets cut off quick. Hair and nail salons don’t give credit. They repossess cars quickly. So tenants realize they can get an easy 3 month interest free loan from the landlord by not paying rent because it takes 3 to 5 months to evict someone when they use the system and slow it down. Charging Late fees to tenants are a joke because the courts don’t even allow landlords to enforce them. By the time a landlord gets to court and had to pay an attorney $$$thousands, now the tenants scramble and get the money and try and strike deals to stay. By then of course any landlord would refuse the money. They just want them out. I know, when tenants are late on the rent it’s the landlord covering that amount when they still have to pay the mortgage. The reserves a landlord needs now is ridiculous to cover late and slow paying tenants. I understand things happen with so many people living pay check to paycheck but its the landlord now acting like folks piggy bank and a free loan center.
By laysclassic on 05.19.19 12:10pm
See my comment above.
By CodyAmore on 05.16.19 3:29pm
Landlords do not try to evict only because of failure to pay rent. Landlords have refused to accept rent as an excuse to force illegal evictions.
By SouthCentralLA on 06.10.19 7:53am
People do fall on hard times. Hopefully, they can mediate between the Landlord and the tenant . Owners have bills to pay as well. What I’m gathering is the continuous harassment of tenants to vacate their unit, so the owner can charge a higher fee. Unlawful evictions are just that . Paying rent is important. There is a workable solution. I see both sides.
By Wackyone1968 on 05.16.19 1:41pm
This is why I never ever rent to anyone who doesn’t have a descent income and credit scores above 700. much less chance of this issue. I’m not looking to harass anyone at all. I just want nice tenants who pay the rent when it’s due and take care of the place and aren’t a pain in the ass. I have some 1 bedrooms and I get applications from couples with 1 or 2 kids – no way I’m renting to someone in that situation. you know the chances they can’t make rent regularly are much higher. plus I don’t need the extra wear and tear. I go with single people or maybe a couple in a 1 bedroom. if you have property inhabited by poor people you sort of deserve the problems you get for being so stupid in the first place
By LAoneWay on 05.16.19 2:02pm
This is, of course, illegal.
See "familial status".
Sadly, the more the government regulates the market, the less likely the couple with kids, the sketchy credit, and income challenged will find a place of their choosing. They’ll have to settle for a place that’s crap, because under rent control, landlords have to play hardball, and that includes only sterling credit single new tenancies.
Giving tenants free legal defense when they don’t pay their rent means landlords will be even more reluctant to rent to at-risk applicants.
Way to go, Eric.
The only way to lower housing costs … is to set the market free, and let investors step on each other to chase tenants. Rent control, "just cause eviction" and all of that nonsense has to go.
By smartalex on 05.16.19 4:24pm
How is this not discriminatory if only tenants but not landlords, will be provided legal representation?
In any case, I imagine most of these attorneys will do the usual BS- demand a jury trial, prepare a "no defense" defense; lose at trial; then threaten to appeal the case unless the landlord agrees to waive all monies due (several months worth of rent), and of course, agree to SEAL THE RECORD!
By nobody_in_particular on 05.16.19 8:46pm
Agreed. What about property owners who are getting stiffed by non-rent paying tenants who have free legal representation to drag the eviction process out? Will the county waive their property taxes during this time?
By RubyJackson on 05.17.19 9:44am
And their mortgage payments. This proposal is rife for abuse from shady tenants and scummy attorneys.
By disqusted on 05.17.19 2:06pm
Are you really this stupid? Landlords are not a protected class of people. Landlords are the ones instigating legal action in these cases. The fund is to help people who are targeted by shady or illegal tactics by landlords.
By SouthCentralLA on 06.10.19 7:54am
The city has run me and lots of other small rental property owners out of business. I cashed out my last property last month. Business operating expenses got too high. 1 eviction for a bad tenant cost $4,000 in lawyer fees and then another $3k or more in loss rent while you’re fighting your way through the system. Not to mention the fixup cost you have to spend to get the unit ready to re-rent. One eviction pretty much wipes out any profit for an entire year. Tenants have learned just to delay the eviction for long enough, use the free lawyer, drain the landlords bank account, so that the landlord basically has to give in and just allow them to move out after not paying for 4 months, never recouping anything.. 3% rental increase on south la 1 bedroom apartment was only about $30/month or $360/yr. Not enough too even cover my increase in the water bill and labor rate to fix any problems in building. Forget about upgrades for painting or beautifying etc. No money left to do it. I have a regular job and I managed my own property, so I’m not rich to cover all these costs. The sad thing is all the small property owners and landlords are the majority of owners, just like small businesses. But like me they are selling to big management real estate companies because the bigger companies have the money capital reserves to cover these expenses and can win the war on bad tenants. Remember how all the mom and pop stores got taken over by big box stores. That’s what’s happening in real estate. Lot of tenants low income people getting kicked out of Single Family homes because small mom and pop owners are selling the homes for owners to occupy and renters are being put back in the market. The city has basically put mom and pop property owners out of business. Homelessness will continue to increase as long as the city doesn’t value property owners or their investments.
By laysclassic on 05.19.19 11:50am
Same thing happening up in Portland, and everywhere they’re pushing for stronger tenant "protections" – it drives small landlords to sell, and the buyers aren’t low-income folks or current renters, they’re rich tech industry transplants who will owner-occupy the unit (thus decreasing the supply of rental housing) or a large REIT, in which case the tenants get to enjoy Comcast-style customer service. Either way, it’s tremendously self-defeating. The best curb against landlord "greed" is an increase in supply/the vacancy rate.
By disqusted on 05.20.19 1:49pm
There’s no shortage of housing. There’s a shortage of affordable housing. There are vacant "luxury" units galore. Stop looking at the hard facts and data selectively ."Market rate rental rates" are market rigged rental rates. Over half the new buildings in Chinatown are unoccupied.
By SouthCentralLA on 06.10.19 7:56am
Boo hoo. You couldn’t figure out how to profit from being a feudal capitalist landlord.
By SouthCentralLA on 06.10.19 7:51am
This sounds more like lawyer welfare than anything.
It seems like it makes more sense to spend that 3 million on rent assistance. If someone is 3 months late on rent, doesn’t it make more sense to give them 5k for the rent than to give 50k to a lawyer?
By hautedawg on 05.30.19 8:56am