Los Angeles is entering a second month of a devastating pandemic, and most city leaders say they’ve already done all they can to help renters.
The city has put an array of protections in place for renters, declaring that landlords cannot evict tenants who haven’t paid their rent because of COVID-19. Ellis Act evictions have been halted, and the city has paused rent increases in rent-stabilized units. Impacted renters have also been given a year to make up any rent they missed—without interest or late fees.
But a full-fledged eviction moratorium and a “freeze” on rent increases that would have covered all residential units in the city was rejected on a 7-to-6 vote Wednesday by the Los Angeles City Council. Bolstered by the city attorney’s office, the dissenting councilmembers said they do not have the legal footing to make these broad moves.
“The liabilities [for the city] are very real,” Councilmember Bob Blumenfield said, adding that, in a worst-case scenario, the city could end up being required to pay for all the unpaid rent.
“If the state lifts those rules, I’ll be the first one to join you in proposing a rent freeze,” he said.
The council did move Wednesday to extend a previously approved halt of rent increases in rent-stabilized residences. Rent increases in those units will now be on hold for 360 days after the end of the “local emergency period” in effect because of the novel coronavirus. The rent-stabilization ordinance covers the majority of rentals in the city—about 624,000 residences across 118,000 buildings, according to the housing department.
A new USC survey estimates that only 45 percent of Los Angeles County residents are still working right now as the novel coronavirus wallops the economy—a 16 percent decrease from mid-March. That has strengthened calls for greater and bolder protections for tenants in a city where the majority of residents are renters.
“These are unprecedented times,” acknowledged chief assistant city attorney David Michaelson.
But he insisted that in order for councilmembers to stop evictions across Los Angeles, the governor and the state legislature would have to suspend certain laws first—among them, Costa-Hawkins, the 1995 law that dictates how cities implement their local rent control laws.
Michaelson said the governor and legislature had not taken those steps.
Councilmembers Mike Bonin, David Ryu, and Marqueece Harris-Dawson, who brought the rent increase and eviction moratorium proposals to the council, disagreed.
Bonin cited a 12-page memo from public interest attorneys including Public Counsel and the Eviction Defense Network, that argues that the “period of local emergency” enacted by Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and several executive orders issued by the California governor in March give the the council the authority it needs.
Bonin also pointed to the city of Oakland, which has instituted a robust moratorium on almost all evictions, with exceptions only for those where the health and safety of the building’s other occupants are in danger and Ellis Act evictions. (In the city of LA, the mayor has paused Ellis Act evictions.)
“Despite the guidance of our city attorney, we are empowered to do [this],” Bonin said.
Michaelson countered that public interest lawyers are acting in the interest of their clients, who are tenants, and that the city attorney’s job is to give the advice that’s in the best interest of the city.
“We’re just calling balls and strikes,” he said.
Harris-Dawson seized on the baseball metaphor, noting that “calling strikes and balls is subjective,” and that what is really being compared are the interpretations of the law by two different camps of lawyers.
The real issue, Harris-Dawson said, was that the City Council was very proud of how quickly it shut the city down to stop the spread of COVID-19, but that it has not acted as rapidly to help the people who are now in trouble because city lawmakers did not allow them to go to work.
“I think that’s beneath who we say that we are,” Harris-Dawson said.
“Let’s not get it twisted: We all want to provide these protections,” said Councilmember Monica Rodriguez. But she repeated that the council did not have the power to take these steps, and said that claiming otherwise would give people “false hope” and amounted to “a lapse in responsibility.”
Councilmember Gil Cedillo, who chairs the council’s housing committee, told his colleagues that it was important to “know the limits” of the council’s power.
“We don’t have time to waste with things that we know are not legal and that then could have an adverse consequence for the people we’re trying to help,” Cedillo said.
This is not the first time the council has weighed a full eviction moratorium, which, as proposed, would serve as an across-the-board stop to all evictions of any kind in the city.
Bonin had introduced a full moratorium at the March 27 council meeting. It’s “unusual” to bring back a rejected proposal, but Bonin said he did so in part because at the March meeting, there had been a disagreement about the necessity to take action.
Since then, Bonin said, there have been numerous instances of landlords not following the rules and making demands of tenants when they are not supposed to be. Critics have argued that navigating the quilt of protections in place now puts the onus—and stress—on the renter to figure out how to stay in their home.
“There is significant public interest” in calling for a full moratorium, he said.
Councilmembers Curren D. Price Jr. and Paul Krekorian recused themselves from Wednesday’s vote. Both cited their ownership of rental properties as the reason for sitting out the vote.
Correction: An earlier version of this story stated that 45 percent of Los Angeles County residents are not working right now. In fact, 45 percent of the population still has jobs. Due to an error in a cited source, this story also misstated that the cities of San Francisco and Oakland had banned rent increases. The San Francisco and Oakland bans apply only to rent-controlled buildings.
Comments
If Landlords are not following the rules, then enforce them. Don’t just start making new laws that are illegal that would open up the City to massive litigation and reduce services even more.
I could see a large property tax strike gaining steam where large amounts of property owners simply refuse to pay into this horrible system where only union workers benefit. I’d love to see Bonin scramble and actually have to budget like a real business owner. They are saying the City is already in a catastrophic budget situation, because revenues will only go up 1.8% next year. Only a disaster because they promised big raises, cadillac health benefits, and massive pensions to their city workers.
By LA Denizen on 04.23.20 11:05am
The city is playing with fire.
They could win, but the 9th Circuit isn’t what she used to be, and the Takings Clause hasn’t been overturned.
Instead of curing the cause of the financial hardship – a government-ordered-shutdown, they’re doubling-down and stealing anew from private property owners. That’s a no-no.
Sure, they probably will get away with much of it, and they will drag and defer as much as they can, but such insane economic policy is not without consequence; you will see even higher rents, greater tenant screening, and when lifted, a massive uptick in Ellis filings.
By smartalex on 04.23.20 4:11pm
There could be a huge surge in homelessness coming.
By Mildred Fillmore on 04.23.20 11:34am
could be? – will be. This is one reason I would never ever own rental property in lower income areas – just not worth it. you don’ t collect rent for a 3 or 4 months and you have a mortgage on it you’re screwed. CA is going to have some really awful problems to deal with over this whole mess and they will have less money to throw at them.
By LAoneWay on 04.23.20 11:39am
You can bet the majority of voters, aside from small incramental increases on say sales taxes, will not approve any local taxes if they would be subject to them. The only way to get the majority of voters to approve taxes would be to ensure such taxes only affect a small minority of the public. Most of the time, the people usually shafted with the taxes are "the rich."
By nobody_in_particular on 04.23.20 7:11pm
No developers will ever want to build in Los Angeles. Landlords have been screwed over too many times and for too long here. Until politicians change their ways (which will never happen), expect the housing shortage will continue.
By Jose Rios7 on 04.24.20 1:51am
I tell my friends buying units even in high income areas to make sure they can survive 3-6 months with no tenant for whatever reason. On a tangent, I haven’t made up my mind if any business that fails now deserved to or not. I strongly believe in saving for a rainy day but at the same time a sudden complete economic shutdown was pretty unimaginable.
By Esmjb on 04.25.20 8:56am
Still, it makes you wonder if people will take a serious look at their situation. If people were already spending, pre-Covid, 50%, 60% or higher on their income toward rent then surely they must now realize their rental was and is unaffordable. People argue they can’t move because of their job or the kids are in school. Well, if they’re not currently working, and all the schools are closed down (and will open in the Fall, at the earliest), wouldn’t it be prudent to look into the possibility of moving to other areas with lower housing costs?
By nobody_in_particular on 04.23.20 7:04pm
sure if you have any money to pack up and move without a job. And what landlord in another state is going to accept a tenant with no money or job?
By LAoneWay on 04.24.20 4:55pm
With Newsom spending all the surplus we had in the state coffers on Covid, it may be the perfect time to declare bankruptcy for the state. We need to get out from under all of the benefit obligations the state has greased to the unions over the years.
But Newsom is too set on looking good and presidential in his dealings with the pandemic, and probably wont do it.
That means….Taxes for all of us Are Going Wayyyy Uppppp!
By WayOutSuburbia on 04.23.20 12:23pm
I don’t believe public pensions are dischargeable under bankruptcy.
By Greyvagabond on 04.23.20 12:26pm
The public pensions are paid by the cities, which can go bankrupt, to the state, which cannot. But public pensions absolutely can be reduced. Ask the civil servants of Detroit how they like their trip to the Barbershop…
The takeaway lesson here, unfortunately completely lost on Curbed "writers" and the free lunch crowd, is that one should never trust the state so absolutely.
Margaret Thatcher put it best: "The trouble with socialism … is that you eventually run out of other people’s money." And while our current president and Congress may be able to print another $10T+ without immediate consequence, in time, we won’t be able to buy ink for the presses.
California state employees may THINK that the Governor and legislature will ride to the rescue and seek to tax us more, but this manufactured crisis will more likely force daylight on the bloated pension obligations and require massive concessions.
The 401-K is ever assailed by the illiterate press and labor as an abandonment of the worker; it is just the opposite – allowing you to take control of your money, rather than leaving it in the hands of the corporation or the state.
By smartalex on 04.23.20 1:08pm
But the taxes won’t solve it. Because the more taxes, the less economic activity and the less the government actually gets. But Dems never get concepts like that.
By Star Catcher on 04.29.20 7:06pm
To continue the baseball analogy, Public Counsel is the manager of a team, and the City Attorneys are the umpires. Yes, it is "subjective," but one party has an inherent interest in the outcome, which is why we don’t let baseball managers call balls and strikes for their team.
By Greyvagabond on 04.23.20 12:25pm
Exactly. The City Attorneys are simply being honest about reality, which is that this would be a very risky move for the City of LA and would likely end up immediately tied up in litigation anyway. T In some ways, I’m surprised to see we still have a majority of councilmembers who will stand up and act like sober and responsible adults. My God, if the Mike Bonins of the world ever got a majority on the Council, Los Angeles would be toast.
By MyrnaMinkoff on 04.23.20 8:09pm
But…but…but, the L.A. Tenants Union asked its members about the legalities of the proposals; and they were all in agreement that it was legal.
By nobody_in_particular on 04.23.20 6:41pm
This is yet another chapter in a never ending story about unintended economic consequences.
I’m a landlord. Let me shoot you straight on how this works now. If I have a vacancy, rents are already down. I already can’t rent a unit for what I could 3 months ago. It’s a buyer’s market. Anyone with a paycheck a hot commodity. And a paying tenant, even hotter.
But…if a law comes in saying I can’t raise rent for a year or more, then I must raise rent to the maximum allowable next time I can, even if not justified by market conditions, because under rent stabilization you can’t afford to fall behind on rent increases. Even if market conditions won’t support it, I’ll gamble that a tenant will eat a rent increase rather than move, when what I really want to do is just keep things stable and not lose that tenant.
Worst of both worlds.
By FranklinMalko on 04.23.20 8:56pm
Yeah, this whole thing is unnecessary. The market is already negating any chance of asking for a rent increase. In fact, you’re going to start seeing landlords discounting to any existing, paying tenant thinking about moving just to keep them. It’s been a seller’s market for so long that I don’t think people have any idea of what a buyer’s market looks like.
By OliverTwistedLA on 04.24.20 1:58pm
These one-size-fits-all solutions from the likes of Bonin and company, without any ability to part ways with political dogma or to be nimble, are so incredibly dangerous in these times. I hope Bonin gets voted out. I would say the same for Ryu but it seems his opponent is a Boninite on steroids who is calling for rent freezes and all sorts of regulation that is so badly going to ruin Los Angeles as a market and destroy any sane person’s desire to build and have property here.
By nomadsland on 04.24.20 12:00am
I don’t understand when the word landlord became such a bad thing. We are a business just like any other it’s all based on supply and demand. It’s a choice to live in Los Angeles, not a God-given right. The City of Los Angeles has made landlords bankers telling us we can collect back rent over a period of one year with zero interest. I wish I could work that same deal out with my bank, I could borrow unlimited funds for one year with zero interest. Landlords need to join together and bring class action lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles and the state of California. We don’t tell grocery stores what they can charge for groceries, liquor stores what they can charge for liquor or a coffeehouse what they should charge for coffee. At some point the city has to stop dipping its hands into the back pockets of landlords. Enough is enough !
By Enough Is Enough 703 on 04.24.20 12:05am
I’m sure there are some good landlords out there, and you may be one of of them, but you’d be a rare bird in this city if you are.
By not banksy on 04.24.20 12:12am
I don’t know him, or you. But I know a number of other landlords. They are all, without exception, the kind of humble that would exist in a person who would rather save money than flash it. They have long-term vision, and live modestly. That’s how they became small-time landlords. I don’t know what kind of landlords you’re encountering.
By FranklinMalko on 04.24.20 7:31am
Los Angeles has been at war with landlords for too long and now this. There are consequences. Nobody… I mean NOBODY in their right mind is going to want to build apartments in LA. Existing places will be torn down in favor of building high-end apartments. Expect continued low supply of low / middle income housing.
By Jose Rios7 on 04.24.20 1:22am
If you think emulating what SF or Oakland do is the right path, well, bless your heart. You’re screwed.
By Just_Jake on 04.24.20 7:51am
WEll leftist people of California .Now your getting the picture .You have been shafted by this Governor.Calvin Newsom is not a leader.He was never a trained medic ,or law enforcement .He is truly a politician .Nothing more.People are forced out of work by our government .Am not saying that’s bad.It is what it is .But for him to turn his back across our great State in many ways ,Is aweful.#1 helping struggling renters.#2 Mandating all municipalities to assist in moving mentally ill off our sidewalks from defecating and urinating at will and spreading the Covid19 and Typhus. To suitable housing with L.V.N. administrating medication and supervising these American citizens in need of help.But no he allows municipalities to step over or around the issue.Email Mayor mayor.garcetti@lacity.org offices and Governors Galvin Newsom to fix the issue Now,or step down out of office. Email ;stateinformation@state.ca.gov..Supported by UpFrontandCenter.org
By Robert Yaffe on 04.24.20 9:27am