Sabrina Johnson is a personal trainer who until March worked in gyms and in clients’ homes. When Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti ordered people to stay inside and forced the closure of many businesses in response to the novel coronavirus pandemic, gyms were among the first to be shuttered.
As April 1 approached, Johnson, an active member of the L.A. Tenants Union, knew she would come up short for the $1,134 she pays for her apartment in Koreatown. She wrote her landlord a letter before the rent came due, giving it to on-site landlord representatives and preparing another for her building manager, who comes by every month to collect rent checks.
She’s following the advice of the city and tenant advocates for renters impacted by COVID-19, but Johnson is still worried she’ll have to fight to stay in her home.
“I’m terrified,” Johnson said on Wednesday. As of Friday afternoon, she hadn’t received a response from her landlord and the building manager hadn’t come by to ask for her rent.
“I do not know what to expect,” she said.
The city, county, and state have implemented some measures to protect renters, homeowners, and small businesses as entire industries have been put on hiatus to curb the spread of the virus. In the city of Los Angeles, landlords are not allowed to evict tenants who have been impacted by COVID-19 and are unable to pay rent.
“Angelenos should be focused on staying healthy, staying safe, and staying at home—and I don’t want anyone who’s hurting financially as a result of this virus to be worried about losing their home or basic necessities,” Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said last month.
But many renters are very worried.
Even the act of writing a letter to your landlord—which the city and tenant advocates advise tenants to do when they can’t make their rent—leaves room for uncertainty that breeds anxiety. Will they respond? What will they say? What happens next?
And because the most recent version of the tenant protections afforded to Angelenos by city law was only just signed into effect by the mayor on Monday, many tenants and landlords are still figuring out how to navigate uncharted territory.
Tenants at a building in Los Angeles Councilmember David Ryu’s district, which includes Sherman Oaks, Toluca Lake, the Hollywood Hills, and Hancock Park, received a letter from their landlord full of “false and misleading information” about their rights if they were unable to make the rent, Ryu said.
In the letter, the company, ROM Residential, told tenants that all their rent would be due immediately following the end of the local emergency period declared by the mayor last month—and that they needed to sign a “rent deferral agreement” within five days.
Under the city’s rules, tenants are required to pay back the rent they owe, but they have 12 months to do it, starting when the local emergency period expires. Tenants are not required to sign a rent deferral agreement.
The ROM Residential agreement also included a number of odd stipulations, including one that required any money received from the government or charity “related to the pandemic” be given in full to the landlord.
The letter contained so many inaccuracies, it “can only be interpreted as an attempt to intimidate tenants into not exercising their rights,” Ryu wrote in a letter to the property owner.
Advocates have warned that the absence of a blanket moratorium on evictions in Los Angeles—which would stop any evictions for any reason, period—left loopholes for people to be pushed out of their homes.
On March 27, a proposal for a full eviction moratorium failed by one vote of the Los Angeles City Council. That type of moratorium would have covered nonpayment of rent from a person who lost their job—but couldn’t prove it.
At the meeting, Los Councilmember Mike Bonin warned that protections in place now “only feels like a moratorium to people inside of government,” and that many tenants would be removed from their units through other means.
“Some will be negotiated out by their landlords, others will be intimidated, others will be locked out,” Bonin said.
Even when landlords are adhering to local laws, tenants are left with tough decisions.
“I’m kind of trapped here,” says Lori, a bartender who asked not to use her full name because she did not want to strain her relationship with her landlord.
“I can’t afford to move out, but I can’t really afford to stay here either,” she says.
After a week of being told by her boss that there were so few customers she didn’t need to come in, the safer-at-home order shuttered her workplace. Lori says her last paycheck was $500—less than one-third of her rent. She wrote a letter to her landlord via the property management company, which asked her for proof of her lost income (which the city ordinance does not require tenants to provide) and inquired whether she was able to pay anything at all.
She has filed for unemployment, along with more than 1.6 million Californians in the last three weeks, according to Gov. Gavin Newsom, and it’s unclear when that money will come through.
While she has some money saved, it’s not enough “to live and pay rent indefinitely” without new income.
“What I’m not going to do is struggle to give [my landlord] all my money and get kicked out anyway,” she says.
Correction: An earlier version of this story, citing the housing department’s website, said landlords could ask tenants to show proof of loss of income. The department has since updated its website to clarify that tenants are not required to show proof of loss of income to their landlord. Still, they are encouraged to retain that documentation in case it’s needed in court.
Comments
there was a time when I enjoyed reading curbed to learn about new developments in LA. Now, every other story seems to be about how tenants are suposedly getting screwed. Dear Curbed: During these uncertain times, why don’t you ever interview a small landlord who spent 3+ hours on phone w/ their bank trying to delay mortgage payment b/c their tenants were not able to pay full rent , only to find out that their credit could take a hit AND they will still be responsible for interest during forebearance period + full amount that was not paid? Also, just so you know, we still have to pay taxes, utilities, repairs.. In fact, w/ everyone being home all the time, there is more need for repairs as things are getting used more. Most of us feel for our tenants and some of us are tenants ourselves. Just so you realize, most of your articles sound like the same good v evil argument that Tumptards on the other side make.. you need to be better than this!
By madein818 on 04.06.20 11:54am
These are the exact kind of articles I come here for.
I do not see the tone in this article that you mention at the end of you comment. I see people’s fears and anxieties pouring out into the streets. 40% of Americans are said to not be able to afford a $400 dollar emergency. I think if you ran that against just renters in LA that number would be a lot higher. With at least another month of zero income for some people this will be even worse next moth.
By ivantrotsky on 04.06.20 1:10pm
"I do not see the tone in this article" Where does the article discuss the economic hardship on the landlord who now has the majority of renters not paying rent and still has to pay taxes, mortgage, repairs, utilities, gardeners, cleaners, etc.?
We are supposed to feel sorry for these tenants because the lessor expects that the lessee will adhere to the contract they signed and pay – what is almost certainly less than market value – consideration for the housing that they are being provided.
By LADude on 04.06.20 1:29pm
Thank you for calling out the truth, LADude. Tenants signed a contract, and we landlords should have the right to evict them if they do not adhere to it. I do not see any benefit to giving tenants a break. How is it fair that I need to house these deadbeats when I could easily rent out my apartments for the same or a higher price given how the rental market is booming at all-time-levels again? And yet the City of Los Angeles wants to hold my hands behind my back when I have a line of prospective renters waiting to throw money at me.
By Henry Farbson on 04.06.20 3:28pm
Die mad about it loser. This is a global pandemic without precedent. Wanting to financially benefit by evicting rent controlled tenants in the middle of it is morally repugnant.
You made and investment. You might lose money on it, same as any investment. the rental market is not "booming" currently, and you’ll reap the whirlwind.
By Greyvagabond on 04.06.20 3:44pm
But it’s not repugnant to expect someone else to pay your living expenses because you were completely irresponsible, live in a city you cannot afford and life a lifestyle that resulted in not having any savings? Please. The people in this article are a bartender and a personal trainer living in LA. The probably have a new car lease, iPhone 11 and go to bars with their friends regularly.
By LADude on 04.06.20 3:46pm
They COULD afford to live here. The entire city is shut down.
If you expect people living in Los Angeles not to have cars or phones, and not to have social lives, get bent boomer.
Nobody. Feels. Bad. For. Landlords.
By Greyvagabond on 04.06.20 3:51pm
Clearly they couldn’t afford to live here if they weren’t able to have savings to cover their living expenses for a few months. Savings is a component of a responsible budget.
By LADude on 04.06.20 3:57pm
The landlords don’t have six months of savings? Those crazy latte drinking, avocado toast binging free loaders.
By ivantrotsky on 04.06.20 3:59pm
That’s a pretty dumb comment. I’m sure there is an accepted accounting number for how much a landlord should expect in delinquent rent, and I’m sure the landlords have a revenue analysis that accounts for that.
A personal budget and and a business budget are two completely different things. Also, it is not normal for a government to grant people 12 month forbearance on rent and evictions where as a bartender and personal trainer should expect that they may be out of a job at some point.
By LADude on 04.07.20 12:39pm
Maybe the landlords should take responsibility and only rent to tenants with a higher likelihood of being able to weather a generational crisis. If they only seek short-term rent gains, it is their own fault.
By Greyvagabond on 04.06.20 4:02pm
Are people stealing food from grocery stores during the pandemic? NO. They goto government food banks or missions for meals.
The same applies to housing. The Gov should provide it in times of need as a part of the social safety net.
Land owners already chip in a disproportionate amount to the safety net via property taxes as required by measure HHH for housing the homeless.
Landlords provide housing as a service that needs to be paid. Some tenant protections make sense, but no rent for a 3 month period plus dealing with an eviction is no joke.
I’m tired of our politicians making landlords the scapegoats for a lack of housing or high market rate rent when it’s their decades of policies that created the mess. Landlords are the reason why ppl have places to rent. They provide a service like any other business, but are treated unfairly in LA.
Landlords – Call your city/county/state reps to stop this BS. Tenant groups call all day to get these ridiculously tenant leaning policies passed.
By Constituents on 04.07.20 8:30am
Call the county especially to ask for property taxes to waived due to the crisis. They aren’t suffering pain from loss revenue.
By Constituents on 04.07.20 8:33am
According to the county, they cannot waive property taxes or extend the deadline as that is under State law. You can ask for a waiver of the penalties if you pay late.
By LADude on 04.07.20 12:36pm
No. Call your County Supervisors. 5 counties have already extended the deadline to May. I’ve been asking for 12 months to match what tenants are getting to repay rent.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/07/property-tax-deadline-looms-amid-coronavirus-fallout-newsom/
By Constituents on 04.07.20 7:41pm
Yes, according to LA county (and state law) they cannot extend the deadline for property taxes. This is on their website.
And did you read the article you linked, "San Mateo County took the approach to temporarily close the tax collector’s office to create the equivalent of a holiday or a weekend. This way, the collection of taxes wouldn’t occur as scheduled and taxes would not be due until the next business day that the office is again formally re-opened for business." State law must provide that if the office is closed you have until the next business day.
By LADude on 04.08.20 9:27am
Did you even look at the SBA COVID Federal Emergency Funding website? No you did not, because if you did then you would know that there are specific sentences that apply to loans (forgivable) for loss of revenue on rental units. https://www.sba.gov/page/coronavirus-covid-19-small-business-guidance-loan-resources Look under COVID funding
You’re welcome.
By Homers Home on 04.09.20 12:32am
But that’s the part I don’t understand, why is the landlord always the bad guy?
No one is bitching at Ralphs for continuing to charge for groceries. Or asking Apple to start dropping the price of iPhones to $50.
Not all landlords are the same, not all have deep pockets, not all are out to ‘get’ anyone or anything. To expect that every landlord should get stiffed, ‘just because’ doesn’t make sense to me. This is a huge problem, but it’s not one that should be laid at the feet of one industry. Assuming that the landlord is providing their end of the deal as they were before coronavirus, wouldn’t the reasonable expectation be that the rent is still due? Sure, waive late fees, give a payment plan and all of that, but what more are they supposed to provide? And frankly, why should they? Again, are we getting free iPhones, free cable, free groceries from Whole Foods, free TP from Costco and free gas from Chevron? No? Then why free rent?
By Realist818 on 04.23.20 5:11pm
You must be one privileged sorry ass human being. If you haven’t noticed, the world just got turned upside down and even the Trumpsters want socialism to come to the rescue, once again, of your precious Predatory Capitalism. Landlords will have to suffer the pain along with everyone else, except, apparently, you.
By LBOrpheus on 04.06.20 7:42pm
Do you expect every restaurant to give you free food for 3 months?
There is a huge difference from the protections provided to tenants when the lease was signed to the new tenant protections.
A one month loss from dealing with an eviction is what landlords planned for; not the newly minted three months plus only potentially getting paid back by their tenants.
By Constituents on 04.07.20 8:37am
Bingo. People aren’t going to the bank and demanding $1,200 per month for free, or demanding that Grubhub deliver them $1,200 per month in free food. The difference is that the government has prevented the landlord from evicting the tenant (i.e. stopping providing the services) so the landlords are stuck in this situation.
By LADude on 04.07.20 12:42pm
Decades of failed regulations by politicians left us with insufficient housing and high housing costs and they create narratives to blame the landlords because the politicians don’t have the wherewithal to do what is necessary at this point – deregulate development and rentals and create incentives for developers to build more housing.
By LADude on 04.06.20 3:44pm
Agree to an extent. NIMBY-ism run amok + old and senseless building codes (minimum parking requirments in K-town on top of the metro, for instance) has fueled this and continue to do so.
Unfortunately, the globalization of the real estate market where HNWI from all-Earth buy up everything half decent in every desirable city doesn’t help, either.
By Realist818 on 04.23.20 5:21pm
You have to be trolling.
By ewilliams1911 on 04.06.20 4:58pm
New ruling from CA Judicial Council, no evictions (except hazard/safety) and tenants have 12 months to pay back. https://fox40.com/news/california-connection/california-judicial-council-puts-temporary-ban-on-residential-evictions/
By Homers Home on 04.09.20 8:25pm