By Jonathan Friedman
Lookout Staff

A June 15, 2010 -- The City Council last week supported in concept placing items on the November ballot that would expand protection for rent-controlled tenants and extend certain rights to those living in multifamily units not under rent control. An attorney for a landlord rights group criticized the method the City officials are taking to put the items on the ballot as well as the content of the items. He said he would file a lawsuit to prevent the election.

The items the council tentatively approved for placement on the ballot were recommended last month by a majority of the Rent Control Board. They include extending the warning period for a tenant to cure most violations prior to receiving a three-day eviction notice, extending relocation benefits to tenants not under rent control who are forced to move due to owner occupancy and protection for certain seniors and the terminally ill from being evicted through owner occupancy. Those items need to go before the voters because they are amendments to the City Charter.

Additional items recommended by the rent board last month can go before the council as a proposed ordinance because they are not amendments to the Charter. They include protection for tenants not under rent control from being evicted without a just cause and increased relocation benefits for all tenants.

“These are all very reasonable proposals,” said City Council member Kevin McKeown at the meeting as he noted that many Cities in California already have these rules in effect.

City staff is expected to present the council with proposed ballot ordinance language at a meeting next month. The City is on a tight deadline to get the items eligible for the November election.

Rosario Perry, the attorney for the landlord group Action Apartment Association, said this week the legal process was not being followed to place rent control modifications on the ballot. The recommendations from the rent board were presented to the council in a staff report rather than as part of one or more formal measures, which Perry said violated the Charter provision making the rent board an entity not under council control. Rent board commissioners or staff had to come up with the official language and then pass it on to the council, Perry said.

He also accused the rent board of approving the recommendation during a “rush job” session “almost hidden from the public eye” since the meeting took place at Ken Edwards Center rather than the usual council chambers location. Also, the meeting was not televised, unlike what is usually the case for rent board meetings.

“If it was something that important, they should have taken the time to write out the language,” Perry said. “But they were too lazy to do it right. This was a rush job to try to get the SMRR (Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights) vote out for November.”

Perry said he would file a suit if the council, as expected, approves the ballot language next month. He could not take legal action before that time. Perry said the only thing that would prevent a suit would be if provisions were added to the proposals that would help landlords, which he said he doubted would happen. Perry had several criticisms for the proposed modifications.

Rent board Commissioner Jennifer Kennedy, who first proposed the modifications, said Perry’s characterization of last months’ rent board meeting was not correct. She said the meeting was properly noticed for the public and took place at Ken Edwards Center because the council chambers were already reserved. This was a special meeting not on the regular rent board calendar. Kennedy added that opposition to the modifications was presented during the public comment portion of the meeting.

Kennedy said the proposed modifications would “help increase the stability and the civility in Santa Monica.”

“If Rosario were to look at the facts, these recommended changes, if they were to be established, would benefit all Santa Monicans, renters and owners,” Kennedy said.

Deputy City Attorney Adam Radinsky said he was not aware of any requirement that items from the rent board need to be presented to the council in ordinance form prior to being placed on the ballot.

“I would also say In this case, the board has requested certain measures be taken and the board will continue to be involved in the process,” Radinsky said.