The LookOut Letters to the Editor
Speak Out!  E-mail us at : Editor@surfsantamonica.com

Biased Report and Changes to Ellis

April 9, 2003

Dear Editor,

I am disappointed that the report of the ARB hearing was written as though the reporter was there. Had he been, I'm sure that he would have presented a much less biased report of the evening. ("ARB Sends Affordable Housing Project Back for Redesign," April 9)

There were supporters and opponents who spoke at the meeting, in fact, an equal number of both spoke. As a Board member of Community Corp, it is not surprising that I found the proponents to make much more salient points.

One ARB member did request a redesign of the project. He thought that the courtyard was too big and could easily accommodate more units and thereby lower the height of the overall project. He also said that children wouldn't play in the courtyard anyhow since they could go to the beach to play.

All of the ARB members had suggestions to improve on the neighborly character of the building. Most of the suggestions were very good and as many as possible will be incorporated into the design as it exists. The planning department staff member present at the meeting pointed out to the ARB members that the project complied with all of the planning and zoning requirements.

In fact, the ARB staff report found that, "The plan for the proposed building or structure is expressive of good taste, good design, and in general contributes to the image of Santa Monica as a place of beauty, creativity and individuality in that the proposed housing project reduces the apparent mass with breaks between the five buildings that comprise the project, the use of different facade colors, varying facade setbacks, front porches and landscaping. The building's international style architecture, front porches and patios, varying color palette and courtyard design are consistent with the Ocean Park Neighborhood Design Guidelines."

Also extensively covered in the article was a complaint that Commissioner Adams had done work for Community Corp in the past. The work that he did was over ten years ago, long before I and most of my colleagues were on the Board. I have never met the man nor has he ever worked for me. His objectivity should no more be called into question than that of any other Commissioner.

In fact, the voters of California passed a conflict of interest law in 1974 that asks, "Is it sufficiently likely that the governmental decision will have a material financial effect on your economic interests?"

Since Commissioner Adams has not worked for us for more than ten years and has no material interest in Community Corp in any way, the answer in this case is not even a close call. A year would suffice, a decade turns the question into a red herring.

There were many positives statements made Monday night about our project, including by people who live next door to it. It is a shame that those comments were not also covered.

Thank you,

Patricia Hoffman
Board Member and Secretary
Community Corp of Santa Monica


April 9, 2003

Dear Editor,

I am concerned with your April 8 article about an action that somewhat benefited tenants who received Ellis Act notices to vacate their apartments in 1999. ("Landlords Pay off Former Tenants," April 8)

The article focuses on the Ellis Act as it was then. It has been substantially amended since. It is important for both landlords and tenants to know what the circumstances are today.

An amendment authored by State Senator Sheila Kuehl that went into effect on January 1, 2003 makes it illegal to offer an "Ellised" unit for rent for more than the amount the departed tenant paid. This restriction is to be in effect for 5 years from the time the "Ellised" tenant leaves. This amendment was designed to provide a disincentive for landlords to empty their buildings under the Ellis Act unless they actually want to permanently leave the rental housing business.

In addition, in January of 2000, the Ellis Act was amended to increase the amount of damages an "Ellised" tenant can seek if the owner re-rents within two years of a former tenant's departure. The amendment allows for actual and exemplary damages. Exemplary damages (almost without limit) can be assessed by a court to make an example of a landlord who is caught re-renting in violation of the intent of the law.

In addition, this amendment increased the amount of time tenants may be afforded to move under Ellis Act circumstances to 365 days for seniors and disabled persons and 120 days for others.

I suggest you contact practicing tenant attorneys and Rent Control Board attorneys to ascertain how effective these amendments have been.

Michael Tarbet
Attorney and SMRR Organizer
Lookout Logo footer image
Copyright 1999-2008 surfsantamonica.com. All Rights Reserved.
Footer Email icon