Rent Control Officials Quell Fears

By Oliver Lukacs
Staff Writer

April 2 -- Worried that the end of rent control is at hand, more than 70 tenants of Santa Monica’s largest apartment complex packed a meeting Wednesday night to discuss the fallout of a regulation that allows landlords to raise the rents of units not being used as a primary residence.

The new Rent Control Board regulation -- which experts predict could free up between 300 and 1,000 units across the city -- was approved in February to avert a lobbying effort by landlords for more onerous State legislation. The regulation took effect on March 15, but so far only a handful of cases have been filed.

The turnout at the meeting in the community room at Santa Monica Shores was fueled by flyers distributed to tenants of the twin, 17-story oceanfront towers in Ocean Park that asked in bold capital letters, “Is rent control soon to be history???”

“You think this is the beginning of the end?” asked one of the many elderly tenants at the meeting who, like the rest of those who spoke, requested to remain anonymous.

Mary Ann Yurkonis, the Rent Control Board administrator, who was joined on the discussion panel by a tenant lawyer and a Santa Monica for Renters’ Rights advocate, tried quelling fears by clarifying that the regulation was “designed to address situations where tenants aren’t really living in their units.

The regulation would apply to units that are only used as work places or that serve as vacation homes for tenants who live in other cities, Yurkonis said.

“The general theory is that rent control was designed to protect people’s homes, not people’s offices, and not places that people only sometimes live in,” said Yurkonis.

At the 460-unit Shores -- where rents range from $640 to $5000 a month, paving the way for steep rate hikes for those who don’t live in their units -- a general sense of paranoia permeated the meeting, with tenants worried that the regulation would encourage spying and harassment.

Those who attended the meeting declined to give their names, because, as one renter put it, “They’ll (landlords) come gun me down.” Some worried that there was nothing to stop landlords from going back to Sacramento and “say rent control shouldn’t apply to people making $100,000 or over.”

“If you could exclude one group one time, what’s to stop Sacramento from excluding another group another time?” one tenant asked.

SMRR advocate Michael Tarbet explained SMRR’s role in protecting tenants and gave a short history of the organization that has controlled City government for most of past 20 years. The lesson came as an apparent surprise to many renters present.

“SMRR is never going to give in on that issue, we would never support a change in the local regulation” limiting the income level of tenants covered under rent control, Tarbet said.

Some tenants worried that the Rent Control Board would forfeit more concessions to stop landlords from taking their case to the State in the future. But Yurkonis said taking action was necessary to protect tenants.

“If the board hadn’t taken action the state would have passed legislation with no [local] administrative remedy,” Yurkonis said. Instead of facing the prospect of a higher rent, she explained, the tenant under a state regulation might have been looking at “fighting an eviction notice” in more “draconian” courtroom circumstances.

The regulation sets up a process the board hopes will protect tenants from unfair charges by placing the burden of establishing a "prima facie case" on the landlord. If the landlord establishes the case, the burden of proof that "the unit is her or his usual residence of return" shifts to the tenant.

Some tenants worried that the burden of proof placed on landlords by the new regulation would be used as an excuse to harass them.

“Aren’t you concerned that it’s going to encourage spying, illegal entries, on the pretext of an inspection?” said one tenant.

Another tenant had similar concerns that the regulation would “create a climate and culture where people are economically “incentivized” to watch my life or the lives of other people here. Doesn’t that concern anyone.”

Still another, who requested anonymity citing “privacy” concerns, worried that the Shores computer system tracks the comings and goings of tenants through the use of their electronic keys. As a result, landlords can readily tell how often a unit is used.

Andrew Zanger, a Santa Monica-based tenant attorney who is handling four cases filed under the regulation, noted that there are numerous ways a landlord can build a case, including using public records.

In one case, Zanger said, “the attorneys of the landlord wanted to raid the (tenant’s) refrigerator to look for expiration dates on her food.”

But he assured the apparently shocked crowd that it is possible under some circumstances to own a home and still claim a rent-controlled apartment as a “residency of return.”

The regulation also would not apply to tenants on an extended vacation or business trips, Tarbet said.

“If someone is taking a trip around the world it shouldn’t effect them, or even if someone works somewhere for 2 years,” such as an archeologist working on a dig site, “it shouldn’t effect them,” Trabet said.

Yurkonis noted that tenants have been more vulnerable since a State law kicked into full gear in January 1999, allowing landlords to raise rents to market rates if a tenant voluntarily vacates a unit or is evicted for non payment of rent.

“The day vacancy decontrol passed in this state a price went on the head of every sitting tenant,” Yurkonis said. “That’s the reality.”

Zanger estimates that the new regulation will affect 7 percent of renters in the City, and could give landlords a potential net profit boost from a couple of hundred thousand dollars to a million dollars a month.

Under the regulation, landlords who seek a determination that a tenant is a "tenant not in occupancy" must file a petition with the board. The petition must be accompanied by supporting documentation, and the tenants and occupants must be notified of the action.

Rent Control Board staff would then review the documents and mail a copy of the petition and supporting documents to the tenant, who would have a chance to challenge the petition. If a tenant denies the assertions, a hearing would be conducted.

Under the regulation, "occupancy" does not require that the tenant "be physically present in the unit at all times or continuously but that it is the tenant's usual residence of return." A number of factors would be weighed as evidence that the unit is not the tenant's residence. These include the following:

• The tenant does not carry on basic living activities at the unit for extended periods of time.
  
• Another property or unit is listed as the tenant's place of residence on any motor vehicle registration, driver's license, voter registration, or with any other public agency, including federal, state and local taxing authorities.
  
• Utilities for the unit are billed or mailed to a different residential property.
  
• The tenant’s personal possessions are not located in the unit.
  
• The unit is used primarily for storage, entertaining, or as an office.
  
• The tenant is absent from the unit for extended periods of time, other than for military service, hospitalization, vacation, family or friend emergency or care, Peace Corps service, academic sabbatical, or other reasonable temporary or seasonal periods of absence, such as travel necessitated by employment or education.
  
• A homeowner's tax exemption or renter's credit for the tenant has been filed for a different property or the tenant is owner of record of a different residential property.
  
• The tenant rents more than one unit at the property and the multiple units rented by the tenant comprise more than 1,500 square feet of space. This provision shall only apply if the number of occupants is less than the number of bedrooms in the combined units.
  
• The tenant is a corporation or is otherwise not a natural person.