By Jason Islas
Lookout Staff

July 28, 2011 – Sparks flew at the Rent Control Board's meeting this month when they considered a request by the City of Santa Monica to appeal a rent decrease awarded to a resident of Mountain View Mobile Home park.

The city's Housing Division asked that an $86 per month rent decrease awarded to Belinda van Sickle be reversed based on claims that the city, acting as landlord, had addressed the problems that led to the rent reduction, according to the staff report.

“They are trying to use their authority to knock me down,” van Sickle told the Board.

Board Member Robert Kronovet agreed.

“This is absolutely an abuse of power,” he said, adding “Where does the City Attorney's Office get the authority to spend tax payer money to save $86?”

He was referring to the fact that the dispute had spanned two and a half years and a total of eight working days in formal hearings.

“If someone were here from the city, I think he or she would owe us quite a lengthy and persuasive explanation why two and a half years wasn't enough time to marshal and put before the hearing officer whatever evidence they had,” Board Member William Winslow said, frustrated that the city had chosen to offer new evidence for its case so late in the game.

“Unless I hear something very different from the other side...I'm going to assume it was an abuse,” said Winslow.

“It shows a tremendous waste of taxpayers' money,” local real estate lawyer Rosario Perry told The Lookout Wednesday. “Had the city sat down with a mediator,” they might have reached a settlement sooner and at less expense to the city, he said.

But some said the case wasn't so black and white.

“It's not the case that the city was dragging it out,” Rent Control Board Public Information Manager Stephen Lewis said.

He pointed out that between August 2009 and early 2010, van Sickle and the city had reached a tentative agreement and the dispute seemed to have been resolved. That is, until the agreement broke down and they had to go back to formal hearings.

“There was no pre-hearing mediation. The tenant opted not to go through that process,” Lewis said.

The City is asking that the decision be reversed based on new evidence, which the Board was legally restricted from considering.

“It deprives the other party of the opportunity to respond to new evidence and it deprives the hearing officer of the opportunity to consider and weigh the evidence and its credibility,” said Hakhamanesh Mortezaie, staff attorney for the Rent Control Board.

The proper procedure in a case like this is to go directly to the hearing examiner who awarded the decrease in the first place so that she can determine whether or not the problems have been fixed, said Lewis.

“It's a fairly common error people make,” he said

That this was a result of a mistake on the part of the City Housing Division was echoed by Rent Control Board Chair Chris Braun.

“There was no malicious intent,” he told The Lookout Wednesday. But he added that the matter could have been handled more efficiently.