LOS ANGELES – The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 Tuesday in favor of an ordinance to temporarily limit rent increases to 3 percent in unincorporated areas of the county, including Quartz Hill, Littlerock and Lake Los Angeles.
Dozens of renters turned out carrying signs reading “The rent is too damn high,” while many landlords and agencies that represent property owners countered that the ordinance would hurt rather than boost housing supply.
Supervisor Kathryn Barger cast the dissenting vote against the interim ordinance, which is expected to come back to the board for another vote in 60 days and, if adopted, to take effect 30 days later. It would set base rents as of Sept. 11 and impose a cap for six months.
Supervisor Sheila Kuehl championed the plan to limit rents while the county considers longer-term solutions, saying it will help solve the homelessness crisis.
She said she was mystified by some policymakers’ inability to see the link between rental rates and homelessness.
“They look at 58,000 homeless people in Los Angeles County and they say why?” Kuehl said.
Helping those living on the street with mental illness has been a critical focus, but Kuehl pointed to statistics showing that only one-third of the homeless population has an identifiable mental health problem. Most of the remaining two-thirds are newly homeless and without a home because of economic issues, she said.
Seniors are particularly hard-hit, Kuehl said. The last annual point-in-time count by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority found a 22 percent jump in homeless people 62 years and older.
Advocates on both sides said research was on their side.
Kuehl and Supervisor Hilda Solis, who co-authored the motion, cited research by USC and UCLA professors finding that rent regulations can help make housing more affordable.
“Limiting rent increases cannot fully solve the housing crisis confronting much of urban California, but rent regulations are one tool to deal with sharp upticks in rent and have less deleterious effects than is often imagined,” said Manuel Pastor, a USC sociology professor.
However, the argument seems unsettled. Recent research by Stanford University professors concludes that rent control incentivizes condominium conversions and sales to owner-occupants, reducing the supply of rental housing and increasing gentrification.
In evaluating the effects of a proposed repeal of the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act — which limits rent control to older housing stock — the state Legislative Analyst’s Office concluded that rent control would likely lower rents but also reduce new construction and lower property values.
Beverly Kenworthy of the California Apartment Association told the board that “rent control is not the same as affordable housing” and once the ordinance is passed, “(renters) will still not be able to afford their rent.”
However, Tyler Anderson of the Los Angeles Center for Community Law and Action told the board that tenants are seeking help with rent increases of 40 to 80 percent.
Beverly Roberts, a 30-year resident of South Los Angeles who advocates rent control and also owns income property, said she is seeing her “community being ripped apart” by high rents. “Landlords don’t need to gouge tenants to get a fair return on our investment.”
Some in favor of rent control said private equity firms are buying up property, while landlords and landlord associations said the county ordinance would hurt small property owners and decrease the value of properties they worked hard to own.
“They are flesh-and-blood people who scrimped and saved” to afford their properties, Janet Gagnon of the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles said of “mom-and-pop” owners. “They are being clubbed like baby seals with this rent freeze.”
Landlord advocates suggested other solutions, including offering rental vouchers for seniors and low-income renters.
Others suggested the county was meddling where it shouldn’t.
“Are you now going to start telling the gas stations what they can sell their gas for? Are you going to tell Albertsons what they can sell their milk for?,” a real estate broker asked.
Kuehl replied, “I don’t know, I’ll talk to Chevron about that.”
Barger offered an amendment that would allow owners to “bank” increases from year to year and give landlords greater leeway to evict tenants during the first two years of their lease.
“I do not believe rent control is the right way to go,” Barger said, but indicated she would vote for the ordinance if her amendment was accepted.
“I appreciate your stretching to get there,” Kuehl said, but urged her colleagues to vote against the proposed amendment, which failed to get a second.
Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, who abstained from a vote last week that put a similar cap on rents at mobile home parks in unincorporated areas, highlighted the temporary nature of the measure.
“While rent control is often described as a blunt or inelegant tool during times of crisis, it is warranted to prevent displacement and to protect tenants,” he said. “Unlike Prop 10, the rent increase moratorium considered by the board today was designed to be temporary. It is our job to create a safety net when needed, and now is one of those times.”
The ordinance, if ultimately adopted, is estimated to affect 200,000 people living in rental properties.
Solis urged other cities to “do the right thing” and join the county in imposing rent regulations.
Proposition 10, the ballot measure to repeal Costa-Hawkins, will go before voters on Nov. 6.
–
Stephen says
… the landowners have run amok 20 years, jacking up rent sky high, effectively gaming and robbing labor from the fruits of the Earth. Here, in the Southern Antelope Valley, a room-for-rent fetches US$600 per month. A one bedroom, one bath apartment rents for US$1100 per month. A two bedroom, two bath apartment rents for US$1400 per month, more than double what my mortgage once was, with no appreciable nor significant gain in the real wage, in 30 years. If we don’t get control of rent, we risk an agrarian/worker class revolt.
The Working Poor says
Cities of Lancaster and Palmdale need rent control too. It’s not about stopping a landlord from seeing a fair return on their investment (they can list the rental for any amount they want), it’s about preventing landlords from bleeding current renters with huge increases after they move in. Perfect example i rent a house in Lancaster where two weeks before renewing the lease the landlord says adding 20 percent, sign or be evicted. $1500 jumps $300 to $1800 one month to the next and with no rent control it’s legal, immoral, yet still legal.
Landlords get greedy and use tactics like this to charge as much as they think they can get away with because most tenants do not enjoy moving and because spending an extra few hundred dollars on short notice is easier than spending the extra few thousand dollars to move. In cities with rent control this is criminal, here it is still acceptable.
Sandra says
I think some of the problem is… that its just a number. If people saw how much money $10,000 was, what it looked like in 100 dollar bills they would be shocked. I think we have the same problem with judges giving someone 10 years for some relatively minor crime. It’s just a number an abstract. Pepperdine University putting up a flag for each person killed on 9/11 shows you what that many deaths looks like. It is no longer just a number. AND people are greedy. No amount of money is ever enough. I mean really people $1,500 a month to rent a bedroom in a house in the San Fernando Valley. Who can afford that? How are people paying these outrageous rents. ? That’s $18000 a year to rent a bedroom. Single mothers and their children and the elderly are the ones who are suffering.
Tim Scott says
Guess what, we do tell those people what they can sell their stuff for, if a similar condition comes along. There is a housing shortage, chronic and severe. That creates the possibility for “price gouging,” which would be illegal if it were done during a gasoline shortage or milk shortage. Just go set up on the side of a highway in Carolina offering gas for ten bucks a gallon to evacuees fleeing the hurricane and see how long you last. So, are you or your professor willing to explain why people buying the products you mention should be protected from price gouging, but people buying shelter should not? Or would you rather argue that price gougers are just “good planners” who should be able to reap whatever rewards they can manage?
I’ll cheerfully debate on either front. I’m just curious as to which you will choose to support.
So Cal Living says
What happened to the sales tax increase that the voters approved? How much more are taxpayers expected to do for the homeless?
James Anderson says
Are you now going to start telling the gas stations what they can sell their gas for? Are you going to tell Albertsons what they can sell their milk for?,” a real estate broker asked.
Sounds like my professor