OUTRAGEOUS GOINGS ON AROUND TOWN (page
1 of 4)
Do you believe
it is now 2001 plus 30 days? We cannot get past this time thing.
It is
going much too fast. If rents went up as fast as time goes by,
there would be no
unhappy owner in town. We are in a bit of a funk right now however,
and ACTION’s
viability is being challenged even in this era of prosperity.
Herb Balter has stepped
down as president, and his successor, the ever loving, excellent
dressing, totally
clever and unbeatably intelligent Gordon Gitlen is sick. He can’t
take office for
awhile, so Wes Wellman has graciously agreed to sit as acting
President of
ACTION until Gordon gets back on his feet. Our magazine continues
to be
published, but we are always in need of money, material, and people
power. The
fight goes on, but at a growing cost. If there comes a day when
we can no longer
function, then the fight will have to be taken up by some other
group, as yet not in
existence.
Or we will just fall back into the dark ages of knowledge blackout.
When a reader
thinks about it, where does an owner get information about new
rent control laws
and ways to protect oneself? From attorneys at outrageous prices
per hour, or
ACTION, at yearly dues less than an attorney’s hourly rate.
It is imperative that
ACTION continues, but imperatives don’t always produce the
impossible. We will
see; this byline is written one month at a time.
Proposition
218 Update: Apartment Association of Los Angeles v. City
of Los Angeles
Well is it any wonder that the California Supreme Court has struck
another blow at owners by supporting the City’s power to
tax them. In the latest of setbacks, the court recently decided
Apartment Association of Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles, wherein
attorney Craig Mordoh, our long time friend and compatriot, was
arguing for the Apartment Association that Los Angeles’ inspection
fee imposed on private landlords violated Article 13D of the California
Constitution (i.e. no new fees, assessments or taxes without 2/3rd
voter approval). The vote was 5 to 2 with the majority opinion
written by Justice Mosk. The minority opinion was written by Justice
Brown and concurred by Baxter. The minority opinion accused the
majority of "parsing" words to reach a conclusion favorable
to Government and against the People. And this it was. The majority
decided that the prohibition on new fees only applies if the fee
is levied on owners because they own property, but not if they
run a business with the property. The wording of the Court is
as follows: "The inspection fee is not imposed solely because
a person owns property. Rather, it is imposed because the property
is being rented. It ceases along with the business operation,
whether or not ownership remains in the same hands. For that reason,
the city must prevail." Thus, a fee imposed as an incident
of ownership does not mean a fee imposed to regulate or tax a
business run with that property. When the business ends (i.e.
the property is not being rented), the fee is no longer collectible
(at least for now). What this means for us in Santa Monica is
higher registration fees. Remember when ACTION brought its own
lawsuit against rent board registration fees? We lost in the Court
of Appeals, but the Rent Board was so worried about the possibility
of another lawsuit against them that they never raised registration
fees again. The Board was afraid that if it raised registration
fees, it would be seen as adopting new fees in violation of 218.
So instead it just kept the fee the same without passing any new
reg. fee ordinances again. Now that the Court has spoken so clearly,
look for the Board to go back and pass new registration fees raising
the monthly fee to bring in more money to hire more people in
order to fight owners all the better. Just when we thought we
were doing well, this comes along. It is never safe in the world
of rent control regulations. Even Ellis is under attack.
Go
to Page 2
|
