THERE THEY GO AGAIN!Last month
we reported to you about the phony complaints being lodged by
SMRR and its groupies.
They put on two performances: one for the Rent Board, and about
a week later, they repeated the show for the City Council.
This month we must report to you that on the 22nd anniversary
of Rent Control in Santa Monica, the City Council gleefully tried
to screw the landlords of this city one more time. They have BOLSTERED
(they think) the 5-year old tenant harassment law by tightening
up its legal provisions.
As we all know, the SMRR forces had no special cause at the moment,
so in order to stay in the spotlight, they dreamt up a reason
for their very existence- strengthen landlord harassment!
Michael Tarbet brought up 19 separate issues he wanted the City
Council to pass. The City Attorney, Marsha Moutrie, kept saying
that they “would not fly”, legally speaking.
The three most ridiculous provisions SMRR wanted were:
 Make it a
felony to open someone else’s mail (apparently they are unaware
that this is already against the law)
You shouldn’t
be allowed to evict a tenant within 60 days after the tenant files
a complaint against you. (That means that the tenant can file
a complaint against you and not pay his rent. You still can’t
evict for any legitimate reason!
Any guest
a tenant may have can stay 20 days out of the month. (What would
prevent this guest from staying in your unit all week long and
then leaving during the weekend? This could be done in perpetuity
and you would not be able to do anything about it! Sounds great!)
Frankly, I believe that the only reason the Council did not vote
for these provisions is because Marsha Moutrie said they couldn’t
get away with it. These radicals don’t really care if they
break the law or not. They are famous for saying over and over
“If you don’t like our law, sue us!”
What was
done: They voted unanimously (thank you moderate City Council
members Holbrook and Katz. With friends like you… complete
the thought yourself) to double the fines for violating the ordinance
from $500 to $1,000. Also, they are going to hire another “investigator”
(spy) who will be paid about $47,000 a year to go around snooping
on landlords. Don’t you think he will have to justify his
salary? Keep your eyes open for some jerk knocking on your tenants’
doors to see if he can generate some more tenant harassment cases.
Michael Tarbet was upset that the City Council did not incorporate
his 19 demands. At the end of the Council meeting he went around
waving his fist in the air saying to council members they will
be voted out of office at the next election. My only observation
is: From his mouth to God’s ear.
SMRR leaders
also celebrated the meeting and tenant advocates as the 22nd anniversary
of rent control by blowing out candles on cupcakes. According
to the Lookout, Mayor Feinstein blew out the candles, as he said
“The flame of rent control will remain forever - the Flame
is eternal.”
Mr. Mayor,
I can only say the feeling is mutual. All owners feel that liberty
and freedom is eternal and you and your fellow council members
are merely a speck of dust in the history of Santa Monica.
CENSUS 2000
On March 30, 2001, the Los Angeles Times came out with
its interpretation of the 2000 census.
The State of California has 33.9 million people living in its
163,707 square miles. Los Angeles County grew at the pace of 7.4%
during the decade of the nineties. This brought the population
of the county to 9.5 million people.
The local
cities around us all grew. Beverly Hills grew 5.7%; Carson grew
6.8%; El Segundo, a beach city without a beach, grew 5.3%; Hermosa
Beach grew 2%; Manhattan Beach grew 5.6%; Redondo Beach grew 5.1%;
and finally Torrance gained a total of 3.6% during the past decade.
IN OUR 8.3 SQUARE MILES, SANTA MONICA LOST 3.2% OF ITS POPULATION
OVER THE LAST DECADE- EVEN COUNTING THE HOMELESS.
Why? Why? Why? Because Santa Monica doesn’t allow you to
build new housing.
Does this put a burden on our neighboring cities? Are other Southern
California cities getting a fair shake from Santa Monica’s
policies? The state mandates a housing policy. Does Santa Monica
comply?
It is conceivable that the State of California population may
reach 50 million later in this century. This is because there
always have been and always will be more people coming into California
than the Californians living here believe can be accommodated,
according to Peter King, columnist for the Times.
We simply have to live with it, except in Santa Monica where they
will make sure we keep losing permanent population year after
year, while the homelessness increases. This is our City’s
Policy.
COUNCIL FEARS SANTA
MONICA COULD BECOME A TRANSIENT COMMUNITY
What are you talking about, the homeless? Of course not, stupid.
The Council is alarmed that there is too much short-term rental
housing in town. The City fathers want to explore ways to halt
a trend that council members fear could turn Santa Monica into
a “transient” community.
Can you believe
that there are landlords who would rent units in existing buildings
by the day or week?
The result of this short-term housing, council members fear, is
a revolving door of renters who are here today and gone tomorrow
with no stake in their community, who don’t vote, send their
kids to local schools or worship in Santa Monica, according to
the LOOKOUT.
Pardon me while I wretch! Have we not witnessed this phenomenon
for years in this city?
In other words, if it is good for the Council members, that is
OK. How many homeless have a stake in our community? How many
send their kids to local schools? How many homeless have just
squatted on your property and refuse to leave? But this is not
a serious problem?
In other words, if it is good for a landlord, call the police
and pass new laws. Just prevent it from happening!
“The people who live here for the long term have a relationship
with our city,” said Councilman McKeown.
“This could have a tremendous impact on our neighborhoods
and sense of community.” I have news for you Councilman,
it already has!
It will be
interesting to see what the City can do about this “problem.”
Thanks for reading. 
|
