WAM- Herb's Balterdash, May 2001

Herb'sBalterdash, May 2001
by Herb Balter

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 3 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.