SANTA
MONICA LOSES GRANNY FLATS APPEAL
I'm
back. I'll bet you didn't even miss me and didn't realize that
I was 12,000 miles away visiting the "Dark Continent,"
AFRICA. I'll write about my adventures in future columns. Back
to reality. A few months ago we reported that the 1996 Granny
Flats law passed by the City Council was shot down by the appeals
court. This law limits those living in a "second unit"
on the property to family members or caregivers only. The court
said, "Oh No." The government can regulate the types
of buildings and structures on the property. But IT CAN NOT
regulate the type of people who live there.
"The rights of citizens to choose who they live with has
been affirmed and the government has no role deciding who lives
where," said James Isaacs, attorney representing the plaintiffs.
Well, what does our City Council do whenever it loses a court
case? They are so predictable. Just like a broken record-they
do the same thing over and over again. Sometimes they get results.
This time they got their "just desserts." In 1996,
they were told that this law was illegal on its face. They passed
it anyway!
The City of Santa Monica has lots of money. I guess the City
fathers feel they can spend it as if it belonged to each and
every one of the council members.
First, they
appeal to the State's highest court. The State Supreme Court
refused to even look at this case. They were just turned down
flat without even an opportunity to argue the case.
Second,
they file a request to have the case "depublished or decertified."
This means that it will not be used as precedent in future cases.
The City was denied.
I believe the damages the City will pay will be substantial.
I am going to research how many lawsuits Santa Monica has had
filed against the city since SMRR took control at City Hall.
Then I want to compare the total volume of these cases with
other Southland cities of comparable size. I'm sure it would
be interesting to note, for instance, if Torrance has been sued
as many times as Santa Monica during these past 22 years. And
how much has Santa Monica paid out in legal fees compared with
other cities of similar size during the past 22 years? This
is all due to the SMRR policy of "We are going to do what
we want to do-- and if you don't like it-- sue us." Well
they got sued and it will cost the City a lot of money.
It is really too bad that the members of the City Council can
not be held personally liable for paying off some of these suits.
Maybe we would get a more reasonable City government. The current
bunch obviously doesn't mind paying out of the City Coffers.
It's not coming from their own pocket.
HAVE YOU PAID YOUR REGISTRATION FEES?
I sure hope so, because if you have not paid those registration
fees by August 1, 2001, you will not be able to get your annual
rent increase by September 1, 2001.
I am certain that the members of the Rent Board had a tough
time approving this year's general adjustment.
The board approved 4.2% with a maximum of $40. Bruria Finkel
practically choked on the amount. She wanted $25 maximum, and
less if she could get away with it.
Even though the facts and figures were right in front of them,
I am sure they would have done us in if they could have thought
of a way out. For Bruria Finkel, of course, facts and figures
don't mean much. Her philosophy being the same as SMRR—
if you don't like our decisions, sue us!"
INTEREST ON SECURITY
DEPOSITS
Owners are required to pay renters 3% interest on their Security
Deposits once a year. If your tenant has been residing in his
unit since September 1, 2000 you owe the tenant interest.
Last year it was a math test. We had to give 9-months interest.
This year, if the tenant is entitled to a full year's interest,
you multiply the deposit by 3%. It is still a lot of work.
Our lawsuit against this foolishness is still working. We are
fighting this unnecessary madness, and maybe we will win if
we stick with it. I assure you we will continue the fight.
If the tenant moved in after September 2, 2000 you owe no interest
at this time.
The check is due to the tenant no later than October 1, 2001.
Don't take it off the rent. Do get your tenant's Social Security
Number and give him a 1099 INT at the end of the year. ACTION
can provide you with 1099 forms at the end of the year if you
need it.
The tricky part comes when the tenant has resided in the unit
between September 1999 and August 2000.
The interest owed can then be for 13 months or as much as 23
months. There is a chart you can use that is provided by the
Rent Board.
ACTION CAN HELP YOU WITH THE FORMS. ACTION CAN HELP YOU WITH
THE MATH.
RESIDENTS
PROTEST COMMUNITY CORP PROJECT
Main and
Pacific used to be the site of the Boulangerie Restaurant. It
has been closed for many years. Now comes Community Corp and
they want to put up units on that site.
If you or I wanted to build units on the site we would be allowed
26 units. Community Corp gets to construct 47 units. This is
a 75% bonus because they are putting up "affordable housing."
Some people project that there could be as many as 200 people
living there. They don't have to have an environmental impact
survey. That is State law.
The impact on the community doesn't seem to be of much importance.
After all, Community Corp operates 1100 other units. We all
know how successful they are. It becomes an absolute "blight"
on the community. This will be one of the larger Community Corp
projects.
There will be 5 buildings: 4 1-bedrooms; 16 2-bedrooms; 22 3-bedrooms;
and 3 4-bedrooms units.
If you ask me, I think 200 occupants is probably a very conservative
number.
I'm glad I do not own property in that area.
Thanks for reading.
