By our introduction to this New Year, there is joy and there is hope. We hope for a day when we do not have to carry the fight for our individual property owner rights to simply be restored because those individuals in City Hall insist upon discriminating against the minority. For instance, we now have a new City Council, where at least two members of City Council are not as dedicated to destroying property owners’ rights. Perhaps this changing of the guard will allow for a less hostile environment in Santa Monica. Also, recent court decisions restore property owners’ rights from various courts. ACTION has filed its federal court lawsuit with the hope of receiving another victorious court decision. This opportunity is bolstered by the 2004 court decisions and lawsuits filed by ACTION which received favorable decisions from the State Appellate Court. And, finally, hope is always present because we know what is right and we know that the American system, based upon the U.S. Constitution, protects individuals’ and property owners’ rights from desecration. “The king can do no wrong” is no longer a viable government theory, because courts have assessed attorney’s fees in many cases against government entities for the wrongdoings.

In addition to setting aside wrongful acts and awarding damages, many government officials throughout the world, when confronted with the potential liability by the court system for their actions, resigned. Jim Jacobson has recently written about one new case that I personally find to be shocking due to its lack of morality and consciousness. Specifically, the property owners rented an apartment approximately forty years ago to Mr. and Mrs. Grandparents. When the grandmother passed away approximately four years ago, the granddaughter moved in “to take care of the grandfather” (with her two children). The grandfather passed away on February 12, 2003. The granddaughter was promptly served with a notice to vacate, as she refused to move, and desired to continue paying the low, controlled rental amount. The trial judge sought to expand the wording of the Santa Monica Rent Regulation, which was designed to protect children, but not grandchildren. The Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s ruling, and ordered the tenant to vacate. After the trial court issued a court order that followed the Appellate Court decision, the tenant did vacate. The amount of rent due and owing due to this delaying tactic cost the landlord approximately $12,000 in rent, let alone the amount of rent that should have been charged in the open market for the controlled rental unit. It is not unusual for a tenant to want to stay in a rental unit rent-free. We’ve seen this numerous times, but the tenant in this case was represented by the Rent Control Board Commissioner, Jeffrey Sklar, who assisted the defendant as a private attorney.

Individual successes give us hope and joy, despite the economic loss. As they say, all things change, Arafat has passed on and now there is hope for peace in the Middle East, the new City Council is installed in Santa Monica, and there is hope for peace in Santa Monica despite the landlord/tenant rivalry that has been augmented by the SMRR Political Faction.

Please come to the meeting on January 10, 2005 to hear the current reports from various speakers, including Shawn Steel, a major “player” in the Republican Party who spoke out against Gray Davis and in favor of Arnold Schwarzenegger. This will be a meeting not to be missed as other speakers will also update us on events, the Lithuanian Credit Union and its ability to offer our members additional services, as well as the Life Insurance Senior Settlement Program. Please plan on attending our meeting with a friend and I look forward to seeing you again.