<<< Go Back

Herb's Balterdash, March 2002
By Herb Balter



ACTION PLANS TO FILE MORE LAW SUITS

As you can see by WAM’s cover last month, ACTION is darn proud of our win at the appeals Court level regarding the mandatory 3% interest SM landlords have been required to pay annually to tenants on security deposits held by owners.

ACTION is getting calls from all over the state regarding our win. A city does not have to have rent control to be able to require landlords to pay interest. However, as the Appeals Court said, “A little taking is still a taking.”

As you can see by this month’s cover, now we have filed another lawsuit. This time we have filed suit against the State of California because a new law that is in full force and effect as of January 1, 2002 requires that owners in Santa Monica, Los Angeles, and West Hollywood give 60-day notice to tenants to terminate a tenancy. The rest of the state of California is only required to give the traditional 30-day notice when ending a tenancy.

Why was this law passed? Why are Santa Monica, West Hollywood, and Los Angeles any different than any other cities in California? Because this is Senator Sheila Kuehl country. Sheila knows Governor “Doofus” better than we do!! Sheila would rather help renters and screw owners!! That is her goal!!

ACTION feels that if an owner gives less than 60-day written notice, the notice could be improper and a tenant may use that failure as a defense against a UD action.

ACTION feels this statute is unconstitutional in that our three cities are not the subject of a classification apart from other housing providers in other cities that may be treated by a special statute. There are no facts or evidence that distinguish landlords in the cities of Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood from cities that are similarly situated.

ACTION feels that it is a violation of the California Equal Protection Clause against property owners who own rental units in the cities of Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood in that there is no rational basis upon which to distinguish residential property owners in those cities affected by the ordinance from other cities throughout the state.

ACTION feels this law was introduced by State Senator Sheila Kuehl as political payback to her constituents in these three cities, which are located in her Senate District. It was done without regard for and in direct violation of the rights of housing providers in the three affected cities.

This lawsuit has been filed. We will keep you informed. Rosario Perry is doing his normal great job.

Other lawsuits ACTION is suggesting:

1) Santa Monica law prohibits multiple owners and non-family members from living in Ellised properties, which denies them equal protection under the law.
2) The Santa Monica tenant harassment law is overbroad and chills exercise of first amendment rights by attempting to restrict the filing of UD complaints and/or the service of 3-day notices to cure or quit.
3) The Rent Control Board violates Ellis property owners’ privacy by both looking at water bills without warrant, and sending their inspectors onto the Ellised properties without a warrant. This is a violation of the 4th amendment.
4) The city of Santa Monica charges $1,000 as an occupancy fee to anyone who wants to live on his or her own property after Ellising. It is not a business fee, so it must be Violation of Proposition 218.
5) The City of Santa Monica Rent Board does not allow more than one owner to occupy a unit—This is in direct violation of the decision up north, Cwyner v San Francisco.


DON’T GET CAUGHT WITH OLD FORMS

New disclosure requirements for the rental housing industry took effect in January 2002.

1) You must give the tenants your phone number.
2) You must notify the tenant in writing how he/she may pay the rent.
3) You must provide a copy of the rental agreement when the tenant moves in.
4) You must provide a copy of the rental agreement each year if the tenant asks for it.
5) If you give a tenant a 3-day notice—the notice must contain your name, address, and phone number and it must inform the tenant where they can make the rental payment—or your notice will be invalid.
6) Make sure you use the NEW rental agreement forms for use in Santa Monica.

YOU NEED NEW FORMS— ACTION HAS IT ALL FOR YOU!



SANTA MONICA DOES NOT WANT DEVELOPMENT

It comes as no surprise to anyone that if you try to build in Santa Monica, you are looking for a lengthy, hard fought and expensive battle. I thought that we were close to getting a permit for the project we would like to build in Santa Monica. We have been trying to get a permit since August
2000. It still doesn’t look very promising at present.

1) We knew about the “in lieu” fees. That will cost between $30,000-$40,000.
2) Now we are told that if we want to tear down the
old property, we have to pay another rip-off fee.
We have to let the city know how much of the tear
down will be “recycled.” In other words, we have to put up a bond for $15,000 and if we use a bulldozer, we will probably lose this bond. We have a bid for $8,000 to demolish. If we do it the “recycled” way, it will probably cost $28,000 to demolish. Just another way that Santa Monica has figured out how to extort money from owners and builders.
3) The City wants us to make the property handicapped accessible. This means a ramp to the front door, wider doorways, and lower kitchen cabinets. We will have to eliminate the island in the kitchen. This job is approaching $1,000,000 in today’s prices. This handicap rule will add around $50,000 to construction costs and I just don’t remember when we have had visitors come over in a wheel chair. We probably will have to eliminate a room on the first floor in order to accommodate these requirements.
4) The City in its “wisdom” wants to “Heal the Bay.” In other words they don’t want any rainwater to run off the property in a storm and have it go in the ocean. As a consequence, the property owner is supposed to dig a hole in the ground, fill it with pebbles and rocks, and not let the water leave the property. The only problem with this concept is that you eventually will be sending water into the ground and undermining the house because you are saturating the ground with water. What are the chances of getting mold in the house by this method? Pretty good I would say. These are brilliant people! There you are—heal the bay and undermine a home. This is typical Santa Monica thinking.

That’s how it goes in today’s progressive Santa Monica. This is the city that just entered into an agreement with the State of California saying that they will not interfere with con-struction and will speed up the process. They lie to your face and then just go about their business as if nothing has transpired. Nobody has asked me about this process! I’m still waiting to put in my 2 cents’ worth.

Thanks for reading.