<<< Go Back


TOP TEN RENT BOARD TURKEY STORIES
By James L. Jacobson

After I completed Rent Board Story, Part 100, ACTION called and asked if I could put together some of the best horror stories to celebrate Halloween. However, by the time WAM gets to you, it will be closer to Thanksgiving, so here are the top ten Rent Board Turkey Stories.

"The Little Landlady and the Poor Cardiologist" (Part 1)
This was the first Story I wrote and the one that made it clear to me how outrageous and insane Santa Monica Rent Control is. In that case, Landlady Lucille rented an apartment with furnishings without a separate written agreement to a poor cardiologist for $400 per month. The Rent Board reduced her rent to the base rent of $180.00 per month and imposed treble damages for a total award of $11,649.55 which allowed him to live rent free for more than five years. That was the case where the "Chairperson" of the Rent Board observed that a rent reduction to $180 per month was fair because "doctors are not necessarily rich." (Rent Board Commissars were so much smarter in those days.)

"Ten Dumb Decrease Decisions" (Part 10)
This Story is about ten of the dumbest decrease decisions issued up to that point in time (July 1994). Rent decreases were awarded for such things as, (1) refusing to permit a tenant to park on the sidewalk and block the owners garage door with his car, (2) failing to keep an outdoor swimming pool between seventy-seven and eighty-two degrees every day of the year, (3) cutting down a eugenia bush located by the gas meters at the rear of an apartment building, and (4) "insufficient water supply" because after the owner put a new dishwasher in the rental unit, the tenants complained that they couldn't take a hot shower while the dishwasher was running. Rent decrease petitions are much worse now.

"Landlady Jeannie and the House That Wasn't There"
(Part 5)
This story is an example of how difficult it is to get a removal permit and be free of rent controls. In this case, Landlady Jeanne and her husband Harold were the owners of four houses, when the house they occupied burned down and they barely escaped with their lives. Their dog was not so fortunate. They hired me to get them a removal permit for the house that burned down, but the Board hired a "construction expert" who estimated that it would cost $31,000 to build a new house to replace the one that burned down. After hearing testimony from that stooge, the Board denied the removal permit.

"The Beige Berber Carpet Case" (Part 22)
In this case, an apartment owner replaced carpet with beige Berber carpet although the tenant demanded gray plush carpet. The case before went one of the Board's most idiotic hearing examiners, who awarded a rent decrease. The owner filed a Superior Court case over the issue and the judge reversed this outrageous decision and awarded $2,250 in attorney's fees because the Board rendered such an arbitrary and capricious decision. (Note: The attorney's fees cost more than the carpet.)

"The Adventures of Dr. Devenis" (Parts 80 and 82)
Dr. Devenis had an earthquake-damaged building that was sinking into its underground parking garage. He spent $375,000 fixing it as quickly as possible, yet the Rent Board awarded tenants damages in six rent decrease cases to compensate them for their inconvenience. The moronic hearing examiner who issued this decision awarded rent decreases for such things as, (1) "loss of storage" in the garage because the storage cabinets had to be moved to reinforce the walls, (2) "inadequate construction management" because there was debris in the parking area during the rehabilitation of the building, and (3) "loss of security" because the digging of trenches in the underground parking area caused the security gate sensors to be repeatedly taken out of service. Unfortunately, Dr. DV never appealed that decision.

"Secret Files and Hidden Penalties" (Part 47)
This Story explains the Board's unlawful extension of the Rent Control Law's 120-day time limitation by setting up secret files and "pre-filing" case numbers to that the Board's agents can take as much time as they want to gather evidence in excess rent cases against apartment owners. That way, Rent Board employees can work behind the scenes to "assist" the tenants before the case has an official case number and the 120-day time limitations at Section 1805 (b)(1) begin to run. As explained in Rent Board Story Part 97, this tactic was repeatedly used against Village Trailer Park to "consolidate" excess rent complaints by the dozens in order to invalidate leases which are supposed to be exempt from rent Control under the state Mobile home Residency Law. This saga continues.

"A History of the Mighty Yurko" (Part 45)
This is one of three Stories about the Board's Administrator, Mary Ann Yurkonis, who created new penalties for apartment owners by doing such things as, (1) filing rent decrease petitions on behalf of tenants, (2) setting up secret files and "pre-filing" numbers for excess rent complaints and (3) revoking vacancy decontrol rent increases without any notice or a hearing. Commissars may come and go, but Yurko is forever.

"Adventures of the Apartment Owner Known as Audacious Adam" (Part 36)
The first of three Stories about this Santa Monica legend concerned Adam's "do-it yourself" rent increase petition which missed a rent increase by more than $34,000. Although that is not an unusual result, the tenants were represented by the Rent Board's favorite attorney, (whom I refer to as "Sonya Monica") so the Rent Board decided to add insult to injury by awarding the tenants "Professional Fees" of $2,445.00 to compensate the tenants for her services defending them in the rent increase case. Fortunately, Adam hired the famous landlord attorney, Harold E. Griffin, who appealed that determination to court, but the Rent Board scattered like roaches before a light and agreed to remove the award rather than face the ire of Mr.Griffin at trial.

"No More EQ Pass-Throughs for You" (Part 87)
This is the Story about how the Rent Board acted like a reasonable government agency instead of a radical tenant organization after the January 1997 "Northridge" earthquake rumbled through Santa Monica and destroyed hundreds of rental units. For a short time immediately following the earthquake, the Rent Board adopted Regulations to permit "short form" rent increase petitions called "Q-Petitions." These "Q-Petitions" permitted property owners to seek rent increases to repair earthquake damage to comply with retrofitting requirements for "soft story" buildings which the City adopted within a few months following the earthquake. The Regulations also permitted consideration of financing costs and interest payments incurred to make the capital improvements. Unfortunately, this era of good feelings and reasonable government came to an end on June 30, 1995, which was approximately a year and one-half after the earthquake. Although the City Council has twice adopted more stringent and expensive earthquake retrofitting requirements since then, the Rent Board has gone back to its old ways and will not allow a short-form rent increase petition and refuses to allow any financing expenses in its rent increase petition process.
.
"Institutional Misrepresentation and Fraud" (Part 91)
This is an excellent example of the extortion demands the Board perpetrates on owners by sending threatening letters that make outrageous demands. In this case, the victims were owners the owners of a three-unit property which they lived on continuously since they purchased it in May 1989 and then received a waiver of Rent Control Registration fees in June 1992. However, in May 1998, the Board sent them a letter demanding registration fees and penalties of $25,785.06 and when the owners did not pay the amount, the Board then demanded balance due of $28,163.68, but offered to settle the case for $816 as payment in full. I advised the owners to tell the Rent Board to take a leap off the Santa Monica Pier because they owed nothing, and to call me if the Board ever took legal action to recover any part of this ridiculous claim. That was the last I heard of that matter, so I don't know if the owner did not take my advice or the Board did not take his advice.