Laserfiche WebLink
MHeT <br />MIMU M.�med13nu5ingN�ucaYt�ti�l <br />a <br />ORANGE COUNTY <br />BUSINESS COUNCIL <br />April 23, 2020 <br />The Honorable Miguel Pulido <br />City of Santa Ana <br />20 Civic Center Plaza <br />Santa Ana, CA 92701 <br />Western <br />Manufactured Housing Communities <br />CM <br />BIH <br />RE: OPPOSITION TO RENT CONTROL EXECUTIVE ORDER <br />Mayor Pulido and Members of City Council: <br />On behalf of a coalition of business and property rights organizations, we request revisions to sections of <br />City of Santa Ana Executive Order No. 2-2020 that affects rental housing providers. We recognize that <br />the City is taking swift and bold action to contain COVID-19, however we are deeply concerned that city <br />policy is being crafted hastily and without any regard to the consequences it has on taxpaying property <br />owners. Throughout the COVID-19 crisis, our members worked to their best of ability to provide tenant <br />relief programs, direct residents to community resources, and make charitable monetary and in -kind <br />contributions to provide aid to those in need. The City's actions are well -intended, but far from perfect <br />having curtailed the rights of property owners and compromising the public process. <br />City Executive Order No. 2-2020 prohibits residential landlords from increasing rent for all tenants for <br />the duration of the Governor's Executive Order N-28-20, which is effectively rent control. We firmly <br />believe that rent control is not the appropriate solution during the pandemic. In addition to ongoing <br />expenses like mortgage payments, housing providers need the flexibility to have tenants who can pay <br />their rent in order to subsidize tenants who are unable to pay rent. A consequence of the rent control, an <br />entire rental community is in jeopardy of becoming insolvent and eventually foreclosed on. <br />There are several issues at hand such as the (1) cascading effect government regulation has on taxpaying <br />property owners, (2) the City's nonconformance with state law, and (3) lack of consistency with the <br />City's Charter. To be clear, we are challenging the cty's rent freeze and not the eviction moratorium. We <br />60A-4 <br />