CORRESPONDENCE - 60A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

As a public interest law firm who has served the most vulnerable residents in Orange County for close to 40 years, we are seeing firsthand the devastating impacts of COVID-19. As housing lawyers, we have been working around the clock alongside community organizers and tenant leaders to provide direct services and advocacy support in the midst of this terrible confluence of a catastrophic public health disaster and a worsening crisis of housing instability and homelessness. The simple fact is that residents of City of Santa Ana are only safer at home if they can stay in their homes. Likewise, businesses are only able to thrive in the City of Santa Ana if they are not faced with rent increases while they figure out how to rebuild and recover from one of the most devastating economic downturns on record. We applaud the City Council for taking the action, and being the first City Council in the County, to freeze rents to help its neediest residents and businesses. Notwithstanding, our organizations continue to be inundated with calls from tenants in Santa Ana who are receiving eviction notices, being locked out of their homes, or threatened with violence, arrest, sheriff lockout, or in the case of our brethren who are undocumented, threats of reporting them to ICE for removal, being intimidated or harassed, coerced or forced to sign forms and produce documents with personal and private information, or those who remain generally confused about their rights under the patchwork of new laws. Tens of thousands more, who are unable to access legal services, are enduring the same conditions. Contrary to the position submitted by the representatives of the Apartment Association in its letter of April 23, we would submit that the Executive Order No. 2-2020 considered the impacts on housing providers. This is because Executive Order No. 2-2020 did not suspend the collection of any rent from the tenant. Instead, it temporarily froze the ability of the housing provider to increase the rent, so that tenants are not forced into the untenable position of choosing between life necessities, such as food and shelter, both of which are desperately important during this pandemic. Before the freeze, we received calls from tenants whose landlords unlawfully increased the rent in violation of existing state law, Civil Code sections 1946.2, and 827, respectively, and then threatened the tenants with eviction if they did not pay the rent increase. These attempts underscore the need for tenant protections as set forth by Executive Order No. 2- 2020. In its letter of April 23, the Apartment Association goes further and states that the rent freeze will impact their ability to maintain their properties. The City Council should understand that these items: maintenance/supplies, and security are things that the members of the Apartment Association are required to provide to their tenants under California lawn, regardless of whether there was a rent freeze in place. As such, this should not be a basis to terminate the rent freeze. Further, to help ameliorate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the housing industry, the City already prohibited foreclosures where a landowner is unable to pay his or her mortgage during the pandemic. The rent freeze was necessary because COVID-19 pandemic has put at risk ' See Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 CaUd 616 (du ty and coven& entire rental period); Civil Code § 1927 (providingty with implied covenant of quiet�e �obyment See also throughout the C it Code §1941.3 (CA landlords must properly secure all common areas of the rental property slid secure tenants' units with deadbolts and window locks); Civil Code §1714 (Landlords have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect tenants from the foreseeable criminal acts from another.) 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541-5157 lq,