CORRESPONDENCE - 85B - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Flores, Dora From:Houston, Nicole Sent:Tuesday, August 18, 2020 4:07 PM To:eComment Subject:FW: Item 85B : Illegal Extension of Rent Control Petition From: Julie Paule \[mailto:julie@pauleconsulting.com\] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:27 AM To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org> Subject: Item 85B : Illegal Extension of Rent Control Petition Mayor Pulido On behalf of Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association and the 29 mobile home park owners in Santa Ana, we are opposed to the effort to illegally extend the petition circulation period for the rent control initiative. The extension request isn’t needed. The petitioners have missed the deadline for the November 2020 election. Even if an extension is granted, the initiative would be placed on the March or November 2022 ballot. The petitioners have plenty of time to legally qualify for the 2022 election without the interference of an impartial city or the courts. They also have other remedies, such as petitioning the courts themselves, instead of insisting the city act on their behalf and thus transferring the legal liabilities on to all Santa Ana Taxpayers. There is no urgency for the city to act. Due to the eviction moratorium, no Santa Ana resident has been evicted for nearly six months. In addition to the moratoriums, AB 1482, statewide rent control for most apartments in California, was signed into law last year. This law limits rent increases to CPI plus 5%. Currently, no one is being issued staggering increases and or being evicted from their apartments in California, much less Santa Ana. Enacting an extension is legally uncertain. The unopposed case sited by Council Member Sarmiento is subjective at best. The Court extended the petitioners a longer time frame but only until the end of September. In Santa Ana the petitioners are asking for an extension until January 11, 2021 (133 days from the next Santa Ana City Council Meeting, September 1, 2020). Election codes have certainties for good reason—to give both sides of an election fair boundaries and requirements. They are communicated well in advance to promote unbiased fairness. To subjectively change established rules is inherently unfair and biased. It is worth noting that two different groups in Santa Ana recently were able to meet the high standards for citizen input on their issues with a recall election and referendum on a development matter. Those groups were able to comply without the help of the city putting their finger on the scale to help their cause. This request is unjust and places the city in legal peril. The petitioners aren’t without other options. They should exhaust those before asking the city council to champion their unpopular cause. 2