Correspondence - #33 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Orozco, Norma From: Nathaniel Greensides <mynci90@gmaii.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 4:06 PM To: eComment Subject: Agenda Item 33 I am Nathaniel Greensides, Ward 5 resident. I am in favor of the item Below are some counter points to the opposition: -"At NO Point did the city reach out to SEEK OUR INPUT or MAKE US AWARE that such a proposal was being actively developed" The city has properly notified the public of the housing ad hoc's existence. At a recent city council meeting where the housing ad hoc presented their recommendations regarding the housing opportunity ordinance, the staff report indicated that the housing ad -hoc committee would be pursuing tenant protections and rent stabilization. Additionally, the agendized item arose from the input of community based organizations and residents who drafted and presented their desired ordinance to the city council. The agendized item is not the drafted ordinance in its entirety as presented by Tenants United Santa Ana —the coalition of local organizations and residents. The coalition has held many a workshop and outreach to residents since 2017. The opposition has regularly failed to participate or propose their own solution to the issue of increased unaffordability of rent in our city. - "[The proposal] Oversteps existing state laws and imposes onerous restrictions that affect the ability to provide safe, quality housing to our tenants" Existing state law empowers local jurisdictions to enact local measures which are stronger than protections at the state level so as to respond to the needs of the residents of any local jurisdiction. I applaud that this exists personally, because the housing challenges of Santa Ana residents are very different than the needs of residents in other cities throughout the state. Additionally, the proposed restrictions do not inhibit a landlord from using their own accumulated profit to make any necessary repairs or changes to their properties to increase the quality and safety of their properties. Yet, I think the opposition is of the mindset that any profit gained in their rental enterprise shouldn't be utilized to better their products or services opting instead to keep the quality of housing the same while simultaneously increasing the costs to their consumers (i.e. renters). -"Eliminates our ability and the ability of other responsible landlords to control and adjust for costs that impact our rental business operations" This argument asserts that any regulation of any type of business activity should not be pursued, yet I'd conjecture that many of us do in fact appreciate that there exists regulatory agencies that will shut down restaurants for failing to maintain basic health and safety codes. With the enactment of any local renter protections, fees paid to local enforcement agencies should be considered as a cost of doing business when entering the business of owning and operating rental units. Furthermore, the cap of 3 percent still allows landlords to control and adjust for costs that impact their rental businesses. Where there is a need for an increase above the three percent, landlords will have the right to petition for such to the local regulatory agency. As it exists currently, many residents have been evicted for "substantial repairs" and the landlord is not held accountable for such repairs if they even take place at all. Then once all tenants have left a building, the landlord paints the walls, and rents to new tenants at above market rates with no recourse for former tenants. The community is destabilized, and the rental market becomes even more unaffordable.