Correspondence - #33 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-"undermines the very nature of the existing housing law as it pertains to the rental industry" This is a very strong statement with zero substance: what exactly is the very nature to which the opposition refers? What existing housing law as it pertains to the rental industry is even being referenced here? If I were to give this argument the benefit of the doubt, it would seem to refer to AB1482, which as has been argued by many others, does not address the needs of Santa Ana residents and is NOT permanent. -"We ask that the city take no further action on this matter until such time as the city can engage in additional study and engage in discussions with rental housing providers in the city" To start, The proposed ordinance seeks to ensure strong local tenant protections. It would seem to me that the input of residential tenants in the city have been taken into consideration. The additional studies will yield the same results. The ask which is being made here by the opposition fails to offer any real time lines for such additional studies and they've had since 2017 to offer their input — and actively did not. -"[the proposal] has dangerous loopholes that could increase crime, make it difficult for property owners to remove bad actors, and reduce the value of my home" Again, a strong statement lacking substance —where's the proof that rent stabilization and just cause has resulted in such? Rent stabilization and lust Cause ordinances actually help to reduce crime because tenants, with the ability of remain in their homes at an affordable increase every year, community ties result in lessened crime. In addition, the proposal actually does the opposite of the claim that it will "make it difficult for property owners to remove bad actors". The proposal explicitly outlines processes that must be followed in order to remove bad actors. The processes outlined in the proposal hold both landlord and tenant accountable so as to ensure stable communities. Lastly, in cities where rent control has existed, property values have increased in that time period and I fully suspect that the same will occur here in Santa Ana, in beautiful Orange County California —a place where the demand to live has never ceased to exist. -"There have been several stories of homeowners who have rented out a room and are victims of a tenant abusing the law for their own benefit" The proposal outlines the processes that will continue to allow for eviction due to non-payment of rent. So I am not really sure what the argument is here. A point to make in reference to the use of the word "homeowner" which seemingly alludes to mom-and-pop small landlords. The Rent Cap cannot extend to single family homes, condos, or multiunits built after Feb 1994 due to Costa Hawkins. If this is where the concern of the opposition is coming from, they can take solace in this fact I suppose... -"as a landlord limiting rent increases beyond the states current restrictions would be devastating. Our costs go up every year for services and maintenance and it would cause me to be unable to continue to maintain safe living conditions for my tenants" I understand this legitimate concern. Again, the proposal still allows for individual petition to increase rents above the max 3%for any cap subject units. However, not all units in the city will be subject to the rent cap due to Costa Hawkins state law. If a rent cap subject unit somehow can't provide basic health and safety living conditions for the tenants, that landlord likely made a bad business and financial decision neither the tenants nor the local economy should be responsible for this type of irresponsibility. -"[the proposal] will negatively impact renters, rental -housing providers, and the neighborhoods where they are located, in addition to harming property values, compromising public safety, and quality of life, and more" There's no proof that this will happen. Furthermore, the opposition does not make it clear how exactly the proposal will do these things. In cities where similar ordinances exists, none of this is true —quite the opposite actually. Property values in those cities overall has increased, public safety remains unaffected if not made better with stabilized communities able to form strong community ties, and quality of life for tenants who live in rent -cap subject units are able to afford to remain.