CORRESPONDENCE - #9 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Honorable Mayor and City Council Persons City of Santa Ana Hearing: October 5, 2021; Item: Consent Calendar 9 October 1, 2021 Page 3 of 4 "affordable housing" AND (ii) to provide an income increase of $7,000.00 to low income households are clearly not proper Findings for the Ordinances and clearly constitute a taking. (See, Section E). The foregoing is particularly notable when the City has approximately $42,000,000 in unused rent subsidy funds which if dispersed would mitigate the nonpayment of rent for both the residents and provide housing preservation assurance for landlords and the City. 3. Except for the various levels of care facilities for the elderly or disabled, it is not the responsibility of landlords to provide or subsidize for this care. (Section I.K). Further, there are no facts which supports this statement applies to mobilehome park residents. 4. The statement in Findings, Section G. do not reflect the current law regarding the reporting of Unlawful Detainers on a renter's credit history and therefore, cannot be the basis for this Ordinance.2 5. There are no facts to support the Finding that mobilehome parks have, or plan to, imposed significant rent increases. (See, Section 1. J.) The Finding is mere conjecture. 6. The Mobilehome Residency Law ("MRL") does not expressly authorize cities to regulate the setting and/or increasing rents. The ability to for a local jurisdiction to pass a rent control was, and is, a judicial determination based on an analysis statutory preemption. Those judicial determinations set forth very specific requirements and limitations for the constitutionality, among other laws, with which the local jurisdictions must comply. This Ordinance does not comply with those requirements and limitations. As a result of the judicial determination, the'MRL was amended to recognize in the section related to leases the existence of rent control and created an exemption from rent control for long term leases. (See, Section LM.)3 7. Section I.N. appears to be "filler". Most of the Parks were constructed prior to the enactment of this City Code and without regard to development date are subject to the Mobilehome Park Act, Health and Safety Code sections 18200 et. seq. and 25 CCR 1000 et seq. This "Finding" is not relevant to rent control. There were no facts delineating the number of mobilehome parks that would be included or excluded in the rent control provisions. 8. Section I.Q. ignores the State Statutes which continue to protect residents after October 1, 2021, from eviction due to nonpayment of rent and therefore, misstates the basis for this Finding. JUST CAUSE EVICTION PROPOSED ORDINANCE 1. For those Findings forming the purported basis this Ordinance that are duplicative of the defective Findings in the Rent Stabilization Ordinance, the objections to the Findings in the Rent Stabilization Ordinance are hereby incorporated as though fully set forth. 2 Correct to reflect current law or delete Finding. 3 CC §798.17 and Legislative History and case law cite Kingsley —426 Santa Am Ordinances