Correspondence - Non-Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

June 5, 2023 Subject: Rent Stabilization Ordnance, Fee and Board Attention: Mayor of Santa Ana and Santa Ana City Council et al I am writing this letter in protest to the impending rental registration fee, rental board and the Rent Stabilization Ordnance in general. First, I would like to point out this Councils claimed commitment to transparency. I find that claim subjugated by several factors in relation to this Ordnance: 1. To claim the registration is a fee is disingenuous. It is a tax on landlords and tenants and should be called such. 2. To call this Ordnance Rent Stabilization is disingenuous; it is rent control. The Council, in my opinion, is playing semantics to make this Ordnance more palatable. 3. It is also, to be polite, disingenuous to claim the program will be “self-funding”. This claim cannot be substantiated. It is wholly unlikely that this scheme will be self-funding from the onset and most certainly will not be in the future. To claim the program will not incur higher costs as time passes, due to increased consultant cost and wages and benefits, is at best misleading and at worst dishonest. These costs will either be passed on as a higher fee, tax, to the landlord and ultimately the tenants or be funded by General Fund monies. This is tantamount to a tax on the citizenry as a whole. 4. To dovetail with 2 above, I challenge any member of the Council to find a government program that is wholly self-funding and that has not had a “fee” increase over time or other revenue source. 5. As I understand the City is already facing a law suit over this Ordnance. That alone makes the self- funding claim false as the City will spend monies defending this Ordnance, which the citizenry will pay to defend with tax dollars. 6. Again, this Ordnance is already in the red given the money spent on consultants to formulate a fee, tax, schedule. This to has been done at tax payer expense. 7. This Ordnance relies on 100% participation of landlords to finance. This again, is disingenuous and unrealistic. If 100% participation is achieved it will only be through draconian measures and most likely more Ordnances or decrees. We have an idea of what those measures will be; can’t advertise for rent, can’t evict, can’t increase rent, can’t petition for improvements. Now I would like to address issues of redundancy: 1. As the Council is fully aware the State has a rent control, rent stabilization if you please, laws in place. Creating a new Ordnance at the City level is, in my opinion, a waste of resources and motivated more by political than practical reasons. 2. There are State resources to deal with landlord/tenant issues in place and have been for years. To claim these State resources are ineffectual and cumbersome begs the question why the City resources would be more effective or streamlined. If the contention is the State government is not effective then it is wise to question how City governance, as a government entity, will be any more efficient or cost effective. 3. Adding this Ordnance, tax and review board can not be proven to alleviate landlord/tenant disputes or create a better environment for tenants more than existing law. Adding laws, ordinances, covenants or measures to existing laws, ordinances, covenants or measures is as redundant as this sentence.