Correspondence - #21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

records, and other highly personal information such as trust documents. This certainly seems like the city is presuming I am guilty (i.e. I have a rental b/c I am on Mills Act without a homeowner's exemption) and asking me to prove my innocence by submitting private information. Note that the letter further indicates that even if "your rental unit is exempt" (again, has it been established that I have a rental unit??), I must claim an exemption. Further, until and unless I claim an exemption, the city will presume that I have a rental subject to the provisions of the Ordinance and will, and this is the really damaging part, "commence enforcement action accordingly." There are so many presumptions in that paragraph and leaps to get there, that this language is so very highly concerning. The city will presume that I have a rental and commence enforcement actions ... wowza. Note that it does not say anything about how a SFR is exempt from the Ordinance. So, my first question is: Are all SFR's exempt from registration because they are exempt from the rent cap regardless of whether they are owner occupied, vacant, a second home, vacation home, or even a rental? Assuming that is yes, like your infographic says, all SFRs are exempt from registering then why do we need to do anything here? We all know that words "matter"...as I have written the above I am now questioning whether the SFR exemption in the city's infographic and in other areas including Costa -Hawkins applies only to the "rent stabilization" portion of the Ordinance and not the eviction rights portion. Can you please clarify? Are SFR that are rented required to register even though they are presumably not subject to the rent stabilization provisions? I believe that some major correction action is needed by the City ASAP. These letters never should have been sent out in this manner IMO but the real question is how does the city respond to this. Errors happen... correcting them is the real measure. The city should at a minimum auto exempt all SFRs from registration and instead inform folks of potential registration IF it is required (I need your help- is registration required here). Again, remember ... the city's letter gives me 2 courses of action... register to be part of the rent registry or register and file an exemption after uploading highly personal documents. I would suggest that the city issue clarifying language on all social media sites, nixie, on line, do an auto response to the RSO email, auto prompt on the RSO phone and if needed send out corrective mailings. Further, the city has expended significant financial resources on the color printed pages and the mailing itself, so I am concerned about expending more resources but the city needs to get this corrected. I know this is a little scattered but hopefully the above highlights an issue that many of us are facing right now. How can we proceed on clarifying and correcting this? Rosenberger CMi}n!d RuNc A2ica )th,)L% Proudly part of the Wgiobal family 91©® Tim Johnson, CPA Partner 45 (949) 860-9892 tjohnson@jlkrllp.com 2601 Main Street, Suite 580, Irvine, CA 92614 See our latest business news and insights by clicking here