HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - Non-Agenda
Orozco, Norma
From:Allegra Ringo <allegraringo@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 16, 2021 12:39 PM
To:eComment
Cc:Hernandez, Johnathan; Sarmiento, Vicente
Subject:The Apartment Association and their misleading petition
Hello Councilmembers,
Is there anything that can be done about the Apartment Association constantly harassing people and misleading
them about their petition to overturn the rent control and just cause ordinances? I have been approached by
these people multiple times, both in person and via text, and each time they have said something extremely
misleading in efforts to get me to sign their petition, such as claiming that rent control was passed in a closed
session (it wasn't), and that their petition is in favor of rent control (it isn't).
Is this legal? Is there anything that can be done to stop them? They are purposely misleading residents about a
law, this feels extremely shady.
Thank you,
Allegra Ringo
Ward 5
1
Orozco, Norma
From:Sheldon Hanson <quaw22@hotmail.ca>
Sent:Friday, November 12, 2021 11:12 PM
To:eComment
Subject:Santa Ana: confront a climate change and public health issues
Dear Santa Ana City Council and Mayor Sarmiento,
Our community is being impacted on a daily basis by environmental hazards like lead and fossil fuels. We need to treat
this like the emergency it is and put in place protections for all Santa Ana residents. The resolution brought forward by
Councilmember Lopez is a good first step and roadmap for actions our community can take to resolve these pressing
issues.
Fossil fuels don't just exacerbate climate change, but also poison people. Study after study has shown that extracting,
transporting, refining, and burning fossil fuels harms environmental and human health – and new evidence shows that
toxic air pollution from fossil fuels also makes people more vulnerable to poor outcomes from COVID.
We must phase out fossil fuels from our daily lives – whether it’s gas stoves causing asthma, tailpipes blanketing our
streets with smog, or gas stations poisoning water supplies and spreading cancerous chemicals like benzene. It’s clear
we must start moving to clean energy systems – and soon. Our community should be running on clean, renewable
energy no later than 2030.
But it's not just fossil fuels that are harming our community. Many neighborhoods in Santa Ana suffer from
disproportionately high levels of lead in their soil, which can lead to serious developmental and health issues. The city
must do more and protect our residents.
Addressing these issues won't just improve our health, it will also improve our local economy. The Biden administration
is investing money in green infrastructure buildout, and we need to make sure we have shovel ready jobs prepared.
What's more, cleaning up environmental pollution and converting our energy systems are massive job opportunities that
could bring family-wage jobs to thousands of people in Santa Ana.
I’m writing to you today to ask you to please implement the contents of the climate and public health emergency
resolution that calls for an end to fossil fuel expansion, clean renewable energy choices that save money, actions that
will reduce lead and other environmental toxins in our neighborhoods, family-wage jobs, and an endorsement of the
Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty initiative. We can reduce pollution that is cooking the planet and poisoning our
communities while improving the quality of life for every Santa Ana resident.
Please please follow through with what this resolution promises and start taking local action by passing policies that
stop fossil fuel expansion, speed up the clean energy transition, reduce local pollution, and empower our local
community and economy.
Thank you,
Sheldon Hanson, V2M4C7
1
Orozco, Norma
From:Nathaniel Greensides <mynci90@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, November 11, 2021 3:07 PM
To:eComment; Ridge, Kristine
Subject:Fwd: Tenant Issues - 1013 S Standard Ave
This is a non-agenda item for the upcoming City Council meeting on November 16th. At the November 2nd
meeting, Councilmember Mendoza had asked for a presentation regarding the impacts of Rent Stabilization. I
wish to offer this communication we had before the November 2nd meeting.
Sincerely,
Nathaniel Greensides
Ward 5 resident
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Nathaniel Greensides <mynci90@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: Tenant Issues - 1013 S Standard Ave
To: Mendoza, Nelida <nmendoza@santa-ana.org>
Thank you for providing those clips to me. I have actually watched one of them in the past. I don't personally
have the capacity to translate the contents of the videos into Spanish. I would like to make some clarifications
and counter arguments to those posed in the videos you sent me. My points below are pretty long, so feel free to
read at your leisure. I am open to a meeting with you. It would be on a personal level and not on behalf of the
coalition.
Best regards,
Nathaniel
"the problem with rent control is that it ultimately manipulates supply and demand and ends up creating a self
destructing chain reaction in the rental market. Whenever the government caps rental prices, demand
skyrockets."
Supply and demand may be affected by any government policies. However, the demand will remain largely
unaffected - especially in highly desirable cities such as ours. With rent increases stabilized, a huge swath of
current residents will cease their search for a new place to live. Thus the local rental market may largely remain
unaffected. Currently, long term residents have to compete against non-Santa Ana residents just to ensure they
can remain a part of our City.
"Artificially low prices attract more renters so the newly rent controlled units get snatched up quickly." Newly
vacant units can be rented at market rates under California state law existing since 1995 called Costa Hawkins.
Any artificially low price is the choice of the individual landlord or property owner upon new vacancy.
Additionally, the two ordinances proposed here in our City allow for individual petitions should the stabilized
max of three percent be insufficient for maintenance and upgrades. Newly rent controlled units - again, upon
vacancy, the LL can rent at local market rates, not previous rate as paid by former tenants - will get "snatched
up" as quickly as non-rent controlled units in the city due to the sheer fact that the supply of housing in our
highly desirable City is so low.
"Where the problem begins is that by restricting rental prices, LLs inevitably decide it isn't financially feasible
to rent units under rent control." Neither the ordinances nor any rent control laws in the USA restrict rental
1
prices. They cap increases. In California, base rents can be brought to market rate upon vacancy for new
tenants. Again, the local ordinances do allow for increases above the max where LLs can provide proof that
funds are needed for upgrades or maintenance. Currently, LLs in Santa Ana claim such without any proof and
gouge tenants.
"because of this, many lls will convert their units into sellable condos and other lls will stop building new rental
properties." While it is a possibility that some LLs may convert their units to sellable condos, I dispute that the
actual costs of doing such - rezoning, applications, marketing and selling the newly created condos - may still
ultimately result in less returns than would be realized by increasing rents at a stabilized max year over year on
top of the ability to rent at market rates upon unit vacancy. Additionally, a flood of housing units for sale may
actually be a good thing where there aren't enough affordable units for sale to allow first time homebuyers or
middle income homebuyers to become new home owners.
"\[Condo-ization\] causes the rental supply to actually decline and apartments that are not rent controlled will
become even more expensive." This is simply conjecture without proof. But indeed at a theoretical level, condo-
ization may decrease the supply of rentable units in a city. It would increase the supply of sellable units which
isn't a bad thing necessarily. It would definitely be a bad thing for any tenants currently living in the units being
converted into condos as the new owners may try to evict them if the new owners do not desire to be LLs
themselves. This is where the two current ordinances fail to protect current tenants. However, the resolution that
was passed which aims to establish a local agency/department would be able to institute processes that would
need to be followed if condo-ization were to take place.
"basically the only people who benefit from rent control are the lucky few who get in early and stay in." This is
not a bad thing. For long term renters in our city who have made this city so desirable, this is actually the
desired effect. Additionally, again, in California, vacant units can be rented out at market rates, so the logic of
this statement is using an incorrect/outdated definition of rent control. It uses a definition wherein "vacancy
control" exists. In California, Costa Hawkins rendered "vacancy control" illegal. Thus, units can be rented out at
market rates, and increases thereafter are stabilized.
"and because LLs have no incentive to improve or even maintain rent controlled units, the lucky few may not be
lucky for very long" Without any rent control laws, LLs have no incentive to improve or maintain rented units.
So I dispute this claim. But if it were true, again, this claim operates under an incorrect definition of rent
control. Vacancy control cannot exist in California. And again, the ordinances explicitly outline that LLs can
petition for increases above the max provided they actually have proof of whatever improvements or
maintenance will take place. Many times, LLs claim that "substantial repairs" are necessary and don't even give
tenants the ability to pay higher rents, they just evict all the long term tenants, paint the walls, and rent at higher
rates to new people who aren't even from Santa Ana.
"at the end of the day, rent control is only a band aid that only addresses the symptoms of the problem and only
for a small number of people. But it fails to address the root of the high cost problem: a lack of supply; and only
makes the problem worse by increasing the demand" Indeed, rent control will not solve the issue of increasing
the supply of housing in our city. It will however ensure that those who have been here for decades can enjoy
the ability to remain and have local mechanisms and laws to seek recourse against bad landlords in our City.
Rent Stabilization and Just Cause protections do not inhibit new development. It will force those who maintain
rent controlled units and properties to actually innovate or consider using their profits towards increasing the
supply of housing. Currently though, there's no incentive or pushing factors towards holding housing providers
accountable to increasing the supply of housing. In other words, without rent stabilization, there's even less
incentive - uninhibited rent increases allow LLs to forever pocket egregious increases with zero accountability
to the communities they "invest" in.
""For starters, no one likes landlords... does rent control lower or raise housing costs and does it increase
2
building of affordable housing? All economists on right and left from Milton Friedman to Paul Krugman agree
that the answer is no." This is kind of funny to me. I don't know where the idea that "no one likes landlords"
comes from. My current landlord isn't so bad. To the second point: I am glad to see that "all economists" agree
that rent control neither lowers or raises housing costs. That's a good point in favor of rent control. Indeed, rent
control does not increase building affordable housing. That's not the intent of rent control. Additionally, this
second video is again using an incorrect definition of rent control where vacancy control exists (which is not
legal in California).
""in a survey... \[of economists\] 93% said ceilings on rents reduce quantity of units available." Yes. When
tenants aren't having to shuffle around because of the whims of LLs, vacancy rates are low. I don't think that a
city having a low vacancy rate is a bad thing. What is a bad thing in my opinion is when there are lots of units,
but lots of homelessness. What is the worth in having a lot of vacant units for people not from our City to move
into at really high rates not reflective of Santa Ana's AMI? If our residents can remain housed in our city for the
long term, I don't see that as a bad thing. Rent control is not a mechanism to increase the supply of housing - its
a mechanism to ensure stability in the local market and communities. Conflating rent control with separate
mechanisms and policies to increase supply is irresponsible to people who just want to remain in the city where
they have lived laughed and loved sometimes for multiple generations.
"But what about the majority of renters \[living in RC units in NYC\] who have less money \[than higher income
individuals living in RC units\]? They're not so lucky because LLs can't afford to improve or even maintain their
rent controlled units since they can't raise rents to market levels" This statement is pertaining to NYC's rent
control laws. It is not comparable to the two ordinances that Santa Ana is considering. LLs will be able to
petition for increases above the max amounts provided they show proof of necessary repairs or upgrades.
"Another reason LLs have little incentive to maintain RC units \[is because\] they have no fear that their renters
will move out \[of RC units\]. and if the tenants move out, there's always a long line of people waiting to move
in." The video admits that RC brings stability to tenants and then leans into the idea that LLs who own and
operate RC units are slumlords. That's semi-offensive to LLs who actually utilize the max allowable increases
towards repairs and upgrades.
"Why would investors build new apartments for anyone but the very wealthy in a city where rents are
controlled? The answer of course is that they rarely do. The vast majority of new residential construction in
NYC is geared towards the wealthy who can pay rents above the controlled limit or who are willing to buy their
apartments outright as condos or co-ops." New construction, especially in already dense areas such as NYC,
rely on capital financing for the construction of such. If in fact it is true that "investors rarely build new
apartments in NYC" I don't believe for one second that RC is the sole cause for such. Additionally, NYC is its
own beast. Many cities with rent control - Beverly Hills is one such place interestingly enough - still have new
developments and construction taking place. It is no accident that USA cities with rent control are the some of
the most highly desired areas. In California, there has never been a point in its history that supply of housing
units kept pace with demand. People love California, and that has always been true. I would conjecture that will
continue to remain true no matter any local regulations upon any type of business taking place.
"To understand how RC affects the rental housing market in the long term, let's look at the most basic laws of
economics. More supply of apts would mean lower rents... building more rental housing to increase supply will
cause rents to decrease" At a purely theoretical level, when we look at the supply curve, we see that as the
quantity increases, the cost of producing the units increases. Makes sense. But price isn't determined solely by
supply. Add in the demand curve and we see that when there is low quantity, the price to consume is high.
Conversely, people demand less when the price is high. This is the key point in California, especially in OC. No
matter what happens to the supply of rentable units - or housing units in general - the demand curve keeps
prices unchanged in Santa Ana. It's just a great place to live. Additionally, supply and demand for basic human
rights such as housing don't really apply because supply and demand curves discuss widgets. Most tenants aren't
3
trying to rent multiple units. They just want to rent one and that's enough. The entities who do buy or rent more
than one unit of housing at any given time are exactly the entities that the two ordinances aim to protect tenants
against.
"But because of the low profits on rc units, developers will become reluctant to invest in rental buildings
choosing instead to build non-rental condos." If a LL has low profit margins on RC units, that's not the
responsibility of the local market or the tenants who pay rents. LLs can set market rate rents for new tenants.
Current tenants shouldn't have to bear the brunt of LLs making poor business and financial decisions.
Developers who are reluctant to invest in rental buildings, once they run their analyses on potential acquisitions,
may actually find that RC units are more profitable than they perceive. Until they actually run their analyses, the
notion that RC alone is the sole deterrent to investment, is all conjecture. All investments are risky and the
notion that somehow real estate is a special class of investment that warrants protection of perpetual profit is
absurd to me, but I personally don't believe in relying on the government to bail me out or subsidize my poor
financial decisions like Wall Street did in 2008 and currently with the Fed keeping the stock market afloat in
2021.
"but there are proven policies that do work for everyone. like rental housing vouchers that support tenants
financially, rezoning to increase development of new affordable housing, and a smarter tax system and
regulations that do not shift extra costs onto tenants and keep rents affordable for everyone."
Again, rent control is not an attempt to fix all the housing affordability issues in any given area. It is an attempt
to provide stability for long term residents and protections against bad landlords. Rental housing vouchers
wouldn't be necessary if a Landlord didn't keep increasing rents - especially if and when a property no longer
has mortgages/liens/financial obligations outside of basic housing expenses. Rezoning is one other tool besides
rent control that should absolutely be explored so as to increase the supply, but again, supply is separate from
demand which determines prices, not supply alone. A smarter tax system or any regulation may still result in a
business passing on costs to consumers, so I question that notion.
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 10:31 PM Mendoza, Nelida <nmendoza@santa-ana.org> wrote:
Hello Nathaniel:
Yes, I have heard you speak elonquently at council meetings. This landlord example is a travesty. You
may report this type of abuse through HUD, the Health Department, the Better Business Bureau, and
the Consumer Affairs Division. Hud Multifamily Housing Complaint Line call toll-free at (800) 685-8470.
I actually agree with you and Tenants United of Santa Ana. We both want the same thing—keep rents
affordable, have quality living conditions, be treated with dignity and respect.
I really appreciate you reaching out to me to provide information and have a meaningful discussion
rather than post negative comments on social media or portray me as a heartless politician. Our city is
the laughing stock of our county because of the division reflected at our council meetings.
4
When you have a few moments, please view the attached three short clips and translate for those tenants
who are Spanish speaking only. Then I would like to set up a meeting with you to see how we can work
together to achieve our mutual goals of serving our community to the best of our abilities. There will be
issues we disagree on, but I am civil and respectful to everyone. We should work together, not against
each other.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBragREvqXg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJvTTGOHFkU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0LYXFO_ExY
Thank you,
Nelida Mendoza | COUNCILMEMBER WARD 6
City of Santa Ana| 20 Civic Center Plaza | Santa Ana, CA 92701
714.647.5200 | nmendoza@santa-ana.org
5
From: Nathaniel Greensides <mynci90@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 7:11 PM
To: Mendoza, Nelida <nmendoza@santa-ana.org>
Subject: Re: Tenant Issues - 1013 S Standard Ave
P.S. I should add that the ordinances still allow for Landlords to petition for increases above three percent
provided they prove that such an increase is necessary. Currently, the tenants have been told that the increase
to become effective in November is because the cost of utilities is increasing, but the property manager refuses
to provide proof and refuses the idea of tenants paying for their own electricity rudely asserting that they
should leave if they don't want to pay the increase. Tenants don't want to have to leave. City Council can make
it easier for residents to stay in Santa Ana.
Thank you again for your time.
-Nathaniel
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 7:03 PM Nathaniel Greensides <mynci90@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Nelida,
I am Nathaniel Greensides. I imagine you have heard me speak publicly in support of rent control. I am one
tenant rights counselor with Tenants United Santa Ana. I just spoke with a family living in an apartment at
1013 S Standard Ave. Since this address falls within your ward, I would like to share with you their
experience to show why the local ordinances that the council has been considering will benefit our residents.
The tenants here moved into the unit in December 2020. They had a contract that outlines rent at $1265 which
includes gas, sewer, water, trash, and electricity. They had their rent increased sometime in 2021 to $1385
when the management and/or the landlord changed. Now, in October 2021, a third management company is
operating the property. The property has verbally informed them that the rent will increase to $1500 effective
November 2021. This means that in total, they have had rents increased twice in one year which is allowable
under California law known as AB1482, because they haven't yet lived there for at least 12 months.
Additionally, the property managers have served all tenants in the building with eviction notices for
"substantial repairs" resulting only in the walls being painted and rents being increased. It has also resulted in
people leaving our city who had been living here for decades.
This family has ensured all throughout the pandemic that their rents were paid. Thus, they cannot qualify for
relief. At one point the wife had COVID-19 and they still paid the rent. The new property manager is very
disparaging and verbally insulting to tenants who even make mention that tenants do have basic rights.
6
Repairs do not take place without rent control, and when repairs finally do come, it's coupled with an
egregious increase in rent and the disrespect from managers continues unabated.
With the two local ordinances that the council has been considering, these tenants would have been eligible to
have rent increases stabilized at an affordable three percent increase after only thirty days of residency. The
just cause protections would ensure that bully tactics and intimidation by landlords and property managers
have recourse.
These tenants are considering leaving the city because of the intimidation and lack of regulations upon those
who own and operate the basic necessity of housing in our city.
I hope that this might change your stance on the two ordinances and hope that you may continue to serve the
residents of your ward, if not all residents, in the most effective manner to residents' needs.
Best regards,
Nathaniel Greensides
Ward 5 Resident
7