|
|
CAA Opposes Extension of Just Cause Provisions
CAA Opposes Extension of Just Cause Provisions in Santa Monica
(Following is a letter sent from CAA to the Santa Monica City Council)
The California Apartment Association of Los Angeles (CAA-LA) opposes the recommendations by the Santa Monica Rent Control Board to extend just-cause eviction protections to all tenants in multi-unit residential properties and to extend relocation benefits to tenants of non-rent controlled units.
Just cause eviction controls make it extremely difficult for owners to recover possession of their units from tenants who may be engaged in illegal activity or have caused damage to the unit. A property owner will have to jump through new legal hoops, hire a lawyer and prove in court that the tenant is involved in illegal activity or is damaging the property. It is difficult to get other residents and neighbors to testify in fear of retaliation.
The proposed just-cause eviction amendment that gives renters additional time to correct lease violations before they could be served with an eviction notice will allow bad tenants to continue their bad behavior. During this time, the tenant may continue to cause disruption to the unit, other residents, and the entire neighborhood and may allow them to continue to engage in illegal activity.
As you may know, California State laws already regulates the eviction and termination of tenancy processes and provides safeguards and procedures that guarantee equal protection and due process for both owners and tenants. Just cause legislation would very substantially alter this balance of protected interests. California State law already prohibits evictions for retaliatory or discriminatory reasons.
In regards to relocation benefits, tenants who are not paying below market rents do not necessarily need the assistance in the same way as many low income, disabled, and senior tenants. Although consideration for the ill, elderly and disabled is noble, it may prove impossible to verify and manage relocation benefits to those who wish to take advantage of the system and claim false hardship. For those, it will be a windfall at the owner’s expense and a cost that will have to be borne by the other residents in the apartment community.
The proposed recommendations will drive good rental property owners away and discourage the construction of new apartments. By enacting these proposals, the City will be creating financial disincentives for those who want to create new affordable housing developments in the city, which also generates local tax revenue and local construction jobs. Placing these onerous regulations will also cause the reduction of property values, lead to economic blight and decreases to city property tax revenue. During these difficult financial times, the City should not enact policies that cause harm to city revenues. |
|