Action Apartments Association, Inc.

Facebook Twitter RSS

  • 06/17/2019 12:02 PM | Margaret Fulton (Administrator)

    1950's legislation requires a local ballot referendum to approve public housing project funded with public money.

    Article 34 requires local governments to acquire a public majority to favor their construction of "affordable" housing. If Article 34 is repealed, the burden will fall on the residents who do not want to see the public housing coming to their neighborhoods. They will have to gather signatures on a petition in order to force a vote on a proposed project.

    Read More: https://www.smobserved.com/story/2019/06/14/news/article-34-california-voters-to-decide-against-their-right-to-decide/4050.html

  • 06/17/2019 11:58 AM | Margaret Fulton (Administrator)

    Dear Mayor, Council, City Manager,

    Excuse me for being so blunt, but there is no other way to say this so I’m just going to say it…

    $800 million dollars for a Climate Action Plan over ten years?

    Are you serious?

    Read More: https://smmirror.com/2019/06/letter-to-the-editor-regarding-the-climate-action-plan/

  • 06/17/2019 11:49 AM | Margaret Fulton (Administrator)

    Now the longtime north-south animosity shows signs of bleeding over into politics. Northern California politicians are avidly pushing supposed solutions to the state’s acknowledged housing crisis against the wishes of many Southern California cities.

    Read More: https://smmirror.com/2019/06/will-housing-become-a-new-north-vs-south-issue/

  • 06/17/2019 11:42 AM | Margaret Fulton (Administrator)

    The failure to set reasonable limits to our civic obligations and associated subsidies means the City will always be behind and “failing” to meet its civic goals. So a consensus concept of a fair share of those obligations is essential to a successful city. 

    Looking at our City’s fair share as a countywide obligation only makes sense if the other 88 cities are doing their fair share. Unfortunately, most are not.

    Read More: https://smmirror.com/2019/06/so-whats-a-fair-share/


  • 06/17/2019 11:41 AM | Margaret Fulton (Administrator)

    In the last 30 years most people in the developing world have seen the ill effects of too many people in too little space competing for too few resources. The area of Santa Monica can be crossed (with no traffic) on a bicycle in 12 minutes. In this small community, we currently have over 90,000 residents with a daily population that is much greater.

    Our limited area should make it easier to implement more sustainability measures and policies within our boundaries. It is time that we start thinking about our limits and plan accordingly before it is too late.

    Read More: https://smmirror.com/2019/06/santa-monicas-future-sustainable-or-untenable/


  • 06/12/2019 8:49 PM | ACTION (Administrator)

    J. David GoodmanVivian WangLuis Ferré-Sadurní

    By J. David Goodman, Vivian Wang and Luis Ferré-Sadurní

    June 12, 2019


    Less than a day after newly emboldened Democratic lawmakers announced bills that would significantly tighten tenant protections, prominent real estate developers got Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo on the phone to make a last-ditch plea to persuade him to block the measures.

    The developers, including Douglas Durst, Richard LeFrak and William C. Rudin, are involved with some of the most iconic buildings on the New York City skyline, including One World Trade Center and 3 Times Square, and have long wielded major influence in Albany.

    They and their counterparts in the real estate industry have donated millions of dollars in campaign contributions to Mr. Cuomo and other state politicians in recent decades.

    But on Wednesday, Mr. Cuomo rebuffed the developers, telling them that “they should call their legislators if they want to do something about it,” said a person briefed on the call, which lasted about 15 minutes.

    The phone call capped a humiliating moment for an industry that had long reigned in the state capital.

    “I’m in shock. I think many of us in my industry are in shock,” said James R. Wacht, president of the firm Lee & Associates and a board member of Real Estate Board of New York, the industry’s leading trade group. “It’s a lot worse than we anticipated.”

    The bills announced on Tuesday night by the Democratic leaders of the State Senate and the Assembly would abolish rules that let building owners deregulate apartments and close loopholes that permit them to raise rents.

    The legislation would directly impact almost one million rent-regulated apartments in New York City, which account for more than 40 percent of the city’s rental stock, and allow other municipalities statewide beyond New York City and its suburbs to adopt their own regulations.

    [Read more about how the new rent regulations in New York would affect tenants and landlords]

    Real estate industry groups said the bills would do serious damage to housing in the city by reducing incentives for landlords to renovate existing apartments and to build affordable new ones.

    Existing rent laws expire on Saturday. The rent regulation package, which is expected to be approved before the end of the week, is perhaps the most resonant symbol of the change in power in Albany since Democrats took complete control in November.

    Republicans had dominated the State Senate for most of the last century and formed a close alliance with the New York City real estate industry, which donated heavily to Republican senators.

    The elections in November not only brought Democrats to power in the State Senate, but also saw the rise of progressive lawmakers who fiercely opposed real estate interests.

    “There was some arrogance on the part of the real estate industry that was based on how things have functioned in Albany for a long time,” said State Senator Zellnor Myrie, a Brooklyn Democrat who is a member of the new cohort of progressives. “In the past there was no need for them to truly engage the way that I think would have been necessary this time around.”

    Lawmakers, government aides and lobbyists said in interviews on Wednesday that the industry had pinned its hopes on Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat who at times tried to act as a brake on his party’s left wing.

    But in the last week of negotiations, Mr. Cuomo distanced himself from the debate. He dismissed requests from the real estate lobby to engage in negotiations with Democratic leaders of the Senate and Assembly, inviting the Legislature instead to pass bills on its own.

    When real estate lobbyists called the governor’s office over the last week, they were told by the governor’s aides that Mr. Cuomo had stepped back and that they should speak with legislators instead.

    “There is no negotiation,” Mr. Cuomo said on Tuesday before the deal was announced. “I will sign the best bill they can pass.”

    Asked on Wednesday whether he had changed his mind, Mr. Cuomo said, “I believe this is the best tenant protections they will pass.”

    Douglas Durst, a real estate developer, in the offices of the The Durst Organization on the 49th floor of One Bryant Park.CreditMichael Appleton for The New York Times

    Douglas Durst, a real estate developer, in the offices of the The Durst Organization on the 49th floor of One Bryant Park.  Credit Michael Appleton for The New York Times

    The developers who reached Mr. Cuomo on the phone on Wednesday declined to comment.

    But one person briefed on the call said the developers expressed surprise at the way the governor had handled the rent issue, and voiced concern about the impact the legislation would have on the construction of new housing.

    Several people on the call raised the possibility of legal challenges. Mr. Cuomo had no reaction to that, according to the person briefed on the call.

    Mr. Cuomo’s spokeswoman, Dani Lever, said, “The governor and staff had a call with real estate and housing people who were concerned that the bill could reduce the number of units in New York. And he said they should raise those concerns to the Legislature.”

    The industry had already tried that, having met with lawmakers in Albany over the past few months, presenting them with sophisticated charts that purported to show how the proposed measures would erode the city’s housing stock.

    The industry also commissioned an expensive advertising campaign featuring construction workers who were depicted warning that they could lose their jobs under the new proposals.

    After the announcement on Tuesday night, industry officials scrambled to figure out what had gone wrong, blaming a combination of strategic miscalculations, resurgent activism by the progressive left and a new mood of antipathy — in New York and nationally — toward landlords and the wealthy.

    And industry leaders seem to have been slow to adapt to the new environment.

    From 2010 until last month, a prominent landlord group, the Rent Stabilization Association, donated more than $800,000 to the campaign committee for State Senate Republicans. In the same time period, the group spent just $25,000 on State Senate Democrats.

    The Real Estate Board of New York similarly favored Republicans. Last year, it spent more than $1 million on independent campaign expenditures, mostly to back two Republican politicians running for the State Senate — one on Long Island and one in the suburbs north of New York City. Both candidates lost.

    This year, as the tenant activists’ platform gained traction, landlords did not publicize their own counterproposals, fearful of losing leverage by offering compromises. Instead, industry members relied on their traditional method of private negotiations, trying to talk key lawmakers out of the more dramatic changes in one-on-one meetings.

    “The industry held their cards close to the vest, thinking that the consequences of these proposals would be obvious to everyone,” Kathryn S. Wylde, the president of the Partnership for New York City, an influential business group, said.

    In the hours since the deal was announced, industry officials have blitzed lawmakers with phone calls in an attempt to contain the damage. They have pored over the bill to single out the most far-reaching provisions, then relayed them to senators from moderate districts, hoping to convince them to vote against the bill.

    “The governor and Legislature have a choice,” John H. Banks, president of the Real Estate Board of New York, said in a statement. “They can work collaboratively to change the legislation and pass responsible reforms or pass the bill and worsen the city’s housing crisis.”

    Some of the lawmakers seemed to be receptive. Senator James Gaughran, a newly elected Democrat from Long Island, said he was reviewing the bill. “I’m just a little concerned about the unintended consequences of some of this,” he said on Wednesday.

    Still, some industry leaders suggested that the governor had failed them.

    “We thought the governor would help moderate some of the more ridiculous proposals,” said Jay Martin, the executive director of the Community Housing Improvement Program, a trade association representing about 4,000 building owners. “That did not happen.”

    “It seems to be that the democratic socialist wing of the Democratic Party is in full control of the state government,” Mr. Martin added. “I think this is the official declaration of that.”

    For tenant activists, the shift of power was a moment years in the making.

    “We’re seeing a sea change,” said Jonathan Westin, executive director of New York Communities for Change, an advocacy group that pushed for stronger tenant protections. “Real estate dominated for so long that what we’re seeing is a much broader and more aggressive movement to go out and win on these issues.”

    The new and strengthened rules would mark a turning point for the 2.4 million people who live in nearly one million rent-regulated apartments in New York City.CreditCreditBrittainy Newman/The New York Times
  • 06/12/2019 7:23 AM | ACTION (Administrator)

    Newly empowered Democrats are trying to address concern over housing costs that is helping to drive the debate over inequality.

    Members of the Upstate Downstate Housing Alliance held a rally at the State Capitol this month demanding legislators pass universal rent control in New York.CreditHans Pennink/Associated Press

    Image

    Members of the Upstate Downstate Housing Alliance held a rally at the State Capitol this month demanding legislators pass universal rent control in New York.CreditCreditHans Pennink/Associated Press

    Luis Ferré-SadurníJesse McKinleyVivian Wang

    By Luis Ferré-Sadurní, Jesse McKinley and Vivian Wang

    June 11, 2019

    Newly empowered Democratic leaders in Albany announced a landmark agreement on Tuesday to strengthen New York’s rent laws and tenant protections, seeking to address concern about housing costs that is helping drive the debate over inequality across the nation.

    The changes would abolish rules that let building owners deregulate apartments, close a series of loopholes that permit them to raise rents and allow some tenant protections to expand statewide.

    The deal was a significant blow to the real estate industry, which contended that the measures would lead to the deterioration of the condition of New York City’s housing. The industry had long been one of the most powerful lobbies in Albany, but it suffered a loss of influence after its Republican allies surrendered control of the State Senate in the November elections.

    “These reforms give New Yorkers the strongest tenant protections in history,” the Senate majority leader, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, and the Assembly speaker, Carl E. Heastie, said in a joint statement. “For too long, power has been tilted in favor of landlords and these measures finally restore equity and extend protections to tenants across the state.”

    Both chambers are expected to vote on the legislative package this week.

    The current rent regulations expire on Saturday. The new and strengthened rules would mark a turning point for the 2.4 million people who live in nearly one million rent-regulated apartments in New York City after a decades-long erosion of protections and the loss of tens of thousands of regulated apartments.

    The legislation in Albany is far-reaching: While rent regulations are currently restricted largely to New York City and a few other localities, the new package would allow cities and towns statewide to fashion their own regulations, which are meant to keep apartments affordable by limiting rent increases.

    It would also make the changes permanent — a major victory for tenant activists who have had to lobby Albany every few years when the old laws expired.

    Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, said he would sign whatever package of rent bills the Legislature passed.

    The imminent changes come as New York and other major cities are grappling with a shortage of affordable housing, prompting even Democratic presidential hopefuls to increasingly court renters as a new voting bloc.


    New York has seen record numbers in homelessness statewide and skyrocketing rents that have acutely burdened low-income and older residents. “The Senate and the Assembly are taking a massive step in the right direction,” said Cea Weaver, the campaign coordinator of Housing Justice for All, a statewide coalition of tenants.

    “We have a long way to go to reach a point where every tenant in New York is protected, but this is a big step forward to correct decades of injustice between tenants and landlords,” she added.

    Real estate trade groups called the proposed legislation an existential threat to building owners. In hearings and through expensive ad campaigns, the groups warned that the changes could put small landlords out of business because they would be unable to increase rents to deal with escalating costs.

    “This legislation fails to address the city’s housing crisis and will lead to disinvestment in the city’s private sector rental stock consigning hundreds of thousands of rent-regulated tenants to living in buildings that are likely to fall into disrepair,” Taxpayers for an Affordable New York, a coalition of four real estate groups, including the powerful Real Estate Board of New York, said in a statement.

    “This legislation will not create a single new affordable housing unit, improve the vacancy rate or improve enforcement against the few dishonest landlords who tend to dominate the headlines,” the statement added. “It is now up to the governor to reject this deal in favor of responsible rent reform that protects tenants, property owners, building contractors and our communities.”

    The agreement on Tuesday underscored the rising power of the progressive wing in Albany. Many of the lawmakers who fueled the Democratic takeover of the Senate last year pledged to decline contributions from real estate interests and ran on promises to take on the industry by passing legislation supported by tenant groups.

    Landlords and developers, accustomed to ready access to Albany insiders, were shut out of meetings and vilified at rallies.


    “None of these historic new tenant protections would be possible without the fact that New York finally has a united Democratic Legislature,” the legislative leaders said in their statement.

    As Saturday’s deadline loomed, tempers and tensions had risen. Last week, hundreds of activists flooded the State Capitol, staging a rowdy demonstration and leading to dozens of arrests.

    Anxiety over the deadline, and fighting among some Democrats, seemed to heighten the intensity surrounding the rent negotiations. On Tuesday, lawmakers and staff members huddled into the evening as they hashed out the final details on the legislation.

    Left uncertain was the involvement of Mr. Cuomo, an outsize figure in any negotiations in the capital, who won a third term in November.

    Tenant activists had urged the Democratic majorities in the Senate and the Assembly to shut out Mr. Cuomo, who has received millions of dollars in real estate campaign contributions. Though legislative leaders did not explicitly agree, Tuesday’s package was the product of two-way negotiations, according to a person familiar with the talks.

    Mr. Cuomo, at a news conference before the deal was announced, had dismissed the idea that he needed to be involved.

    “There is no negotiation. I will sign the best bill they can pass,” he said.

    He did not immediately comment after the Legislature’s deal.

    Encouraged by the Democratic takeover, a statewide coalition of tenants had been pressuring lawmakers for months to pass nine bills collectively known as “universal rent control.”

    The deal reached on Tuesday included several of those proposals or modified versions of them.

    Lawmakers agreed to abolish so-called vacancy decontrol, a provision that allows landlords to lift apartments out of regulation when their rents pass a certain threshold. The rule has led to the deregulation of more than 155,000 units since it was enacted in the 1990s.

    They also agreed to repeal the so-called vacancy bonus, which allows landlords to raise rents by up to 20 percent whenever a tenant moves out of a rent-stabilized apartment.

    And they pledged to rein in provisions that allow landlords to raise the rents of rent-regulated apartments when they renovate units or fix up buildings — perhaps the most hotly debated proposal of the package.

    Housing advocates have long argued that building owners routinely abuse those provisions, inflating construction costs to jack up rents and push out tenants.

    But Mr. Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City said they supported revising the provisions, not repealing them, because they provide incentives for landlords to keep buildings in livable conditions. The real estate industry has argued the same.

    To combat abuse, the state would be required to inspect and audit a portion of buildingwide improvements.

    Additional changes would make permanent discounts on rents known as “preferential rents,” preventing landlords from sharply increasing those rents when a regulated tenant renews a lease.

    Only one component of the tenant activists’ platform was notably absent: a “good cause” eviction bill that would have made it considerably harder for landlords to evict tenants in most market-rate apartments statewide.

    But the Legislature did agree to limit security deposits on apartments statewide to one month’s rent and to provide tenants in eviction proceedings with more time to hire a lawyer, address lease violations and pay overdue rent.

    The legislation would also make it a punishable misdemeanor for landlords to evict tenants by illegally locking them out or through force.

    While tenant groups did not win total victory, they applauded the overall legislative package.

    “I think this is a huge win for the tenant movement that will impact the lives of millions of renters in a way that beats back the real estate industry,” said Jonathan Westin, the executive director of New York Communities for Change, an advocacy group. “But we also feel we have a long way to go.”

    Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/11/nyregion/rent-protection-regulation.html

  • 06/07/2019 7:23 PM | ACTION (Administrator)

    Culver City ranks 23rd in the nation for overall in average rental prices coming in at $3,958.89. That is 151.50 % above the average according to the list in Apartment Guide. Neighboring Santa Monica at $4716.25 per month.

    Four of Santa Monica's Westside neighbors also made the top 20 – West Hollywood was seventh, Playa Vista 12th, Marina del Rey 14th and Culver City 16th in the country. Los Angeles ranked 36th.

    Studios come in at $3098.60 with 1 Bedrooms close behind at $3131.84 while 2-bedrooms jump to $3958.89 in Culver City. Three Bedrooms in Culver City did not make the top 50 in the country and Santa Monica didn’t qualify for listing due to the small number of 3-Bedrooms available. Nationwide Hollywood topped the list $8,850.29 or 412.07 % above the national average.

    The report found that studios listed in Marina Del Rey and Culver City were third and fifth most expensive. Santa Monica averaged $2,958 a month, making Santa Monica the sixth most expensive studio market in the country.

    California held 7 of the top 10 spots for studios:

    1 Redwood City CA $3,361.65 163.28 %

    2 San Francisco CA $3,356.19 162.85 %

    3 Marina Del Rey CA $3,315.96 159.70 %

    4 New York NY $3,235.19 153.38 %

    5 Culver City CA $3,098.60 142.68 %

    6 Santa Monica CA $2,957.99 131.67 %

    7 Santa Clara CA $2,867.92 124.61 %

    8 Boston MA $2,848.86 123.12 %

    9 West Hollywood CA $2,825.22 121.27 %

    10 Weehawken NJ $2,801.53 119.41 %

    The list for 1 bedrooms has 13 of the top 16 cities in the country listed, with Santa Monica in the number five spot and Culver City at 16:

    1 New York NY $4,146.71 213.91 %

    2 San Francisco CA $3,854.25 191.77 %

    3 Mountain View CA $3,828.04 189.79 %

    4 Redwood City CA $3,794.36 187.24 %

    5 Santa Monica CA $3,786.04 186.61 %

    6 Menlo Park CA $3,594.50 172.11 %

    7 West Hollywood CA $3,590.78 171.83 %

    8 Boston MA $3,533.30 167.48 %

    9 Foster City CA $3,441.62 160.54 %

    10 Brighton MA $3,402.15 157.55 %

    11 Palo Alto CA $3,354.25 153.92 %

    12 Playa Vista CA $3,353.52 153.87 %

    13 San Bruno CA $3,303.62 150.09 %

    14 Marina Del Rey CA $3,286.06 148.76 %

    15 Santa Clara CA $3,226.91 144.28 %

    16 Culver City CA $3,131.84 137.08 %

    Santa Monica came in sixth in the two bedroom category while Culver City dropped to 23rd:

    1 New York NY $6,105.08 287.85 %

    2 Westwood CA $5,259.68 234.14 %

    3 Boston MA $4,953.64 214.70 %

    4 San Francisco CA $4,873.75 209.62 %

    5 Redwood City CA $4,784.86 203.98 %

    6 Santa Monica CA $4,716.25 199.62 %

    7 Mountain View CA $4,697.48 198.42 %

    8 Foster City CA $4,689.89 197.94 %

    9 Palo Alto CA $4,613.10 193.06 %

    10 Playa Vista CA $4,569.58 190.30 %

    11 Menlo Park CA $4,460.88 183.39 %

    12 West Hollywood CA $4,344.55 176.00 %

    13 Marina Del Rey CA $4,183.04 165.74 %

    14 Los Angeles CA $4,139.09 162.95 %

    15 Cambridge MA $4,120.03 161.74 %

    16 Brighton MA $4,113.44 161.32 %

    17 Channel Islands CA $4,097.14 160.29 %

    18 Oakland CA $4,096.68 160.26 %

    19 White Plains NY $4,032.65 156.19 %

    20 Newton MA $4,027.27 155.85 %

    21 Mamaroneck NY $4,022.85 155.57 %

    22 Hollywood CA $3,977.87 152.71 %

    23 Culver City CA $3,958.89 151.50 %

    Interestingly Westwood, where UCLA is housed came in second most costly in the nation. The charts and rankings are courtesy of Apartment Guide.

    Source:  https://www.culvercityobserver.com/story/2019/06/06/news/culver-city-comes-in-with-the-top-rental-prices-in-the-country/8210.html

  • 06/06/2019 6:26 PM | ACTION (Administrator)

    By The Times Editorial Board

    Jun 06, 2019 | 1:55 PM

    Crisis? What crisis? California refuses to protect renters even as homelessness surges

    A vigil in the Koreatown neighborhood of Los Angeles for Joe Reyes, 56, who died from a heart attack after being evicted, and forced to live in a tent on the sidewalk. (Los Angeles Times)

    California politicians have spent the last year wringing their hands over the state’s worsening homeless crisis. But when it came time to act — to take real steps to protect people from losing their homes because of an exorbitant rent increase or an unwarranted eviction — lawmakers were missing in action.

    Last week, the Assembly let a bill die that would have required landlords to show "just cause" — such as a failure to pay rent or a lease violation — before they could evict a renter. An anti-gouging bill designed to stop excessive rent increases was so watered down that it will be practically ineffectual. Other efforts to let cities expand rent control and track evictions were quietly killed.

    This is an outrageous abdication of responsibility at a moment when homelessness is getting worse across the state. From the Bay Area to Southern California, counties have reported double-digit increases in the number of people living in cars, tents, shelters and on the streets — spurred, almost everyone agrees, by a lack of low-income housing, unaffordable rent hikes, unjustified evictions and a lack of comprehensive tenant protections.

    Certainly California has to build more housing, and particularly affordable housing, whether by providing developers with incentives or subsidies for construction. But it will take years to construct enough housing to meet demand and to bring down prices. In the meantime, California has to do much more to ensure that people living on the edge financially don’t get unfairly or arbitrarily pushed out of their homes.

    Nowhere is the growing humanitarian crisis more visible than in Los Angeles County. Over the last year, officials have spent $600 million to build homes and shelters, and to provide services; they have housed a record number of homeless people. Yet numbers released this week showed that homelessness is up 12%. Why? Because even as we house people, more people are becoming homeless — often for the first time.

    Roughly one in three units in Los Angeles County is covered by some kind of rent control, according to a 2018 analysis. That leaves the majority of renters with no protection if a landlord wants to jack up the rent or boot them out. A few local governments around the state are beginning to take steps to protect tenants by enacting temporary rent caps and just-cause eviction laws, and by funding lawyers to help tenants fight unjust evictions.

    But those efforts are limited — both by local politics (renters may be the majority in many cities but they lack homeowners’ political sway) and by state law, which bars cities from extending rent control to apartments built after 1995, as well as houses and condos.

    To appease the powerful real estate interests who, apparently, control Sacramento, Assemblyman David Chiu (D-San Francisco) was forced to weaken his anti-rent gouging bill. It will now cap annual rent increases at 7% plus inflation and last just three years.

    That’s better than the status quo, but it is far from sufficient. State lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom need to get serious and do more than pay lip service to tenant protections.

    Source: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-homeless-crisis-tenant-protections-20190606-story.html

  • 06/06/2019 2:58 PM | ACTION (Administrator)

    Democrats hold a supermajority—but failed to exercise any of their power to fix the housing crisis

    By Alissa Walker@awalkerinLA

    May 31, 2019, 3:35pm PDT

    On November 12, 2018, California’s Democrats stared down a remarkable opportunity. They had not only snagged a legislative trifecta—both houses of government and the governorship all from the same party—but a supermajority. With the two-thirds of votes in place needed to approve fiscal policy, and an incoming governor who promised to make housing his top priority, anything seemed possible.

    “Expect them to swing for the fences,” predicted Los Angeles Times columnist George Skelton shortly after the landmark election.

    They swung—and they struck out.

    Democratic lawmakers hold the fate of the state in their hands. But six months in, May might very well go down as the worst month in California’s housing policy history.

    It seemed, at first, like May might have been a turning point. Over the last few weeks, up and down the state, cities posted double-digit increases in their annual homeless counts. Promising a major initiative to tackle the problem, Gov. Gavin Newsom created a task force to study potential homelessness solutions.

    Meanwhile, a half dozen bills designed to alleviate the crisis began making their way through the legislature. State housing bills don't often make national headlines, but news out of California makes the Golden State a poster child for untenable inequality.

    The data reads like a pitch for a dystopian blockbuster: One out of every 11,600 San Franciscans is a billionaire, while one out of five Californians lives below the poverty level. In Los Angeles, housing costs have increased so much that the typical renter cannot afford the average rent, exacerbating the gap between the rich and the poor.

    Two-thirds of California voters supported Senate Bill 50, which would have increased building heights around transit and may have started to change that narrative by spurring more housing. But the bill was shelved by one of Southern California’s own.

    “This isn’t the right fix at this time to do that,” said Sen. Anthony Portantino, who held up the bill as the chairman of the appropriations committee.

    Portantino’s district is threaded by the Gold Line along its southern border, and includes wealthy cities like La Cañada Flintridge, which, while he served as its mayor, did not build a single apartment.

    Whether it was the “right fix,” because the discourse was dominated by wealthy homeowners moaning about SB 50 (and the lawmakers who listened to them), it’s possible that many Californians failed to grasp the importance of legislation with basic rental protections to keep more people out of homelessness. A number of bills, if passed intact and made law, might have started changing lives immediately.

    One by one, the other housing bills—like Assemblymember Richard Bloom’s Assembly Bill 36, which would have loosened the state’s existing rent control restrictions, and bills that might have protected tenants’ right to organize and made it tougher to evict tenants for no legitimate reason—all toppled like dominoes.

    Only Assembly Bill 1482 survived, but it was gutted. A cap on rent hikes now offers three years of protection instead of the original 10, making it too watered-down to be as effective as intended.

    And where was the governor, who wants to create 3.5 million homes for Californians? His staff falsely claimed he had expressed legislative support for the suite of bills that would help renters stay in their homes.

    “He’s asked them to move every single one of these bills,” Newsom’s chief of staff said. He hadn’t, the same way he hadn’t expressed support for Proposition 10, the rent control-strengthening ballot measure to repeal Costa Hawkins, which, had it passed, would have prevented much of the May massacre.

    Amid the carnage, a few housing bills did advance—including a tax credit for people who own historic or architecturally significant buildings. Sen. Toni Atkins, the president pro tem of the senate, the only person who had the power to reverse Portantino’s decision, brokered a deal not only to preserve the state’s most expensive real estate, but to give the state’s wealthiest homeowners additional money to do so.

    The irony was too painful to bear. But these state bills don’t represent the only failure in government. At the city level, May was even worse.


    The first HHH-funded building opened on Thursday, 933 days after Los Angeles voters approved the ballot measure that was promised $1.2 billion bond to tackle its home-grown homelessness crisis. The slower the city moves, the fewer units will be produced: Once intended to fund 10,000 units of supportive housing, the HHH figure might now be closer to 6,000, due to increased construction costs and neighborhood opposition.

    Even 6,000 units won’t be enough. Local homelessness numbers will be released next week, and we already know, according to a statement from the mayor, to also expect “some double-digit increases.” That’s with the city housing 16,500 people.

    Even with last year’s count showing a slight decrease, with 31,516 homeless residents in the city of Los Angeles, the most conservative double-digit increase would mean that over the last year, at least 10 more people became homeless in LA every single day.

    If it takes the city almost 1,000 days to build 49 permanent supportive units, that math isn’t going to work. The estimated 600,000 LA County residents who are spending 90 percent of their income on rent will become next year’s homeless. And still, some members of City Council—who unanimously opposed SB 50—still can’t bring themselves to build 222 units of supportive housing by next July. Additionally, 15 emergency shelters were supposed to be open or under construction by now. Only four have opened.

    Yes, the transit-oriented communities program shows promise in experimenting with inclusionary zoning, but not a single one of those projects has been completed yet. Yes, the number of ADU permits skyrocketed, but we don’t know if, ultimately, those structures will become housing—or backyard yoga studios. And with rising costs of construction, it’s not clear how many of those units will be delivered to the rental market.

    If we continue to rely on a handful of the wealthiest California property owners to keep the lives of tens of thousands of Angelenos intact, there will be no immediate solution to this problem.

    The crisis calls for dramatic measures, words that have not been uttered in Los Angeles City Council chambers: vacancy tax, land tax, billionaire tax, rent freeze, universal basic income (like the program being tested in Stockton). Modular shelter structures that can go up within a week. Mandatory safe parking provided on every city-owned parking lot.

    We don’t need 15 bridge housing facilities—we need 1,500. You don’t get to divvy up the impact of the crisis by 15 councilmembers and dole out gold stars to the handful that build emergency shelters.

    These are not new ideas, and they are not particularly controversial in other cities and states. New Orleans reduced its homeless population by 90 percent with a combination of housing-first outreach and a rental-assistance fund. Minneapolis passed a law legalizing fourplexes citywide. California’s housing bills were inspired in part by Oregon’s similar policy package that passed sweeping tenant protections in March.

    In the middle of California’s very bad month, New York Times columnist Farhad Manjoo surveyed the situation in appropriately dire terms: “The problems of affordable housing and homelessness have surpassed all superlatives—what was a crisis is now an emergency that feels like a dystopian showcase of American inequality.”

    Manjoo blamed wealthy liberals. Slate’s Henry Grabar blamed Boomers. The tech industry is always easy to blame. But as San Francisco-based housing advocate Randy Shaw told the Bay City Beacon, the blame lies squarely on the supermajority: “It wasn’t the Republican party that destroyed this,” he said. “It was all Democrats.”

    The blame must be levied at those in power, who hold the power to protect seniors, immigrants, students, veterans, children, people living with disabilities. These are the people who are facing eviction, harassment, chronic illness, hunger, and death. Today, in their districts. This is the sole priority of our lawmakers right now—serving our poorest and most vulnerable Californians.

    Source: https://la.curbed.com/2019/5/31/18647381/california-housing-homelessness-crisis-bills?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Curbed%20LA%20%202019-06-06%201700%20-0400%20%20Osmosys%20Campaign%202270&utm_content=Curbed%20LA%20%202019-06-06%201700%20-0400%20%20Osmosys%20Campaign%202270+CID_985d520250595b9c45a5e05e3e185188&utm_source=cm_email&utm_term=The%20May%20massacre%20of%20Californias%20housing%20bills

Copyright ©2024 ACTION Apartment Association, Inc.

Equal Opportunity Housing
Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software