When City Councilperson Meghan Sahli-Wells, the only incumbent in the April 12 election, casually mentioned last week that 75 percent of minimum wage workers are single mothers, loyal allies rushed to her defense.
There were two problems with the sources of Ms. Sahli-Wells’s defenders: One citation was remarkably imprecise, rejected here before the assertion was publicly questioned. The other was from an unreliable source that offered a jumble of data without corroborating the Sahli-Wells assertion.
The 75 percent claim remains unsubstantiated.
At the same candidates forum, sponsored by the apartment owners association, Ms. Sahli-Wells dropped in the eye-catching notion that 45 percent of Culver City residents are renters.
Among her six rival candidates, none appeared to dispute her citation, which has been popularly floating about for several years.
Now along comes former Councilman Steve Rose. He charges that Ms. Sahli-Wells is quite wrong.
Mr. Rose is president/CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, which specializes in this kind of data stuff.
Talk about small print.
The Chamber recently ground out these numbers about its Board members:
- 60 percent are small business owners.
- 34 percent of Board members are women,
- 46 percent have/had children in Culver City schools.
- 50 percent of the Chamber Executive Committee are women.
- 10 percent represent 501(c)3 charitable organizations.
- 50 percent are members of Generation X.
- 34 percent are Baby Boomers.
- 16 percent are members of Generation Y.
Says Mr. Rose of Ms. Sahli-Wells’s 45 percent statement:
“This number is a typical liberal assumption on multi-family housing, especially in Culver City. Forty-five percent is correct for multi-family housing, not for rental units. Back in the late 1980s, the last push for rent control saw a large number of apartment conversions to condos.
“Here are three striking examples:
“1) Fox Hills was built as an apartment community in the late 1960s and early ‘70s. Now there are only two apartment houses there.
“2) Raintree (MGM Lot 3) was built as three apartment areas and two townhouse areas. Now they are all condos/townhouses.
“3) The Fountains, on Overland Avenue next to the creek, was built as an apartment house. Now it is condos.
“In the last quarter of the 20th century, progressives led a drive for lower density throughout Culver City.
“Fox Hills, for example, was built at 70 to 80 units an acre. Now it is down, I believe, to 30 or so. In part, this has created the current housing shortage.”
Here’s a question that I have for Mr. Rose, and the Chamber of Commerce: what percentage of renters would Culver City have to have in order for you to think that their concerns should matter?
It’s unclear to me that the statistics Mr. Rose cited in any way suggest that he, or the Chamber of Commerce, have no concern for residents who happen to reside in rental units. Indeed, if there was interest in a serious discussion, perhaps these kinds of questions might have been raised: How many condos and town homes are actually owner occupied versus rented out? What is the impact of the advent of AirBNB in Culver City? (The latter is actually a question the Finance Advisory Committee brought to the attention of the City Council and requested for it to be remanded to the Planning Commission.) The bottom line is the housing issue is complicated and multifaceted, not likely to be solved by a one size fits all solution.
I appreciate Ms. Alexander’s comment. Ms. Sahli-Wells has indeed spoken eloquently about how complicated and multifaceted the issue is, and how it is not solved by a one size fits all solution. I have heard her refer to the percentage of renters in the city as part of spelling out that their concerns need to be addressed. And she has not been an advocate of rent control. It’s only the Chamber of Commerce and the author of this blog that insist on associating her statements with that.
In fact, I have heard her clarify for audiences that rent control, as is currently allowable, only would apply to certain properties (those built before 1995), and she doesn’t think this would be effective.
Perhaps Ms. Vizcarra is correct in stating that Councilwoman Meghan Sahli-Wells is not an advocate for rent control. I would offer this however, in rebuttal:
http://www.laweekly.com/news/culver-citys-gentrification-sparks-rent-control-fight-4416291
in this LA Weekly article published Feb. 5, 2014, then Vice Mayor Sahli-Wells is quoted under a caption of a picture of her with rental advocate Shireen Daytona as publicly proclaiming : “Culver City needs rent control.” Personally I no longer believe she has changed her mind on this issue, just her strategy.
Good grief. The source for the claim that 45% of residents are renters is that notorious liberal institution, the United States Census Bureau, which exists as a result of Article I section 2 of that awful liberal screed, the Constitution of the United States. As of 2013, the bureau estimated that Culver City included 16,374 occupied housing units, 7,536 of which, plus or minus 591, were occupied by renters. That’s 46% renters, plus or minus 3.1% and it took me about 2 minutes to find it on factfinder.census.gov.
Enough. I beg you to find a new issue to misinform us about.
If you read the article carefully, you will see that the only quote that is attributed to Ms. Sahli-Wells is: “I’m not seeing huge support from my [City Council] colleagues” to institute tougher landlord rules or renters’ protections, “which underlines the importance of a real movement from the community to make sure it stays front and center.”
That is not rent control. I know people confuse renter protections with rent control, but they are just not the same thing.
call it what you will, if it’s statutory … it’s rent control. To wit:
New York State
the War Emergency Tenant Protection Act—also known as rent control (1944)
Los Angeles
Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance [LARSO] (1978)
San Francsco
THE RESIDENTIAL RENT STABILIZATION AND ARBITRATION ORDINANCE (June 13, 1979)
Wikipedia
Rent control, like all other government-mandated PRICE CONTROLS, is a law placing a maximum price, or a “rent ceiling,” on what landlords may charge tenants. If it is to have any effect, the rent level must be set at a rate below that which would otherwise have prevailed.
Ms. Scott,
You stated earlier that you are on the Tenant Landlord Mediation Board. By being on this Board I would imagine you would be familiar with Costa Hawkins Act of 1995 which disallows rent controls in properties built after 1995. Ms. Sahli-Wells has clarified, time and again, that she would not support rent control, as given this law it could not be applied uniformly. Maybe you should give her a call, to get clear on her position.
Dear Claudia,
In my experience, far more confusion is centered around the mediation process our board adheres to than on the nomenclature surrounding government imposed rental increases.
The fact of the matter is, although I am familiar with Costa Hawkins as an owner of income property, it has absolutely no connection to anything we do on the CCLTMB. That is because mediation is a process whereby the mediator remains completely neutral and the proceedings strictly confidential. In fact the two pillars” of mediation (as explicated in the Southern California Bar Association 30-hour training course) are neutrality and confidentiality. Mediators do not interpret or implement laws, regulations or statutes. They render no verdicts, make no findings and can offer no opinions. Their sole participation is as a facilitator of communication and compromise which must come strictly from the tenants and owner/managers themselves. It is for this reason that I object to the notion that the solution to excessive increases may be to “strengthen the mediation board.” I hope that clears things up a little regarding our activities in which we voluntarily contribute our time and training for the good of the Culver City rental community.
Best,
Judy
PS Meghan came to my Christmas party and we have met in the past to discuss our respective positions regarding this contentious issue.
Thank you Judy,
I appreciate you explaining and clarifying for readers the fact that the Board is a mediation board. In the website, it is clarified that: “Mandatory mediation does not require an agreement be reached, only that the matter be discussed in “good faith.” Anyone can understand that despite the good will and volunteerism of the mediators, this is a limited solution for the serious problems that exist in our community, as more and more people are affected by unwarranted rent hikes that become de facto evictions. I agree with you that ‘teeth’ or strengthening a system that depends on ‘good faith’ is not a real solution. This is why so many tenants are complaining about our current system.
City Councils in other cities have passed ordinances to spell out the causes that justify an eviction. Here’s the information sheet that the City of Glendale prepared about their ordinance: http://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showdocument?id=1745
Just an FYI- my definition of apartments and the 45% number is clarified by the US Census definition of apartments below as well as the website it comes from. As the definition clarifies and as I stated the conversion of apartments into condo’s thirty years ago makes our usage of rental apartments different than condos that where apartments.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DATA
All statistics from the SOMA refer to apartments in newly constructed buildings with five units or more. Absorption rates reflect the first time an apartment is rented after completion or the first time a condominium or cooperative apartment is sold after completion. If apartments initially intended to be sold as condominium or cooperative units are, instead, offered by the builder or building owner for rent, they are counted as rental apartments. Units categorized as subsidized and tax credited are those built under two Department of Housing and Urban Development programs (Section 8, Low Income Housing Assistance and Section 202, Senior Citizens Housing Direct Loans) and all units in buildings containing apartments in the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) rent supplement program. The data on privately financed units include privately owned housing subsidized by state and local governments. Time-share units, continuing care retirement units, and turnkey units (privately built for and sold to local public housing authorities after completion) are outside the scope of the survey.
https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/soma/char11/char11txt.html
Dear Claudia,
Once again it just feels like we are talking at cross purposes. The mediation board does not address “de facto” evictions or any other kind of evictions. Those are court proceedings. The Glendale website you referenced does not address any kind of restriction on rental increases. It simply stipulates when an eviction is legal. Non-payment of rent is the first item mentioned. Here in Culver City it is no different. If a tenant cannot pay the rental increase (or refuses to do so) they are liable for an “unlawful detainer” court action. One way they may avoid or delay such action is via mediation. One of the mechanisms we on the board have found to be successful in achieving either a delay or resolution of a substantial rent increase is what we refer to as a “step agreement.” If the parties agree to such an agreement the increase in rent would be spread out over several months (6-9 most commonly) and afford the tenant considerable additional time to adjust to the new rental amount or research alternative accommodations. In the 50+ mediations I have participated in, that formula has worked nearly 100% of the time. Although we must remain neutral, we are permitted to discuss and explain potential solutions that have resulted in successful agreements in the past.
And just to reiterate two things I think are crucial to addressing this continuing controversy: there are 89 incorporated communities in Los Angeles County. Precisely five have statutory rent control provisions. Two of those five, Santa Monica and Beverly Hills have median rental prices far in excess of Culver City. No city in the entire state has instituted a rental control ordinance in the past 24 years and Santa Monica’s has been amended 4 times since adoption, each time weakening its provisions. And lastly there are only two modes for rental abatement that after extensive research I have been able to discover: 1) voluntary (mediation) and 2) statutory (rent control) I genuinely wish there were another way, and I remain open to being enlightened if indeed a third avenue exists.
And just to add a personal note: all five of my rental units are currently paying between 2-4 hundred a month below market value, resulting in a potential income difference of $18,000/year. And none of my very well maintained units would be exempt on the basis of Costa Hawkins alone as they were all built between 1954 and 1957. Bottom line: in general there are very good, honest hard working tenants and conversely very good fair minded owners. Without a doubt there are a few bad apples on both sides. And no matter what we choose to do regarding excessive rent increases, that circumstance will never change. I believe you to be a person of goodwill with the best intensions.
All the best,
Judy
Mr. Rose,
That definition is from the Survey on Market Absorption, which I do not think provides a community-specific breakdown of owners and renters. The relevant methodology is the one used to prepare the American Community Survey and it is simple. The survey asks “is this house, apartment, or mobile home — owned by you or someone in this household with a mortgage . . . Owned by you or someone in this household free and clear . . . Rented . . . [or] Occupied without payment of rent?”
If the unit is owned by someone living there, it is owner-occupied. If it is not, it is renter-occupied. Simple as that. If you see a flaw in the methodology (for example, one might object that the census would count Kato Kaelin as a renter), attack that, but it seems fractious to characterize reliance on reasonably sound data as “a typical liberal assumption.”
Dear Judy,
Your assertion that “no matter what we choose to do regarding excessive rent increases, that circumstance will never change” sums up the difference in our positions.
I simply don’t agree.
Fair enough, perhaps there is a way to prohibit bad actors, be they renters or owners from gaming the system. I do wish you could explicate just what you envision that may be.
-J.
I’m a landlord, but I was a tenant not long ago, so I see both sides. I don’t like the idea that I can raise the rent by any amount, as long as my tenant is on a month-to-month lease. I want to see stability in my community, families being able to stay in our schools, children of many different life circumstances feeling welcome and safe in Culver City.
The City of San Leandro does not have rent control, but it does provide more guidelines for its Rent Review Board. http://www.sanleandro.org/howdoi/view/categoryqna.asp?id=60#591
Many cities have Just Cause Ordinances, that provide more guidance. Here’s Glendale’s: http://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/housing/other-resources/just-cause-eviction-ordinance
This article talks about what Long Beach is doing, to address some of the concerns you raised above:
http://www.signaltribunenewspaper.com/?p=26124
Dear Claudia,
I looked at all the above cited articles. The San Leandro Rent Review Board provide “mediation and or non-binding arbitration services” – strictly advisory and voluntary. The other two ordinances you cite in Glendale and Long Beach address” just cause” evictions in connection to the reporting of substandard conditions i.e. “retaliatory evictions.” So does state of California law in fact. None of the above referenced ordinances stipulate a limit on rent increases in those cities. Culver City Dept. of Building and Safety and Los Angeles County Board of Health address exactly the same issues.
And I too have been a renter, in fact, I was a renter in the home I now own, (on a multi unit property) here in Culver City for 23 years. I and my partner have owned the property for 16 additional years now. We were confronted with the possibility of losing our home 16 years ago when the elderly former owner (our landlady for the entire 23 years) announced due to serious illness, she intended to sell the property and “it was almost a foregone conclusion that whoever purchased it would intend to occupy the main house” (our home). We were faced with either liquidating all and every last dime in savings, employee stock programs and any other monies we could get our hands on, or face the prospect of losing our home. We managed to pull it off. But having been a renter for all of my adult life prior to purchasing this property, I think I have a lot of understanding of the renter’s positions.
And on the subject of tenants who are “bad actors” we previously owned 3 units of income property in what was at the time a “gentrifying” area of Long Beach. But that is another horror story for another day. Have a nice one.
Hi Judy,
I am glad that your experience as a renter, who was lucky enough, as was I, to transition to a more stable situation, allows you to consider the precarious situation that others, who may not be so lucky, find themselves. I feel that when we are blessed in these ways, we must act on behalf of others who aren’t.
I was sharing the San Leandro website because it provides more guidance to landlords on the website, on what may be acceptable, which is better than Culver City, where there is not even that amount of guidance.
It is true that just cause ordinances do not set limits on rents. That is my point. Cities across the state are working within the limits of the Costa Hawkins Act to provide more protections to tenants. Culver City could do the same.
As to your point about California law already including those protections – can you explain why apartment owners fight these ordinances tooth and nail? Why is AAGLA coming into Culver City and attempting to impact our election? What are they so fearful of, then?
I greatly appreciate Claudia Vizcarra’s brilliant and well-informed commets throughout this thread. In regard to her last comment about AAGLA, I sat next to Claudia at their Candidate Forum, and we both heard Meghan challenge AAGLA to create a set of “best practices” that would be good for both landlord and tennant. Also, I witnessed AAGLA’s insulting treatment of Claudia, as they refused to put forth to candidates the question she wrote (after they had invited audience members to write out their questions and present them to the moderator). Why was Claudia’s question not worthy of consideration? Is she not a legitimate landlord in Culver City?
What was ironic about the situation is that the question I submitted was one where I asked the candidates if they would answer both parts of the question that AAGLA moderator asked. The first part of the question was whether they supported rent control, the other one was whether they would support relocation fees. All the candidates focused on the rent control part of the question.
Mr. Sutton, the AAGLA moderator said at the beginning of the meeting that the forum that the candidates would be offered questions from the audience. But he seemed as disinterested in following his own rules, as he seemed to be in getting answers to his own questions.
I would like to answer a question posed regarding the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, also known as AAGLA. What is AAGLA afraid of? Why are they coming into Culver City now and trying to influence our elections? The answer is that AAGLA is afraid that newcomers to Culver City do not realize that AAGLA has been an integral part of our Culver City community for over 100 years. It is as much of a Culver City organization as any other. It is not an outsider. AAGLA has hundreds of members who are property owners in Culver City and has provided them with essential services to help them run their rental business. It provides forms, updates on changes in law and provides landlord services that benefits tenants, including classes on all kinds of topics including maintenance. It also works closely with legislators to advocate for housing issues and make them aware of the consequences of poor legislation that has contributed greatly to many problems we face in the housing market today. AAGLA holds a plethora of meetings every month, and if you have ever been to any of these well attended meetings, you would see a dedicated group of landlords working hard to improve housing quality and their business. You would also realize that the vast majority of their 8,000 plus membership, are small building owners, and mostly people of color including different races, religions, genders, sexual orientation, and ethnicities. It is the most diverse and inclusive organization I have ever seen. Most are owners of smaller and older buildings, which in turn provides the most affordable housing options. AAGLA Board members represent different local geographical areas, and there is a dedicated Board member for Culver City, who is a person of color, a life-long Culver City resident, raised and educated in Culver City, and the Pastor of one of Culver City’s most established churches. He also serves on the Landlord Tenant Board as he has done on and off over the years. So when AAGLA holds a forum, or other meeting in Culver City, please do not try to Trump up suspicions about what is going on here. It is business as usual, building a better community as it has for over 100 years, by Culver City people, for Culver City people, and welcoming to all. In Mr. Sutton’s defense, he did ask audience questions, but he should hardly be blamed if the candidates chose not focus on one part of a question in the unfortunately short time alloted. We all wanted to hear their answers as well.