First in a series
[img]2570|exact|Meghan Sahli-Wells. Photo, Todd Johnson.||no_popup[/img]
Mayor Meghan Sahli-Wells, a declared opponent of rent control and advocate for affordable housing, spoke emphatically this morning about the warmest topic roiling the community:
“There is no way Culver City would be able to provide affordable housing for 45 percent of the community. Forty-five percent is the approximate number of residents (18,000) who are renters.”
She said that “rent control is not affordable housing and affordable housing is not rent control. That much is clear.”
The City Council unanimously voted last evening to call a community meeting – possibly in February or March – to debate affordable housing (specifically not rent control) and the role of the virtually invisible Landlord Tenant Mediation Board.
The concept of rent control is sparking far more passion streaking across Culver City than affordable housing, which draws blank looks and little detectable passion.
Having announced that all four active members of the Council are against the concept of rent control, they are hoping such talk will float away so they can cogitate on a far dryer issue.
If chatter at the long distance community meeting is restricted to affordable housing and the Landlord Tenant Mediation Board the audience likely will be considerably smaller than if it were about rent control, a thorn to many residents.
The Landlord Tenant board dates back to the ‘80s, and critics say that cumulatively it has made a smaller impact than an unmarried squirrel passing through Culver City.
The mayor noted that Housing Administrator Tevis Barnes counted 45 mediations by the board in her 13 years with the city, a modest annual average of 3½.
Ms. Sahli-Wells sees two problems with the board:
• “People don’t know about it.
• “The role of the board. They bring people together, but there is no way to guarantee an outcome.”
Board advocates and critics both have spoken about the group’s paucity of power.
Is the Landlord Tenant Mediation Board worth extending?
(To be continued)
