Re “He Clarifies ‘Misinformation’ About Culver City Renters”

“Rent control,” sadly, has become Culver City’s version of the N-word.

You may not say it aloud. You risk offending inarguably decent older people who are on a noble, mankind-rescuing mission.

Heroically, these Decent People conserved their pennies, and in later years they bought apartments that, generously, they rent to the Less Fortunate.

The courageous Decent People are doing Culver City’s slice of mankind this plump favor so they can avoid descending into one of the Less Fortunate themselves.

[img]2014|right|Steve Rose||no_popup[/img]This is the argument that one of our town’s most prominent citizens, Chamber of Commerce CEO Steve Rose, made here two days ago. He contended that rent control would damage Decent People landlords – deprive them of deserved income – more than it would aid the financially barely solvent Less Fortunate.

Mr. Rose’s precise, compassionate-sounding sentiments were these:

Many condos are being rented out by families and the elderly to supplement their retirements as an investment in Culver City’s future. If the city were to decide to negatively impact Culver City seniors and their families, it would begin a decade-long financial crippling of our residential community.

How do you say balderdash, poppycock, horsefeathers?

For the Fiction Crowd

Mr. Rose’s first sentence is lifted directly from the Chamber of Commerce handbook that says “You can fool the peasants every time you employ the dollhouse phrase that hiking rents to the sky is ‘an investment in Culver City’s future.’”

If you believe that, invite me to your 10th birthday party.

If the Chamber believes that, those naive members should be performing an act at the Magic Castle.

From what I have seen, the Landlord Tenant Mediation Board has been as helpful to Culver City renters as sex organs on a celibate. It serves the same purpose as a visit to Walt Disney’s grave.

That is my Chamber, cradling landlords in their arms and kicking fixed-income, temporarily unemployed, disabled renters down the steps because they not only are Less Fortunate, they are the Less Deserving folks.

Mr. Rose says he was motivated to respond to a rent control advocate’s contention that 45 percent of our town’s residents are renters.

Sorry.

Despite declarations, Mr. Rose never refuted her numbers. He only asserted that we should feel compassion for poor, droopy landlords who are trying to get along. Renters? They can take a leap. Sleep on park benches, if they find one.

Last summer, two Culver City renters died suddenly after their rents were unbelievably jacked up.

Not a tear was shed at City Hall or at any other noble inner sanctum. “You can’t prove there was a link,” the wise guys barked. Neither can they show the deaths were not connected. But they blow by that part.

Despite the warm weather of late, this is a cold, bony winter for renters praying to stave off 100 percent rent increases.

Not one City Council member and not one candidate for Council in the April 8 election supports the cause of rent control.

Shame on Culver City’s elected officials for lacking the courage and compassion to debate the subject.

Forty-five percent of Culver City residents can nestle on a park bench tonight because they have no political clout. A pity.

Here from 2010 are the latest official Census figures for Culver City.

The 2010 United States Census[31] reported that Culver City had a population of 38,883. The population density was 7,566 people per square mile (2,921.2/km²).

The racial makeup of Culver City was 23,450 (60.3%) White (48.0% Non-Hispanic White),[32] 3,694 (9.5%) African American, 191 (0.5%) Native American, 5,742 (14.8%) Asian, 81 (0.2%) Pacific Islander, 3,364 (8.7%) from other races, and 2,361 (6.1%) from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 9,025 persons (23.2%).

The Census reported that 38,572 people (99.2% of the population) lived in households, 84 (0.2%) lived in non-institutionalized group quarters, and 227 (0.6%) were institutionalized.

There were 16,779 households, out of which 4,499 (26.8%) had children under the age of 18 living in them, 6,826 (40.7%) were opposite-sex married couples living together, 1,882 (11.2%) had a female householder with no husband present, 636 (3.8%) had a male householder with no wife present.

There were 922 (5.5%) unmarried opposite-sex partnerships, and 157 (0.9%) same-sex married couples or partnerships. 5,649 households (33.7%) were made up of individuals and 1,956 (11.7%) had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.30. There were 9,344 families (55.7% of all households), the average family size was 3.01.

The population was spread out with 7,312 people (18.8%) under the age of 18, 2,711 people (7%) aged 18 to 24, 12,098 people (31.1%) aged 25 to 44, 10,956 people (28.2%) aged 45 to 64, and 5,806 people (14.9%) who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40.5 years. For every 100 females there were 89.1 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 85.6 males.

There were 17,491 housing units at an average density of 3,403.5 per square mile (1,314.1/km²), of which 9,111 (54.3%) were owner-occupied, and 7,668 (45.7%) were occupied by renters. The homeowner vacancy rate was 0.7%; the rental vacancy rate was 4.1%. 21,549 people (55.4% of the population) lived in owner-occupied housing units and 17,023 people (43.8%) lived in rental housing units.