Announcements &    Housing Issues            

For more news and articles check the "CES In The News" page

JOIN THE CAMPAIGN TO SAVE RENT CONTROL

Voters Have A Clear Choice
Vote to Save Rent Control !!!!

-- Tuesday, June 3, 2008 --

Eminent Domain Reform Now, a coalition of seniors, homeowners,
business, labor, environmentalists, local governments, affordable housing
advocates and others announced qualification of their Homeowners Protection
Act for the June 3, 2008 ballot. It qualified on January 24, 2008

If passed by voters, the Homeowners Protection Act will prevent governments
from using eminent domain to take an owner-occupied home to transfer to a private
party. The measure is a direct response to the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous
Kelo v. the City of New London decision from 2005.

Hidden Agendas Scheme That Would Abolish Rent Control Opposed

Members of Eminent Domain Reform Now also reiterated their strong opposition to
the so-called California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, known by
opponents as the Hidden Agendas Scheme. The Hidden Agendas Scheme will be on
the same election ballot and includes provisions which would roll back rent control and
other renter protections, decimate local land use planning, and gut environmental protections.

Some of the New Endorsers Who Say NO on Proposition 98!

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Former Governor of California Pete Wilson
Speaker of the House, U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco)
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein
U.S. Representative George Radanovich (R-Mariposa)
AARP
League of Women Voters
California Labor Federation
SEIU California State Council
State Building and Construction Trades Council
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
Association of California Water Agencies
California Chamber of Commerce
California Building Industry Association
Consumer Federation of California
California Professional Firefighters
California Police Chiefs Association
California Fire Chiefs Association
California Teachers Association
National Wildlife Federation
Sierra Club California
California National Organization for Women
California Democratic Party
League of California Cities

YES on PROPOSITION 99 - The Homeowners Protection Act

More than two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that government
can use eminent domain to take a home to give to a private developer.
Since that outrageous decision, more than 40 states have reformed their
eminent domain laws, but California has failed to act.

• The Homeowners Protection Act will prohibit the government from
using eminent domain to take a home to transfer to a private developer.


NO on PROPOSITION 98 - the Hidden Agendas Scheme

It Would Abolish Rent Control, Stop Water Infrastructure Projects, and Destroy Land-Use Planning

Wealthy landlords are collecting signatures to put a measure on the June 3, 2008 ballot
for their own financial gain. These landlords want you to believe that the so-called
California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act (CPOFPA) - dubbed the
"Hidden Agendas Scheme" - is about eminent domain, but the measure is really an attempt
to abolish rent control and other renter protections. To make matters worse,
the measure also contains poorly drafted provisions that could stop future water
projects, destroy local land-use planning and erode environmental protections.


Proposition 98 - The Hidden Agendas Scheme would:

* Eliminate rent control and other renter protection laws.
* Threaten water quality and supply.
* Hurt the environment and stop regulations that protect our neighborhoods.
* Lead to thousands of frivolous lawsuits and paralyze approval of new homes, businesses and other community projects.

Find out how you can help. Go to:

www.no98yes99.com
and

www.rentersrights.blogspot.com

Lincoln Place Tenants Win in Court
Evictions Halted!!!!! Evicted Tenant Might Move Back
20 Years of Struggle Pays Off....For Now

Lincoln Place Tenants scored a major victory when the California Court of Appeals sided with tenants, ruling that the pending evictions were unlawful and violated the terms of conditions imposed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with a redevelopment project the city approved in November, 2002.

Lincoln Place was a 795-unit rent controlled complex in Venice. Some of the building have been demolished. The ruling is a huge blow to the owners of the complex, AIMCO, which is the largest landlord of private and HUD subsidized housing in the nation. AIMCO wants to redevelop the property with high-priced luxury townhouses.

Lincoln Place tenants were first faced with eviction 20 years ago when the Coalition for Economic Survival (CES) helped tenants organize a tenant association to stop the landlord at that time from using a loophole in the rent control to eviction tenants and jack up rents.

That tenant association has stayed together and fought off numerous other attempts to eviction tenants under the tenacious and committed leadership of Sheila Bernard, the association President, Frieda Marlin, Laura Burns, Jan Book, Ingrid Mueller, Amanda Seward and many, many others.

Lincoln Place tenants have been loyal supporters and members of CES, having been key participants in many of our citywide efforts to protect rent control and oppose condo conversions and demolitions.

This court decisions could have major implications on supporting efforts to win further protects for tenants throughout the city facing condo conversions and demolitions.

LOS ANGELES TIMES
 

Court victory for tenants in a long battle
The few remaining residents can stay in their rent-controlled units at a Venice complex a firm is seeking to redevelop.
 

By Jessica Garrison, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
 

Friday, September 21, 2007

In the latest twist in one of Los Angeles' longest-running battles over gentrification, a state appellate court has ruled that tenants of an apartment complex slated for redevelopment can stay in their rent-controlled units.

A three-judge panel of the 2nd District Court of Appeal also chastised the city for failing to intervene in the fight over the Lincoln Place apartments in Venice.

The decision was cheered by tenant advocates across the city. Over the last two decades, the fate of the complex's residents has become, for many, symbolic of people with lesser means trying to stay in rent-stabilized apartments in rapidly gentrifying areas.

"I'm ecstatic," said Laura Burns, a 59-year-old filmmaker who was removed from her Lincoln Place apartment by sheriff's deputies two years ago. "We have said since the very beginning that these evictions were not legal and that the city had the duty to enforce these conditions, and nobody would listen to us."

It was unclear whether the city and the developer, AIMCO-Venezia LLC, would appeal. Attorneys for the company did not return phone calls. A spokesman for City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo said lawyers were "still studying the ruling."

Completed in 1951, the 795 garden units a mile from the beach were hailed as a stylish example of post-World War II affordable housing. Only 13 apartments remain occupied in the complex.

The battle over the apartments began in 1991, when a new owner applied for permission to demolish the buildings and replace them with condominiums.

Los Angeles officials initially denied permission to demolish. But in 2002, after the city lost a court battle, officials approved the project.

As part of the approval, the owners of Lincoln Place agreed to a redevelopment plan that gave the tenants the option to move to other units within the complex if their apartments were demolished.

But when AIMCO-Venezia bought the 38-acre property outright in 2003, the company said it did not have to comply with those conditions and started razing buildings. Preservationists who considered the complex of historical importance -- it was one of the rare projects for that era designed by a black architect -- filed suit.

In 2006, Councilman Bill Rosendahl, whose district includes the complex, proposed having the city enforce the agreement signed by the previous owner.

The city attorney told the council, before it rejected Rosendahl's proposal, that it would not be enforceable and would expose the city to liability.

Rebuffed by that decision, the tenants sued.

A trial judge ruled in the city's favor, but the Court of Appeal took a different view.

The city's arguments "find no support in this record or in the law," the justices wrote.

That caused Rosendahl to question the legal advice that the council had received.

"I look forward to the city attorney's office's explanation," he said in an interview Thursday. "And frankly, I wouldn't mind an apology."

The ruling left a variety of questions unanswered, among them what will happen to the tenants who have already been evicted.

John Murdock, the tenants' attorney, said people who were evicted could seek their apartments back -- along with money for emotional distress.

 Quick Facts About AIMCO's Evictions
and the Tenants' Struggle to Save Lincoln Place
(Information taken from the Lincoln Place web site at www.lincolnplace.net)

* AIMCO, the largest owner of apartment buildings in the U.S., acquired full ownership of Lincoln Place Apartments in 2003. Since 2001, it had 50% ownership of the complex. As property values in Los Angeles skyrocketed during this time, AIMCO desired to redevelop the rent-controlled complex to make market-rate profits.

* In 2002, AIMCO volunteered to build 144 rental units in exchange for a density bonus (which would let them build units at a higher density than normally allowed) and the right to build 706 new condos. The City of Los Angeles granted AIMCO the redevelopment plan on the condition that "no tenant would be evicted."

* In March 2005, AIMCO filed Ellis Act eviction notices on more than 300 tenants claiming AIMCO was going out of the rental business, even though AIMCO's charter limits their business to renting apartments only.

* In July 2005, the Court of Appeals ruled that AIMCO violated the conditions of the redevelopment plan when AIMCO demolished five Lincoln Place buildings on Lake Street in 2003; whether or not the Tract Map (redevelopment plan) was recorded, AIMCO must now comply with its conditions, or have public hearings to modify it.

* In November 2005, AIMCO unilaterally broke off negotiations for a settlement with the tenants regarding the evictions when the California State Historic Commission found Lincoln Place eligible for the State Historical Register. AIMCO later took steps to sue the Commission for its decision.

* In December 2005, AIMCO evicted 80 households, including 59 households locked out by the L.A. sheriff, in violation of their previous promise that no tenant would be evicted.

* In April 2006, Lincoln Place tenants, the community, local preservationists, the City of Los Angeles, and AIMCO entered into mediated settlement negotiations, but AIMCO again unilaterally broke off the negotiations on May 5, 2006 when the State Historic Commissioners restored historic designation on Lincoln Place, which AIMCO had challenged.

* In violation of the 2005 Court of Appeals decision, the Los Angeles City Attorney refused to stop these evictions until AIMCO applies for a demolition permit, which will happen only after the property is emptied of tenants.

With a City Council Chamber packed on one side with high-priced landlord and developer lobbyists and representatives in expensive tailor-made suits and with the other side filled with tenants and tenant advocates from Call to Action, an alliance of L.A.'s major tenants' rights organizations including CES, many in brightly colored t-shirts proudly displaying their organization's name, the L.A. City Council unanimously approved a long overdue law to close a rent control loophole.

The loophole enabled developers and landlords to evict tenants and destroy affordable housing.

State law guarantees landlords the right to go out of the rental business. When doing so a landlord signs a legal declaration attesting to this fact. If the landlord then demolishes the apartment building and constructs new rental housing they've made a fraudulent claim.

This new law, passed by the City Council, helps to ensure these landlords and developers are not rewarded, and that tenants and affordable housing are protected.

WHAT THE NEW LAW DOES
The ordinance would require a landlord/developer who demolished a rent controlled building and constructs new rental units on the site to be subject to the following:

1) All the units in the new building would be covered by the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO). The new law will allow building owners to set the initial rents at market rates, but future increases would be subject to the city's rent control law, which limits how much rents can be raised each year and tenants will have just cause eviction protections.

2) The owner would have the alternative option to replace an equal number of housing units that were demolished, not to exceed 20% of the total number of newly constructed rental units, that would be affordable to households with an income at or below 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) established by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, which shall remain affordable for at least 30 years. The additional units would then be exempted from rent control.

THE DEBATE
At the City Council hearing the previous week, L.A. Housing Department General Manager Mercedes Marquez brilliantly deflected questions from Council Member Bernard Parks, a vocal rent control opponent, stating that this law was needed, especially in light of Forbes Magazine recently reporting that Los Angeles was the city with the nation's least affordable housing and that only 2% of L.A.'s residents can now afford to buy a home indicating a crisis that is now not only limited to low income people, but now severely affects middle class Angelenos.

Dismissing charges that this law would stop the development of needed new rental housing, Marquez responded that L.A. ranks only behind Dallas, nationally, in the construction of new rental housing.

Enormous thanks should be given to Council Members Eric Garcetti and Ed Reyes, who, both, provided effective leadership on this issue. In addition, thanks goes out to Council Members Wendy Greuel, Bill Rosendahl and Janice Hahn for providing strong vocal support.

Nevertheless, much more City action is needed to truly preserve the city's scarce existing affordable housing stock, as well as to produce additional housing to meet L.A.'s ever increasing need. Thus, the fight continues...................
 

SUBSTANTIAL TENANT RELOCATION

ASSISTANCE INCREASE VICTORY!!!!!

But, the Campaign to Win Restrictions on
Condo Conversions & Rental Housing Demolitions
Continues...........................................

WHAT WE WON!

After another 2 hours of public testimony and City Council debate the City Council finally adopted an increase in tenants relocation benefits and a number of other proposals to attempt to deal the condo conversions and demolitions sweeping across our city, displacing a mass number of tenants from their homes.

While we believe this big increase relocation will benefit tenants, it is still not enough and clearly must not be seen as the end all answer. We still need the City Council to concretely restriction condo conversions, curb demolitions and stop the evictions. Nevertheless, we achieved a significant number of victories, yesterday.

Here is what we were able to get changed:

- The tenancy requirements, to receive the higher relocation amounts, was lowered to 3 years from 5 years.

- The means testing to determine whether a low-income tenants meets the financial criteria to receive the high relocation amounts will not be effective until the LA Housing Department has established it administrative procedures to oversee the means testing. Until that time all low income tenants will receive the higher relocation amounts.

- The means testing provision will sunset after one year unless the City Council votes to extend it. If the provision sunsets they will be no means testing, nor tenancy requirements, thus all tenants will receive the higher relocation amounts.

- The effective date to receive the higher relocation assistance is April 11, 2007. The means that every tenant that receives an eviction notice dated from yesterday on gets the higher amounts.

The new fee structure is:

--$6,810 to tenants who have lived in their apartments less than three years (or $14,850 for those who are older, disabled or have minor children).

--$9,040 to tenants who have lived in their apartments more than three years (or $17,080 for those older, disabled or with minor children).

--From $9,040 to $17,080 to tenants whose income is 80% or below the area's median income--$55,450 for a family of four, regardless of the length of tenancy.

Also in the report adopted by the City Council are proposals to do the following:

= Requires building owners to provide relocation assistance payments to tenants who voluntarily move out of a unit proposed for condominium conversion. Tenants who voluntarily move after approval of the map and before notice of termination are entitled to relocation assistance,

= Establishes landlord fees for the purpose of providing relocation assistance by the City's Relocation Assistance Service Provider.

= Provides for an increase in the Rental Housing Production Fee from $500 to $1,492.

= Establishes a compliance monitoring program to monitor compliance with tenant relocation assistance requirements when buildings are demolished.

= Provides for a fee of $186 per rental unit for resolution of income disputes.

In Addition the City Council Voted to:

INSTRUCT the City Attorney's office, in coordination with the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety, to draft an Ordinance within 45 days allowing the Department of Building and Safety the ability to deny a demolition permit if: (a) the vacancy rate is less than five percent; and (b) the cumulative effect on the rental market is significant.

INSTRUCT the Planning Department and the LAHD to utilize the actual cost of replacing a unit and other key factors as a basis for formulating a revised Rental Housing Production Fee Increase as part of a nexus study; and to report back to the Planning and Land Use Management Committee in 45 days with findings and recommendations. The report back should include the anticipated impact of the fees, and an analysis on what other cities have done.

INSTRUCT the Planning Department, Advisory Agency, to adopt a new department procedure for implementation relative to the Findings on Vacancy Rate  and Cumulative Impacts, pursuant to LAMC Section 12.95.2(f) and revised application procedures for residential condominium conversions (as shown on both Attachments A and B of this joint Committee report); and report back to the Planning and Land Use Management Committee on its plan to enforce the new procedure.

INSTRUCT the Planning Department, Advisory Agency, to report back in 60 days to the Planning and Land Use Management and Housing, Community and Economic Development Committees on recommendations from the economic study for implementation of a long-term approach, pursuant to LAMC Section 12.95.2(f) with respect to condominium conversions and demolition/new condominium construction cases.

INSTRUCT the Planning Department, Advisory Agency, to prepare and post on its website a bi-weekly listing of approvals and denials on condominium conversions and demolition applications.

INSTRUCT the Planning Department to invite representatives of jurisdictions which have enacted an annual cap on the number of permissible condominium conversions to participate on the suggested panel of experts. The expert panel shall address the ramifications of creating an annual cap on not only condominium conversions but also demolitions.

INSTRUCT the Planning Department, LAHD, and City Attorney to report back in two weeks to the Planning and Land Use Management and Housing, Community and Economic Development Committees on the status of a previous August, 2006, request on the feasibility of amending the LAMC to require applicants to provide long-term lease guarantees.

INSTRUCT the Planning Department, LAHD, and City Attorney to summarize the various policy directives related to addressing condominium conversions, demolitions and new constructions, and milestones and timelines; and to provide weekly status updates to the Planning and Land Use Management Committee.

INSTRUCT the Housing Department to report back to the Planning and Land Use Management and Housing, Community and Economic Development Committees' with any policy changes or required changes to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance regarding discrimination matters.


YOUR ACTION STILL NEEDED!!!

We must make sure the City Council knows that their job is not complete. While increasing relocation assistance may ease some pain, it does not cure the disease -- that of the widespread destruction of affordable housing and the mass displacement of tenants.

Continue to contact LA City Council Members and urge that they quickly move to develop and adopt measures to restrict condo conversion and demolitions.

Write & Mail to: LA City Councilmember __________________
LA City Hall – Room ____________
200 N. Spring Street,  Los Angeles, CA 90012

Email & Call:
Los Angeles City Council Members

DISTRICT       COUNCILMEMBER       TELEPHONE      ROOM   EMAIL

1st                     ED P. REYES                   213- 485-3451     410        councilmember.reyes@lacity.org
2nd                   WENDY GREUEL           213-473-7002      475        councilmember.greuel@lacity.org
3rd                    DENNIS P. ZINE             213-473-7003      450       councilmember.zine@lacity.org
4th                    TOM LABONGE             213-485-3337      480        labonge@lacity.org
5th                    JACK WEISS                  213-473-7005       440       councilmember.weiss@lacity.org
6th                    TONY CARDENAS       213-473-7006       455        councilman.cardenas@lacity.org
7th                    RICHARD ALARCON   213-847-7777       425      councilmember.alarcon@lacity.org
8th                    BERNARD PARKS       213-473-7008        460        councilmember.parks@lacity.org
9th                    JAN PERRY                   213-473-7009       420         councilmember.perry@lacity.org
10th                  HERB WESSON, JR.      213-473-7010      430         councilmember.wesson@lacity.org
11th                  BILL ROSENDAHL       213-485-3811       415         councilman.rosendahl@lacity.org
12th                  GREIG SMITH                213-485-3343      405          councilmember.smith@lacity.org
13th                  ERIC GARCETTI            213-473-7013      470          councilmember.garcetti@lacity.org
14th                  JOSE HUIZAR                213-485-3335       465         councilmember.huizar@lacity.org
15th                  JANICE HAHN              213-473-7015       435         councilmember.hahn@lacity.org

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Help stop Ellis Act evictions

The Ellis Act is a state law that is a favorite tool of real estate speculators, and that results in hundreds of evictions in San Francisco every year. Many of those evicted under the Ellis Act are seniors, low-income or disabled tenants. We have the chance to limit the ways the Ellis Act is used for real estate speculation

State Senator Sheila Kuehl (LA) has introduced an amendment (SB 464) to the Ellis Act which will significantly curtail evictions under Ellis. Her amendment would require that a property owner must have owned the property for at least 5 years before they can evict tenants under the Ellis Act. This will stop speculators from using the Ellis Act–speculators do most of the Ellis evictions. In San Francisco, for example, found that 1/4 of all Ellis evictions were done within the first month of ownership and that over half were done within the first 6 months of ownership. The same is happening in Los Angeles. Overall, 80% of the Ellises were done by landlords who had owned the building for less than 5 years. Besides the ownership requirement, the Kuehl amendment would also mandate that all tenants in a building get a 1 year notice if there is a senior or disabled tenant in the building. Since over 80% of the buildings Ellised have at least one senior or disabled tenant, this will effectively extend the 1 year notice (from 120 days) to nearly all tenants.

HELP GET THIS BILL PASSED

Sen. Kuehl needs letters of support from organizations and individuals.

Fax your support and endorsement of SB 464 to: (916) 324-4823.

Also contact your state to demand their support for SB 464.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

60-Day Eviction Notices Now Required in California

Effective January 1, 2007, landlords are required to provide tenants a 60-day eviction notice in most cases in California.. This law, passed by the state legislature as Assembly Bill 1169, requires that tenants who have resided in their unit for more than one year be allowed 60, as opposed to 30, days to vacate their apartment when evicted through no fault of their own (a “no fault” eviction).

A “no fault” eviction means that the tenant’s lease is terminated not because the tenant breached the lease, but rather because the lease term has expired and the landlord does not wish to renew it. In places without rent control, the landlord is free to terminate the tenancy upon lease expiration provided that the owner is not discriminating against the tenant for unlawful reasons such as the tenant’s race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or national origin. However, in cities that have rent control, a no fault eviction must also be expressly permitted by the rent law; as such, no fault evictions are generally limited to owner/relative move-ins, removal of illegal units, substantial rehabilitations, sale of condominium units and, for a temporary displacement of tenants with the right to return, lead abatement or capital improvement work to the unit.

“Fault” evictions are governed by a separate statute requiring the tenant to vacate after three days if the breach is not cured or, in some instances, without any opportunity to cure. In California, fault evictions include nonpayment of rent, breach of a lease covenant, commission of waste and/or nuisance, or using the dwelling for an illegal purpose.
With the passage of this law, landlords serving notice for no fault evictions on tenants of more than one year must comply with the 60-day notice requirement. Like its predecessor, this bill expires in three years unless renewed. It also does not apply to tenancies that have existed for less than one year when the eviction notice is served; in those instances, the traditional 30-day notice is still available.

However, AB 1169 goes further than the previous 60-day notice law and states that the 60-day requirement shall not apply if any tenant or resident has resided in the unit for less than one year.

The other exception contained in this bill is an exemption for single-family homes or condominiums that are being sold to natural persons for owner-occupancy. If notice is given less than 120 days after escrow has been opened, the historic 30-day notice is allowed.
 

www.CESinAction.org

======================================================================================================================

●  Housing and Tenants' Rights November 7, 2006 California Election Results

As America voters sent a strong message that they are fed up with George Bush, a Republican controlled Congress and the War in Iraq, here are some local elections results that impact affordable housing and tenants' rights.

Proposition 90, the dangerous state measure that would have threatened rent control and the ability to enact any future tenants' rights laws, such as restricting condo conversions and housing demolitions, thankfully went down to defeat.

Proposition 1C, the state housing bond measure, passed.

Proposition H, the City of LA $1 billion housing bond measure, while receiving a strong majority of votes, fell short of the two-thirds required vote need for approval.

Measure I, the City of Berkeley measure to weaken Berkeley's strong condo conversion law in going down to a 2 to 1 big defeat.

Proposition H, San Francisco's measure to increase relocation assistance for evicted tenants, passed 55-45.


===============================================================================


Proposition 90 - Eminent Domain/Rent Control Threat- California
               Votes           %
No          3,418,156      52.47
Yes         3,096,043      47.53

Proposition 1C - Housing & Shelter Bond- California
                Votes          %
Yes         3,777,763     57.47
No          2,795,771     42.53

Measure H - $1 Billion Affordable Housing Bond - City of Los Angeles
                Votes          %
Yes         350,625        62.29
No          212,265        37.71

Measure I - Would have raised the annual limit on condo conversions from 100 to 500 units, allowing easier tenant evictions and reducing an affordable housing conversion - City of Berkeley
                Votes          %
No            19,758       73.47
Yes            7,136       26.53

Proposition H - Increases Tenant Relocation Assistance - City of San Francisco
                Votes          %
Yes          84,047        54.3
No           70,634        45.7
 

●  The Coalition for Economic Survival was featured on KCET TV's Life and Times story on the impact of condo conversion's on Los Angeles tenants and the supply of affordable housing. You can see a clip from the program interview and the program transcript by going to (cut & paste the following web address into you web browser address bar): http://www.kcet.org/lifeandtimes/blog/?p=71

● Job Opening:  The Coalition for Economic Survival is seeking qualified people to organize tenants in at-risk affordable housing.

● California Supreme Court Ruling Tremendous Victory for Section 8 Tenants: June 13, 2005. The California Supreme Court ruled that  landlords are required to give Section 8 tenants 90 days notice of termination and this applies throughout the state of California, not just in rent control jurisdictions.    More...

● Deal in Works to Save Aid for Low-Income Renters: LA Times: Saturday, April 3, 2004. L.A. Housing Authority and HUD officials near an agreement that seeks to avoid federal receivership and preserve subsidies to thousands of families.    More...

● EDITORIAL: HUD Must Close This Deal: Los Angeles Times: March 26, 2004. Americans lately have spent about $50 billion each year on home loan and refinancing settlement costs, an average of $4,500 per loan. Too often, the ultimate cost isn't even apparent until it's time to sign the towering pile of documents submitted by mortgage brokers and bankers, escrow companies, appraisers and others involved in the process.  More....

● Cut in HUD Funds a Blow to Poor: Los Angeles Times: Sunday, February 29, 2004; A suspension of housing subsidies for about 1,500 L.A. families is leading to a desperate search for safe homes, and more may soon be affected. More...

● Housing Agency Cuts Off Subsidies: Los Angeles Times; Monday, February 23, 2004; The move, blamed on a lack of funds, dashes hopes of 1,500 families that had Section 8 vouchers but hadn't yet signed leases.    More...

● Budget Includes $31.264 Billion For HUD, Changes In Voucher Program: HDR HEADLINES (TM) -- February 4, 2004; The Bush Administration's fiscal 2005 budget includes $31.264 billion in budget authority for HUD, along with major changes in the housing voucher program aimed at controlling program costs. More...

● City Council, compassion and cash are in short supply: Los Angeles Daily News, Thursday, January 22, 2004 - They've paid their taxes, raised their children, contributed to their communities, and now, in their twilight years, they are alone and living on a shoestring.  More....

● National Low-Income Housing Coalition President,  Sheila Crowley visits slum housing building assisted by CES: (hacla.org)  At stop one of her tour, Crowley met Larry Gross and members of the Coalition for Economic Survival and spoke with tenants of a brown stone building being evicted because they refuse to pay for a parking fee their landlord want to force on them. More...

● An Assault on Housing Vouchers: Editorial (nytimes.com)- The Bush administration, which created a record budget deficit partly through tax cuts for the rich, is threatening to make up some of the difference by cutting desperately needed programs aimed at the poor. One candidate for the chopping block is Section 8, the federal rent-subsidy program whose main purpose is preventing low-income families from becoming homeless.  More....

● Bush’s Budget for 2005 Seeks to Rein In Domestic Costs: (NYTimes.com) WASHINGTON, Jan. 3 - Facing a record budget deficit, Bush administration officials say they have drafted an election-year budget that will rein in the growth of domestic spending without alienating politically influential constituencies.  More....

● Acting HUD leader's remarks questioned: Lawmaker wants scolding investigated; words called motivation: WASHINGTON -- A Democratic congressman has asked the Department of Housing and Urban Development's inspector general to determine whether Acting Secretary Alphonso Jackson violated department policy when he scolded employees at a meeting last year.  More....

● Lawmakers Tackle Tenants' Issues L.A. Council moves to protect people from evictions and to preserve federally subsidized housing: (LA Times) Friday, December 26, 2003, In a year of rising housing costs, Los Angeles lawmakers and advocates pushed through measures to help tenants and homeowners keep roofs over their heads. More....

● Apartment rating plan to be mulled Health grades a possibility: Los Angeles Daily News: Thursday, November 20, 2003 - Los Angeles County will consider a plan Tuesday to post health ratings on apartment buildings similar to the letter grades displayed in restaurant windows.  More....

● Bit by Bit, Government Eases Its Grip on Rents in New York: New York Times, November 19, 2003. In New York City, where for generations government has played a uniquely ambitious role in helping people pay their rents, a fundamental shift is taking hold - apartment by apartment, building by building. More....

Acting HUD leader's remarks questioned

Lawmaker wants scolding investigated; words called motivation

08:50 PM CST on Wednesday, January 7, 2004



WASHINGTON -- A Democratic congressman has asked the Department of Housing and Urban Development's inspector general to determine whether Acting Secretary Alphonso Jackson violated department policy when he scolded  employees at a meeting last year.
 
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said in a letter dated Wednesday that Mr. Jackson may have violated HUD's "Workplace Violence Policy" during the Oct. 20 meeting.
 
"These allegations are serious and deserve a thorough investigation by the inspector general's office," Mr. Waxman wrote in a letter addressed to HUD inspector general Kenneth Donohue.
 
HUD officials declined to comment on the letter. But they said Mr. Jackson's remarks in California were designed to motivate one of HUD's worst-performing offices but may have been misinterpreted as harsh and threatening by some employees.
 
"He is very direct in the way he speaks," said HUD spokesman Jerry Brown. "Some people may have taken it in that manner."
 
Michael Zerega, a spokesman for the inspector general's office, declined to comment and said a response would be made directly to the congressman.
 
The call for an investigation could keep the controversy alive as Mr. Jackson faces a Senate hearing to be confirmed as the department's secretary.
 
Mr. Jackson, a friend and former Dallas neighbor of President Bush, was appointed by the president last month to succeed Mel Martinez, who resigned to return to Florida and plans to run for the U.S. Senate.
  
After the October meeting, Local 1450 of the National Federation of Federal Employees filed a complaint with the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
 
The union charged that during the one-hour meeting with about 110 employees, Mr. Jackson said he was "sick and tired" of reading "asinine" memos about the union's activities. And the union said Mr. Jackson "verbally threatened" HUD employee and Local 1450 leader Scott Reed.
 
"Mr. Jackson physically threatened Mr. Reed by threatening to give Mr. Reed a 'whupping' as Mr. Jackson's father had given him as a child," the union complaint said.
 
Mr. Brown, the HUD spokesman, said Mr. Jackson told the story about his father with the intention of saying, "Let's get moving in the right direction and deliver the services to the community we should deliver in a timely fashion."
 
Mr. Waxman said Mr. Jackson's remarks may have violated HUD policies that prohibit "violent outbursts, intimidation, threats, harassment, bullying or other forms of abusive, aggressive or disruptive behavior."
  
"This would be like Bill Gates calling a meeting of all his employees and humiliating and degrading an employee in front of all the other employees," said Jan Thompson, a business representative for the union.
 
The labor relations authority issued a proposed settlement Dec. 29 that would have Mr. Jackson reaffirming to maintain positive relationships with employees. Mr. Brown said HUD would agree to the proposed settlement. But Ms. Thompson, the union representative, plans to appeal the agreement and wants Mr. Jackson to apologize.
 
"I do not think this even constitutes a slap on the wrist," Ms.Thompson said.
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  BACK TO TOP

Bush’s Budget for 2005 Seeks to Rein In Domestic Costs

January 4, 2004
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON, Jan. 3 - Facing a record budget deficit, Bush administration officials say they have drafted an election-year budget that will rein in the growth of domestic spending without alienating politically influential constituencies.

They said the president's proposed budget for the 2005 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, would control the rising cost of housing vouchers for the poor, require some
veterans to pay more for health care, slow the growth in spending on biomedical research and merge or eliminate some job training and employment programs. The moves are
intended to trim the programs without damaging any essential services, the administration said.
Even with the improving economic outlook, administration officials said, the federal budget deficit in the current fiscal year is likely to exceed last year's deficit of $374
billion, the largest on record.

The Congressional Budget Office and the White House budget office have projected a deficit of more than $450 billion this year.

But Joshua B. Bolten, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, has said the president's policies will cut the deficit in half within five years, through a
combination of economic growth and fiscal restraint.

Mr. Bush's budget request, to be sent to Congress by Feb.2, includes several tax cut proposals, including new incentives for individual saving and tax credits to help
uninsured people buy health insurance. The Democratic candidates for president have accused Mr. Bush of doing little to halt the recent rapid increase in the number of
uninsured.

Administration officials said the president's budget would call for an overall increase of about 3 percent in appropriations for so-called domestic discretionary
spending, which excludes the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Department and insurance benefits like Medicare and Medicaid.

As he completes work on his budget, Mr. Bush faces criticism from conservatives, who say he has presided over a big increase in federal spending, and liberals, who say
his tax cuts have converted a large budget surplus to a deficit.

Total federal revenues have declined for three consecutive years, apparently the first time that has happened since the early 1920's. But in those years, from 2000 to 2003,
total federal spending has increased slightly more than 20 percent, to $2.16 trillion last year.

Brian M. Riedl, an economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said: "President Bush is not focusing on his fiscal conservative base right now. He's trying to position
himself in between conservatives in Congress and the Democratic Party. It may be good politics, but it's bad policy, a lost opportunity to get runaway government
spending under control."

White House officials deny that they have acquiesced in a domestic spending spree. They insist, as do some liberal advocacy groups, that appropriations for domestic programs
are not exploding.

Such spending, they say, will increase 3 percent in 2004, after increases of 5 percent in 2003, 6 percent in 2002 and 15 percent in 2001. Moreover, they say, increased corporate
profits should lead to an increase in corporate tax payments, lifting revenues in the coming years.

Richard Kogan, a budget analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning research and advocacy group, said the increase in military and domestic security
spending in the last two years dwarfed the increase in domestic discretionary programs, which did not quite keep pace with inflation.

"The increases for defense, international affairs and homeland security have been much greater - and thus have played a much larger role in the return to deficits - than
the increases for domestic appropriations," Mr. Kogan said.

Housing officials said the administration was alarmed at increases in the cost of vouchers, which provide rental assistance to low-income families, and would take steps to
prevent local housing agencies from issuing more vouchers than Congress had authorized. Congress has tentatively decided to provide $14.2 billion for renewal of vouchers
this year, an increase of about 15 percent.

Federal officials said they would also require families seeking housing aid to help the government obtain more accurate information on their earnings. As a condition of
receiving aid, families would have to consent to the disclosure of income data reported to a national directory of newly hired employees. The directory was created under a
1996 law to help enforce child-support obligations.

Administration officials said the president's budget would also slow the growth of spending at the National Institutes of Health, which doubled in the last five years, reaching
$27.1 billion in 2003. Congress has tentatively agreed to provide $28 billion this year, slightly more than Mr. Bush requested, and administration officials said they would
seek an increase of 3 percent or less for 2005.

Budget officials defended the proposal, saying they wanted to be sure the agency was properly managing a huge infusion of federal money.

Mr. Bush proposed last year to double co-payments on prescription drugs for many veterans, primarily those with higher incomes and no service-connected disabilities. The
White House reaffirmed its support for that proposal in November.

In the last week, the Pentagon has been considering a new proposal to increase pharmacy co-payments for retirees with at least 20 years of military service. Under the proposal,
the charge for a generic drug would rise to $10, from $3, while the charge for a brand-name medicine would rise to $20, from $9.

The Military Officers Association of America criticized this as "a grossly insensitive and wrong-headed proposal."In e-mail messages to the White House, members of the
association asked Mr. Bush, "Why do your budget officials persist in trying to cut military benefits?"

Col. Steven P. Strobridge, director of government relations at the association, said he understood that the Pentagon was now inclined to study the issue for a year and renew
the proposal, as part of a systematic effort to "reduce military health care costs."

Administration officials said they expected Mr. Bush to seek increases of $1 billion, or 10 percent, for the education of children with disabilities and $1 billion, or
8 percent, in Title I grants for schools with high concentrations of students from low-income families.

Budget officials said they were concerned that they did not have enough money for Pell grants to keep pace with a recent surge in low-income students seeking help with
college costs. They said Mr. Bush would address that problem in some way, without seeking an increase in the maximum grant, now $4,050.

The budget also seeks money to train more nurses, to encourage sexual abstinence among teenagers and to recruit "volunteers in homeland security," who can respond to
emergencies, including terrorist attacks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/04/politics/04BUDG.html?ex=1074236463&ei=1&en=f4564ca01f300dc4

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  BACK TO TOP

LOS ANGELES TIMES

Lawmakers Tackle Tenants' Issues
L.A. Council moves to protect people from evictions
and to preserve federally subsidized housing.

By Jocelyn Y. Stewart
Times Staff Writer

Friday, December 26, 2003

In a year of rising housing costs, Los Angeles lawmakers and advocates pushed through measures to help tenants and homeowners keep roofs over their
heads.

The effort, and its success, signal the growing realization of the difficulties that poor and moderate-income families face in their attempts to find affordable housing.

Los Angeles has more renters than any other U.S. city except New York, and tenant groups tried to make lawmakers aware of their numbers in 2003. Members arrived downtown en masse — sometimes bused in — filling the City Council chambers and committee rooms
as lawmakers weighed in on housing matters that, in other times, might have been left to market forces.

In some cases, victory for tenants and housing advocates spelled defeat for rental property owners.

The year also saw the passage of tenant-friendly legislation on the state level.

But these days, some apartment owners say they have their own reason to feel victorious: the election of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"This change is sure to benefit rental property owners," wrote Larry Cannizzaro, president of the Apartment Assn. of Greater Los Angeles, in an address to members. "… With Arnold as the 'Governator,' we areoff to a good start in 2004."

For 85-year-old Terrell Dotson of Inglewood, 2003 was a year of victory, which was brought about by the efforts of a wide variety of interests, including the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People, the Inglewood Police Department and concerned Times
readers who had never met Dotson but had been moved by
his plight.

The Inglewood condominium that Dotson had owned free and clear was sold at a tax auction after the World War II veteran failed to pay a $546 tax bill that he
and his supporters say he did not know he owed.

His supporters argued that Dotson's record of paying his bills in person, and the fact that he owned his house, should have indicated that he was not a scofflaw, but was someone who might need assistance.

After reading of his situation, people donated thousands of dollars and the office of Los Angeles County Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke helped negotiate a deal that allowed Dotson, who had been left homeless, to buy back his condo.

Dotson's story prompted the Los Angeles County treasurer and tax collector to implement several changes to help keep other homes off the auction block.

The office redesigned property tax bills, making it easier for a property owner to know when a bill is delinquent. It also said that, in some cases, county
staff members should have face-to-face interviews with homeowners to resolve possible problems.

While the county found ways to help homeowners, the Los Angeles City Council took steps to help tenants.

In May, the council amended the Rent Stabilization Ordinance to prohibit owners from evicting tenants through what some tenant advocates called a loophole in the law.

The amendment was a response to what was sometimes called the "landlord's solution."

Owners of rent-controlled apartments could change the leases of current tenants, requiring them to supply extensive personal information — such as copies of
Social Security cards and car registrations — and to abide by a long list of regulations governing everything from window coverings to alcohol consumption.

Dennis P. Block, a landlord attorney, said: "A landlord has a right to make reasonable rules for the efficient operation of his building and also for the safety and comfort of other tenants who are in the building."

Those who did not supply the information or abide by the new list of regulations faced eviction for failure to comply with the terms of their leases. Failure to
comply with terms of a lease is cause for eviction under the stabilization ordinance.

After about a year of fighting in court, tenant advocates asked the City Council to change the law to prevent such evictions.

"It really has created enormous problems and we want to close the loophole," said Los Angeles Councilwoman Wendy Greuel, who proposed the amendment with Councilman Eric Garcetti.

The amendment was opposed by the Apartment Assn. of Greater Los Angeles, which called it a violation of property owners' rights.

In another move, the Los Angeles City Council voted to create a program to help prevent 12,000 federally subsidized housing units from reverting to the market
rate. In exchange for the federal subsidies, owners are required to keep the units affordable. But as those requirements expire, the units can revert to the
market rate.

This conversion to market rate is the focus of the new Los Angeles Affordable Housing Preservation Program,which targets units that have been built with, or
operate under, some form of federal assistance.

The move was hailed by advocates and lawmakers as a major step in the city's effort to preserve affordable housing in Los Angeles. The city is home to the
nation's largest stock of privately owned, federally assisted housing.

The program calls for the creation of a new notification ordinance that would allow city officials and others to know when an owner of a subsidized building plans to convert it to market rate. With advance notice, efforts can be made to buy the
property and keep the units affordable.

The Apartment Assn. of Greater Los Angeles did not take a position on the program. The California Apartment Assn. supports the preservation efforts, "as
long as the efforts of local governments don't interfere with the rights and obligations of the owner," said Tom Bannon, chief executive of the group.

An ordinance setting the program in motion is expected to be completed in 2004, and the position of preservation coordinator has not yet been filled.

However, the mayor did appoint a housing department general manager to replace Garry Pinney. In November, Mayor James K. Hahn named Mercedes Marquez to head the
department, effective Jan. 5.

Marquez served as deputy general counsel for civil rights and fair housing during Andrew Cuomo's tenure as secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development.

Meanwhile, Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, faced a federal lawsuit claiming that he discriminated against African Americans and Latinos in
an attempt to prevent them from living in his apartments.

The Housing Rights Center filed suit in February on behalf of a group of African Americans, Latinos and two disabled people. The lawsuit accuses Sterling of telling his employees to rent only to Koreans and Korean Americans.

In July, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction that prohibits the real estate mogul from using "Korean" in his building names, in ads and in billboards related to the sale of his buildings or rental units.

Housing center attorneys had argued that Sterling's renaming of buildings using the words "Korean" or "Asian" "alienates and distresses the current plaintiffs and tenants living in these properties as well as discourages potential applicants."

A lawyer for Sterling likened the practice to incorporating the names of communities or cities in a building name, such as Santa Monica Towers. The attorney called the lawsuit foolish and the injunction irrelevant.

Judge A. Howard Matz disagreed.

"Use of the word Korean in the names of residential apartment buildings would indicate to the 'ordinary reader' that the buildings' owner is not only receptive to but actually prefers tenants of Korean national origin," he wrote. The case is set to go to trial in 2004.

The year ahead probably will see lively debate over the merits of a planning philosophy with a dry name — inclusionary zoning — but with a very immediate effect on a city's housing stock. The question is whether this philosophy will come to Los Angeles.

Supporters want to create an ordinance that would require the developers of new housing projects to set aside a certain percentage for low- and moderate-income residents. Advocates view such policies, which exist in 110 municipalities in California, as a tool to increase the pool of affordable housing.

"There's no question we need to pass it right now in order to continue the city's progress in fighting the affordable housing crisis," said Peter Kuhns, an organizer with the Assn. of Communities Organized for Reform Now.

Developers say such a policy would stifle housing production and unfairly shift the burden of providing affordable housing to them.

Some local developers and business interests, such as the Central City Assn. of Los Angeles, have voiced concerns about or opposition to a mandatory ordinance.

In a report issued earlier this year, the Central City Assn. suggested ways that the city could streamline its building process to help get housing built faster and for less money. In addition to rising construction costs, building is slowed by "increasing code
requirements, bureaucratic inspection processes, planning and zoning restrictions" and not-in-my-backyard activism, the report said.

The issue of inclusionary zoning promises to take center stage as lawmakers, housing advocates and developers seek a consensus.
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  BACK TO TOP
 

Los Angeles Daily News

Apartment rating plan to be mulled Health grades a possibility

By Troy Anderson

Staff Writer

Thursday, November 20, 2003 - Los Angeles County will consider a plan Tuesday to post health ratings on apartment buildings similar to the letter grades displayed in restaurant windows.

After learning that 13 percent of the apartment complexes in the county contain environmental hazards that pose a medium or high risk to health—a figure confirmed by county inspectors after it was first reported by KNBC-TV (Channel 4) -- the Board of Supervisors will vote on a motion to study how to publicize the results of environmental-health inspections.

If enacted, a grading plan would apply to the county’s 66,658 apartment buildings and condominiums, officials said.

Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich said he also wants officials to report whether the county’s housing inspection process is adequately enforcing health and safety code violations in apartments and condos.

“The (TV) report revealed that the rating system does not accurately quantify the severity of health violations,” Antonovich said. “Vermin infestation in a restaurant warrants immediate closure, while inspected buildings with deplorable conditions, including vermin infestation and mold, have often received satisfactory scores and risk ratings.”

John Schunhoff, public health chief of operations, said workers conducted about 60,000 inspections last year and found many serious health and safety problems, particularly in low-income areas where apartment complexes are not well maintained.

“I think we are doing a pretty good job with the average property owner,” Schunhoff said. “But we have real problems with recalcitrant and lower-income property owners who are not keeping their properties up. It’s an ongoing struggle and we’re going to have to do a better job and find ways to enhance our ability to get them to fix up these buildings.”

Of the 60,000 inspections, most owners fixed problems inspectors found. But health officials had to take 786 owners into hearings to try to convince them to fix problems.

A total of 416 property owners were referred to the District Attorney’s Office and City Attorney Office for possible prosecution. Of those, prosecutors filed misdemeanor charges against 33 apartment owners for health and safety code violations.

Public health officials on Wednesday began posting inspection reports conducted since May 1 on their Website at <http://lapublichealth.org>.

Officials also encourage people to make complaints about problems or obtain copies reports by calling (888) 700-9995.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  BACK TO TOP

New York Times

Bit by Bit, Government Eases Its Grip on Rents in New York

November 19, 2003 By DAVID W. CHEN, 

In New York City, where for generations government has played a uniquely ambitious role in helping people pay their rents, a fundamental shift is taking hold - apartmentby apartment, building by building.

Three major programs, originally intended as temporary relief measures, are winding down: the city’s vast rent-regulation system, which has guaranteed rent ceilings for tenants at all income levels for decades; the state’s Mitchell-Lama program, which has helped keep rents down for low- and middle-income tenants for nearly half a century by subsidizing the construction of apartment buildings; and the federal Section 8 program, which has provided the same sorts of building subsidies on behalf of the poor.

So far, only a modest number of tenants have been exposed to rents determined by the market, given the size of the programs. But tenants, landlords and housing groups say that the pace will accelerate in the next few years.

In the decade since the State Legislature began loosening the city’s rent regulations, 105,000 of the one million apartments under rent control and stabilization have lost those protections. Tens of thousands more units are expected in the next few years to reach $2,000 a month in rent, which allows their removal from regulation.

Mitchell-Lama has lost about 17,000 of its 140,000 apartments as dozens of buildings have left the program; 11 more buildings, with a total of 3,000 units, are considering joining the exodus as their contracts expire, allowing owners to rent the apartments at market rates.

In the last three years, Section 8 has shed about 2,000 of its 100,000 apartments as building contracts have expired, and federal officials say many more contracts will run out in the next two years. And several other programs that reduce rents or offer tax breaks to owners are on the verge of expiring as well.

For landlords and free-market advocates, all of this is simply the comeuppance of a failed social experiment in which temporary aid turned into an entitlement, creating bewildering inequities in rents and discouraging construction of housing.

For tenant advocates and their political patrons, however, these events signal something frightening: the passing of an era in which government believed that part of its essential mission, along with dispensing welfare checks and Medicaid, was helping to provide shelter, particularly in New York, where the cost of living is steep.

Perhaps the poor and middle class will be pushed out of Manhattan in overwhelming numbers, as tenant advocates warn. Or perhaps the end of artificially low rents will encourage a new building boom, and supply will quickly catch up to demand, as free-market groups predict.

However the changes play out, there seems to be little disagreement that a new New York is in the offing, shedding its longtime identity as a place whose rental-housing market - a complicated thicket of regulations and politics - is like no other in the nation.

“All these things are happening at once,” said Kathleen B.  Cudahy, a spokeswoman for Laurence Gluck, the owner of Independence Plaza North, a Mitchell-Lama complex in TriBeCa that is leaving the program. “Everything is moving toward market-rate housing.”

City housing officials say that their role has not diminished. After all, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced a $3 billion plan last year to repair, preserve and build 65,000 units of housing for poor and moderate-income residents, reversing City Hall’s decade-long retreat from public investment in housing.

Even so, the plan, called the New Housing Marketplace, leans more