Editorial News Alert Burbank City Council Moves Forward with Rent Control and Other Harmful Policies
At the April 23rd City Council Meeting, the Council voted unanimously to pass a motion directing staff to pursue the “earliest feasible timeline” to bring back draft ordinances for TRIPLING relocation fees for ALL No-Fault evictions (and possibly even AT-Fault evictions), including Owner Move-Ins, Anti-Tenant Harassment and Anti-Tenant Retaliation provisions in addition to creating a new pilot program in the City Attorney’s office that would add two new staff positions to help prosecute property owners under state law (Assembly Bill 1482 - California’s Tenant Protections Act of 2019 and Senate Bill 567), and providing legal defense for renters facing lawful evictions through other partners.
In addition, the Council passed a motion on a 4-1 vote, with the sole NO vote from our champion, Council Member Zizette Mullins, to further pursue rent control (a.k.a., rent stabilization) by having staff conduct a “study” and seeking public input by holding townhall meetings/listening sessions with members of the community. Hopefully, this time there will be REAL outreach to the community as opposed to the complete farce that was the Ad Hoc Committee for which we still don’t know the names of its members and that had met only once without any advance, public notice.
City Council Deliberations
At the meeting, Council Member Mullins continued to urge the City Council to represent the entire community, including rental housing providers and not just tenant activists (several of whom that were present did not even live in Burbank yet still spoke at the meeting) or renters. She courageously fought strongly against any further action being taken on rent control by the City Council and challenged them to put it on the ballot, if they believed that the community now wants it despite defeating rent control measure RC less than 4 years ago.
Vice Mayor Nikki Perez, however, kept insisting, without having conducted a study or referring to any hard data, that the community was “equally split” on the issue. Council Member Tamala Takahashi chimed in, again without data, that the community had moved on and now may have different feelings about rent control and it was at least worth conducting outreach to have a further discussion on the matter. Mayor Nick Schultz acknowledged that this was the most contentious issue being discussed at the meeting and supported additional outreach to the community. In a stunning admission, Vice Mayor Perez supported asking “specific” questions of the renters, including “Do you want your rent increased EVERY YEAR?,” which would happen under any form of local rent control that goes beyond the state’s already existing anti-gouging cap of 5% plus the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or 10%, whichever is LESS.
We need all AAGLA members to engage as this issue continues to move forward with opportunities for the community to speak out against rent control and other harmful policies now being contemplated by the City Council!
Proposed Increased Relocation Fees for ALL No-Fault Evictions
More disturbingly, the City Council wants to fastball several other harmful policies in an apparent vain attempt to “appease” tenant activists. As you may recall, it was less than 9 months ago that the City Council agreed to pass a new local ordinance with several additional restrictions on substantial remodels despite state law pending (and now passed as Senate Bill 567) that addresses this issue. Under this new local ordinance, rental housing providers must pay renters an amount equal to 3 months of rent as “relocation fees” in order to substantially remodel a rental unit. A substantial remodel is already defined under state law as: “either of the following that cannot be reasonably accomplished in a safe manner that allows the tenant to remain living in the place and that requires the tenant to vacate the residential real property for at least 30 consecutive days:
(i) The replacement or substantial modification of any structural, electrical, plumbing, or mechanical system that requires a permit from a governmental agency.
(ii) The abatement of hazardous materials, including lead-based paint, mold, or asbestos, in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws.”
Now tenant activists are already back again demanding that the new ordinance be expanded to include ALL No-Fault evictions, including Owner Move-In, Demolition and Government Order for TRIPLE relocation fees. During discussion of this item the entire city council failed to mention that Owner Move-Ins typically occur out of necessity due to financial distress of the owner as a last attempt to keep the property before being forced into selling it. If owners are now held hostage by being forced to pay exorbitant relocation fees, they will be left with no other option other than to sell their building, which will then very likely be purchased by a developer and replaced with luxury rental units or for-sale condominiums.
Mayor Schultz continued to push for increased fees based on nothing more than his feelings that owners should be penalized for exercising their right under state law to move into a property that they own as private property.
In stark contrast, Council Member Mullins suggested the City re-establish the relocation assistance program that had been funded with $500,000 and still has substantial funds remaining to help renters facing relocation due to any type of No-Fault eviction. This would follow in the steps of Claremont that has already established a similar program and is now providing additional funds to it. This is the appropriate role of local government in assisting those with financial needs based on income qualifications. Unfortunately, Mayor Schultz (who is now running for the 44th state assembly seat as the Democratic candidate) showed no interest in accepting the City’s responsibility to help members of the community, and instead continued to push for it to be added to the backs of small, independent rental housing providers still struggling after 3 years of statewide moratoriums and COVID-19 related unpaid back rent.
Further, Council Member Takahashi seemed to dismiss the fact that under Senate Bill 567, an owner must now stay at the property no less than 12 months to be able to conduct an Owner Move-In. This combined with the fact that their seemed to be unanimous support for the City Attorney to expand his staff to assist with direct enforcement of state law against owners argues that increased relocation fees for Owner Move-Ins are not needed to dissuade “abuse” by owners of the right to move into a property that they own. As for all the policies under discussion, there was NO DATA or formal report presented from the Landlord-Tenant Commission showing that there has been any misuse of any No-Fault eviction beyond the concerns with substantial remodels that were already addressed by the ordinance passed last Fall.
Proposed Tenant Anti-Harassment and Anti-Retaliation Ordinances
Another push being made by tenant activists and that is being supported by the full City Council is the creation of two new ordinances, one for tenant anti-harassment and another for tenant anti-retaliation. As was mentioned by staff and brushed over by the City Council in their haste to once again appear to be “doing something” without full review and consideration, Glendale does NOT have a tenant anti-retaliation policy to be used as cut-and-paste for Burbank (nor should Burbank be using cut-and-paste from any jurisdiction). Rather, Glendale does have a tenant anti-harassment policy that is extremely one-sided and needs major modification to make it fair and equitable to all.
In fact, any new policy should be an Anti-Harassment ordinance for both renters and owners. Owners today are facing serious harassment by renters physically, verbally and in the form of wrongfully disclosing personal information on social media. These issues should also be addressed in any “new” ordinance that Burbank chooses to consider and should not be rushed through due to a false sense of urgency or preening to tenant activist groups.
It should also be noted that Council Member Konstantine Anthony (who is up for re-election in November) continues his “over-the-top,” radically one-sided support for tenant activists in suggesting that a complete rent freeze and eviction moratorium be adopted at the meeting. Fortunately, the City Attorney was present and advised him that such an action was NOT on the agenda and NOT duly noticed to the public for the meeting. This continues to show just how extreme and dangerous Council Member Anthony is to the welfare of the entire Burbank community.
Take Action Now!
All AAGLA members with rental properties in Burbank must make their voices heard about all 4 of these bad policies by immediately emailing and calling the entire city council. Also, we urge AAGLA members to give generously to the AAGLA PAC to provide needed funds to support business-friendly candidates in Burbank and elsewhere.
This article is for informational purposes only. If you have any questions regarding your property or specific tenancies and the requirements of any local law changes described herein, please consult with an attorney.
To email all Burbank City Council, please click the button below:
EMAIL ALL BURBANK CITY COUNCIL TODAY!
This email button works best for users using Microsoft Office Outlook, but should be functional for all email services. If you experience any issues with the email delivery due to "invalid email addresses", please try replacing the semicolons in between each email address to commas OR try sending the emails individually to each member as all email addresses provided have been checked and cleared for their validity.