Victory Alert: Ventura City Council Rejects 4 out of 7 Bad Policies
Victory Alert
Ventura City Council Rejects 4 out of 7 Bad Policies
By Janet M. Gagnon
Chief Corporate Affairs Officer & SVP, Government Relations
On May 27th, the Ventura City Council rejected 4 out of 7 proposed bad policies brought forward by city staff. The 4 rejected policies were: (1) rent stabilization, (2) rental registry, (3) Tenant Opportunity to Purchase (“TOPA” a/k/a Right to Purchase), and (4) additional security deposit restrictions. Defeating each of these potentially harmful policies was a huge victory for all housing providers, and prevents a costly and completely unnecessary bureaucracy that would have been necessary to administer and enforce a rental registry without a local rent stabilization ordinance.
AAGLA has been the sole association to attend the City Council meetings to speak out against these horrific policies. Fortunately, the Ventura City Council has many responsible council members, including Mayor Jeanette Sanchez-Palacios, Deputy Mayor Doug Halter, Council Member Jim Duran and Council Member Alex Mangone who understand the importance of preserving existing rental housing and particularly mom-and-pop owners providing affordable housing to working families.
However, we still have 3 remaining bad policies left to fight and we need all Ventura AAGLA members to actively participate by contacting the full city council via email to share their stories of being a responsible housing provider and how these policies would detrimentally impact your small business.
TAKE ACTION NOW!!!
THREE REMAINING POLICIES UNDER DISCUSSION
- More Funding for Legal Representation using the Housing Rights Center (HRC)
The HRC is currently providing legal advice to 150 households in the City of Ventura. The staff is recommending a budget increase of $125,000 to do mediation as well as limited legal representation as eviction defense for renters.
These funds would be far better spent on direct rental assistance to avoid evictions entirely rather than paying attorneys to merely delay them by extending an already long and costly unlawful detainer (eviction) process. According to the Los Angeles Controller’s Office, 98% of all eviction cases are due simply to non-payment of rent, and we believe the same holds true in Ventura.
According to Bet Tzedek, it typically takes 41.1 hours of legal representation per eviction case. With a standard hourly rate of at least $250 per hour that equals $5,125. According to LA City’s numbers, the average back rent owed is only $3,750. As Ventura is similar, these figures show the City would save money by providing direct rental assistance instead of expanding legal services. Claremont already has a direct rental assistance program that could be readily used as a model. The rental assistance is targeted to low-, very low- and extremely low-income households. It is run by existing City staff without the need for any legal aid service to be involved.
In addition, Santa Barbara’s mediation program is free to all parties as it uses trained volunteers rather than attorneys to conduct mediations. So, there is no need to use HRC for mediation either.
- Anti-Harassment Ordinance
A tenant Anti-Harassment ordinance will only further erode a positive relationship between renters and rental housing providers. It will create a “Berlin Wall” as rental housing providers will be afraid of being wrongly accused of harassment at a later date merely for having a conversation. Mom-and-pop owners will be particularly vulnerable to unscrupulous attorneys and renters looking for quick paydays by filing frivolous lawsuits. Further, no data has been provided by city staff as to any number of renters specifically claiming they have been harassed. Despite the existing contract with HRC and the 95 calls between September 2024 and February 2025, none have been identified as relating to harassment versus general habitability or rental payment issues.
Until the City proves that harassment is occurring on a widespread basis it is extremely premature and imprudent to attempt to draft or pass an ordinance regarding such actions. A much better approach would be to create a Santa Barbara style mediation program to obtain data on specific claimed harassing actions, verification of events, mitigating circumstances and resolutions achieved. It is also worth noting that many harassment activities, such as threat of physical violence (assault), actual physical violence (battery) and sexual assault are already criminal offenses.
At a minimum, if the City Council wants to pursue an anti-harassment ordinance, then it must be equitable by prohibit wrongful harassment by any perpetrator against any victim (owner against renter, renter against owner and renter against renter). An especially troubling form of harassment is the disclosure of someone else’s private information without consent on social media.
- Increased Relocation Fees for ALL No-Fault Evictions
No-Fault evictions are for the purposes of addressing specific, often very urgent needs regarding the property or its owner. These include: (i) government order regarding health and safety, (ii) demolition, (iii) substantial remodel (defined as replacement or substantial modification to any structural, electrical, plumbing or mechanical system that requires a permit from a government agency or abatement of hazardous materials, including lead-based paint, mold or asbestos that cannot be done with the renter in place and takes longer than 30 days to complete), and (iv) owner move-in (urgently needed due to financial distress or other personal reasons and applies to a single unit).
Increased relocation fees will only make it harder for small owners to stay in business of providing affordable rental housing. It is already tremendously expensive to conduct needed major system repairs that typically require an owner to take out new loans at high interest rates to pay for the costs. Adding additional financial burdens of increased relocation fees will only cause more owners to sell existing older properties for demolition and likely replacement as luxury housing with new corporate owners. In addition, small owners facing financial or family healthcare needs must be able to occupy their rental property when needed.
If the City Council believes that additional relocation assistance is needed, then the City should include such assistance as part of their rental assistance program. Claremont already has such a program in place that has been highly successful and can be readily used as a model.
An eighth policy is also still being discussed regarding rental housing provider “resources,” but it is only for outreach and educational purposes. Thus, it is unlikely to yield anything significantly beneficial. It would be far more beneficial to renters and owners for the City to create a rental assistance program to avoid the need for evictions by bridging the gap for renters during times of sudden job loss, illness or injury.
This article is for informational purposes only. If you have any questions regarding your property or specific leasing issues and the requirements of any legal changes described herein, please consult with an attorney.