Council Votes for 4% Rent Increase : Ties Hikes to Consumer Price Index in Initial Balloting

By a vote of 12 to 2, the Los Angeles City Council today tentatively approved a compromise rent control ordinance that would tie the maximum rate of rent increase allowed each year to the consumer price index but would prevent the rate from exceeding 8% or falling below 3%.

If it is ratified by the council next week and signed by the mayor, the ordinance will establish a 4% rate for 1985-1986 and, for the coming year, at least, offer significant relief for tenants who have been facing 7% annual increases since 1979 when the City Council first enacted a rent control law.

In its action today, the council settled for a middle course between a proposal to tie the annual rate to 65% of the CPI, favored by rent control stalwarts, and another proposal by their adversaries to retain the 7% rate or do away with rent control altogether.

Neither of those approaches was pushed very hard today, however, as the council chose to endorse a compromise that was forged last month by a committee of tenants and landlords that has been meeting with officials of the city’s Rent Stabilization Division.

‘Based on Facts, Figures’

Councilman Joel Wachs, who introduced the compromise ordinance, urged its adoption for two reasons. He said neither side in the debate probably would be able to muster the eight-vote majority needed to win, and, he said, after six years of debate over rent control, it was time to replace an arbitrary rate of increase--the 7% figure--with one “based on facts and figures.” By that he meant the CPI.

“Because we have people on both sides unhappy, there must be a bit of fairness there,” said Councilman John Ferraro in reference to the compromise ordinance.

Several council members spoke critically of the compromise. Councilmen Zev Yaroslavsky and Ernani Bernardi said it would not do enough to protect renters, while Joan Milke Flores, Gilbert Lindsay and David Cunningham said it would be unfair to landlords. Councilman Howard Finn said it would not help people who are too poor to afford existing rents.

But only Flores and Cunningham voted against the ordinance.

The council’s action follows the completion in April of a six-month-long $600,000 study of rent control that concluded that landlords had not suffered financially as a result of rent control.