Backers of Rent Issue Say They’re Broke but Happy

Supporters of a plan that would permit Santa Monica landlords to raise rents on vacated apartments threw a party complete with cake and candles after the last of four lawsuits sparked by the initiative was settled this week. But opponents of the June ballot measure said the real battle is just beginning.

Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights has already started circulating flyers urging the defeat of the Tenant Incentive Program, also known as Proposition M. The group is expected to spend about $50,000 fighting the measure.

Councilman Dennis Zane, a tenant activist, said the lawsuits filed over the Tenant Incentive Program may have helped set the stage for its defeat.

‘Lot of Confusion’

“The court rulings have established that there’s a lot of confusion about this initiative,” Zane said. “They also show that the plan is controversial and that there’s widespread disagreement as to what it really does.”

Supporters, however, said they expect to benefit from the publicity generated by the court cases. Geoffrey S. Strand, a spokesman for the landlord organization called ACTION (A Commitment to Insure Owners’ Needs), said the lawsuits helped prove the merits of the controversial plan.

“We’re broke,” said Strand, who estimated his group’s legal fees at about $20,000. “But we won. Now the grass-roots campaign will take over.”

The Tenant Incentive Program would amend the portion of Santa Monica law that prohibits a landlord from raising rents on vacant apartments. Supporters have said that landlords would be forced to share their profits with “qualified” tenants under that plan, but opponents contend the payments to tenants are unlikely because of a major drafting error in the initiative.

The courts have not issued an opinion on that specific point, but judges ruling in four separate lawsuits have ordered changes in the literature that will be seen by voters. The most recent decision came on Monday, when Santa Monica Superior Court Judge David M. Rothman called parts of the ballot argument in favor of the Tenant Incentive Program misleading.

Changes Ordered

Acting on a lawsuit brought by tenant activists, Rothman ordered supporters of the measure to change three major statements at the top of the argument. The first statement said two courts had approved the measure. Instead it will say that the courts had upheld the right of citizens to vote on the plan.

The second sentence said that tenants would receive cash payments under the plan. Rothman ruled that the wording incorrectly implied that all tenants were guaranteed cash payments and ordered the backers to soften the wording.

Rothman refused to change the third sentence, which said that the plan will be administered by the city’s Rent Control Board. But he did order the supporters to change the wording of the fourth sentence. It originally said that the measure would not diminish rent controls on “your” apartments. It will now say that the measure would not affect “occupied” apartments.

Both sides claimed victory after the ruling. Rent Board Commissioner David Finkel, who argued the case on behalf of tenant activists, said the judge obviously agreed that the document contained untruthful statements.

But Strand said Rothman had vindicated supporters of the measure. “We have proved in court that this is not vacancy decontrol, that it will be administered by the rent control board,” Strand said.

Separate Ruling

Strand said he was also pleased with a separate ruling issued last Friday. In that case, backers of the plan sued the city of Santa Monica over City Atty. Robert M. Myers’ analysis of the Tenant Incentive Program, charging that it would “create prejudice” against the measure.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Jack Newman supported the backers on two points. He ruled that Myers must delete or explain references to vacancy decontrol and questions about the “public purpose” behind the measure in his analysis, which is included in official voting pamphlets.

“We believe the judge was wrong,” Myers said afterward, adding that the city is considering an appeal.

In a third case, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Warren Deering said the city could not use the words decontrol and recontrol when describing how rents would be affected under the measure in its ballot description of the plan. Deering, however, refused to force the city to acknowledge that tenants would receive payments. And in a fourth case, Judge Rothman ruled against tenant activists seeking to have the measure thrown off the ballot.