‘Temporary’ Increase Becomes Permanent : Tenants Rap L.A. Approval of Rent Rise

Hundreds of enraged tenants assembled in a Sherman Oaks gymnasium Thursday to appeal an “insane and unfair” decision by a city agency to make permanent what had been a temporary rent increase.

But city officials said the owners of a Woodland apartment complex, the 456-unit Tennis Club Apartments, were entitled to the increase under “hardship clauses” in Los Angeles’ rent-control regulations.

At issue is a “capital improvements surcharge” of $9 to $22 a month per apartment imposed in 1982 by the landlord, G.B.W. Properties. The city’s Rent Stabilization Division originally approved the surcharge for five years, but voted last summer to make the increase permanent.

A city hearing officer said he would rule within a month on the tenants’ appeal of the division’s action.

The tenants, most of them senior citizens, said they can barely afford the extra rent.

“If they raise it any higher . . . we will end up living in the ghettos,” said tenant Gertrude Warren, 77, who pays about $500 a month for her apartment.

Although only the rents at the one complex were at issue, an aide to Councilwoman Joy Picus, who represents the area, said residents of as many as 40 West San Fernando Valley apartments are paying for “temporary” increases, approved in 1981 and 1982, which were later deemed permanent.

Some of the monthly surcharges approach $75, said the aide, Sharon Schuster.

“We believe it’s a grave injustice,” Schuster said. “The increase is being continued de facto. These people are being taken advantage of.”

Picus is seeking legislation to roll back the rents of tenants in affected buildings. The proposal is now before the council’s governmental operations commission, she said.

The capital surcharge at the Tennis Club Apartments originally was approved by the city so that the landlord could renovate the complex of six four-story buildings.

Barbara Bonino, assistant director of the rent stabilization division, said that agency granted the landlord’s application to make the surcharge permanent because G.B.W. Properties showed that there was low turnover at the complex, qualifying it as a hardship case.

“We played it straight by the book,” she said. “The owners met one of the six requirements necessary to qualify as a hardship case.”

Under the city’s rent-control law, landlords can freely raise rents only when tenants move and new ones replace them. Landlords are considered to have a hardship if fewer than 50% of the tenants moved out of a complex over five years, she said.

During the last five years, only 22% of the units in the Woodland Hills complex have been vacated, said William Potter, a representative for G.B.W. Properties. As a result, the apartments are losing money, he said.

Tenants were not satisfied with the explanation.

“The city changed the rules after the game was over,” said Constance Vogel, president of the Tennis Club Tenants Council.

“Every time somebody moves out, they raise the rent $200,” complained Warren. “Why are they claiming hardship?”

Others said that the surcharge payments did not lead to proper upkeep of the apartments.

“The only improvement we had was a painting of the building,” said tenant Murray Kasten. “There’s been nothing else anywhere. On my hall, there are two lights that have been out a couple of years.”

Potter scoffed at the contention that living conditions are inadequate.

“If they’re so upset with them, why haven’t they moved elsewhere?” he asked.