Changes in Rent Control Law Rejected

Major changes in the rent control law as it applies to owner-occupied duplexes and triplexes failed to receive the support of the Santa Monica City Council last week.

The motion would have put a measure on the November ballot that would maintain rent control exemptions for owner-occupied duplexes and triplexes. It would also have prohibited future issuance of such exemptions to 2- and 3-unit buildings that are now subject to rent control and have not applied for the exempt status. The motion failed because of the lack of a second.

“I have tried to emphasize that it is my intention that the existing exemptions continue. I would like a measure that prevented future exemptions from being granted to units that are now rent controlled,” said Councilman Dennis Zane, who made the motion to amend the City Charter. Zane’s amendment would have allowed the transfer of exemption status to subsequent owners of an exempt property.

Critics of the measure, including homeowners and landlords, argued that freezing the status of owner-occupied units and eliminating the possibility of future exemptions would prevent potential first-time buyers from being able to afford a home in Santa Monica. Other critics argued that such a measure would be a breach of faith between the city and property owners. The owner-occupied units have been exempt since the rent control laws were enacted in 1979.

About 58% of the city’s 1,332 2- and 3-unit buildings have been granted owner-occupied exemptions and are unregulated by rent control laws, the staff report states. The remaining 559 buildings are subject to rent control laws.

Interest in restricting the number of owner-occupied exemptions in Santa Monica began with a petition drive in May by Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights. The petitions, which had also sought to qualify the measure for the November ballot, were invalidated when City Atty. Robert Myers said the texts of the proposed Charter amendments were written on the back of the petitions rather than on the front, which supporters sign.

“It’s natural for (owners) to fear that this (amendment) would have been expanded down the road. There’s the fear that once you start making changes, what is to stop the next council from making more,” Councilman Alan Katz said after the meeting.