Moratorium on Razing of Residential Hotels Expires : Housing: Council scrambles to pass extension of 1989 measure intended to balance rights of property owners and low-income tenants.

Up to 163 hotels housing nearly 5,000 low-income residents were rendered vulnerable to demolition Friday when the Los Angeles City Council failed to immediately extend a moratorium protecting the structures.

The moratorium was enacted in 1989 as part of an effort to avert possible demolition of such hotels outside of Los Angeles’ downtown core until city officials could develop a program to balance the rights of property owners against the need for affordable housing.

The moratorium expired at midnight Friday. Although the council tentatively approved the extension in an 11-2 vote, it needed a unanimous action to take effect immediately. The matter will return to the council next Friday for a final vote and the moratorium will not take effect for another 30 days.

In an effort to prevent evictions, however, city housing officials on Monday will ask the Department of Building and Safety to withhold granting demolition permits on grounds that a majority of the council wanted an immediate extension of the moratorium.

Nevertheless, Gary Squier, general manager of the city’s Housing Department, said the failure to implement the moratorium on Friday could result in “the loss of our most affordable housing units and result in an increase in homelessness.”

Paul Lee, director of litigation for the Los Angeles Legal Aid Foundation, called the dissenting votes on the measure a “cavalier response to a severe problem” because it “opens a window of opportunity for property owners to demolish buildings . . . that people depend on to stay off the streets.”

City housing officials anticipate that at least three applications for demolition will be filed as early as Monday morning, affecting as many as 100 to 200 low-income tenants in the Mid-Wilshire area and Van Nuys.

But Councilman Hal Bernson, who pleaded with the council to immediately extend the moratorium, said he feared 400 to 800 units could be razed before the renewal.

“What we are doing here is sacrificing affordable housing that cannot be replaced,” Bernson said. “We will lose a certain number of units. Don’t think property owners will not take advantage of this.”

Over the last 20 years, 20,000 low-income housing units have been lost to commercial and industrial development, increasing the number of homeless people in Los Angeles, city housing officials said.

But the dissenters, council members Nate Holden and Joan Milke Flores, said they opposed continuing the moratorium on grounds that it is unfair to property owners.

“I don’t want to throw people out on the street,” Flores said. “Hopefully, that won’t happen. . . . But on the other hand, I don’t think it should be the responsibility of the few to take care of the many.”

Holden agreed. “We can’t keep saying to entrepreneurs in this city, ‘You’re going to do business the way we want you to or you won’t do business at all.’ ”

Beyond that, Holden argued that the moratorium has protected certain hotels along a stretch of Washington Boulevard that have become eyesores and havens for criminals and drug pushers.

Under moratorium guidelines, owners of single-room occupancy (SRO) structures were prevented from demolishing the buildings without proving that they would replace them with equally affordable units, or that they could not afford to bring the buildings up to health and safety standards.

If granted exemptions, property owners were required to provide tenants with relocation assistance.

Now, Barbara Zeidman, assistant general manager of the city’s Housing Preservation and Production Department, fears that some law-abiding tenants could wind up living on city streets.

“Relocation benefits are not available for tenants who have not been in residence at an SRO hotel for at least 60 consecutive days,” Zeidman said.