A Third Motel Sues Anaheim

A motel owner and 160 of his long-term tenants are suing the city of Anaheim, challenging the constitutionality of city limits on how long motel residents can stay at one spot.

This is the third suit to challenge Anaheim’s policy requiring certain motel owners to evict tenants after 30 days, but this one has a twist. The Lincoln Inn tenants are alleging that city officials hurried a vote on the motel’s operating permit through the City Council by placing it on a consent calendar--a move that did not require a public hearing. Nor did it require city officials to notify the motel tenants of the vote.

“I really think they wanted to railroad this through,” said Los Angeles attorney Frank A. Weiser, who represents the motel. “At the very least, it’s subject to a very important public debate. . . . Just to sweep it under the rug and rubber-stamp it goes against the grain of any fair administrative body.”

In the last few years, the council has begun placing restrictions on some motels by not allowing tenants to stay at one inn more than 30 days in a 90-day period. For many of the largely poor residents, it means more than monthly upheaval of their possessions. The continual moves also mean their children are in different school boundaries and must switch campuses.

City Atty. Jack L. White could not be reached for comment, and city spokesman John Nicoletti said he could not comment because of the lawsuit.

The residential motels have two Anaheim council members in their corner, but not enough to change the outcome of any votes.

“The shame is not in being poor,” council member Lucille Kring said. “The shame is in a community not helping them out. Since January 2000, there has not been one affordable unit built in any section of Anaheim.”

In previous statements, White has said that the policy is not citywide and applied to motels only when there are public health, safety and general welfare concerns.

“The city has an obligation to enforce accepted codes and standards to protect nearby property owners and the surrounding neighborhoods,” Mayor Tom Daly said, adding that a coalition of west Anaheim community leaders has supported the strict conditions.

Daly noted that the residents and owner of Lincoln Inn have spoken at numerous public hearings throughout both the Planning Commission and City Council process and that the city has many social programs to assist tenants in finding affordable housing.

Lincoln Inn owner Ben Karmelich has so far refused to enforce the policy. That inaction is one of the primary reasons the City Council did not renew his permit last month.

“I don’t intend to kick out families,” Karmelich said. “It’s not something I can do in good conscience. They have nowhere to go.”

Karmelich charges $160 a week plus $24 in bed taxes. Those rates include utilities such as telephone service, heat and cable television. He does not require a security deposit, first and last month’s rent, a credit check or any of the other costs that make it impossible for many of the tenants to find an apartment.

To his tenants, he is considered a last resort and a landlord who will listen to their excuses, even make exceptions when their rent is late.

Everybody, Karmelich said, has a sad story.

Bob Rodriguez, 66, was homeless after Ford Motor Co. laid him off. Now, he said, the stress from possibly losing his home has aggravated his high blood pressure and heart problems to the point where he had to be hospitalized.

Kelvin Telson, 51, drives a cab. But since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, money just isn’t coming in the way it used to.

Brian Henderly’s wife left him eight years ago. Now it’s just him and his three kids. He opens up his wallet to show off a photo of smiling children and a happy couple. “That used to be my family,” he said. He’s out of work now and suffering from health problems.

Council member Tom Tait said the city has succeeded in its initial effort to clean up the area by cracking down on building code violations and stepping up policing. As a result, many motel owners have invested thousands of dollars to refurbish units and bring them to code.

“The city should declare victory, allow the people to stay and move on,” Tait said. “Why in the world does a city force people out after 30 days? It solves nothing, and it only creates a tremendous hardship.”

For now, Karmelich said he plans to continue operating even without a permit. His lawsuit, filed Tuesday in federal court, asks for an injunction. The suit alleges the city violated due process and the federal Fair Housing Act when it voted last month not to renew the motel’s permit.

Until the issue is resolved in court, his motel doors are open. On Thursday, he changed the billboard outside his motel, adding this defiant message: “Stay as long as you need.”