Attention City Council: It's Noel Weiss' "9 & 20 Solution!"
I WISH I WROTE THIS, BUT I'M NO NOEL WEISS. Way to go, bro! Hopefully, we'll see this as an agenda item soon.
MOTION
(The “9 & 20 Solution”)
On August 18, 1987, when the City Council raised the tenant relocation benefits to $2,000 (non-seniors and non-disabled) and $5,000 (seniors and disabled), the average rent in Los Angeles was approximately $300. The Los Angeles Times reported on November 1, 2006, that the average rent now approximates $1,700. Even though the average rent in rent controlled buildings is less, there is little doubt that renters, including middle class renters, face enormous financial obstacles when the owners of the apartments in which they reside decide to terminate their tenancies in order to either demolish the building or convert it to condominiums.
Current law provides that renters in such a circumstance be paid $3,450 (non-seniors and non-disabled) and $8,550 (seniors and disabled). This is clearly insufficient based on any reasonable standard. The purpose of the relocation fee is to smooth out the rough edges and enable a reasonable transition from the payment of rent controlled rates to market rates.
In the case of seniors, who are on fixed incomes, the disabled whose income earning capabilities are also less, and families with children, who face ongoing and ever increasing financial burdens, the current mandated payments will only cover, on average, a security deposit plus 6 months rent, assuming $1000 for moving costs. In the case of non-seniors and non-disabled, the amount barely covers first month's rent, last month's rent, and moving costs.
The economic obstacles facing the renters of this City is exacerbated by the fact that the vacancy rates in the various parts of the City are 2%-3%. According to MPF Yieldstar, the gross occupancy rate for the second quarter of 2006, Citywide was 97.3%.
With such a low supply of apartments, counter-posed against a large demand, fueled furtherby an epidemic of no-fault evictions under the Ellis Act, it is likely that the rental rates will continue to increase.
It is therefore appropriate to raise the base amount of relocation assistance to be paid to tenants immediately in order to relieve the stress they confront. A comparable amount to the 1987 levels, given today's market rates, is $9,000 for non-seniors and non-disabled; and $20,000 for seniors, disabled, and families with children. (The “9 & 20 Solution”);
I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Attorney be directed to draft an Ordinance amending Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 47.06 and 47.07 to provide for a tenant relocation fee of $9,000 to non-seniors and non-disabled, and $20,000 to seniors, disabled, and families with children and to report back with the new Ordinance within ten days;
I FURTHER MOVE that given the economic exigencies of the situation and how adversely impacted tenants are by their current circumstance, that this Ordinance be considered on an expedited basis and passed as an urgency measure.
PRESENTED BY: __________________________ ____________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
[ZD PUBLIC NOTICE: Want ZD's copy of "Cultural Warrior" autographed by Bill O'Reilly, himself ("ZD, Best Wishes, Bill O'Reilly"). It's now on ebay. I'll autograph it to the winning bidder, too (depending on if you think it raises or lowers the value).
The ebay link is at www.ZumaDogg.com. Thanks Bill!]
MOTION
(The “9 & 20 Solution”)
On August 18, 1987, when the City Council raised the tenant relocation benefits to $2,000 (non-seniors and non-disabled) and $5,000 (seniors and disabled), the average rent in Los Angeles was approximately $300. The Los Angeles Times reported on November 1, 2006, that the average rent now approximates $1,700. Even though the average rent in rent controlled buildings is less, there is little doubt that renters, including middle class renters, face enormous financial obstacles when the owners of the apartments in which they reside decide to terminate their tenancies in order to either demolish the building or convert it to condominiums.
Current law provides that renters in such a circumstance be paid $3,450 (non-seniors and non-disabled) and $8,550 (seniors and disabled). This is clearly insufficient based on any reasonable standard. The purpose of the relocation fee is to smooth out the rough edges and enable a reasonable transition from the payment of rent controlled rates to market rates.
In the case of seniors, who are on fixed incomes, the disabled whose income earning capabilities are also less, and families with children, who face ongoing and ever increasing financial burdens, the current mandated payments will only cover, on average, a security deposit plus 6 months rent, assuming $1000 for moving costs. In the case of non-seniors and non-disabled, the amount barely covers first month's rent, last month's rent, and moving costs.
The economic obstacles facing the renters of this City is exacerbated by the fact that the vacancy rates in the various parts of the City are 2%-3%. According to MPF Yieldstar, the gross occupancy rate for the second quarter of 2006, Citywide was 97.3%.
With such a low supply of apartments, counter-posed against a large demand, fueled furtherby an epidemic of no-fault evictions under the Ellis Act, it is likely that the rental rates will continue to increase.
It is therefore appropriate to raise the base amount of relocation assistance to be paid to tenants immediately in order to relieve the stress they confront. A comparable amount to the 1987 levels, given today's market rates, is $9,000 for non-seniors and non-disabled; and $20,000 for seniors, disabled, and families with children. (The “9 & 20 Solution”);
I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Attorney be directed to draft an Ordinance amending Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 47.06 and 47.07 to provide for a tenant relocation fee of $9,000 to non-seniors and non-disabled, and $20,000 to seniors, disabled, and families with children and to report back with the new Ordinance within ten days;
I FURTHER MOVE that given the economic exigencies of the situation and how adversely impacted tenants are by their current circumstance, that this Ordinance be considered on an expedited basis and passed as an urgency measure.
PRESENTED BY: __________________________ ____________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
[ZD PUBLIC NOTICE: Want ZD's copy of "Cultural Warrior" autographed by Bill O'Reilly, himself ("ZD, Best Wishes, Bill O'Reilly"). It's now on ebay. I'll autograph it to the winning bidder, too (depending on if you think it raises or lowers the value).
The ebay link is at www.ZumaDogg.com. Thanks Bill!]
Posted by Zuma Dogg @ 11/28/2006 01:38:00 PM
9 Comments:
Why stop there? Why not just require all landlords to provide apartments rent-free? And while we're at it, food should be free, along with clothing and medical care.
If you can't afford to live somewhere, move or work harder.
hmmm...the only thing is Walter, City workers we rely on like teachers, cops, other employees aren't getting paid enough to afford these condo-conversions that are not even supposed to be happening according to "vacancy rate" laws. I agree work hard...but if these people are forced to move somewhere else (because of a false demand for luxury condos), trafffic is going to become more and more of a bitch than it already is. AND, the quality of family life will get suckier and suckier as these employees are forced to have longer commutes. Although, it would be great if EVERYONE could be a millionaire living in the City, unfortunatley, there is always going to be a top, middle and lower portion of any "ranker".
So I think all Noel is saying (and he persuaded me with his argument) is that if you ARE going to do all this upgrading (many times un-necessary), you can't just kick all the little old ladies onto the streets without giving them a piece of the re-location pie. (It's not like he's even aksing for more rent control units.)
Hi, Zuma.
1. There are FOUR MILLION people in the City of L.A. How do THEY afford to live here?
2. Why is it the duty of the LANDLORDS to provide housing at below-market prices?
3. Why should taxpayers or landlords give money to people, REGARDLESS OF INCOME OR WEALTH, merely because they reside in rent-controlled apartments?
4. As for the "teachers, cops and other employees," somehow, all the positions get filled. Why do you suppose that is?
I'm so tired of everyone having his freakin' hand out, expecting me to pay for his lifestyle. If you don't study, don't work, don't save, and do reproduce, guess what? You're not going to get the nice house, the nice car, and all the other stuff. People need to take some responsbility for their own life, and quit expecting Joe Taxpayer to pick up the tab.
This "what can the government do for me" attitude is what crooks use to justify the big programs they use to reward their campaign contributors.
Whatever happened to "personal responsibility?"
Walter,
I've learned so much in the past few months from you, and you provide a great service to the City with your opposition on many important issues, but this "9 & 20" isn't about affordable housing, it's about relocation money. If you still have a problem with that, please post your feedback.
You need to get a real job, dude.
It's all the same thing: one person trying to get money from another through the government.
Tenants don't own the buildings, don't own their apartments. Rather, they rent them. They should have no greater rights to stay there than the rights for which they negotiated and paid.
It is unfair to use the power of government add burden after burden on the landlords, just to benefit the tenants. If the tenants want to own a building, let them do what the landlords did to become owners: work, save, work, save, work, save, take out huge loan, pay taxes, maintenance, insurance, and work and save some more.
Walter,
The 2:48 post is scary. I'd become broke!
Walter, are you schizoid? Some days you appear to be a real human being. Other days you act like an assh**e!
I am soon to be a renting tenant displaced because a big corporate hotel is buying out the other residents along a with my landlord for the entire block. Since this is being done to expand the purchasers facility and the homeowners are making a bundle, I don't feel guilty about having the property owner compensate me for their own windfall because I will incur unexpected moving costs such as my personal disruption of time (looking for a new residence- i.e. driving around, computer research, calls), costs (I may have to break several unplanned yearly service agreements such as cable, phone, dsl etc.. and new deposits) that I entered into with the expectation I would remain where I was for an undetermined time. Also, my initial fees used to acquire my present place may not be sufficient to get my foot in the door for a replacement location (I did not say better, but inflated). I am all for my neighbors hitting the jackpot, but having no control on how or when I have to move should be shouldered in part by the landowners who are displacing residents. I know those costs were factored into the bids and the resident owners are being compensated above the land value of the property for the exact same reasons.
I don't need a Gov't handout, I just want the Gov't to uphold what rights I do have as a renter.
Any references to one's character based upon being a landowner or not is illogical and impractical. I may have a great job, work hard etc., but for a variety of reasons may not wish to be a property owner. You enjoy many Gov't perks by being one, but because I wish not to participate in ownership does not make you any better than myself. When I go to the voting booth, I don't believe the homeowners that live next to me, or in the mansions up the hill have any greater voice in what happens in my community, ONE PERSON ONE VOTE!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home