Rent control rejected by Glendale voters

Glendale Tenants Union, a radical tenants rights advocacy group, has failed to collect barely less than half of the required signatures to get rent control on the November 2018 ballot. Glendale joins a list of other cities like Pasadena, Long Beach, Inglewood, and Santa Ana which have also failed to garner the required number of signatures to qualify for the November 2018 ballot. Here is a partial list of their onerous demands...

On Monday, the Glendale City Clerk deemed 3,988 signatures collected by the Glendale Tenants Union (GTU) “insufficient.” He said, “The CA Elections Code requires a specific number of minimum signatures for us to move ahead to the next steps of this process”... “The initiators of this effort did not meet that threshold, and therefore this specific process as it pertains to this proposed initiative is now considered over.” The GTU, which needed 10,529 valid signatures to qualify for the general election, is the latest to fall short in attempts to force a rent control initiative onto a local ballot. The GTU's 34-page list of unviable proposals stood to cripple the local Glendale economy by

1. forcing landlords to artificially depress rental prices even after remodeling and upgrading buildings. This will lead to deterioration of existing buildings in the city. (§9.29.060.B)
2. allowing tenants to petition for downward rent price adjustment based on the slightest health code violation, such as if a rodent or cockroach is found on the property. This type of requirement loophole will produce exactly the opposite effect, with unscrupulous tenants introducing vermin for the sole purpose of having rent reduced. (§9.29.100)
3. changing the definition of "eviction" to mean any instance that a tenant is asked to vacate the premises, even if a tenant has always paid in a timely manner. This will negatively affect how tenants are perceived on their rental application forms. (§9.30.020)
4. prohibiting landlords to bring apartment rents up to market price, thereby severely restricting all building renovation and maintenance. (§9.29.060.C)
5. prohibiting a landlord to buy out a troubled tenant in order to rid the building of nuisances caused by the tenant for the safety of other residents. (§9.29.070.C.2.a)
6. forcing landlords to provide tenants disclosures in the tenant's own native language, thereby circumventing and confusing the English language laws of the State of California. This proposal adds to administrative costs, unnecessarily raising operating expenses. (§9.29.070.B)
7. allowing a hearing officer to define reasonable allowable expenses, a power currently afforded to the IRS. (§9.29.090.B.6.b.vii)
8. redefining the calculation of "gross rental income" such that a vacancy rate will max out at 3% of gross income, even if a landlord experiences larger vacancies in a property. The California Department of Real Estate uses a 5% vacancy rate as the rule of thumb in its real estate education courses. This proposal artificially inflates landlord income by disallowing the actual vacancy rate. (§9.29.090.B.5.b.i.I )
9. assigning fully autonomous control of rental real estate to the rent board, such that its powers would be independent of the City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney, thereby making the rent board immune to scrutiny from any government entity. (§9.29.080.O)
10. forcing landlords to raise rents during economic recessionary periods with a use-it-or-lose-it annual increase, thereby forcing tenants to vacate premises during harsh economic times. (§9.29.050.B)
11. forcing landlords to artificially calculate expense amortization at a minimum of 36 months instead of the 12 months allowed by the IRS. This tactic reduces the amount of expenses which can be applied toward gross income, thereby artificially inflating landlord income. (§9.29.070.B.6.a.vii.II)
12. prohibiting landlords from passing through expenses due to acts of God, such as floods or earthquakes, for which insurance coverage may not exist. (§9.29.070.B.6.b.ix)
13. redefining allowable expenses, such that major infrequent expenses, such as roofs, are not allowed in the calculation of future projected forecasts. (§9.29.070.B.6.c)
14. prohibiting landlords from raising rents until landlord complies with repairs from a hearing officer demands, regardless of recommendations from a building inspector. (§9.29.050.E.3)
15. having a single hearing officer decide on the fate of rent prices on a case-by-case basis and having a 5-member panel (comprised of no more than two real estate professionals) which decides on rental real estate economic issues. (§9.29.080.A)

The aforementioned is a mere sliver of the extensive list of reckless proposals by the GTU and its virulent outlook on the economic vitality of the City of Glendale. The full text of the proposal is attached here.

proposal.pdf
File Size:	153 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

In May, officials with the Pasadena Tenants Union (PTU) also came up short in its efforts to get a rent control initiative on the November ballot. In May, the group had collected 8,679 signatures, with 12,300 valid signatures required, according to City Clerk Mark Jomsky.

Proposition 10 on Nov ballot

One month later, the Secretary of State’s Office reported that backers of Proposition 10, an initiative that would repeal the Costa Hawkins Act of 1995 prohibiting cities from enacting their own rent-control laws, had collected far more signatures than needed to qualify for the Nov. 6 ballot. Organizers collected nearly 600,000 signatures, with 365,880 valid signatures required. More information is available at noprop10.org

What next? Go to City Council...

The GTU will now attempt to force the Glendale City Council to adopt their measure — calling for a 4 percent a year cap on rents and a creation of a board to oversee compliance — and are planning a rally at the next upcoming City Council meeting on Tuesday, Aug. 14, to demand their support. “We calculated that we’d need $60,000 worth of time and money to collect enough signatures just to ask the voters a question,” said a GTU organizer. In a sigh of desperation, he said, “If the City Council fails us again, we will launch another petition..." A majority vote of City Council is required in order to force the Glendale City Council to adopt the draconian GTU measure.

SOURCE: City of Glendale @ GlendaleVotes.org