L.A. City Council committee rejects rent freeze, advances eviction protection proposal
A key Los Angeles City Council committee on Wednesday rejected an effort to freeze rents citywide, but advanced a series of eviction protections for people economically affected by recent fires.
In a 3-1 vote, the Housing and Homelessness Committee approved a motion that would bar landlords from evicting tenants for a variety of reasons, including for nonpayment of rent or if an owner wanted to move into a unit. Such evictions would be prohibited only for tenants who were economically harmed by the fires, and the prohibition would last one year.
The motion heads to the full City Council, where it's unclear it has the votes to pass.
A previous version of the proposal, which included a citywide rent freeze in addition to the eviction protections, was heard last week at council, but was sent back the committee amid fears among some council members that both the rent freeze and eviction protections were too broad.
Since the fires broke out Jan. 7, there have been widespread reports of price gouging, but it's unclear just how much rental prices as a whole have risen across the region.
Housing and disaster recovery experts have said they expect rent to increase to some extent, because thousands of homes were destroyed in an already tight market.
Most homes lost appear to be single-family houses, and because of that some experts said they expect rent to rise most in larger units adjacent to burn areas, with upward pressure on costs diminishing as units become smaller and farther away from the disaster zone.
The council has taken some steps to protect tenants. On Tuesday, it gave temporary approval to a proposal that would ban landlords from evicting tenants for allowing people or pets displaced by last month's fires to live with them.
On Wednesday, Housing and Homelessness Committee members rejected the rent freeze despite pleas from tenants and their advocates at the meeting.
Committee members instead advanced the eviction protections. Voting in favor of that proposal were Councilmembers Adrin Nazarian, Ysabel Jurado and Nithya Raman, the committee chair.
Councilmember Bob Blumenfield voted no and expressed concern the eviction protections were too sweeping, a sentiment landlords and their representatives shared at the meeting.
Instead, Blumenfield said he'd like the council to explore giving tenants who are economically affected by the fires a grace period to pay rent.
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Newport News considers major changes to city charter
Newport News' Charter Review Committee is considering several changes to City Council, which could drastically change how city elections are conducted. The main item being considered during the committee's June 12 meeting was the idea of making City Council races partisan, which would create a partisan primary for City Council candidates. State law prohibits party designations in local elections from appearing on ballots. However, it does not prevent the city from creating a partisan primary to ensure the two final candidates that appear on the ballot are implied to be from different parties. 'We have, as it is in Newport News and other cities without partisan elections, large numbers of candidates from one ideological or partisan faction who run for office and split the vote amongst themselves,' committee member Ben Lambert said during the meeting. 'This spoiler effect has been a problem for Newport News elections for a long time.' The committee delayed the vote on whether to recommend the change to City Council to June 26, according to co-chairs Cathy Williams and Lee Vreeland. They also shot down a proposed recommendation that would shift the power to remove department heads from the city manager to the mayor. 'I feel it's overreach for City Council to be involved in that,' Williams said during the June 12 meeting. At its May 22 meeting, the committee approved a recommendation that City Council appoint school board members appointed rather than elected, and a recommendation to make the mayor a full-time position, limited to two terms. Additionally, the questions of considering ranked choice voting came up during last month's meeting. However, the committee opted not to recommend ranked choice voting. Williams declined to comment on the group's discussions surrounding potential charter changes. The committee has been working through these revisions since September, according to Williams, and has received community feedback on several of the proposed changes. The idea of appointed school board members received letters of support, along with while a full-time mayor received pushback. Feedback on ranked choice voting has also been divided. The committee will submit its final report to the city clerk on June 30, who will then provide it to City Council for review. Devlin Epding, 757-510-4037,
San Francisco Chronicle
8 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Oakland, a city desperate for improvement, looks to charter reform for help
Steve Falk has been talking to people all over Oakland about his plan to make the city's government work better. Perhaps no one crystallized Oakland's problems to him better than the unidentified City Council member who said: 'In Oakland, the buck stops nowhere.' Falk has lived that dynamic. The UC Berkeley Graduate School of Public Policy lecturer has worked for 39 years as a city manager in six California cities, including two stints each in Richmond and Oakland. 'This city is more dysfunctional than any other city I worked for,' Falk said earlier this year. 'It's because of the charter.' And now he wants to fix it as a leader of the Oakland Charter Reform Project, which sounds like the nerdiest, most boring thing imaginable, but it could be one of the best fixes that new Mayor Barbara Lee and the City Council could adopt. Much of the work being discussed was explored in a 2021 report on Oakland 's government by the policy think tank SPUR. Oakland's government is structured like the federal government's tripartite system of checks and balances, which is OK for a nation of 340 million, but not for a medium-size city of 436,000 that's trying to move quickly to fix potholes and provide public safety. Under the current system, the mayor only appoints the city administrator, holds no veto power and does not supervise, evaluate or set goals for city departments. The city attorney is an elected position, which the SPUR report said blurs who they are supposed to represent. The City Council, meanwhile, doesn't select, direct, oversee or evaluate the city administrator or any department heads, leaving members and their constituents frustrated when city workers don't carry out their policy directions. Plus, as Falk wrote recently on the Oakland Charter Reform Project's Substack, 'it has resulted in high turnover of the professional city administrator (six in the last five years!), which, in turn, negatively impacts the city's budget, workplace culture, and operations.' Oakland residents aren't happy, either. Last October, 75% said the city was on the 'wrong track,' up 10 points from 2022, according to the annual survey. Council Member Janani Ramachandran told me that when her constituents ask her, 'Why can't you fill my pothole, council member?' she replies, 'Well, I'm prohibited by the charter from directing staff, and I have no authority over city administrator. I don't even have the power to fire him in my role on council.' 'Right now,' Ramachandran said, 'the buck is being passed from one part of the city to another, to another on every other issue.' Ramachadran said the need for charter reform 'speaks to the dysfunction that a lot of Oakland residents are seeing right now, and why they feel like they can't have a voice in the process.' Lee is on board with improving the charter, too, though she wants to hear from the community first. Part of her plan for her first 100 days in office includes appointing 'a task force of League of Women Voters, ethics and good government experts to modernize Oakland's Charter and strengthen government accountability.' Ramachandran told me that in the next week or two, she will introduce a resolution to create that task force, which will spend months gathering community input all over Oakland and creating a reform plan to put on the June 2026 ballot. Lee, Ramachadran, City Council President Kevin Jenkins and Falk's team met last week to discuss changing the charter. Getting voters on board will not be easy, as this can be dense, wonky stuff. City leaders will need to spend a lot of time educating Oaklanders over the next year about how changing the way city government is structured could make it work better. (It helps that this is happening during the Ezra Klein-supercharged 'Abundance' moment of the political zeitgeist, which is challenging Democratic-led cities to show that they can accomplish something beyond virtue signaling.) Ramachadran, who frequently explains legislation on Tiktok and Instagram posts, conceded that charter reform will test the limits of her explanatory abilities. Hell, talking about charter reform might melt TikTok. 'Often the problem with these kinds of citywide initiatives and ballot measures that don't necessarily reflect what the average voter knows or understands is we're not speaking their language,' Ramachandran said. 'Usually, politicians and people that write these ballot measures are talking to people already involved in politics. You know, the people involved in the League of Women Voters and the neighborhood council leadership, not the 21-year-old from down the street or 55-year-old who only votes every four years.' Ramachadran said she is keeping an open mind about what system would be the best for Oakland and will let public input be her guide. She and Falk agree that the answer isn't the current system. Oakland's system is an outlier in California. Falk said 97% of cities have a council-manager form of government. Under this system, the council sets policy and supervises an appointed city manager who oversees daily operations. The mayor is selected from among the council members and serves as its president, leads meetings and holds a vote equal to other members. The city attorney is appointed by the council, not elected, and represents one client: the municipal government. Cities including San Jose, Long Beach and Riverside employ a similar system. Falk proposes tweaking this system slightly. He calls it a 'unitary strong mayor plan' — to give the mayor some form of a veto, which likely would be one of the most contentious provisions debated over the next year. But he believes it would make the mayor and council more responsive to residents and more nimble. 'That new power to vote — if paired with veto power — would make (the mayor's position) the most powerful mayor Oakland has seen in over a century,' Falk and his team wrote on Substack. Empowering a mayor like that comes with a potential downside, Falk acknowledged: 'A mayoral veto centralizes tremendous civic power in one individual. A mayor with a veto could diminish the city council's role in policymaking and, in so doing, generate resentment among council members and community groups who feel their influence is reduced. A veto could also be abused by the mayor to block popular legislation for personal or political reasons.' But mayors in six of California's top 17 cities have veto power. That will get worked out over the next year. What is indisputable is that change is needed. As Ramachandran said, 'There's no one magic (move) here that's going to solve Oakland's dysfunction. But I really believe this is going to be a major piece to starting to break down that dysfunction.'
Los Angeles Times
9 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
L.A. city leaders look to file lawsuit over ‘unconstitutional' immigration enforcement
Faced with a wave of immigration arrests, the Los Angeles City Council is looking to sue the Trump administration to secure a court order prohibiting federal agents from carrying out any unconstitutional stops or arrests of city residents. Seven council members signed a proposal asking City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto to prioritize 'immediate legal action' to protect the civil rights of Angelenos, arguing that such a step is needed to keep their constituents from being racially profiled or unlawfully detained. A lawsuit would almost certainly intensify the tensions between the city's elected officials and the federal government over the ongoing raids, which have been carried out in Hollywood, Pacoima, Cypress Park and many other locations. Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, who co-authored the proposal, said she and her colleagues have received reports of residents who were stopped, questioned and detained by individuals claiming to be federal immigration agents but did not display an official badge or government identification. Yaroslavsky said she was personally informed about a Latina who was recently walking on Westwood Boulevard and was approached by several men in masks who demanded that she show a valid ID. 'She produced identification and they let her go,' said Yaroslavsky, who represents part of the Westside. '[But] you can't do that under the 4th Amendment. It's not reasonable suspicion that they're noncitizens just because they're brown.' The proposal, which was co-authored by Yaroslavsky and Councilmember Ysabel Jurado, now heads to three council committees for consideration. Asked about the city's efforts, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers act 'with the utmost integrity and professionalism.' She also pushed back on the assertions made by Yaroslavsky and her council colleagues — and chided The Times for reporting on their claims. 'Attacks against ICE officers have increased 500% because of this unhinged, extremist rhetoric from Democrat politicians — that the LA Times is apparently happy to amplify,' Jackson said. 'The LA Times should do some real reporting, instead of just regurgitating Democrat propaganda.' The city's preparations for legal action represent the latest in a series of confrontations between the Trump administration and the city of Los Angeles. On Friday, during an appearance in Los Angeles, Vice President JD Vance ripped into Gov. Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass, accusing them of endangering the lives of federal law enforcement officers by speaking out against the immigration sweeps. 'What happened here was a tragedy,' Vance said. 'You had people who were doing the simple job of enforcing the law, and you had rioters, egged on by the governor and the mayor, making it harder for them to do their job.' Bass shot back hours later, saying Vance was 'spewing lies and utter nonsense' and attempting to justify the waste of taxpayer dollars on the deployment of the National Guard and the U.S. Marines to Southern California. L.A. neighborhoods are indeed experiencing fear and terror, but the kind caused by men in masks carrying guns and rifles who are pulling people off the street, she said. 'They refuse to give ID. They're driving regular cars with tinted windows and in some cases out-of-state license plates,' she said. 'Who are these people ... are they bounty hunters? Are they vigilantes? If they're federal officials, why is it that they do not identify themselves?' A decision by the city to go to court would offer only the latest example of California elected officials taking on the Trump administration. Newsom is locked in a legal battle with the federal government over the deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles. Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has filed more than a dozen other federal cases dealing with tariffs, federal employee layoffs, LGBTQ+ rights and other topics. On Friday, the council voted 9-1 to provide Feldstein Soto up to $250,000 to bring on an outside legal team to respond to any actions taken by the federal government over the next month, when the council is on its summer recess. Yaroslavsky said that council action is not connected to her proposal, which could receive a vote from the full council by the end of next week. The city's potential legal filing could be modeled after a federal lawsuit filed by United Farm Workers in the state's Central Valley earlier this year, Yaroslavsky said. In that case, United Farm Workers alleged that border patrol agents stopped, detained and arrested dozens of people of color who appeared to be farm workers or day laborers, 'regardless of their actual immigration status or individual circumstances.' ' 'Operation Return to Sender' tore families apart and terrorized the community,' the lawsuit states. 'It also violated the law. The Fourth Amendment prohibits Border Patrol agents from detaining a person, whether in a private vehicle or on foot, without reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country unlawfully.' In April, a federal judge ordered federal authorities to halt illegal stops and warrantless arrests in the Central Valley. In an 88-page order, U.S. Dist. Judge Jennifer Thurston said the evidence presented so far by the American Civil Liberties Union, whose lawyers represent the farm workers, showed that Border Patrol agents had engaged in a 'pattern and practice' of detaining people without reasonable suspicion and executing warrantless arrests without determining flight risk. 'The evidence before the Court is that Border Patrol agents under DHS authority engaged in conduct that violated well-established constitutional rights,' Thurston wrote. Lawyers for the federal government said the allegations cited by the plaintiff were 'disparate examples' and did not constitute systemic behavior. They also argued that the court lacks jurisdiction to take up the case, which was filed as a class action lawsuit against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and officials with U.S. Border Patrol. Yaroslavsky said she wants the city to seek the same type of order that was issued by Thurston in the Central Valley. The city, she said, needs to help residents who may be too frightened of retaliation by federal law enforcement to file a challenge directly. 'Even if they're here legally, they're afraid,' she said. 'Because the Trump administration has shown it's willing to detain and deport people who are here legally. So if ever there were an instance where it made sense for local government to step in on behalf of our people, now is the time.'
