CITY HALL — “Yes, and may God forgive me.”
Rent Control Board member Todd Flora’s statement encapsulated much of the tenor of Thursday night’s Rent Control Board meeting in which the board unanimously agreed that the Village Trailer Park could close.
It brings to an end almost seven years of public process that began when part-owner Marc Luzzatto announced that the 109-space park would close in 2006 to make way for a 377-unit mixed-use development on the site.
Park residents and their supporters argued forcefully in comments and written letters that the Rent Control Board could and should fight the park closure, but commissioners told the crowd that the risk of litigation, and the chance that Luzzatto would prevail, was too great.
A loss at that stage would bankrupt the Rent Control Board, Flora warned, leaving thousands of other tenants in rent-controlled apartments without adequate protections against landlord abuses.
“We have a gun to our heads, one I have been persuaded is fully loaded and ready to fire,” Flora said, voice choked with emotion. “We have no room for legal Russian roulette.”
Others are less squeamish.
Brenda Barnes, a resident of the park, declared her intention to file suit to stop the closure. At least one lawsuit is already in play at the Los Angeles Superior Court challenging the legality of the development agreement for the new East Village project approved by the City Council in April.
The development required the City Council to change the zoning on the 3.85-acre property, which paved the way for lengthy negotiations that promised moving packages for the remaining residents that included units in the new development or ownership of new mobile home units in the City Hall-owned Mountain View Mobile Home Park, amongst others.
With the project approved, it was up to the Rent Control Board to OK the final step, a removal permit for the rent controlled units.
The organization’s charter dictates that the board “may” give a permit provided at least 15 percent of the controlled rental units built on the site be “affordable.”
The project meets that requirement because 38 of the units are restricted to “very low” and “extremely low”-income tenants. Units of greater affordability can count as more than one under city rules.
Although board members and community members had hung much on the definition of the word “may,” the semantic argument was not enough to sway their vote on Thursday.
“This is a very difficult problem,” said Commissioner Marilyn Korade Wilson. “As I understand it, we are constrained. From an emotional level, I feel very unhappy about it. You cannot listen to what we’ve heard tonight and not be moved by this whole, unfortunate situation.”
An unusual alliance of people came out to tell commissioners they were wrong.
Representatives of community groups and other residents whose faces have become commonplace at meetings at which the Village Trailer Park is discussed appeared to speak their mind, but so did Rosario Perry, an attorney better known for suing the Rent Control Board to protect landlord interests.
He argued that a memorandum of understanding between City Hall and Luzzatto did not guarantee that the Rent Control Board would sign off on the permit.
“I don’t often agree with him, and I find it really weird when I do agree with him, but he’s right in this instance,” said Ellen Hannan, a member of Mid-City Neighbors.
With both the permit and the development agreement in hand, however, Luzzatto is cleared to issue a closure notice for the park, which gives a six-month countdown for residents.
That will happen “shortly,” Luzzatto said.
“We can finally do the important work of allowing people to move on with their lives,” Luzzatto said. “Most of the people in the trailer park have been waiting for resolution so that they could move on. This was the defining moment for that.”
ashley@www.smdp.com
Why is one class of businessmen (landowners and developers) required to subsidize beach city living? How come we don’t regulate gas, groceries, and clothing? I’m sorry that there are people on a fixed income, but I believe in property owners rights. Just because someone needs something you own doesn’t mean a government has a right to tell you how much it should be.
This board is supposed to protect residents- their hands weren’t tied= they were shaken by a deal with Luzzatto – same with Brosh- these guys don’t spend millions without knowing they will get what they want- good luck trying to make us think otherwise-
Rule of Law? It’s mighty odd timing that Luzzatto filed his suit before he was denied or approved- very interesting- something is so rotten in Denmark- and I doubt God -if there is one- is on the side of the $$$- cannot wait for the 2014 elections- this whole crowd must go- walking all over everyone- unless they are rich. The name of this group should be changed to the “Developer’s and the Wealthy Interest’s Board” or “It’s Chinatown Jake Board” but to pretend you care about rent control- any of you is a joke- for shame to you all
There was absolutely no “Rule of Law” involved in this decision, mournful or not.
On April 11, 2013, the first time the Board considered this removal permit application, everyone except Commissioner Walton clearly understood no removal permit could be granted for a park covered by rent control, where the homeowners were exempt under state law from having their homes taken as apartment dwellers no longer were, both under the Ellis Act. On May 23, 2013, the next time the Board considered the matter, everyone on the Board but Comm. Flora stated the permit must be granted, using phrases like “our hands are tied.”
This change shows they had become convinced between those two dates that the permit must be granted, that the Board had no choice, etc. The Board’s agendas between April 11, 2013 and May 23, 2013 show consideration of no threatened litigation covering the subject of their hands being tied. This means a “series of meetings on a matter before the Board,” to cause such a change from 4-1 against to 4-1 for, must have been held outside the public’s presence, in violation of the Brown Act that all discussions of pending matters must be held in public unless threatened or pending litigation can legally be discussed in closed session.
By July 11, 2013, again nothing had been on a public agenda that would cause any such subject to be covered as whether the Board HAD to grant the removal permit–except some nonsense about a water rights case completely off the point and the Yee case deciding the opposite, both cited by Luzzatto’s attorney in public. Nonetheless, by then even Comm. Flora decided to vote yes, showing at least one more private meeting violating the Brown Act.
We will find out in the future litigation by Park Homeowners, who met with whom and who told Luzzatto along the way, before the Board ever considered the matter at all, that the Board would grant the removal permit. We’ll also find out who conspired with that person to both coerce residents into moving by telling them the Board would grant the permit before it had ever considered the matter–and indeed, when Luzzatto’s proposal was completely different, for condos instead of rental apartments.
We know the guilty parties included at least Administrator Tracy Condon, if not other Board staff, who conspired with the City to coerce people to move. Condon cited no rule of law, just claiming she knew. In fact, to so claim defied literally 100 applicable rules of law.
When someone is on the way to jail for this conspiracy to deprive people of their homes in violation of due process of law and without just compensation, then everyone who did NOT conspire will tell us all the details to avoid being punished along with the guilty parties. This matter is just beginning.
Am I correct in assuming that residents will be given money to move andor an apt? It looks as if many people have already moved out – wonder how many are left now?
The Rule of Law.
This rent control board is an elected tribunal empowered by statute to administer and adjudicate the Rent Control Charter Amendment. As such the board is bound to enforce and apply the law fairly. It is a basic principal of constitutional due process that government decisions are valid only to the extent that they are supported by publicly known and reviewable standards. In the absence of such standards, Board action is arbitrary and capricious, and therefore violates the basic guarantee of constitutional due process. The reason for a Rent Control Board decision can never be “because we say so.” We do not have the authority to change the law, or to make arbitrary decisions because a project is unpopular.