L.A. City Council committee rejects rent freeze, advances eviction protection proposal
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
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Safe space program for homeless struggles under 'red tape'-- could a change in law save it?
Jul. 28—The Safe Outdoors Spaces program was intended to let community members, businesses and churches help those experiencing homelessness outside their doors by giving them a place to sleep off the streets, tucked away on private property. Instead, applicants say the process is covered in red tape. "We've over-regulated it such that it doesn't even work," Mayor Tim Keller said at a Monday news conference. A new amendment working its way through City Council could help break down some of those barriers and increase safe spaces across the city at a time when those experiencing homelessness are under additional scrutiny from the federal government. Last week, President Donald Trump issued an executive order, urging cities to break up encampments of homeless people and institutionalize them through a process called civil commitment. The order also axed federal funding for safe spaces and harm reduction programs, claiming that they promote drug use and "deprioritize accountability." In Albuquerque, where there are an estimated 2,740 people experiencing homelessness, safe spaces have struggled to get off the ground. As of April, New Creation Church on Zuni is the only safe outdoor space approved by the city in the three years since the program's inception. Every other site was denied or withdrew their application, according to a city map. The city law, as it stands, requires a permitted safe space to maintain 24/7 staff, and offer food, mental and physical health services. The first requirement in particular is prohibitively expensive for most, said New Creation Church Pastor Jesse Harden. "If you pay someone minimum wage to be there 24/7 it's over $100,000 a year, so that, right there, eliminates 99% of people who try to do it," Harden said at the Monday news conference. Quirky Books owner Gilliam Kerley is one of those 99%. Outside of the used bookstore off of Central, about 15 people camp each night in 10 tents in the store's parking lot. After receiving complaints from one local business and other callers, the city gave Kerley a choice: clear out the encampment in two weeks or pay a $1,500 fine for ordinance violations. Kerley paid the fee. For his business, Kerley said, the requirements to operate a safe space above board are too expensive and labor intensive. "Someone who is simply providing a place for people to camp shouldn't be required to be a complete wraparound social services provider," Kerley said. New amendments would lessen that requirement, mandating that safe spaces offer a minimum of three social services, which can include peer support or recovery groups, connecting residents with housing resources or offering GED assistance or adult education. The new amendments would diminish the staffing requirement from 24/7 to weekday business hours, though one person must remain on-call at all times in case of complaints or emergencies. The amendments were proposed by City Councilor Nichole Rogers at the request of the mayor's office. For those experiencing homelessness, a safe space can be a second chance. "We fell victims of circumstance, and then the financial bind and we ended up not having enough money to stay in the hotels anymore," said Michael Maldonado. "And then we found Jesse." In 2020, in the midst of a global pandemic, members of the New Creation Church saw an increase of people experiencing homelessness outside their doorstep, Harden said. The church pastor decided to do more. In April, the church became the first safe outdoor space approved by the city. "It's been a blessing," Maldonado said. "I'm grateful there's places like this that can help people and make the transition in a safe environment." Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Political newcomer in top 2 for fundraising among Lansing City Council candidates
LANSING — City campaign finance reports have been filed, giving a glimpse into the money behind city council and mayoral races this year. Jeremy Garza, a sitting Ward 2 council member who is seeking a new seat as an at-large member, has dominated recent fundraising, according to campaign finance reports that were due July 25, which cover fundraising from January through July 20. There are 19 candidates running for city council or mayor. Garza raised $48,050, which is twice as much as any other candidate, and a political newcomer raised the second most money. And while incumbent Mayor Andy Schor, who like his competitors raised fairly little recently, has nearly $180,000 on hand. Here's a deeper look: Lansing City Council at-large seats With two seats up for grabs and 10 candidates, Garza has raised $48,050, reports show. But Garza's contributions are not - with the exception of a single $50 donor - from individuals. Garza's fundraising is almost exclusively from unions or other organizations. The Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 333 union, which he helps lead as vice president, contributed $24,500, the largest single donation in the city this cycle and bigger on its own than any other candidate was able to raise overall. Garza's average donation, from 14 organizations and one individual, was $3,200. The runner-up, in the money race, is also seeking an at-large position, and collected big dollars from lots of smaller donations. Clara Martinez pulled in $21,650 from more than 150 individual donors, with only two large organizations contributing: the Michigan Education Association and the Regional Council of Carpenters gave a collective $1,500. Most of Martinez's money came from individual donors, including several city figures like Mayor Andy Schor, council member Peter Spadafore, developer Pat Gillespie and Lansing Board of Water and Light General Manager Dick Peffley. Two other candidates raised more than $10,000: Julie Vandenboom and Aurelius Christian, who each reported around $14,500. Tirstan Walters raised almost $8,000, with more than a third of that being self-funded. His donors include sitting council members Garza, Adam Hussain and Ryan Kost. Gloria Denning reported raising $600 and having almost as much on hand with $2,472 in in-kind contributions. Two candidates, Jonah Stone and Olivia Vaden, did not file reports. Mayoral race There isn't much money flowing in the mayoral races, at least on paper. Mayor Andy Schor reported raising $3,650, but the mayor reports an intimidating war chest: He has $179,268 on hand. Two of the five candidates have not filed election reports in several months, meaning the public doesn't have a window into the fundraising or expenses for David Ellis and Kelsea Hector. The three candidates who have filed raised $6,485 combined. Ellis said, in a Facebook post, that he is working with the county to get an extension for his report. Hector said they have not passed the $1,000 fundraising mark yet, but expect to pass that and submit filings soon. Brett Brockschmidt reported raising $535 and spending $1,440, with most of those expenses coming out of his own pocket. Jeffrey Brown, a sitting council member who is running for mayor, reported raising $2,500, including $1,100 from himself. 2nd ward Neither candidate for the 2nd ward seat, Erik Almquist and Deyanira Nevarez Martinez, filed a report this cycle. Both are uncontested in the August Primary election. 4th ward All three 4th ward candidates filed reports. Sitting council member Peter Spadafore, who is running for a ward seat instead of his current at-large seat, has the money advantage. Spadafore raised $18,021 and reported a balance of almost $11,000 on hand. Heath Lowry, an attorney, raised $4,795, with more than half of that from himself, and has $535 on hand. Zacharie Spurlock, a bartender and challenger, reported about $1,414 in expenses and no outside contributions. Contact Mike Ellis at mellis@ or 517-267-0415 This article originally appeared on Lansing State Journal: Lansing City Council candidates file campaign finance reports Solve the daily Crossword
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: Gov. Pritzker needs to veto this pension bill. Chicago can't afford it.
Memo to Springfield: Chicago is broke. Gov. JB Pritzker has a bill on his desk that would sweeten pension benefits for Chicago's police and firefighters hired in 2011 or later, to the tune of $60 million more out of the city budget in 2027 alone and more than $11 billion over the next three decades, according to the city's own projections. The measure passed unanimously in both chambers at the end of the spring session, allowing for next to no debate and, astoundingly, was supported by every Chicago House member and senator. At the time of the bill's passage, we wrote that the entire Chicago delegation had effectively had voted to increase property taxes on their constituents. Property taxes, of course, are the main means municipalities have of financing their pension obligations to their workers. Interestingly, the governor acknowledged the conundrum last week. Asked about the bill, he said, 'One thing to consider, of course, is the finances of the city of Chicago. How will they pay for it?' The other important consideration, he said, was ensuring Chicago's first responders are 'well taken care of.' We're glad to see Pritzker explicitly state why he's mulling whether to veto despite the strange prospect of rejecting legislation that passed without a single dissenting vote. By asking rhetorically if Chicago can 'pay for it,' the governor has answered his own question. Of course Chicago can't pay for it. The police and fire pension funds have a mere 25% of the assets needed to meet their current and future obligations as it stands. Since we wrote about this measure in June, the city has estimated what it would do for its woefully underfunded first-responder funds. That percentage would drop to an almost unfathomably low 18%. To those who say it's nonsensical to veto a bill with such overwhelming support, remember that GOP lawmakers mainly went along because of the Chicago delegation's unanimous backing and the fact that only Chicagoans' taxes would be affected. All the Chicago Democrats who voted yes could justify reversing their positions by saying (truthfully) they didn't have the city's projections on just how much these changes would cost taxpayers. Chicago taxpayers already are chewing their nails wondering how the city will plug a 2026 budget deficit exceeding $1 billion. The following year looks even worse. Pritzker already tossed an $80 million hot potato in Chicago's lap with his 2023 initiative to phase out the state's 1% tax on groceries, the proceeds of which had been distributed to municipalities. More than 200 municipalities have approved their own 1% grocery taxes, as the state allows them to do. Mayor Brandon Johnson wants the City Council to do the same for Chicago, which must happen by a state-set deadline of Oct. 1. There are no guarantees, given Johnson's fraught relationship with the council and Chicagoan's understandable resistance to tax hikes of any sort, that aldermen will do as he wishes. Meanwhile, this pension time bomb would cost the city nearly as much as repeal of the grocery tax and in the future will cost far more. Speaking of the mayor, while he has spoken tepidly against this bill, he ought to be forcefully urging Pritzker to veto it and Chicago lawmakers to vote to sustain that veto, despite their earlier support of the measure. The city essentially has been missing in action on this issue, and Johnson apparently is struggling to balance his political brand as an ardent union backer with his duty to Chicago taxpayers. This is no time for such timidity. At this stage, it's worth laying out the origins of this bill. In 2010, in a bid to reform Illinois' public-sector pensions, the state created a second tier of beneficiaries hired in 2011 and thereafter — so-called Tier 2 workers — whose retirement payouts were to be substantially less than the overly generous benefits of existing employees and retirees that had gotten Illinois so deeply in pension debt. Six years ago, Pritzker signed into law sweetened pension benefits for Tier 2 cops and firefighters in Illinois outside of Chicago as part of a consolidation of downstate police and fire pension funds. Ever since, Chicago police and fire unions have argued their Tier 2 workers ought to get the same treatment. In addition, proponents cite concerns that the benefits for Tier 2 workers don't rise to the level of Social Security benefits, which would violate federal law. This page has been consistent on the issue of Tier 2 pension benefits and Social Security. State policymakers should do no more than ensure they are compliant with the law and rebuff union efforts to use the Social Security argument in effect to do away with Tier 2 and pension reform altogether. As much as we appreciate and rely on Chicago's first responders, everyone who went to work for the Police or Fire departments after 2010 knew — or should have known — what their retirement benefits were. In a perfect world, their pensions would be equivalent to those earned by their counterparts outside the city. We don't live in that world. Far from it. Mayor Johnson, you should advocate for your city's beleaguered taxpayers and call on Gov. Pritzker and Chicago's Springfield delegation to do the right thing. And, Governor, adding to Chicago's fiscal crisis hurts the whole state. Whether the mayor asks or not, veto the bill.
