The elections on March 5, 2013 are coming up and they are of critical importance to LA Property Owners and Housing Providers.

The City Attorney position is possibly the most important position when it comes to Property Owners in the City. Why? They decide whether to prosecute Property Owners based on the citations and inspections done by the Los Angeles Housing Department.

Right now the LAHD is one of the most corrupt agencies in the country. They confiscate Property Owners rental income with the REAP Program and when the property forecloses they hand over the previous owner’s rental money to their preferred developer or “Non-Profit”. This is crony capitalism at its worse and its happening right here in LA under the current LA City Attorney Carmen Trutanich and LAHD General Manager Mercedes Marquez.

We obviously do not want Carmen Trutanich for another 4 years.

Another contender for the position is Mike Feuer. He is a former City Councilmember and member of Assembly. He is a total insider and Union hack who will be extremely dangerous to Property Owners and Business Owners. He is one of the councilmembers who created the REAP Law in the 90s and he is well known for his anti-Property Owner views. In fact he is embroiled in a scandal with Bet Tzedek, the radical Pro-Tenant group that provides free legal services to tenants. He has received $30,000 in contributions from Bet Tzedek that may have violated state law. More can be read here.

The only candidate we can trust is Greg Smith. He is an ethical, strong litigator who wants to do the right thing in LA.  He’s not your everyday lawyer. He protects whistleblowers, including those inside government positions. He has come to a few of the Fair Housing Coalition meetings and has expressed strong statements in favor of Property Owners and Business Owners. We strongly support Greg Smith for City Attorney. You can go to his website and find out how you can do more to help his campaign.

http://www.gregsmith2013.com

The Fair Housing Coalition
POB 46123
Los Angeles, CA 90046
“Equality Under The Law For Landlords And Renters”
======================================================

In the City of Los Angeles, the laws on the books, the municipal codes of the LAHD and the practices of the Los Angeles Housing Department discriminate against housing providers. We believe in equality under the law for both landlords and renters.
Here are the reforms that we are seeking at this time.

#1 – No REAP Rent Discounts.
Explanation:  When a building is placed in REAP renters should not be offered or given any form of rent discount.  If a renter decides to pay his/her rent to the LAHD, they may do so but only after being presented with a written promise and evidence that doing so will result in more timely repairs to the residence, a copy of which might also be sent to the landlord. No rent discount is to be offered by the LAHD in order to bribe the tenant.
Explanation… When a renter receives a fifty percent rent discount, it encourages that tenant to do what they can to keep the building in REAP and deprives the landlord of funds to correct needed repairs.  Imagine how exciting it is for low-income wage earners, especially those with several children to feed, to receive a fifty percent rent reduction.  This inspires renters to tamper with smoke detectors and do other damage to the property to keep rent low and it also becomes very difficult for landlord to get out of REAP.  This destroys relationships of trust between landlords and renters because it invites intense greed into the equation.
Even an honest decent tenant in many cases can be corrupted when the LAHD offers them a fifty percent rent discount.  Giving REAP rent discounts sets off a very bad domino effect between landlords and renters. In the end, nothing good comes out of it.

#2 – All REAP hearings are to be held in a court of law and with a real judge hearing the case.  It is a denial of due process of law for an employee of the LAHD to put on a robe, pretend to be a judge and place a property in REAP.  This process, as it is now, is a civil rights violation that must be put to an end immediately.

#3 – Destructive Tenants Must Be Cited.
Explanation: When a tenant does damage to the inside of his/her apartment, by admitting to having done the damage to the apartment building or when there is proof that a tenant has created the damage, housing inspectors should cite and fine the tenant.  A copy of this report should be made available to the landlord within seven days should the landlord desire to go forward with an eviction of the destructive tenant.

#4 – Controlling Tenant Retaliation
If a landlord can prove or if there is substantial evidence that a tenant caused intentional damage to the property as retaliation, then the LAHD case against the landlord is to be denied and a report must be made by the LAHD to document what the tenant did.  If the tenant committed a code violation, the tenant should be fined by the proper city agency.

#5 No citing landlords for code violations that are not de facto (by their own sole and very nature) serious health and safety issues.  A code violation may not be taken as prima facie evidence of a health and safety issue.
Explanation:  Since the City of Los Angeles does not allow landlords to evict for overcrowding, in rental units where it is obvious that there are too many people living in an apartment, that apartment should be issued a wavier and the landlord should not be cited for minor code violations.  The only code violations that a landlord may be cited for is something that is a serious health and safety issue, no cosmetic issues.

#6 – Tenants Must Notify The Landlord First When A Repair Is Needed
Explanation:  Tenants are to fill out a LAHD repair form and serve the landlord before they may file a complaint with the LAHD.  Tenants must prove they gave the landlord the notice and the opportunity to make repairs to the unit. If they fail to do this, then the complaint will be closed.

#7 – A New Department To Help Landlords Comply.
There should be a department set up with inspectors who are landlord friendly.  After a landlord has been cited for code violations, the landlord should be able to call a phone number and talk with inspectors who have been trained to be landlord friendly, to work in a spirit of cooperation with landlords.  These inspectors will come out to the property, to explain to the landlord what is needed to fix the code violations.  These inspectors will not cite landlords and this service should be free considering how much we pay for SCEP inspections.

#8 – No Outreach Contractors For Renters Or Landlords
Explanation:  After an inspector has come out to a property and all the code violations have been fixed, there is no need for a 2nd inspection by a renter’s activist group.  Having a second inspection implies that the City of Los Angeles believes that their own housing inspectors lack the knowledge to make a final determination if the property is now up to code.  If this is the case, then the City should fire these inspectors and hire inspectors with a background in construction or engineering.   If the city hires outreach contractors for landlords, they really can’t do much other than advise landlords how to comply.  They can’t fight against the city because they are being paid by the city. This is a waste of taxpayer’s money.

#9 – Create An Oversight Committee Composed of Three Landlords And Three Renters
Explanation:  If any landlord or renter in the City of Los Angeles has a problem with a specific municipal code or a specific policy of the LAHD, they can speak before this committee to solve the problem and suggest changes.  Then the committee can vote on the matter.  If they end up in a deadlock and cannot agree, a retired judge would come in and cast the deciding vote.

#10 – Capital Improvement Rent Increase Is Raised From $55 to $200.
Explanation: Older buildings that are under rent control require more maintenance because of their age and in many cases, apartments are over-crowded.  If the LAHD comes along and gives the owner a long list of repairs they want the owner to do and if the tenants in any apartment are paying less than seventy five percent of fair market value rent, the owner should be allowed to raise the rent two hundred dollars after the repairs have been made.  To make it easier for the tenants, the rent could be raised one hundred dollars and then twelve months later, the rent would be raised the other one hundred dollars.

#11– Tenants Should Be Allowed To Opt Out Of SCEP.
Explanation:  If a tenant feels that his/her landlord is doing a good maintaining the property, the tenant can fill out a form, give it to his/her landlord and then the landlord turns it in to the LAHD.  So, the next time the building is due for a SCEP inspection, those tenants who have opted out of SCEP, will be assured that their apartments will not be inspected and fees will not be collected. If all the tenants in a building agree to opt out of SCEP, then the housing inspector will be limited to inspecting the outside of the building and the walkways within the building.

#12 – Close Unfair Eviction Loopholes
Explanation: When a landlord starts an eviction action against a tenant for non-payment of rent, the law unfairly allows tenants to file numerous appeals and motions to delay the court date.  On top of that, there are predatory law firms that will represent the non-rent paying tenant and ask for a jury trial as a mean to extract eight to ten thousand dollars from a landlord in order to settle the case.  Why should a landlord be force to pay a tenant who is not paying their rent, so much money just to get the tenant to move out?  These predatory law firms are nothing more than gangsters.  They are criminals using a loophole in the law to steal money from landlords.   The law should allow only one delay for the eviction court trail and a single judge should decide the case.

#13 – Tenant Move Out Fees Should Be Limited To $3,000
Because of unfair tenant move-out laws, a landlord may have to pay a renter up to $18,000 to move out.  This is outrageous considering that many renters are living in rent control buildings and they are paying rent, which is less than fifty-percent of fair market value. The move-out fee should be based on the tenant’s actual costs, so if a tenant spends $1,500 on a mover and it took three days off from their job the tenant should be entitled to those costs alone and not $18,000.  In special hardship cases, determined by a court, a landlord could be required to pay the first month’s rent of the tenant’s next apartment up to $1,500.
For those apartments regulated by rent control where the tenant is paying less than seventy five percent of fair market value rent, the move out fee should be capped at four months rent.
It is insane and immoral for a tenant who was paying low rent for several years, to end up receiving two to five years rent returned to him/her as their move out fee. If a tenant had such low rent for so several years, it was the tenant’s obligation to put some of the savings in the bank and maybe buy their own home.  The way landlords are being forced to subsidize tenants in Los Angeles is evil and borders on socialism.

#14 – Police Reports
There are criminals who bring crime and violence into an apartment building.  This puts other tenants at risk.  If the LAPD has to visit an apartment for any type of violation of the law, the landlord should be notified by the LAPD.  A copy of the report should be made available to the landlord within fourteen days. Most landlords would not mind paying a small fee for a copy of that report.
Since more Police Officers are hurt or killed when responding to calls of domestic disturbances than any other type of request for Police service; it would be a good thing for the Police, the landlord and the other tenants in the building, for the landlord to be able to obtain a copy of the Police report.  This could help the landlord evict criminal tenants.

#15 – All LAHD Late Fees Must Be Limited To A Three Percent Fine.
At this time, if a landlord is just one day late in paying for an inspection by a LAHD inspector or in registering his/her units, the landlord is hit with a three hundred percent late fee.  This is usury; it is nothing more than government approved racketeering.  If a private party wrote a contract concerning a loan or payment for service and it contain such an outrageous late fee, no court of law would allow it to be enforced, if there were a dispute between the two parties and the matter ended up in court.  It is wrong for a government agency to charge late fees that are comparable to organized crime.

Bill Hooey   (323) 397-8740

Our City of Los Angeles is suffering and things are getting worse. The malady was caused by previous City Councils creating laws that are driving jobs out of LA. Our present City Council can remedy that situation.  Employers are leaving the City of Los Angeles because of our extremely unfriendly local business climate.  Two things that are truly hurting LA’s image are REAP and SCEP.  The Los Angeles Housing Department is using these to drive landlords out of business. REAP and SCEP create a further domino effect.  The end result is that more poor people are becoming homeless.

Originally REAP was designed to punish slumlords, especially those who owned older buildings with many sub-standard units.  In reality REAP and SCEP have done much more damage than good.  Now is the time to repeal these two damaging laws.

 The LAHD is like a young tiger that has just come of age and savored its first taste of blood.  It wants more. The LAHD, in the absence of those slumlords, because most of them have gone out of business, has trained its focus upon decent landlords who own older properties that are under rent control. The City of Los Angeles bears most of the blame because many rent-controlled units generate such little income that the landlord doesn’t have the flow of cash to fix every cosmetic problem as soon as it appears. I know of many landlords who are collecting $400 or less for a one-bedroom apartment.  In some areas that amount is about one third of fair market value.  This oppressive atmosphere, created by the City of Los Angeles, is targeted against our housing providers.

 The LAHD routinely enters and cites landlords for the most minor code violations, violations that are neither health nor habitability issues. Then it puts the building into REAP and often drives the landlord out of business. The reality is that older apartment buildings, especially those built before October 1, 1978, require more monthly maintenance than do newer buildings.  But those same landlords, because of unfair rent-control laws, have the lowest cash flow. 

 Another problem caused by the City of Los Angeles is the difficulty landlords have in evicting tenants for over-crowding. In 2006, the Los Angeles City Council repealed a law that limited how many people per square foot could reside in an apartment.  Now we have the situation where large families live in small apartments citywide.  If there are six people living in a small one-bedroom apartment, that unit will experience excessive “wear and tear.”  That is not the landlord’s fault.  It is a tradition in many cultures that even the poorest families have a great number of children.

 The end result is that there are thousands of landlords who own older apartment buildings and who are under attack by the LAHD.  These buildings are over-crowded; they generate very little cash flow and require constant above average maintenance. From the LAHD’s point of view, everything is the landlord’s fault.  Even when tenants admit to a housing inspector that they have done damage to the property, they are seldom cited.  It is the landlord who is cited because, in the eyes of the LAHD, he/she is the enemy.

 In LA, a landlord’s civil rights mean almost nothing. The managers of the LAHD create new policies on a whim and begin to enforce these policies as if they were part of the municipal code. This is illegal.  These managers are creating a massive liability for our city.

Why are landlords being punished twice for the same code violation? A landlord is first punished when his/her building is put into REAP.  The tenants are given a fifty percent rent deduction and they start paying that rent directly to the LAHD.  This puts the landlord in a “Catch-22” position.  He/she does not have the income to pay the mortgage, insurance, taxes or fix the code violations.  This, in itself, is overly cruel and unusual punishment.  The second punishment comes at the same time.  While the LAHD has seized the landlord’s rent, the LAHD will ask the LA City Attorney’s Office to prosecute the landlord in criminal court.  Now the court gets into the act to punish the landlord once again with more costs and fines.   The landlord is unjustly under siege.  First, the LAHD deprives the landlord of his/her cash flow; second, the City Attorney prosecutes the landlord for not making the repairs. How can any landlord make improvements to a property without the funds to pay for them?

Most of the landlords in this situation are small “mom and pop” housing providers. The City of Los Angeles is bankrupting many of the very people it should be helping:  the elderly and minorities.   Most “mom and pop” landlords have worked hard all their lives. They have contributed to our community and want some independence when they retire.  The LAHD is robbing them of their livelihoods.

The truth is becoming more apparent.  When we trace ownership of the thousands of properties that have been put in REAP over the years, where the landlords have lost their buildings in foreclosure, from what we have been told, we will discover that our City or a City/non-profit partnership has become the new owner.  This smells like organized crime to any thinking person.

Why do so many housing inspectors have a “storm-trooper” personality?  If you took a survey, you would find that the majority of LA landlords have had terrible experiences with housing inspectors.  They talk to the landlord as if he/she is a criminal.  Yet tenants, even those who admit to damaging their own apartments, are treated with warm smiles.   Who orders the housing inspectors not to cite tenants when those same tenants freely admit to having removed smoke detectors and caused other damages?

If a landlord is not maintaining his/her building properly, to habitability and health standards, of course he/she should be cited.  And if the landlord refuses to do the right thing, then he/she should be prosecuted in the courts.  Those LAHD general manager hearings, held at the offices of the LAHD, are nothing more than theater: a sham kangaroo court. The presiding manager is draped in a robe, mimicking the appearance of a judge, but is not a real judge.  The LAHD creates the illusion of due process.  If murderers are entitled to their day in court, why are landlords in LA being denied the due process guaranteed to all of us?

This is the current situation in Los Angeles:

1. Unfair rent-control laws deprive landlords of the money they need to properly maintain their buildings.
2. Housing Inspectors cite landlords for minor issues and rarely cite tenants, even when tenants admit to having damaged the landlord’s property.
3. Property and rents are being expropriated from landlords without due process.
4. LAHD has created a hostile culture where landlords are prejudged to be the enemy and tenants are always assumed to be the victims.

Of course, there are good and bad landlords, just as there are good and bad renters. The law needs to be fair to both and treat each equally.   To put matters in real world perspective, when it comes to crime in LA, what proportion is being caused by landlords?  What proportion is being caused by tenants?

Our City’s image is being tarnished.  Anyone who has ever studied sales knows that in a year a happy customer will praise a business where he or she got a good deal to four or five other persons.  On the other hand an unhappy customer will disparage a business that ripped them off to at least one hundred other people.   The senses of injustice and anger are very powerful driving forces.  Consequently, LA is considered America’s largest most business unfriendly city. Eliminating REAP and SCEP will go a long way towards improving our city’s image. Retaining REAP and SCEP will continue to erode our city’s reputation.

The City of Los Angeles is ripping off our landlords.  Many landlords own other businesses as well and the word is spreading about the “Un-American” agenda of the LAHD.  Until the City of Los Angeles starts treating landlords fairly, word will continue to spread that LA is a highly corrupt city where no respectable businessman should invest.  Landlords and business owners are fleeing LA in unprecedented numbers.

This must stop.  To stop it we are asking for your vote to repeal both REAP and SCEP. These two distorted practices are doing exponentially much more harm than good.  Most tenants in Los Angeles are intelligent.  They do know who to call if their landlord is not making appropriate proper repairs.  SCEP is an unnecessary and predatory institution.  It is an invasion of our citizens’ privacy. We do not need it in Los Angeles.

Most renters, you will find, do not want housing inspectors roaming through their homes.  It is an invasion of their privacy.  What will come next?  Will the LAHD have the LAPD going door to door to inspect houses and apartments in the hopes that they will find something illegal? We are asking for your help because you are a member of our Los Angeles City Council.  We are asking for your vote to get rid of REAP and SCEP.   These institutions make our City government look mean and vicious.

The LAHD has contempt for the law. A member of our coalition, Barbara Darwish, sued the LAHD and won her case in Superior Court.   The judgment said that LAHD couldn’t use the “ministerial provisions” of the RSO to enforce building codes, as there were “enforcement provisions” codes in the LAMC.  Ministerial provisions include charging fees.  The LAHD and LADBS tried to use an internal memo between the general managers to claim that each department could enforce the others’ codes.  General managers do not have the authority to make law.  When Ms. Darwish presented this court judgment to the Office of the LAHD she was told that the LAHD had no intention of complying with the judge’s ruling.  This speaks volumes about their attitudes.  LAHD is building an evil empire for itself.  LAHD is out of control.  LAHD must be stopped.

We would like to have a private meeting with you. Once we have ten Council Members who join with us in fostering a more equitable community in Los Angeles, the matter should be brought to the floor for a vote.

Bill Hooey,

Fair Housing Coalition

THE “DIVINE RIGHTS” of CARMEN TRUTANICH

By

Carol Knapp

Apparently Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich…”NUCH”* to friends…feels he has the “divine right of kings” when it comes to the law.

Property owners have been getting das boot from der city for years with outrageous “fees, fines and surcharges”, criminal liability for tenant destruction, Kangaroo Court “administrative hearings”…and even rent confiscation for missing building permits. Historically, “das boot” was reserved for “mom and pop” housing providers while home owners and renters…the largest voting blocs…were exempt. However, I am happy to announce that the joy of das boot- in-the-ass will be shared with the homeowners, too. How? Listen up:

Houseguest Squatters’ Rights

I was recently informed by “L.A.’s finest” that if a houseguest stays for 10 consecutive days your guest morphs into a “tenant” replete with all perks of real tenants, i.e. the ones who pay rent. You can’t just lock the freeloaders out, according to the officer, you must evict them! That means about 3 months from start to finish while your “guest” lays about the patio sipping Piῆa Coladas.

Upon my request for a code section (my new mantra), the officer hemmed and hawed and finally admitted that it’s not really a law but rather a policy decided by “NUCH”. Nice to know that now, rather than a nation of “laws”, we are a nation of “policies”. Hmmmm….equal protection under the policy? How about, “Perry Mason, attorney-at-policy”? Or, my favorite T.V. show, “Policy and Order”?

A.C.E. – Administrative Code Enforcement

The “NUCH Squad” got worried about their pension funds, so The Big Guy came up with A.C.E., which by-passes judges and courts and “notice and opportunity to cure”…and dives headlong into our pockets without all the “fuss and muss” of due process. ACE goons will issue “tickets” for alleged “code violations”…e.g. cracks in the sidewalk…that will now be homeowners’ responsibility…and fine you

before you get the chance to fix or fight it. If this thing passes, I’ve vowed to cordon off the sidewalk in front of my house, thereby forcing passers-by to pass-by in the street. After all, what if they trip on the sidewalk? Now I’m liable instead of the city, although sidewalk repair is the city’s responsibility.

Pronounced “Nuke” as in “nuclear threat”.

Ignoring Court Orders

Some owners have sued the city and won judgments in their favor. However, NUCH’s band of merry scheisters…with full approval by their boss…could care less!

Property owners David and Barbara Darwish petitioned the court (L.A. Superior) for a “writ of mandate” to enjoin LAHD and the NUCHsters from criminally prosecuting the couple because they owned a 3-unit, which the city irrationally insisted was only a 2-unit, and ordered them to “return it to 2-units”. According to former Judge David Yaffe, the Housing Department’s job was to ensure habitability…not jail folks because the Department of B.S. lost the permits. The Housing Department even published a brochure for owners, “Preparing Residential Housing for Habitability Inspections” (“google” it), which lists the code sections for which owners must comply. Building permits…or lack thereof…were not listed as “habitability” issues.

Never ones to turn down a chance to pick our pockets while dispensing das boot, LAHD and the NUCHian ambulance-chasers continue to cite and prosecute owners for these bogus “violations” outside the scope of their authority as they are not habitability issues. While trial court decisions are not legally precedential, the local judge’s opinion about the very milieu in which he exists, should count for something, no?

NUCH’S decision to ignore this judgment in favor of providing crony developer with ample bargain-basement-priced real estate says it all.

Violation of Due Process

Santa Monica attorney, Thomas Nitti, has represented owners more than once because LAHD sent the Notices to Comply to wrong addresses, after the compliance date, or not at all.

Nevertheless, LAHD continues to violate this most basic due process right…NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD….with impunity. So why should NUCH and company care if the city gets sued over and over again? It’s not their money slipping down the rabbit hole…it’s YOURS!

Fraud Upon the Court

Attorney Darian Bojeaux, prosecuted by NUCH’s henchwoman, SERENA CHRISTION, finally got a judge, the Hon. Henry Barela, to agree that LAHD and the C.A. Office were charging unconstitutional “costs” to defendants. Of course Attorney Christion vowed to appeal this decision, apparently hoping to get a crony judge to agree with her.

Angelenos, haven’t you had enough? Are you going to let NUCH continue to “nuke” the Bill of Rights? He wants to be District Attorney so his tyranny “under color of law”,,,err…”POLICY”… can spread to the entire county.

Please, “JUST SAY, “NO” TO CORRUPT POLITICIANS and other infectious diseases.

Lest the reader be misled to think that “Nuch” is a one-man show, rest assured he’s but a cog in the wheel…or better said…a glob of grease on the chin…of that bubbling cesspool of corruption called The City of Los Angeles. L.A. has been dubbed the “Second Most Corrupt City in the Nation” (after Chicago) by the L.A. Times.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/12/carmen-trutanich-la-district-attorney_n_1327217.html

http://thetruthfacts.com

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/03/carmen_trutanich_chief_prosecu.php