Utilities, Vehicle Camping, Corporate Suites and an Apartment Swap

Dear Editor:

January 29, 2001

Dear Editor,

I received a flyer at City Hall on Jan. 9 during a City Council budget hearing. This flyer was about a meeting to reduce the city user tax of 10 percent. I found it strange that when these people were handing out these flyers, the City Council was upstairs trying to decide how to spend this money -- $24 million.

But what I found even more strange is if these people were really serious about reducing or removing this tax, why weren't they upstairs mentioning this and trying to convince the council to be conservative and reduce the 10 percent tax.

I made this 10 percent tax as a part of my run for City Council last election and I have spoken on this item at many council meetings for the past few years with no success. I have never played with people's emotions on this issue.

It makes me wonder if these people are just playing political games. Given the state of the electrical problems we are now having, I believe so. If these people were serious about this why don't they pull a 13-item and convince the council to take action?

I take issue with people being disingenuous and manipulating a subject that we all feel compassionate about. I know this is only a political move on a few people's behalf rather than a real move for change, so I ask you, why don't they bring this before the City Council and push for real reform rather than the political staging they are doing.

Maybe I would trust these people more if they had been fighting on behalf of the citizens of Santa Monica on this issue in the past. But they have not - at least in public or even in the last election. Three of these people ran for City Council in the last election. Why didn't they bring this issue up then? I find it a little strange and opportunistic, wouldn't you say?

Sincerely,

Chuck Allord
Santa Monica

Dear Editor,

The Santa Monica Police Department strongly supports a proposed ordinance that would prohibit camping in one's vehicle on City streets and public parking lots.

This is a good ordinance and deserves to be supported in the interest of public safety. Mayor Feinstein and Councilmen Genser and McKeown spoke against the measure at last Tuesday's City Council meeting. As a result the Council postponed voting on this important issue.

Didn't I hear Feinstein and Genser brag before the last election about how they were the "public safety" candidates? Didn't they get the coveted Santa Monica Police Officers Association endorsement implying that they were the "law and order" choice of the POA?

Maybe it was all campaign rhetoric and political back scratching. It looks to me that some Council members once again put "privileges" for transients ahead of the real needs - and safety - of our residents.

The proposed anti-camping-in-vehicle ordinance is in for a re-tune and will be back before City Council in late March. I hope our "public safety" elected officials see the light and realize that this proposed ordinance will benefit all Santa Monica citizens by making our streets safer and cleaner.

Bill Bauer
Santa Monica

Dear Editor,

I urge you to find a compromise solution to prohibiting people from living in their vehicles parked on the street. People who are living in their cars are one major auto repair away from our streets.

We cannot make the homeless problem "go away" by banishing people from our sight. Of course we don't want to look at them. They are a reminder of our failure -- political, societal and moral -- to deal with the unemployed, underemployed and mentally ill homeless.

True, people are living in cars and motor homes here in Ocean Park. Who owns the streets? Are they private property or do they belong to the citizens who pay for them? I see people who are living in their cars around Joslyn Park. They are fortunate to have cars. Could you possibly restrict them to designated areas of the city? Around the parks or by OPCC?

This problem is only going to worsen if we have a downturn in the economy. Where is our humanity?

Kay Pattison
Santa Monica homeowner

Dear Editor,

I read and enjoyed your article on "short term" housing ("City Tackles Short-term Rentals," January 22, 2001). I appreciate the complexity of the issue and as a resident of the City of Santa Monica I would share some of the concerns expressed if there was really any sort of a trend here.

While you quoted me fairly accurately, you chose to omit two key facts that you and I discussed which might have changed the entire tone of the story.

First, you chose to express the estimated 300 furnished apartments as 10 percent of the City's hotel rooms. This sounds like a high percentage until you really focus on the fact that hotel rooms aren't housing, that we have something like 35,000 apartments in town and the 300 furnished units account for less than 1 percent of the rental housing stock.

I asked you if you had discovered any new short term rentals since the article you ran a year ago and you admitted you had looked but could not find any additional furnished "short term" units since then. Less than 1 percent and no increase in over a year. Where is the "trend" or "problem"?

Sincerely,

Howard A. Jacobs
President - Citrus Suites

Dear Editor,

Did you ever hear of Lena Schnuch?

Some of us old-timers may have -- but I'll bet that the majority of Santa Monica property owners don't remember the name Lena Schnuch. I'm also willing to wager that Marcela Rojas, reporter for the Times never heard of her either. Marcela is the one who wrote the story that appeared in the Westside Weekly on Sunday January 14, 2001, about the two tenants who switched apartments without notifying the owner. It was no surprise to see that the Times reporter took the tenants' point of view!

But first, let's talk about Lena Schnuch (pronounced Schnuck). ACTION (through the Foundation for the Defense of Free Enterprise) filed suit in Federal Court on behalf of Lena in early 1988.

It had come to our attention that 89-year old Lena suffered a stroke the previous summer, which left her partially paralyzed and requiring around-the-clock nursing care. At the time of her stroke, Lena lived in her own building and occupied a townhouse-type apartment that she and her late husband had literally built with blood, sweat, tears, scrimping and saving.

After an extended confinement in the hospital, Lena's doctor told her daughter that elderly people are more comfortable in familiar surroundings and recommended that Lena be sent home and 24-hour nursing care be arranged for her.

That presented a problem. Because she was partially paralyzed, under medical care and requiring nursing care 24 hours, seven days a week, Lena's doctor further recommended that she not return to her own townhouse style apartment with the two bedrooms on the second floor.

But, wait a minute -- Lena's building did have a two-bedroom unit with all the living space on one level -- but it was rented to a tenant. What was the solution? Simple -- ask the tenant to leave and have Lena move in to the first floor unit that was not a townhouse.

Sounds like an easy answer, right? Wrong!!!

When Lena's daughter contacted the Rent Control Board, they said that Lena absolutely could not move into the other unit. She could not occupy it for her own personal use. The Rent Board suggested -- "If you want your property back, you'll have to go to court." Another option they said she had was that she could sell the building and move away.

Lena's daughter attempted to evict the tenant for owner occupancy and was rebuffed by the court.

Was this fair? All who knew Lena were outraged. How many people do you know who would be willing to work a lifetime in order to get a little security in their old age?

Lena worked as a waitress, carrying heavy trays and standing on her feet all day in order to own a building. Her husband worked as a gardener and together they thought they were building some security for their retirement years.

By the time Lena had the stroke, her husband had passed away -- she was alone!!

Lena had left Europe in her teens, surviving the ravages of WW I. She worked, she saved. There were no rich parents, no handouts. Just work and save.

They purchased a modest home after 20 years of saving. More years of saving and with the sale of the house they were able to purchase a lot with an old house on it. They were able to build 4 units on the lot at the rear of the house. Finally, they tore the house down and put up 3 more units in the front. The Schnuchs could be proud of their accomplishment.

The property still had a mortgage on it and the normal maintenance requirements when Lena had her stroke and needed to move to the first floor in a single-level unit that she owned. AND THE RENT BOARD TOLD HER TO GO TO HELL!!

To make a long story short -- Lena lost her case in Federal Court. All she wanted was to move into her own unit in her own building. Lena has since passed away, but anyone knowing the facts of her case find it hard to forget.

Now, let's move forward 13 years. A couple of tenants thought they were helping a 91-year old woman. They would swap apartments. The elderly woman lived on the second floor and the younger couple lived on the first floor. The couple felt that they could make the elderly woman's life easier by swapping apartments with her. The elderly woman could not climb the stairs any more was the claim. When the owners found out about it -- it was the same as a voluntary vacancy and the rent was raised to market.

Did anyone even think of asking the owner? I don't think so! Does the rental agreement give tenants the right to do anything they want to do in the building? I don't think so! Where did they get the impression that they could "pull it off"?

The City of Santa Monica has been pushing landlords around for 23 years. I suppose many tenants feel that they can do anything to an owner. GOD BLESS COSTA-HAWKINS! Does the reporter or the tenants know even the most remedial facts regarding landlord-tenant law? I don't think so!

The tenants took the matter to the Rent Control Board for review. The Rent Board said it is out of their control! Can you believe that? THANK GOD FOR COSTA-HAWKINS!

Too bad there will not be any hearings at the Rent Board. Maybe someone could go in and tell Lena's story.

Sincerely,

Herb Balter
Former President, ACTION Apartment Association