Santa Ana to vote on rent control, just cause eviction initiatives

The city council, which was set to vote on the ordinances on Oct. 5, has delayed the vote to their next meeting following allegations of procedural violations. Graphic by HARRY LADA, Art Director.

Updated Nov. 7, 11:30 a.m. PT

“Fight, fight, fight — housing is a human right,” residents of Santa Ana chanted outside City Hall Oct. 5 as anticipation built for the city council’s vote on rent control and just cause eviction. 

Tenants United Santa Ana, an organization dedicated to advocating for tenants’ rights, organized snacks while residents waited in plastic white chairs for the city council’s meeting to open to the public. Tenants United representatives addressed the predominantly Hispanic crowd in both Spanish and English, following the English chant with its Spanish translation: “Tener un techo es un derecho.”

The meeting had been anticipated since the city council’s 4-3 majority vote Sept. 22 to postpone a second vote on the ordinances until Oct. 5. Supporters of the ordinances included council members Johnathan Hernandez (Ward 5), Thai Viet Phan (Ward 1), Jessie Lopez (Ward 3) and Mayor Vicente Sarmiento. 

The council moved to redo the first vote due to concerns voiced by council members Phil Bacerra (Ward 4), Nelida Mendoza (Ward 6) and Mayor Pro Tem David Penaloza — who all voted against the ordinances — that there had been a procedural Brown Act violation, which would have opened the city up to litigation if the second reading had proceeded as planned.

“On Sept. 24, the city received a letter alleging a Brown Act violation related to the council’s first reading approval of the ordinances, prohibiting residential rent increases and requiring just cause evictions,” Sarmiento said at the Oct. 5 meeting. “The letter alleged that, number one, the city housing ad hoc committee was actually a standing committee subject to the Brown Act, and number two, certain communications of mine to the mayor pro tem violated the Brown Act’s prohibition on serial meetings.”

Sarmiento denied the accusations, explaining that the committee in question is temporary and it will dissolve once it has served its purpose. Sarmiento also said he did not share privileged information outside city council sessions, encourage results for the vote or engage in any collective decision-making. In his statement, he expressed discontent with such allegations, which he said denounce the passage of the bill for purely procedural reasons and have nothing to do with the content of the ordinances themselves.

“We’re here to represent the residents,” Sarmiento said. “They are the ones who voted us in, they are the ones who live here. To hide behind this frivolous claim (is) shameful; it’s disappointing and it’s disrespectful to the residents we all represent.”

The rent control ordinance seeks to impose a rent increase cap of 3% annually on apartment complexes and mobile home parks. Critics of rent control believe it will hinder new development in the city and cause fewer landlords to invest in housing by preventing them from pursuing profit or recouping an enticing return on their investment. 

The ordinance in question, however, does not apply to new development and places the cap on apartment complexes built before Feb. 1, 1995 and mobile home parks that opened to renters before 1990. If the ordinances pass, Santa Ana will be the first city in Orange County to enact rent control laws. 

David Levy, a program specialist for the Fair Housing Council of Orange County, believes that the strides Santa Ana has made in regards to passing rent control could impact the rest of the county. Nevertheless, he is skeptical about certain historically conservative cities such as Newport Beach and Mission Viejo following Santa Ana’s suit in the near future.

“It was, for the longest time, always stated that there would never be rent control in Orange County,” Levy told The Panther. “But, I think the fact that one city has decided to make this choice is significant for Orange County.”

According to the Orange County Business Council’s 2021-22 Community Indicators report, an individual would need to work 104 hours each week to afford a one-bedroom apartment in the county at the state’s minimum wage of $14 per hour. Working standard hours, a laborer in the county would need a minimum wage set at $36.31 to afford a one-bedroom apartment or $44.83 for a two-bedroom apartment.

Comparatively, on a national level, minimum wage employees would need to work about 79 hours each week to afford a one-bedroom apartment or receive a minimum wage of $22.96 per hour to afford a two-bedroom apartment. 

Elevated housing costs in Orange County are reflective of a larger trend, as the county saw an overall increase of 5% in its cost of living since 2020, while the nation as a whole saw a 1.3% increase.

Nathaniel Greensides, a volunteer for Tenants United Santa Ana, encountered former Santa Ana city council member Juan Villegas while collecting signatures pursuing the rent control initiative in 2020. He recalled the then-councilman expressing a lack of support for rent control initiatives, telling Greensides that residents of the majority-Hispanic city should learn English to better their economic circumstances.

“My mind was blown, because here (was) an elected official saying if people just learned English then they would earn more money,” Greensides told The Panther. “But what we see ... is that it still doesn’t make a difference, (because) landlords still jack up the rents at egregious prices and they still abuse the system ... even against native English (speakers).”

Greensides also disagrees with critics who say rent control will prohibit new development in the city and disincentivize landlords from conducting repairs and upgrades for tenants. 

“As it exists in Santa Ana, the rents keep going up but we don’t see any increase in the quality of the housing supply,” Greensides said.  

Landlords may challenge the 3% cap and seek exemption in cases where they can demonstrate that it is preventing them from receiving a reasonable return on their property.

The just cause ordinance — which would require landlords to justify evictions with specific reasons for tenants housed for 30 or more days on their property — was proposed in tandem with a rent control ordinance in the hopes of being immediately adopted. The first reading failed to produce the five necessary votes to render the ordinances effective before Sept. 30, when pandemic-based eviction and rent freeze policies in the state of California came to a close.

Gilbert Sanchez, a resident of Santa Ana, came to the Oct. 5 city council meeting in support of the ordinances. Although his parents are landlords, he says they have always been compassionate to tenants and don’t raise the rent when other landlords do.

“It’s the right thing to do — to protect people and give them a safe place where they don’t have to live in fear of losing their house,” Sanchez told The Panther at the meeting. “It’s very important to look after our community and stand together to uplift each other.”

Levy and the Fair Housing Council — which provides services like fair housing education, counseling and meditation for landlords and tenants — are currently trying to familiarize themselves with the details of the new ordinances. Although the volunteer agency is impartial and does not attempt to influence legislation, Levy said he is, personally, a supporter of rent control. 

Nevertheless, he believes it remains to be seen how these particular ordinances will fare in the city and if adjustments will need to be made to the given provisions.

“I think it’s a worthwhile experiment,” Levy said. “If this somehow does not work well, that will be used as a definite justification why there will be no other rent control in Orange County. I do think it will work well; it may need some adjustment as it goes along, but I think … this is an ordinance that’s going to be beneficial.”

Santa Ana city council ultimately voted Oct. 19 to pass rent control legislation in the city. This marks the first time Orange County has ever enacted any form of rent control. As a result, landlords cannot raise rent by over 3% per year. 

In addition to this, renters now have stronger protections against evictions under “just cause” rules, which prevent landlords from evicting tenants without demonstrable evidence against them. The two housing ordinances that were voted on had been delayed due to accusations of Brown Act violations, and ultimately, they could not go into effect upon the lifting of renter protections under state laws, which were created during the pandemic. These ordinances will take effect Nov. 19.

This is a developing story. Follow The Panther on social media and at www.thepanthernewspaper.org for updates.