Measure H Rent Control Organizer Not Shocked by Lawsuit

A co-author of a rent control measure told Pasadena Now that an injunction filed by the California Apartment Association last week did not take her by surprise.

Measure H would limit local rent adjustments annually to 75% of the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for multifamily rental units built before February 1, 1995, and “prohibit evictions from rental units, except for just cause based on 11 specified criteria, and create an independent Rental Housing Board appointed by the City Council to oversee and adopt rules and regulations.

The initiative would also force local landlords to roll back rents to the amount tenants paid in May 2021, according to organizers. 

“I am not surprised that the CAA and individual landlords have filed a suit against the measure. They were our main opponents during the election, and have a business interest in avoiding any type of regulation,” said Jane Panangaden, who co-authored the initiative. “They also have a great deal of money — collected in the form of outrageously high rents from their tenants  —  to spend on lawsuits. The suit consists of several unrelated points. It seems to me like they are taking the approach of throwing everything at the wall and seeing if anything sticks.” 

According to the lawsuit, the measure, which was placed on the ballot as an amendment to the city’s charter, nearly doubles the length of the charter and effectively restructures the city government with the creation of an independent rent board. In so doing, the measure fundamentally changes the city charter and effects a so-called “charter revision,” the lawsuit claims. Though the difference in terminology may sound insignificant, the distinction between a charter amendment and charter revision carries serious legal consequences. Charter amendments may be proposed by citizens’ initiative – as Measure H was – but under the state constitution, charter revisions can only be put forward by the city council or a charter review commission.

The lawsuit also challenges the legality of the rental board. Members of the board would be selected by the City Council, but the City Council would not have the power to remove commissioners, which is granted by the City Charter. The board also, according to the initiative, would not be accountable to the City Manager, City Council, City Clerk or City Attorney.

The City Council and the City are listed as respondents in the lawsuit. 

“Consistent with this alteration of the City’s fundamental governmental structure, Measure H deprives the City Council of the authority—which the Charter permits it to exercise with respect to every other appointed board or commission — to remove members at will, and it expands the right of recall beyond that which is currently allowed by both the City Charter and the California Elections Code (which limits the right of recall to elected officials) to provide a recall procedure for appointed Rental Housing Board members.”

Measure H also specifies the required qualifications for members of the Rental Housing Board, providing that of the 11 members, at least seven of the members must be tenants with no “material interest in rental property” in Los Angeles County (not just Pasadena) during the past three years, or even a “material interest in rental property” by members of the appointees’ “extended family”—a term that is very broadly defined to include even grandparents, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, grandchildren or cousins.” 

But according to the documents, there are no guaranteed slots for those who do have a material interest in rental properties, like landlords; all eleven of the rent board members. and both alternates could be tenants which could produce a bias against property owners and landlords.

“At most four of the members could be property owners, meaning that tenants are guaranteed a supermajority on the Board,” the documents state. “Any action of the Board requires the support of at least six Board members, and Measure H requires that for there to be a quorum to take action, at least four “tenant” members must attend the meeting. 

There is no requirement that any “at-large” members be present for a quorum. In sum, no vote can even take place unless at least half of the members present are tenants with no material interest in rental property.”

“My main concern is whether an injunction will be granted, which, depending on its scope, could delay the rent rollback or eviction protections and possibly put tenants at risk,” Panangaden said.

“Landlords may try to evict tenants in order to avoid the rent regulations. If this happens, we will likely call on the city council to implement some temporary protections similar to what they did in the fall of 2019 to prevent an eviction wave in the months preceding the effective date of AB1482.”