Your city government is considering a HUGE, GIGANTIC, STUPENDOUS INCREASE to your SEWER BILLS. This increase could go into effect almost immediately, with an almost 50% increase in just 12 months and almost doubling in just two years and continuing with large increases after that.
YOU have the POWER TO PREVENT THIS! If just half of LA property owners mail in the “PROPOSITION 218 – The PROTEST PROCESS” form by August 27th , the increase CAN’T be implemented.
Look for the mailing from the LA Environment/Sanitation Department or use the protest form following this article. Don’t hesitate, don’t procrastinate, fill out, sign and mail in the form and be sure the APN number is correct otherwise, your protest will not count.
Mail the completed form to: City of Los Angeles, Office of the City Clerk, Election Division, 555 Ramirez St., Space300, Los Angeles, CA 90012.
And then, tell your neighbors, tell your friends Feel free to make copies.
Only one form per APN will be counted, so duplicate mailings for the same property shouldn’t be sent in.
You CAN’T call it in, you CAN’T email it in, you can ONLY MAIL IT IN. You have until August 27th, but DON’T PROCRASTINATE!! PLEASE, TAKE ACTION IMMEDIATELY. Of course, you should attend the hearing on August 27th and speak up if you can, but ONLY The PROTEST FORM can stop this. Personal, verbal and emailed objections don’t count.
In case you don’t receive it in the mail, you may use the form following this article or use this link to download the rate info and the form: https://www.lacitysan.org/cs/groups/public/documents/digitalmedia/y250/mdk4/~edisp/cnt098356.pdf98356.pdf
REMINDER: Oakland Lifted the Rent Increase Moratorium
The Emergency Moratorium adopted by Oakland City Council in response to the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020 that prohibited rent increases above the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase has ended.
Effective since July 1, 2024, that prohibition was lifted and rent increases that exceed the annual CPI, such as banked CPI and the Rent Adjustment Program petition-based increases, can resume.
To learn more about the end of the Moratorium, please visit the Rent Adjustment Program at: https://www.oaklandca.gov/services/important-covid-19-information.
Good News – Assembly Bill 2216 is Dead!
Assembly Bill 2216, the so-called “Pet Bill,” is being held and will not be moving forward for this year’s legislative session. The Pet Bill would have, among other things, forced properties with 16 or more units to accept at least one pet per unit.
SB 611 – More Price Controls!
SB 611 by Sen. Caroline Menjivar, D-Van Nuys, has returned for the second half of the two-year session. The bill states that rental housing advertisements would be required to fully disclose optional fees for services along with rental prices.
If passed and signed into law, SB 611 would require that:
- Landlords or their agents include all mandatory fees, deposits, and charges in the advertised rental price, including charges for utilities, trash, water, and other mandatory services.
- Optional services and amenities fees are clearly disclosed in all advertisements.
- Tenants are allowed to use violations of these provisions as a defense in unlawful detainer actions.
- Landlords who fail to comply with these requirements face extensive financial penalties.
- Landlords disclose the maximum monthly cost paid by previous tenants for utilities, with no consideration for the number of tenants who occupied the unit previously.
- Landlords provide prospective tenants with copies of the two most recent utility bills and a detailed statement on how utility costs are allocated.
- During the tenancy, landlords would be prohibited from altering the method or formula used to allocate utility costs and from increasing the tenants’ costs for those services.
Many California Cities Say “Yes!” to More Housing – As Long as it’s NOT Affordable Housing
Throughout California, concern about homelessness is routinely cited as the rationale for imposing repressions on private housing providers. But, IRL (In Real Life), they’re often not that anxious to allow construction of affordable housing in their district, or even in their city.
In southern California, the state is suing Huntington Beach, Anaheim and Fullerton regarding their refusal to approve additional housing. A pro-housing group is suing the city of San Mateo, asserting that the city is trying to avoid sweeping rezones that would allow for more density around the city, which currently is primarily zoned for single-family residential. With maybe a cute little ADU tucked away discretely here and there.
State regulators also sent a warning letter to the city of Woodside, which tried to skirt a recent state housing law by declaring that their super-ritzy Silicon Valley city is actually a mountain lion sanctuary.
One of the latest is the East Bay city of Concord, who rejected in a 4-1 city council vote, a 183-unit development already approved by the planning department. Among the objections mentioned was that additional affordable housing should be constructed in different districts in the city. However, no alternate locations were suggested. Instead, the board indicated they would be open to approving the project at the current location if 163 of the units were market rate, with only 20 units being affordable.
Pacific West Communities, which develops around two dozen affordable projects in California each year, would qualify for up to $90 million in state tax-exempt bonds under the affordable housing plan, which would give it access to low-interest financing.
If the project isn’t affordable housing, it won’t qualify for the bonds, which would make financing problematic. To quote Pacific West Executive John Nicolas; “There’s no guarantee we’d have a lender. They could be without any housing at all.”.
So, if it’s not a density issue or an infrastructure issue or a transportation issue or a funding issue, where does the reluctance come from? Possibly, it’s an inconvenience issue: the inconvenience of ongoing construction (so noisy, so dusty) and then the inconvenience of living in proximity to adults (with children!) who not only don’t own their own home, but their idea of a party is also more bounce house than country club.
Why the CA Tax Limit Got Booted from the Ballot By CalMatters
A political bombshell exploded in California at 10 a.m. Thursday: The state’s highest court removed an anti-tax measure from the Nov. 5 ballot, siding with Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic legislative leaders and angering business and taxpayer groups, writes CalMatters Capitol reporter Alexei Koseff.
The blocked initiative — known as the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act and led by the California Business Roundtable — would have made it more difficult to raise taxes, requiring the Legislature to seek approval from voters for any new or higher state tax. It would have also raised the voting threshold for local, voter-initiated special taxes from a simple majority to two-thirds.
Opponents argued that the measure not only attempted to illegally revise the state constitution, but, if adopted, would radically change how California government works. The court unanimously agreed.
Justice Goodwin Liu, writing on behalf of the court: “Those changes would substantially alter our basic plan of government, the proposal cannot be enacted by initiative.”
Democratic lawmakers, as well as labor groups and the League of California Cities, applauded the ruling. Senate leader Mike McGuire of Santa Rosa said it “protects Californians and our ability to provide law enforcement, fire protection, and vital services…” Newsom’s office also praised the decision.
Newsom spokesperson, in a statement: “The Governor believes the initiative process is a sacred part of our democracy, but as the Court’s decision affirmed today, that process does not allow for an illegal constitutional revision.”
Backlash came swiftly from the measure’s proponents and top Republicans in the Legislature. Assembly GOP leader James Gallagher of Chico said the ruling was “outrageous” and that the court “silenced the voices of Californians and shredded its credibility.” San Diego Sen. Brian Jones said the court “caved to pressure from the governor and legislative Democrats.”
Rob Lapsley, the president of the California Business Roundtable, said the coalition will work on a narrower tax proposal for voters to consider in 2026, and that this is “just a battle in the bigger war.”
Lapsley, at a press conference: “Clearly, the state Supreme Court has now sent a signal that they are part of the progressive agenda in California, that we are a one-party state in California and there is no independent judiciary in California anymore.”
Meanwhile, a countermeasure that Democratic legislative leaders pushed to challenge the anti-tax proposal will remain on the November ballot, according to its author, San Diego Assemblymember Chris Ward. It is a state constitutional amendment to require any changes for approving state and local taxes be passed by the same margin the “initiative measure would impose” (which would have been a two-thirds majority for the anti-tax measure).