The Brief

The Los Angeles city council voted Tuesday to let landlords increase rents in the city’s rent-controlled apartments up to 6% for the first time since March 2020.

The proposal will allow rent hikes of 4% beginning on Feb. 1 with additional 2% increases permitted for landlords who cover their tenants’ gas and electricity costs.

The 10-2 decision came after fierce debate among council members, caught between pleas from tenants to keep low-income residents housed by continuing the pandemic-era ban on rent hikes and demands from landlords to end a nearly four-year rent freeze that blocked increased maintenance costs from being passed on to renters.

If the council hadn’t taken action, the city’s existing rules would have allowed landlords with rent-controlled properties to increase rents by 7% to 9% starting on Feb. 1.

Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, who voted in support of the lower limits, said, “If we increase rent, people are going to get evicted, and we’re not going to stop this eviction-to-homelessness pipeline.”

Traci Park, one of the council members who voted against lowering the rent increases allowed on Feb. 1, said, “We’ve already asked an awful lot of our mom-and-pop landlords, and I just can’t imagine how much more we’re going to continue to expect them to give.”

Councilmember John Lee joined Park in voting no. Councilmembers Paul Krekorian and Curren Price recused themselves from the vote because they are landlords. Councilmember Katy Yaroslavksy was absent from the vote.

The proposal will now move to the city attorney’s office for drafting and return to the council for another vote before it is finalized.

The backstory to L.A.’s rent freeze

By the time increases resume in February, L.A. will have banned rent hikes in most of the city’s apartments for just shy of four years, far longer than other parts of the country.

The ongoing rent freeze started when COVID-19 public health restrictions first began. City lawmakers saw the ban as a way to protect renters facing financial and personal hardships caused by the pandemic.

The policy applies to nearly 600,000 apartments covered by the city’s rent control law, which generally includes apartment buildings built before October 1978. These older buildings make up nearly three-quarters of the city’s apartment stock. Newer buildings are subject to state law, which currently allows rent increases in L.A. and Orange counties of up to 8.8% annually.

The city’s rent freeze has helped many L.A. tenants — who tend to pay rents that exceed 30% of their income — balance their household budgets during a period when inflation surged. Housing researchers say even small rent increases have been shown to increase homelessness among the lowest-income renters.

The ongoing ban on rent hikes has enraged many of the city’s landlords, who think it should have ended years ago. They’ve long said that rising utility and maintenance costs, coupled with the inability to raise rents, have created financial hardships.

How the council came to this decision 

Last month, councilmembers Hugo Soto-Martinez and Eunisses Hernandez moved to extend the rent freeze until August 2024. Landlords quickly mobilized to strike down that proposal.

Councilmember Bob Blumenfield instead suggested allowing rent hikes to return on Feb. 1 as planned, but at increases of 4% to 6%. His proposal cleared the council’s housing committee, but a vote scheduled last week in the full city council was delayed in his absence.

During Tuesday’s meeting, council members proposed dueling amendments to alter the rules on rent hikes moving forward.

• Councilmember Tim McOsker moved to allow small landlords with 12 units or fewer to raise rents 7% to 9%, while preserving the lower 4% to 6% limit for larger landlords. 
• Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez moved to keep the 4% limit in place for all landlords, with no additional 2% for landlords who cover utilities. 

Neither amendment received enough votes to pass.

Landlords say repairs will have to wait

Landlords were happy to see the six-month rent freeze extension rejected, but many had hoped for higher allowable increases.

Daniel Bleiberg with L.A. property management company G-B Investment Services said that by not allowing landlords to keep up with rising costs for years through modest rent increases, city leaders have worked against their own affordable housing goals.

“Rental property needs to be a viable business or it’s only going to get worse,” Bleiberg said, adding that some owners have already asked him if they’d be better off selling their property to a developer. “The more [city council members] don't make it a viable business, they're just going to lose more and more of this housing.”

Geza Tokes owns and manages 18 rent-controlled apartments in the city of L.A.

“When the rent freeze started, we had no problem with that,” Tokes said. “It was shaky times and it made sense.”

But Tokes questioned the city’s decision to keep the ban on rent hikes in place for years. He said stagnant rents make it difficult to keep up with rising maintenance costs for gardening, pest control and plumbing. Until the rent freeze lifts in February, he said larger repairs are on hold.

“I’ve got to put a roof on a property in Echo Park — it's $14,000,” Tokes said. “Last winter's rains got us. It's leaking, and we put a Band-Aid on that … I want to take the roof off and get permits and do it legit. But I can't throw $14,000 down right now.”

Tenants say they’re already living on the edge

Many tenants say they can’t afford to see L.A.’s already high rents climb even higher.

Studio City renter Cindy Sanders said, as a retiree, Social Security is her main source of income, and there isn’t much left after she pays rent. She said an increase of up to 6% could spell the difference between staying in her apartment of nearly 30 years, or having to move out.

“With Social Security raises not being high … it's going to really have an effect,” Sanders said. She said she could not afford a similarly sized apartment in L.A. if she’s forced to move.

Delia Cardona said most of her income from cleaning homes and offices goes straight to rent for the Koreatown studio apartment she shares with her two sons. With her budget already strained, she said any increase will force her to cut back on basic necessities.

“Obviously it would affect me and make it harder to buy food and pay my bills,” Cardona said through a Spanish interpreter. She has organized with the Los Angeles Tenants Union to advocate for continuing the city’s rent freeze.

What comes next 

Now, city officials will have to spread the word about the new rent increase rules. The L.A. Housing Department has already told landlords that rent increases of 7% to 9% will be allowed on Feb. 1. Officials will now have to contact them again to note the change to lower limits.

During the pandemic, tenants experienced confusion over the rent freeze, as well as a lack of compliance from some landlords. By early 2023, illegal rent increase complaints had eclipsed pre-pandemic levels. Some tenants also reported that “discount” rent clauses buried in their leases allowed landlords to pass on large rent increases.

With allowable increases of up to 6%, the city of L.A. will have some of the highest permissible rent hikes among all of the cities in Southern California that have local rent control. Santa Monica, West Hollywood and Santa Ana have all set allowable increases below 3%. The L.A. County Board of Supervisors voted last week to approve allowable rent increases of up to 4% in rent-controlled housing starting next year in unincorporated areas.

Companies that create and manufacture personal delivery devices, those cute bots you see on public sidewalks, have been working on growth plans for years.

Cities, on whose public sidewalks the delivery bots travel, are only now catching up to regulating them and charging the companies fees.

That's what's happening in Glendale, where, City Councilman Dan Brotman says, “[The delivery bots] just appeared out of nowhere. The company that operates [them] never reached out and talked to us."

He and other council members, he said, want to know if the delivery devices make it harder for Glendale residents using wheelchairs to use public sidewalks.

“I also am curious who is getting the financial benefit from these,” he said.

Glendale’s City Council asked city staff last month to draft two proposals, one with regulations and fees and the other pausing the operation of delivery bots while the council studies their impact. Brotman said staff may deliver those proposals to him and his colleagues in the months to come.

The two largest cities in LA County, at two different stages

The City of Los Angeles approved rules for personal delivery devices a few years ago, including flat permit fees. The City Council has since asked staff in the Department of Transportation to revaluate those rules and make suggestions.

One idea being considered — charging companies for every bot trip instead of the flat fee.

A delivery robot sits next to the bike path by the beach

(

Courtesy Coco

)

L.A. City Councilwoman Eunisses Hernandez successfully introduced the motion last year to have the regulations revisited. 

“[The companies are] starting to put movie ads or show ads, and if they're generating revenue off that, we want to know what that looks like but also be able to have a fee for them,” Hernandez said.

That report should be presented to the City Council later this year, she said. 

She’s also keen to hear from the public about their views on delivery bots. 

Companies that make the devices argue they’re providing an essential delivery service to residents while cutting down on the number of vehicles on the road making the deliveries.

“We currently pay fees in Los Angeles, Chicago and West Hollywood as part of their permit programs and are open to similar models in other cities,” said Vignesh Ram, vice president of policy at Serve Robotics, by email.

Starship Technologies' delivery robot exits the elevator in the company's office.

(

Meg Kelly

/

NPR

)

The company is now operating in Long Beach; Ram says it notified the city before beginning to operate there.

A City of Long Beach spokesperson told LAist its business licensing, planning and public works teams are currently working on recommendations for regulations. Those should be presented to the City Council early this summer.

The story first appeared on The LA Local.

When Hermila Melero trains future therapists at Cal State LA, she emphasizes something she learned over nearly two decades working on the Eastside: It matters where you’re from. 

“When you know the difference between East LA and Boyle Heights … they appreciate that on a really fundamental level,” Melero, director of field education at CSULA’s School of Social Work, said. “You feel a sense of safety and being seen when the person reflects what you look like, has a foundational understanding of where you come from.” 

Now, a $48 million grant to California State University, Los Angeles, will open new opportunities for students to serve the communities they come from. The funding will expand the university’s social work and counseling programs, training 1,000 new students to support youth mental health in Eastside communities and other underserved areas of Los Angeles.

What will the funding do?

The five-year investment by the Ballmer Group — the largest grant in the university’s history — will significantly grow Cal State LA’s Master of Social Work program. 

Its one-year MSW program will double in size, the two‑year program will increase by 50%, and the School-Based Family Counseling program will also double. The bulk of the funding will support scholarships, new faculty and the expansion of clinical placements.

Cal State LA already partners with organizations across the Eastside, including El Centro De Ayuda, AltaMed, Survivor Justice Center and schools across LAUSD. The new funding will allow more students to work directly with these groups, serving families who often lack access to care. 

“This speaks to the amazing work our social work and counseling programs are doing within our schools and with LA’s agencies serving youth and families,” said CSULA President Berenecea Johnson Eanes in a statement to Boyle Heights Beat. “With more clinical placements and greater numbers of master’s alumni, we will make real strides in meeting a critical shortage of qualified social workers and counselors.”

In addition to CSULA, CSU Dominguez Hills received $29 million to expand mental health resources in South LA and UCLA will use part of its $33 million grant to develop a minor in youth behavioral health. The three universities have received a total of $110 million. 

When Hermila Melero trains future therapists at Cal State LA, she emphasizes something she learned over nearly two decades working on the Eastside: It matters where you’re from.

(

Courtesy CSULA

)

Why representation matters

For Melero, who was born and raised in East LA, the expansion is personal. 

Melero spent 17 years of her professional career as a social worker in her own community and the surrounding areas. She witnessed firsthand how much her patients appreciated it when she spoke to them in Spanish or told them where she grew up. 

“You don’t have to explain yourself, you don’t have to explain what it’s like, you know, to grow up here,” she said. 

Now as director of field education, she helps place students in organizations, clinics and schools across the region, many of them serving the neighborhood they call home. 

Barriers to access

The need for more mental health workers comes at a time when many Eastside families are facing more barriers to care.

Stigma around mental health combined with fear tied to immigration raids have discouraged some people from seeking services, Melero said.

At the same time, financial challenges are making it harder for students to enter the profession. 

In January, the U.S. Department of Education updated its definition of a “professional degree” and excluded social work, which will affect graduate students’ eligibility for federal student loans, creating a significant financial barrier, according to the Council on Social Work Education.

Students hope to give back

For students like Silvia Perez, 41, financial assistance would be a great help.

The Cal State LA undergraduate student is pursuing her master’s degree after she graduates in May, all while raising two teenagers and a 23-year-old. Perez has been paying for her education by selling shoes and perfume outside of her home in East LA. 

Her decision to pursue a career in social work came after seeing her sister navigate the Department of Children and Family Services system with her children and witnessing how young people in her community struggled with substance abuse and homelessness. 

After graduating, Perez hopes to work in East LA to help the people she encounters every day. She believes that level of understanding can create trust with an already vulnerable population.

“I would like to help the people in my community first…I live the daily life that everyone else in my community faces,” she said.

For more information on CSULA’s MSW programs, click here.

Editor’s Note: The LA Local also receives support from the Ballmer Group.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

California scored a legal victory Monday that for now, undermines the Trump administration’s efforts to drastically cut funding for homeless housing.

Changes that would have diverted huge chunks of federal funds away from permanent housing and funneled them instead into temporary shelters and sober living programs will remain suspended after the Trump administration dropped its appeal of an earlier court loss. While the broader case is still being litigated, the new development could provide some reassurance to California counties waiting for the federal funds.

“We continue to fight for Californians and the rule of law, and we continue to win,” Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a news release. “People experiencing housing insecurity or homelessness need the federal government’s continued support — not a rollback of assistance.”

In November, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development attempted to change the way it doles out money for homeless services via its Continuum of Care program. It decreed that jurisdictions applying for a piece of about $4 billion in federal homelessness funds can’t spend more than 30% of that money on permanent housing — a move that would result in a significant cut to the type of long-term housing that can resolve someone’s homelessness.

Last year, California communities spent about 90% of their federal Continuum of Care funds on permanent housing.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration quickly joined 19 other states and the District of Columbia in suing to stop the Trump administration’s changes. In December, a federal judge in Rhode Island temporarily blocked the changes and ordered HUD to process funding applications under the original rules. The Trump administration appealed that ruling, leaving local governments and homeless service providers unsure of what they would be awarded funding for, and when.

The federal government on Monday dropped its appeal. While the rest of the lawsuit will move forward, and could take months to resolve, counties should be able to access permanent housing funds in the meantime.

Instead of prioritizing permanent housing, as has been the rule in the past, the Trump administration wants to focus more on shelters that get people off the streets quickly and temporarily, and on programs that require residents to be sober. HUD also attempted to ban the use of federal homelessness funds for diversity and inclusion efforts, support of transgender clients, and use of “harm reduction” strategies that seek to reduce overdose deaths by helping people in active addiction use drugs more safely.

A HUD spokesperson said the agency stood by its funding reforms.

“HUD remains committed to reforming the failed ‘Housing First’ approach and restoring the Continuum of Care program to its core objectives; reducing homelessness and promoting self-sufficiency for all vulnerable Americans, ensuring taxpayer dollars are directed towards those goals,” a spokesperson said in a statement.

HUD experienced another legal setback last month when a federal judge in Rhode Island shot down the agency’s attempt to upend another, smaller, source of federal homelessness funding. At issue in that case was a program called the Continuum of Care Builds grant, which funds the construction of new homeless housing. HUD last year made grantees reapply under a very different set of criteria, which seemed to disqualify organizations that support trans clients, use “harm reduction” to prevent drug overdose deaths or operate in a “sanctuary city.”

About $75 million in federal funds had been frozen as that case moved forward.

In March, the court found HUD violated the law through its “slapdash imposition of political whims.”

“This ruling is a victory for people across this nation who have overcome homelessness and stabilized in HUD’s permanent housing programs,” Ann Oliva, chief executive of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, which filed the lawsuit, wrote in a statement. “Today’s news reinforces a fundamental truth: that the work to end homelessness is not partisan, and never should be interfered with for political means.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.