Eviction protections for renters who lost jobs after the fires fails key LA City Council vote

After a contentious month-long debate that pitted landlords against renters — and Los Angeles City Council members against each other — a proposal that sought to grant new eviction protections to renters who lost income because of the fires failed in a crucial vote on Friday.

The motion needed eight votes to pass, but only six members voted in favor.

Councilmembers Eunisses Hernandez and Hugo Soto-Martinez originally introduced the motion about one week after last month’s fires destroyed thousands of homes and caused many gardeners, nannies and other domestic workers to lose income.

Before Friday, the council had voted twice to delay a decision on the idea, which set council members who expressed concern for small landlords against other council members who said low-income workers in their districts were suddenly out of a job and facing potential homelessness.

What was in the plan

The proposal would have given workers who attested, under penalty of perjury, that they were economically affected by the fires a defense in eviction court for failing to pay rent on time.

The proposed rules, similar in many ways to the city’s tenant protections during the COVID-19 pandemic, would have remained in place for one year, at which point tenants would have been required to pay back any past-due rent.

The proposal differed from the COVID-19 rules on the issue of rent increases. An earlier version of the plan would have paused rent hikes in the city for one year after the fires, but that portion of the proposal was stripped out in committee.

During Friday’s meeting, Hernandez introduced what she described as a further effort at compromise. It would have capped late rent payments at three months of the area’s fair market rent. It also would have required tenants to provide documentation showing significant loss of income because of the fires.

Hernandez called this “the bare minimum” the city could do for struggling tenants.

“After weeks of delays and deliberation, we’re still waffling over whether to protect some of our most vulnerable people in our city,” Hernandez said.

Why five council members voted no

Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the Pacific Palisades, voted against Hernandez’s proposal. She said the city lacks concrete evidence of the fires leading to a surge in evictions.

“We’re nearly halfway into February at this point, and we can’t even look at any data to help us inform a policy decision that could have wide-ranging, significant impacts,” Park said. She argued local and state funds could provide rental assistance to workers affected by the fires.

Other council members said they opposed new eviction protections because additional restrictions would discourage developers and landlords from investing in the city’s housing.

“Instituting policies like this doesn’t aid us in our ability to create a hospitable environment to build more housing in the city,” said Councilmember Monica Rodriguez.

Councilmembers John Lee, Katy Yaroslavsky and Bob Blumenfield joined Rodriguez and Park in voting against the eviction protections.

Outcome pleases landlords, angers tenants

Landlords have poured into City Hall for each council meeting on these proposals. During public comment, they’ve repeatedly urged the city to avoid any return to pandemic-era renter protections.

“This blanket policy will hurt small housing providers of color like myself,” said Stacy Harris Green. “I respectfully ask the council not to push this policy and that the city provide financial assistance to tenants and housing providers who were impacted by the fires, along with adding a penalty for fraud.”

Friday’s vote will likely disappoint tenant advocates who’ve said renters — who make up more than 60% of L.A.’s population — are already struggling to keep up with the city’s high rents, and now could be at imminent risk of eviction if they lost income during the fires. They argued renters can’t wait months for the city to create a new rent relief program.

“There will not be a perfect policy solution, but we need a solution urgently,” said Christina Boyar, an attorney with Public Counsel and a member of the Keep L.A. Housed coalition.

“I’m all for rental assistance,” she said, “but that will come far too late for many who have lost or who will lose their homes without this protection. If you don’t pass this narrow, crucial motion today, there will be more tenants falling into homelessness.”

Proposal fails, but lives to see another agenda

The yes votes included Hernandez, Soto-Martinez, Nithya Raman, Heather Hutt, Ysabel Jurado and Marqueece Harris-Dawson.

Councilmember Curren Price recused himself from the vote because he is a landlord. Other council members were absent.

Because of a subsequent vote, the proposal hasn’t been entirely killed. Only five members voted to “receive and file” the motion, falling short of the eight votes needed to put an end to the discussion.

The proposal will be on the council’s agenda again Tuesday, Feb. 18.