City Council’s immediate end to no-just-cause tenancy terminations was a clear sign that the residential stability was a priority. As part of that deal, though, City Council created a new, lower standard for termination and defined a new City Hall process to terminate so-called ’disruptive’ tenants. How will it work? A two-member subcommittee of Council would hear a landlord request and render a determination. What’s more, Council appears ready to let a neighbor haul the tenant before the subcommittee for termination too.
City Council’s most significant step since it revisited the rent stabilization ordinance is the new prohibition on no-just-cause termination. Unfortunate tenants will remember the traumatic moment they received notice to find a new home. Some didn’t even know it could happen. We are grateful that the city put an end to it. But City Council recently backtracked by agreeing to create a probationary tenancy by making the first lease year a ‘trial’ period, after which the landlord could terminate for no cause and with no relocation fee. The provision would affect more than 400 households with new tenancies each year.
In October Beverly Hills ended no-just-cause evictions for all residents who rent. This important change repealed the ‘original sin’ of our rent stabilization ordinance: with just 60 days notice a landlord could terminate a tenant with no reason necessary and no relocation fee payable. Beverly Hills allowed that abuse to occur for three decades (only Chapter 5 tenants were spared). Finally the current City Council heeded the call to end it by outlawing it with the adoption of an urgency ordinance.
One of the more frustrating aspects pro-tenant work is recognizing how the deck is stacked against those who rent. There are many provisions in the law to keep the tenant in line. Keep a pet or live with an unapproved partner or roommate? The 3-day notice may come. A few days late (or a dollar short) on the rent? Sudden death for the tenancy. Yet the rules are much more lax for landlords, and the bad apples among them withhold repairs, enter the unit unlawfully, and even retaliate. Holding them to account is the tenant’s challenge because often the city won’t.
I regularly speak with tenants who are not aware that the landlord can end a month-to-month tenancy for any reason or no reason at all. If no local ordinance prohibits it, and Beverly Hills has no such prohibition, the landlord’s good will is all that stands between the home we’ve made and the stomach-churning search for post-eviction replacement housing. Have you thought about what happens next after receiving such a notice? Here’s a primer on no-just-cause eviction: what it is, what to expect, and what you can do.
His landlord, Stephen Copen, served David and his his two sons with a 60-day, no-just-cause notice to evict after 29 years in his apartment at 458 South Roxbury Drive. The family’s final pack-up culminated in a harried garage sale, filled-up refuse bins and an uprooted garden. David’s priority now is simply to stay housed so his two kids can finish high school. The family’s final exit from Beverly Hills can’t come too soon for him.
Last year, Copen also threw out David’s upstairs neighbor for no cause. She had been there for 30 years. Her eviction came within a year or so after Copen bought the building, adding it to at least six other properties owned with his wife, Naghmeh Makhani. Copen is a longtime Beverly Hills rental property owner but these folks don’t even call our town home.
David’s eviction put me in mind of a remark he made to City Council exactly a year ago. There were some changes to the rent stabilization law and Copen wasn’t happy. “You haven’t discussed whether people living in a two bedroom apartment across from Roxbury park with a view of the clubhouse should maybe economize,” he told the councilmembers, before grousing further about how he “subsidized” his tenants. If you are a Copen tenant the video is worth a watch. Have you a story to share about the Copens? Something concerning no-cause evictions, sham tenants, or substandard property maintenance, perhaps? I’m all ears.
Update: with 29-year tenant David Berke out, Copen could move in a tenant for the briefest of tenures and then move that tenant out and then raise the rent to market. That’s what we’re told anyway. And that’s what he evidently did after he kicked-out David’s 30-year upstairs neighbor.
Copen evidently made few or no upgrades to the property exterior (or unit exterior) while his longtime tenants resided there. But once David was out it was a different story: time for curb appeal! A refresh of the exterior (below) and an interior renovation (without permits) repositions the property for that next lucky Copen tenant!