Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985)

Citation: Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985)
Parent Document: Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1985-05-15
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2158620/sterling-v-santa-monica-rent-co... ↗

Full Text

1,972 chars

The necessity of a power to decrease rents to effective rent control has been recognized implicitly in recent court decisions. Carson Mobile-home Park Owners’ Assn. v. City of Carson (1983) 35 Cal.3d 184 [197 Cal.Rptr. 284, 672 P.2d 1297] addressed the constitutionality of criteria used to grant or deny a rent increase. The criteria were similar to those utilized in the Santa Monica Charter amendment and the Supreme Court reasoned: “The Carson approach allows the Board to ensure that rent increases are tied to the owners’ actual costs and expenses, rather than to the average costs of the industry. It also permits consideration of property maintenance patterns in determining allowable increases. A change in general economic conditions, such as an increase in taxes, inflation, or the Consumer Price Index, might indicate that a general rent increase is in order. However, an increase might not be warranted for a particular [unit] if there has been a decrease in maintenance expenditures or a reduction in services provided to the tenant.8 Indeed, to allow such a [unit] to take advantage of a general rent increase would be contrary to the legitimate governmental purpose of eliminating excessive rents. Also it would be unfair to those [units] which have not reduced tenant services.” {Id., at pp. 194-195.) Footnote 8 reads: “ ‘Rent control would be self-defeating were landlords permitted to reduce maintenance expenditures and allow buildings to deteriorate because their profits have been regulated downward.’ (Orange Taxpayers Council v. City of Orange (1979) 169 N.J. Super. 288 [404 A.2d 1186, 1193], affd. (1980) 83 N.J. 246 [416 A.2d 353].)” This reasoning applies with equal force to the power to decrease rents. If no condition has changed except the decrease in maintenance expenses or reduction in services, the rent pres*184ently being charged has become excessive, returning to the landlord a higher profit than had been previously adjudged fair.

Other Sections in This Document (94)

Full Text