Section 1805

Citation: Section 1805
Parent Document: Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2012-02-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5810885/santa-monica-properties-v-santa... ↗

Full Text

1,088 chars

In denying SMP’s petition for writ of administrative mandate, the trial court first noted that section 1805(e) governs RGB’s authority to decrease a tenant’s rent. We agree that RGB’s authority to decrease rents is a settled *751matter (see Sterling, supra, 168 Cal.App.3d 176), subject, of course, to the factors identified in section 1805(e). The trial court next addressed SMP’s more narrowly tailored argument that the decreases in rents ordered by RCB in the current rent adjustment proceeding were flawed because they were not shown to be related to “the purposes of the [RCL]” within the meaning of section 1805(e). According to SMP, a decision by RCB to reduce rents under section 1805(e) had to be based on evidence showing that SMP actually “reduced its operating expenses and/or increased its profits by decreasing the heating time of the hot tub and sauna.” In short, SMP argued that, under a proper interpretation of section 1805(e), RGB’s decision to decrease rents had to be based on more than a mere showing that there had been a “minimal” decrease in services to tenants.

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text