Wave Wire Services
LOS ANGELES — After adopting a law against tenant harassment three years ago, the City Council Oct. 30 gave preliminary approval to improve its policy with the aim of strengthening protections for renters.
The City Council voted 11-0 in favor of several amendments to its tenant anti-harassment ordinance.
The changes are intended to expand the definition of tenant harassment and establish a minimum civil penalty of $2,000 per violation, among other things.
Council members John Lee and Heather Hutt were absent during the vote, and Paul Krekorian and Curren Price recused themselves because they are landlords. The City Council will take a second vote on the ordinance on Nov. 26 before it can be finalized.
Councilwoman Nithya Raman, who chairs the council’s housing and homelessness committee, urged her colleagues to support the changes, and described it as an “important update.”
In 2021, the council approved its tenant anti-harassment ordinance, banning landlords from harassing tenants and making such violations a criminal offense. However, housing advocates argue the law has not resulted in meaningful change for tenants facing harassment.
The new ordinance is expected to incentivize private attorneys to take on harassment cases. Additionally, the new ordinance aims to deter tenant harassment, inform tenants of their rights and clarify landlords’ responsibilities.
David Kaishchyan, government affairs coordinator for the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, warned council members that the ordinance will cause “serious damage to the vast majority of positive relationships between rental housing providers and their renters.”
He argued that minimum damage awards for violations would hinder amicable resolutions in cases of minor rent delays, tenant disagreements or scheduling repairs.
“At a minimum, we urge the City Council to construct a tiered system of damages to properly recognize that small owners with 20 or fewer units cannot stay in business providing naturally occurring affordable housing when faced with such astronomical damage awards,” Kaishchyan said.
Fred Sutton, senior vice president of local public affairs for the California Apartment Association, noted that the original tenant anti-harassment ordinance underwent a year of stakeholder feedback and significant debate. He highlighted that the new version had none of that input.
“The whole point of these provisions is to increase litigation,” Sutton said. “We are seeking a balanced ordinance that protects both housing providers and residents.”
“Responsible housing providers should not face a cottage industry of lawsuits,” he added.
Kaishchyan previously had criticized the ordinance for being “blatantly one-sided.” He explained that there are no protections in place for landlords or housing providers, who are often targeted by tenant activists at their homes.
About 50 renters and a coalition of pro-housing activists rallied at City Hall in support of the revised ordinance prior to the meeting. They also urged council members to cap rent increases at 3%.
“We do have the anti-harassment ordinance right now, but as it stands, it has no teeth, and if you don’t make a quick decision about making stronger protections with harassment cases, then we’re going to start seeing more people living on the streets,” said Karen Ramirez, who is a renter and a member of Strategic Actions for a Just Economy.
