Albert Dunne versus the City Council


On April, 16, 2002, the same day they honored veterans for the contributions they have made to this country, the Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to evict 88 year old Albert Dunne, a WWII purple-heart recipient who has lived in his Venice apartment for 46 years.

Mr. Dunne is the victim of a Council and housing department that believe that his landlords, who own six buildings in Venice, will suffer such "extreme hardship" that they have no choice but to evict a senior citizen on a fixed income from his rent-controlled apartment.

The Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance lists 12 reasons that an owner can evict at tenant. Reason 9 includes demolition and major rehabilitation of the unit. Due to concerns about the gentrification effects of the major rehabilitation eviction provision the council adopted a moratorium on such evictions last summer after housing advocates provided examples of landlord abuse of the provision. Rather than make legitimate improvements to their properties, many landlords use the provision to evict long-term, low rent-paying tenants and circumvent the Rent Stabilization Ordinance.

The City Council hired a consultant, David Paul Rosen & Associates, to study the issue and make recommendations. With the help of an advisory committee that included participation from both landlords and community based organizations that represent tenant interests, the consultant made several recommendations including prohibiting evictions. Those recommendations included:

· Prohibit major rehabilitation evictions; eliminate the provision from the rent stabilization ordinance. · If the work the owner wants to do renders a unit uninhabitable, the owner should relocate the tenants temporarily.

· Compensate landlords for upgrading their units by allowing them to increase rents to pay for the work, up to 10% for 2 years. · Provide permanent relocation assistance if moving twice is a hardship on the tenant.

The Department then proposed granting three "extreme hardship" exemptions to owners that claimed to have relied on the major rehabilitation provision to their detriment. No criteria had been developed for such exemptions. LAHD created their own criteria that considered only the amount of money and time a landlord had spent. Mr. Dunne's hardships were not taken into account by LAHD, nor was the severe lack of affordable housing available in Venice.

Mr. Dunne is a partially-disabled senior living on fixed income and paying low rent. He has lived in his home over 46 years and lives with his daughter who is his care-giver. Evicting Mr. Dunne will cause serious health consequences. It will be impossible to find another unit within his community that he can afford.

Mr. Dunne was not even provided with an opportunity to plead his case in front of Council. Councilmember Miscikowski's office agreed to arrange for a negotiation session between Mr. Dunne and the owners. If the negotiations failed, the matter was supposed to go back to the Housing Committee of the City Council. Without any notice to either Mr. Dunne or his attorneys, the issue was placed on the City Council's consent calendar. This denied Mr. Dunne the right to be heard before council. It also violated other due process provisions.

Mr. Dunne's attorneys have written a demand letter to the City Attorney's office asking that the City Council follow the law and the process they themselves established and take the matter back to the Housing Committee. If the City Council does not re-consider it's decision, they plan to sue the City on Mr. Dunne's behalf for abuse of discretion and lack of due process.

In the meantime, progressive candidates of the Neighborhood Council have been unable to get their colleagues to put the issue on a Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood Council agenda so that it can be discussed and so that the neighborhood council can weigh in. They claim that they cannot consider the issue because they have not heard from the owner. The owner has had opportunities to present his case to GRVNC. An open hearing would allow the owner to come to GRVNC and present his side of the story. What are the neighborhood council and the council office afraid of that they won't allow a public dialogue on the issue.

According to Miscikowski's aide, Alex Ponder, the councilmember supported the hardship exempt for Dunne’s landlord because it had filed prior to the moratorium going into effect. While the current landlord, Todd Flournoy, was not the owner of record when the filing took place, Ponder said he believed Flournoy was one of a group who owned the building. He later became the sole owner. Michael Sant, who is attempting to develop the Abbot Kinney/San Juan corner (see Dec. 2002 Beachhead), was another co-owner.

Miscikowski was concerned that the owner would tear down the property, thereby removing it from the rent-control ordinance, if the hardship exemption was not granted.

Dunne’s eviction, if it happens, would be the result of one of only two hardship exemptions to be granted in the entire 11th District, which includes Venice.

Posted: Thu - May 1, 2003 at 06:04 PM          

©