Guest Opinion | Peter Dreier: Pasadena Renters Need More Protection from Rent-Gouging, Illegal Evictions, and Public Health Hazards

Pasadena renters have been emailing and calling the Rental Housing Board concerned about rent increases, evictions, and health issues triggered by the recent fires.  Others have appeared before the Rent Board in person to tell their stories of heartbreaking hardships as well as those of their families, friends and neighbors.

And this is the tip of the iceberg. We had no idea exactly how many Pasadena renters face these problems.  Renters represent a majority of Pasadena residents. Many have lost their homes and/or jobs due to the fires. There could be thousands of Pasadena renters whose lives have been upended by the fires, but whose stories and voices are not being heard by the general public or by elected officials.

Under Measure H, which voters passed in 2022, the Rent Board has the authority to do some things, but not others.  The City Council has more authority to address many of the issues that renters have identified in comments to the Rent Board.  For example, the Rent Board cannot adopt a temporary eviction moratorium, but last Thursday we voted to recommend that the City Council adopt such a measure.

This is crucial to protect tenants from predatory or irresponsible landlords.

But even a temporary eviction moratorium or even a rent freeze won’t address some issues that renters have identified with regard to landlords’ reluctance or unwillingness to de-toxify apartments filled with toxic soot, ash, and smoke that can have serious short-term and long-term health consequences. Some landlords have told tenants to clean the apartments themselves, which puts renters in danger, no matter how careful they may be.

Some landlords have used the toxic problems in apartments as an excuse to evict tenants and  illegally raise rents.  Many landlords have not told their renters when, or if, they can return.

As a result, more tenants are homeless, feel helpless, and worry about their health, than since before the Altadena fires.

To address these issues, last week I wrote a memo to Mayor Victor Gordo and the Pasadena City Council, as well as the City Manager and the Director of Public Health. I suggested that the City require landlords to clean up their apartments by a specific deadline, to inform their tenants when they can return, to require that they rent their apartments at the same rent, and to allow renters to withhold rent while the buildings are being de-toxified. I urged city officials to contract with several clean-up companies to do the work and to require landlords with insurance to pay for the clean-up through their insurance companies.

Few buildings in Pasadena actually burned down, but there are many, many buildings that have dangerous, toxic ash, soot, and smoke. This puts many Pasadenans in jeopardy, especially those with health conditions, or with young children.  This is particularly a problem for renters with asthma and other breathing problems, but it also is a long-term problem that could lead to cancer and other illnesses in the future.

The Rent Board has heard heartbreaking stories from many tenants that their landlords are not doing anything about this.  Those who have spoken out so far are only the tip of the iceberg.  Many renters are afraid to speak out and risk retaliation.

Landlords with toxic apartments affected by the fire are evicting tenants but not telling them if/when they can return. Without some kind of organized city effort, tenants are left on their own, without knowing their rights and without knowing how to deal with landlords who refuse to clean up quickly or tell tenants when they can return.

Having the City evaluate the air quality of Pasadena apartments, as the Public Heath director has suggested, is necessary but not sufficient.

There needs to be some citywide standards and deadlines for the clean-up. Otherwise, landlords may  tell tenants to clean up their apartments themselves, which is dangerous, or tell them to leave without giving them any sense of when, or if, they can return.

Neither a rent freeze nor an eviction moratorium (both of which I support) address this public health crisis.

What can the City do?

First, it can require landlords whose buildings are filled with unhealthy/unsafe toxic soot, smoke, and ash that they have to clean their apartments by a certain deadline (March 31 – for example).

Second, the City can contract with four or five mitigation/clean-up companies to do the clean-up work at the designated apartment buildings/rental houses. Because of the economies of scale (lots of business for these companies), the City can negotiate a discount, so the work (which can be between $10,000 and $80,000, depending on the size of the home/apartment and how badly it was infected with toxics) can be done at a lower price. Landlords with insurance can be required to utilize that insurance to pay for the clean-up.

Third, the city’s Public Health Department (or perhaps FEMA) can inspect and prioritize apartments for clean-up. Then inspect them again after the clean-up has happened to guarantee it was done correctly.

Fourth, most landlords have insurance that will pay for the clean-up, but many landlords are not mitigating their apartments nor asking insurance companies to pay for them. If the City mandates it, it will incentivize landlords to do so or face penalties. An alternative would be for the city to pay up-front for the clean-up but require the landlords to repay the City once they get reimbursed by their insurance companies.

Fifth, tenants would not pay rent during the period they aren’t living in the buildings

Sixth, landlords would be required to re-rent the apartments to the same tenants at the same rent. For apartments that fall under the jurisdiction of the Rent Stabilization Department, the rent is already set.  For those buildings that don’t fall under its jurisdiction, the state’s 10% anti-rent gouging law is in effect. Or, if the city provides some subsidies to landlord to mitigate the health dangers, it can require landlords to keep rents the same as a quid-pro-quo for getting government subsidies.

My wife and I had to move out of our house for about six weeks while we talk with mitigation companies and our insurance company about the work that needs to be done to de-toxify the house, which we’ve owned since 1993. But we’re lucky. We were able to temporarily rent a house in another city while our house is being de-toxified. The insurance company is paying our rent and it will also pay for most of the clean-up.  Most tenants don’t have this option.

Even the best policy ideas, however, won’t matter unless renters and their allies communicate with the Mayor and City Council.  Some City Council members are quite sympathetic to renters, but to get anything passed tenants and their allies need a majority, and that will only happen if renters mobilize a grassroots campaign to make sure their voices are heard.

At this point, any progress in addressing these issues will require tenants and their allies to contact the Mayor and City Council by e-mail and phone calls, to schedule in-person meetings with each City Council member (bringing residents who live in their districts), and to show up at City Council meetings to tell their stories about the hardships they are facing.

Unfortunately, many Pasadena residents, and perhaps even members of the City Council, don’t know the full extent of the hardships that renters now confront. They don’t realize that landlords have engaged in rent-gouging and other irresponsible practices that puts renters at risk.  It would be useful for tenant activists to engage in an extensive door-to-door canvassing of renters to let them know their rights under Measure H and state laws about rent-gouging, to encourage them to contact the Rent Stabilization Department regarding evictions (or threats of evictions) and rent increases, and to encourage them to contact the Mayor and their City Council member to adopt strong tenant protection laws, beyond the provisions of Measure H, including a temporary eviction moratorium and the kind of public health protections I’ve recommended.

The City has the authority to do more. Whether it does so depends on whether they hear from many more people who believe that in this dire emergency, tenants need more protections from irresponsible landlords.

Peter Dreier, a longtime Pasadena resident, is a professor of urban & environmental policy and a member of the Pasadena Rental Housing Board. These comments reflect his own views.