We Get Letters: The Rental Housing Board Has Failed This Group of Needy Tenants

Dear Pasadena Now,

As I listened intently to the 11 points discussed at the Pasadena Rental Housing Board (PRHB) meeting on February 6, 2025 entitled Potential Board Action to “safeguard and assist those affected by the Eaton Fire,”  I became extremely frustrated and concerned that one group of tenants were not being given any attention or assistance.  There is a group of tenants, maybe even a substantial group who need very short term housing for different reasons.  Maybe they want a four or five month lease so their children can finish the school term or maybe their insurance only provides payment of four months of temporary rent until they can find more permanent housing either in Pasadena or elsewhere.  Hotels are not necessarily the answer for larger families.

I became aware of a proposal by a group known as the Pasadena Housing Providers (PHP) who advised both the city council and the PRHB that they would ask their members who had vacancies to provide short term housing to accommodate some of those families affected by the fires for a very fair rental rate.  They would also consider waiving credit requirements and reducing security deposits.  They also admonished the members against any price gouging which can be a criminal offense. A short term rental does not help housing providers fill their vacancies in the long term because the unit will become vacant again in the four or five months allotted and the same price gouging provisions will still be in place.  In return the PHP group asked that they be relieved of certain requirements such as relocation fees.

The PRHB didn’t include this proposal in their discussion of 11 points other than the usual general discussion of “greedy landlords trying to lure people in and then evicting them to raise rents”  and  “we refuse to limit tenant protections.”  This is absurd because this group of tenants want short term housing so that they don’t have to move from hotel to hotel until they secure more permanent housing.  Furthermore, price gouging laws in effect during the state of emergency prevent landlords from raising rents above certain limits.   Conversely,  One of the proposed solutions suggested by the PRHB was to extend protections to hotels so that stays beyond thirty days will not subject them to permanent tenancy rules.  Does this limit tenant protections?

The PRHB has failed this group of needy tenants despite the constant proclamations of the Board Chair that their job is to protect the tenants first.  The PRHB has scheduled a special meeting for Thursday, February 27, 2005 but did not include the proposal by the PHP  for discussion on the agenda.

Very concerning,

Dennis A. Jebbia