Ridgecrest, Calif. -
With a 3-2 vote the City Council passed the second and final reading of its long debated eviction protection ordinance Wednesday evening, after hearing comment from a small group of both La Mirage tenants and local realtors.
This second affirmative vote is the last needed for formal approval of this ordinance, which will officially go into effect 30 days from now. Vice Mayor Tom Wiknich and Council Member Chip Holloway opposed the local law Wednesday, while Mayor Steven Morgan, Mayor Pro Tempore Ron Carter and Council Member Jerry Taylor lent their support.
The measure, which will sunset in one year, provides an affirmative argument for local tenants against eviction in court in the event that their landlord forecloses.
While the ordinance was passed with intention of aiding the tenants who still remain in the foreclosed La Mirage complex, it will apply to any rental property in the city that faces foreclosure.
Officially the ordinance will protect tenants, even without a lease, from eviction from the time that the property’s deed changes hands during foreclosure proceedings to the time that it is sold to a third party.
This local law adds to recently enacted federal protection that allows tenants with a lease to remain in foreclosed properties for the duration of their contract and promises month-to-month renters no less than a 90-day notice of eviction.
The local ordinance does include provisions for eviction even during foreclosure - for instance if the tenant refuses to pay their rent.
While the Council passed the first reading of this measure at its July 15 meeting with only Vice Mayor Tom Wiknich in opposition and Council Member Chip Holloway absent, those on the dais choose to table the ordinance for revision when it came up for its original second reading on Aug. 5.
The consensus of the council that night was that the document did not do enough to define foreclosure, rending it ambiguous on several important points.
But the addition of this definition, as well as the deletion of an additional sentence, were the only changes made members of the council told Carol Vaughn, owner of Vaughn Realty, when she inquired as to what modifications had been made.
“I just want you to understand what you’re doing,” Vaughn remarked in response, stating that passage of the ordinance would be “a very, very severe infringement on private property rights,” by allowing the tenant to stay in a forclosed rental unit for a maximum of one year.
“Rent control next?” Vaughn added, “It’s from the same basket.”
For their part both Taylor and Carter publicly stated they would not support rent control efforts. Those on the dais reiterated that eviction protection itself came in an effort to respond to a specific instance of foreclosure that was the result of real estate fraud.
Planning Commissioner Jason Patin, a co-owner of the local Remax office, also expressed his opposition during public comment, stating “It’s not going to help them [the La Mirage tenants], it’s too late.”
Both Patin and Holloway, also affiliated with Remax, argued that with G8 Capital’s recent acquisition of 71 La Mirage units, the problem is correcting itself. Indeed, G8 Capital has stated from the beginning that they intend to retain the exisiting tenants and acquire most of the complex.
While local realtors worried that the ordinance went too far, the La Mirage tenants in attendance said this newest draft didn’t go far enough in protecting local renters.
“It takes a lot more to vote ‘yes’ on this thing than to vote no,” commented La Mirage tenant Bob Nostrand, the apparent head of an organized group of the complex’ residents, “I want to thank you. A lot of hard work went into this.”
“There’s a lot that this [the ordinance] doesn’t cover,” Nostrand added, “We can’t get our security deposits back.” Nostrand estimates that each family in La mirage paid a $900 security deposit - meaning a cumulative loss of $300,000 for that entire community.
Still, “I don’t know what the problem is...It [the ordinance] will help us a little bit.”
See further coverage of Wednesday’s meeting in tomorrow’s print edition.