Pasadena’s rent control measure survives legal scrutiny

A legal challenge seeking to stop Measure H, Pasadena’s citizen-led rent control initiative, survived a court challenge Tuesday, though some of its provisions did not survive a judge’s scrutiny.

The charter amendment, approved by Pasadena voters last November, set up a rental housing board to oversee rent control, just-cause evictions, relocation assistance, and to craft other rental regulations enacted by the legislation.

But the California Apartment Association argued that the measure was unconstitutional in their lawsuit against the city of Pasadena in Los Angeles Superior Court. They argued that it substantially revises rather than amends the city’s charter, it illegally restricts people owning rental property from serving on the city’s rental board, violates the equal protection clause and preempts California law, namely the Costa-Hawkins Act, which already restricts rent control in the state.

“On a quantitative and qualitative basis, Measure H does not fundamentally alter the Pasadena City Charter or the basic structure of city government in Pasadena,” said L.A. Superior Court Judge Mary Strobel in her ruling, adding that the measure did not violate a key provision of the California Constitution, which governs a city’s revision of its charter.

And with that, backers of the measure claimed victory long in the making.

“It’s a huge relief to have this behind us,” said Liberty McCoy, a board member of Tenant and Affordable Pasadena, in a statement after the ruling.

In particular, backers of Measure H – which in the city’s revised charter is Article XVIII — were concerned about the legal future of a city law that now limited rent increases, just-cause evictions and rent rollbacks under some circumstances.

“Many landlords claimed – wrongly– that because of the lawsuit, Article XVIII was not in effect,” McCoy said. “Many tenants were too scared to force the issue. I respond to tenant inquiries at the Pasadena Tenants Union and they have questions all the time about the status of the lawsuit; they were very scared! Now it’s resolved! Article XVIII has survived legal scrutiny and the city can continue forward with its implementation.”

But as Measure H proponents celebrated the decision, representatives for the plaintiffs said they were disappointed with the outcome and concerned about “unfair” provisions that would create challenges for rental housing providers.

They did find some solace in what Strobel found to be two provisions in Measure H — regarding the timing required to give tenants notice — that conflicted with existing state law. As a result, a clause that would have ensured residents receive 6 months written notice before they can be evicted from the owner or a relative moving into the property was removed. A provision entitling residents to a minimum of 180 days notice before a landlord can remove a property from the rental market was also removed.

But it was not enough, they said.

“While we are disappointed in the majority of the ruling, we are pleased that the judge recognized that the provisions of the measure which altered state-law noticing time frames are preempted,” Mike Nemeth, communications director for the California Apartment Association said in an email. “This is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough to address what we believe are serious legal flaws with Measure H.”

Within weeks of its approval, the lawsuit was brought by the California Apartment Association and local landlords sought to stop its implementation.

That kept both sides on pins and needles for weeks as the legal arguments played out, and even as the city began the process of implementing the revisions.

Now, the ruling represents the end of the legal challenge, pending an appeal to a higher court. Nemeth said the CAA is reviewing its options to appeal.

The next step in the measure’s implementation will be to fill the amendments provision for a rental board, which Strobel also found to survive scrutiny.

The Pasadena City Council plans to nominate board members by April 13 and vote on them the following week.

The board could include some plaintiffs to the lawsuit that tried to derail the measure, with at least two — Simon Gibbons and Anhi Dodge — applying for at-large seats.

Legally, the council must appoint the board within 120 days of the new charter being effective, or before April 22.