Los Angeles, CA – Since the inception of Los Angeles’ Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance in 2021, designed to shield renters during a surge in housing costs, over 13,000 harassment complaints have been lodged against landlords. Despite this high volume of grievances, a minuscule fraction has led to prosecutorial actions, raising questions about the ordinance’s efficacy.
The law, passed amid soaring tensions between landlords and tenants, criminalized the harassment of tenants in a bid to protect individuals living in rent-controlled housing from eviction through intimidation tactics. However, the mere 24 cases that have made it to the city attorney’s office, with just four resulting in pending fines, highlight potential shortcomings in the law’s enforcement.
Tenant advocates argue that despite the law, harassment persists unabated, with landlords reportedly using methods like illegal evictions, lockouts, and threats to unsettle tenants. Edna Monroy, director of organizing at Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, lamented the difficulties in pursuing landlords through legal avenues, particularly small claims courts, and noted the city attorney’s reluctance to escalate these cases.
The frustrations expressed by tenant groups have spurred calls for amendments to the ordinance to fortify the legal protections for renters and encourage engagement from private attorneys. The City Council’s housing and homelessness committee is slated to review these proposed amendments soon.
Conversely, landlord associations contend that the low prosecution rate indicates that the extent of tenant harassment is exaggerated. Daniel Yukelson, executive director of the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, argues that expanding the law could lead to unnecessary legal challenges for property owners.
Originally adopted during a temporary citywide eviction moratorium due to the pandemic, the ordinance intended to prevent landlords from resorting to harassment as an alternative to legal evictions. Yet, even from its inception, some advocates feared that the ordinance had been too diluted to serve as a strong deterrent against such harassment.
In an attempt to strengthen enforcement, the housing department established a Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance Task Force, although a report in 2022 indicated enduring challenges in proving instances of bad faith by landlords.
When allegations of harassment are leveraged, the housing department’s approach typically involves notifying landlords of the accusations and educating them about the ordinance, explained Sharon Sandow, a spokeswoman for the department. More severe or recurrent cases are scrutinized by the Task Force for patterns of misconduct.
Despite these mechanisms, the majority of complaints are either withdrawn by tenants, lack sufficient evidence, or are resolved internally within the department without leading to further legal action, according to Sandow.
Critics of the city’s efforts, like Sergio Vargas, co-director of the Los Angeles chapter of the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, claim the city is failing to adequately investigate and act on the plethora of complaints.
Karen Richardson, a spokeswoman for the city attorney’s office, detailed the handling of referrals, with only a handful resulting in fines or diversion programs, while the majority of potential criminal filings were either rejected or await decisions.
Amidst this contentious backdrop, proponents advocate for a revised definition of harassment to facilitate proving the illicit intentions of landlords, alongside mandating compensation for legal fees and minimum penalties for tenants victorious in court, aligning the city’s guidelines with other Californian cities like Santa Monica, Oakland, and San Francisco.
The fiscal outlook for enforcing the ordinance is set to improve, thanks to the revenue from the recent passage of Measure ULA, known as the “mansion tax.” However, landlords like Yukelson argue that these new provisions would trap property owners in legal quagmires.
For tenant advocates and legal professionals like Stephano Medina from Movement Legal, the crucial issue remains the law’s apparent lack of tangible impact. “I don’t know of any tenant that has benefited from this law,” Medina stated, underscoring a pervasive sense of dissatisfaction with the ordinance’s practical outcomes.