This newspaper has kept the readers informed of the many ups and downs of the new Pasadena Rental Housing Board and implementation of Measure H which was passed by the voters in November 2022.
Allegations that I did not support Measure H were disproven by Pasadena Now, so let’s dispense with that now and talk about my favorite topic: fiscal responsibility.
The City Attorney’s impartial analysis of Measure H in the Voter Guide highlighted various components of the measure, including an appointed independent Board, with no oversight by the City Council, City Manager, or City Attorney; $310,000 start-up costs; and a 1-year implementation schedule. One of the pro arguments even stated “Measure H will NOT cost Pasadena taxpayers a dime.”
900,000 dimes later we are looking at another year to implement the measure and potentially $9,000,000 of tax payer money to be diverted from public safety, homeless outreach, park programs, and street repairs. The will of the voters has been subverted and the renters who were promised relief from skyrocketing rents still can’t see the light at the end of the tunnel. Why is this happening and what can we do to fix it?
Good Intentions Do Not Equal Good Policy – While the voters intended to help stem the increasing cost of housing, that is not what Measure H does. It is a very long, convoluted, contradictory document that amends the City Charter to change our form of government. As a result, half of the money spent to implement Measure H has gone to legal fees. After discovering that an independent Board cannot implement the police powers of the City, the Board backtracked and asked to become a city department. Creating a city department was the right thing to do because now there is some professional oversight by the City Manager and staff. BUT, the Board is no longer independent as promised to the votes.
Taxpayers Are Footing the Bill – The proposed annual $6,000,000 budget will be funded by the taxpayers until the Rent Board is up and running. Per Measure H, the City must fund the operations and the Rent Board is not obligated to pay the City back, hence the $9,000,000 of taxpayer money to be diverted from other City services.
The Rent Board Lacks the Diversity and Professional Experience to Implement Measure H – The Rent Board members are the only people at City Hall who are paid a salary without having any qualifications to do the work. Efforts by the City Council to appoint members like Terry Tornek and Simon Gibbons to provide housing and financial expertise were rebuffed by the public speakers. As a result, the Rent Board is spending twice as much money by paying consultants to do their work. As Chair Ryan Bell has told consultants via email, “We have the money. The board is not interested in pinching pennies.” (Ryan Bell email to Chanee Franklin Minor July 19, 2023)
Just as I have been tough on the Rose Bowl when it comes to the use of taxpayer funds, I am tough on the Rent Board. The Rose Bowl and new General Manager have listened and are willing to work on solutions that are best for the stadium and Pasadena. Instead, the Rent Board has resorted to denigrating public speakers, social media attacks, and political divisiveness all while being paid a salary by the taxpayers.
So, how can we fulfill the will of the voters through a more democratic process without destroying our City Charter, racking up legal costs, and diverting funds from essential public services? We have an opportunity to fix this on the November 2024 ballot. One option is a City ballot measure with input from the Rent Board, City Manager, and the public to clean up Measure H. And, the list is long, including a balanced Board of renters and landlords who are paid a stipend to avoid conflicts, exempting student housing at institutions like Caltech, excluding Section 8 housing which is already regulated by the Federal government, allowing homeowners and families to move back into their homes, allowing pass through of capital improvements so landlords will maintain older buildings, and cleaning up conflicts with the City Charter.
Another option to explore is opting into Los Angeles County’s Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protections Ordinance. This would create consistency between Pasadena, Altadena, and any other cities that choose to participate. More importantly, the program is already up and running with a rental registry, has an independent Commission consisting of real estate, non-profit, and legal experts, and established a $90/unit annual fee compared to Pasadena’s proposed $213/unit fee.
Most importantly, we need to dispense with the personal attacks, hyperbole, division, and incivility. It is not the Pasadena Way nor does it represent any form of democracy. We need to hear from everyone to ensure we have a city that is both affordable and desirable, with older housing that is preserved. That is the opportunity of Measure H.
– Felicia Williams is City Councilmember for District 2, former Planning Commission Chair, and a professional financial advisor to local city governments.
Comments