Mar Vista Voice - January 30, 2025

The recent Los Angeles City Council debate over a proposed rent freeze and eviction defense measure highlights a fundamental conflict: the urgent need to protect tenants from displacement versus concerns about landlord hardships. Councilwoman Traci Park has positioned herself as a skeptic of the proposed policy, raising questions about data and suggesting that existing protections are sufficient. However, her arguments fail to acknowledge the lived realities of Los Angeles tenants, the historical patterns of post-disaster rent inflation, and the ethical responsibility of the city to prevent mass displacement.

The Need for a Rent Freeze and Eviction Protections

Councilmembers Hugo Soto-Martínez and Eunisses Hernandez put forth a proposal aimed at shielding vulnerable tenants from displacement in the wake of recent wildfires. The measure includes an eviction defense provision and a citywide rent freeze through January 2026—both essential steps to ensure that those impacted by the fires are not subjected to sudden financial ruin.

Supporters of the measure correctly argue that landlords often exploit legal loopholes to raise rents and displace tenants following crises. History has shown that rental markets respond to disasters with dramatic increases. The examples of Lahaina, Hawaii (44% rent increases after the 2023 wildfires) and Paradise, California (20% increases after the 2018 Camp Fire) demonstrate the need for proactive tenant protections. Waiting for mass evictions and unaffordable rents before taking action is not a responsible policy approach.

Traci Park’s Data Argument Misses the Point

Councilwoman Park challenged the measure by questioning whether there was clear data on displaced workers and tenants facing financial hardship. While it is true that the Los Angeles Housing Department does not have exact numbers, the absence of perfect data does not mean the crisis does not exist. The reality on the ground is evident—tenants are struggling, and without intervention, landlords will take advantage of the situation.

Waiting for exhaustive data collection before implementing protections is a well-known delay tactic that ultimately benefits landlords while tenants face eviction or rent hikes. The burden of proof should not be on tenants to demonstrate their suffering—it should be on policymakers to prevent predictable crises.

Existing Tenant Protections Are Inadequate

Park also argued that current eviction laws, such as the Just Cause Ordinance, already protect tenants from nonpayment-related evictions. However, this ignores key gaps in enforcement and coverage. Tenants who cannot pay rent due to fire-related job losses will inevitably accumulate debt, making them more vulnerable to landlord intimidation and eviction attempts once their rent owed surpasses the legal threshold.

Furthermore, while Measure ULA provides rental assistance, it is not an immediate solution, nor does it guarantee that landlords will not impose unsustainable rent increases once assistance funds run out. A rent freeze provides a direct and effective safeguard against opportunistic rent gouging, whereas Park’s reliance on existing policies offers no such assurance.

Landlords’ Financial Burdens Do Not Justify Displacement

Some small landlords, like those who testified during the council meeting, claim that rising property costs make it difficult for them to absorb a rent freeze. However, landlords own income-generating assets, whereas tenants face the threat of homelessness. There is no moral equivalence between a landlord facing reduced profits and a tenant facing eviction.

Moreover, many property owners have access to government relief programs, including insurance claims, property tax deferrals, and other financial aid options that are not available to tenants. If the city is concerned about small landlords’ financial stability, it should explore targeted relief measures rather than opposing tenant protections altogether.

Conclusion: The Council Must Prioritize Renters

Traci Park’s opposition to the rent freeze and eviction protections is rooted in skepticism rather than meaningful solutions. Her focus on procedural delays and existing legal protections fails to address the urgency of preventing displacement. The City Council must prioritize tenants over landlords’ profits by passing robust tenant protections that prevent the post-disaster rent spikes and evictions we have seen time and again.

Tenants cannot wait for more studies, more committees, or more empty reassurances. The time for action is now.