A number of low-income tenants in a Ladera Street apartment complex received an unexpected 90-day eviction notice on April 4, stating that the property’s management will no longer participate in the Section 8 Housing Program.
There are currently 13 people under Section 8 subsidies living in the 28-unit complex, while the rest of the units are largely occupied by Santa Barbara City College students. The affected residents learned of their impending eviction shortly after returning to their apartments — all one-bedroom, one-bath — following renovations that forced many of them to move out for 2-3 weeks. The remodeling process began last July when the building was bought by Daniel Smith of San Clemente. He could not be reached for comment for this story.
Residents claimed they were not notified ahead of time that such renovations would take place. Dennis Banning, who has lived at 203 Ladera Street for about two years, said a crew of construction workers began showing up without warning last summer. “For the first four or five months, they were here 24/7,” said Banning, explaining tenants were irritated by the amount of dust and noise the construction created.
Residents said when the refurbishments started, new property manager Matthew Platler assured them that their tenancy was not in jeopardy. Platler also could not be reached for comment. “We were promised we weren’t going to have to move after the remodels,” said Eve Baker, who has lived at 203 Ladera Street for three years.
For many, the eviction notice means a jarring change of plans. Agnes Bishop, who has lived in the complex since 2003, said she was shocked. “Sometimes I cry,” said Bishop, who moved back in after the remodel for less than a week when she was served. “It’s really hard for us going out and in again.” Things are especially difficult for Bishop, a frail woman less than five feet tall who suffers from severe bowel complications that prevent her from doing much physical activity.
“This is after nine months of ‘don’t worry, we’re gonna take care of you,’” said Banning. “They’ve used us, and they’ve manipulated the Housing Authority.”
Rob Pearson, executive director and CEO of Santa Barbara’s Housing Authority, explained that although he was aware the Ladera residents would be temporarily moving during renovations, he, too, was surprised to discover the sudden release of Section 8 tenants from the property.
Pearson called Platler to confirm what was happening. The manager informed Pearson that Daniel Smith’s company, 203 Ladera Street LLC, planned to increase the rent, which he believed would exceed the amount that Section 8 tenants would be able to pay. Pearson expressed a desire to negotiate each individual tenant’s rent to determine how much more both the tenant and Housing Authority could pay. He also expressed concern to Platler over how the public would respond to the company’s handling of the situation.
“About an hour later, I get a screaming call from [Smith],” Pearson said. “He did not want to listen to me at all.”
Under the Section 8 Choice Voucher Program, tenants pay about one-third of their income in rent while the rest is paid by the Housing Authority, which is subsidized by the federal government. Pearson said that in the event the landlord raises rent, voucher holders can choose to pay up to 40 percent of their income.
But according to Pearson, Smith is demanding that the rent be increased to $1,495 per month, a jump of around $200-$300 per unit. Some Ladera residents say that the new monthly number is actually higher. “We don’t feel that rent is reasonable,” Pearson said. “I’m not sure that they can afford that.”
For now, Pearson said, it is the Housing Authority’s job to make sure the tenants find somewhere else to live. A landlord’s decision to terminate tenancy is beyond the Housing Authority’s control, he explained. “While they may be legally right,” he said, “they are not morally right in my mind.”
Some tenants have already begun looking for new homes. Others hope that some sort of agreement can be reached.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Congratulations San Clemente property owner Daniel Smith, you're on your way to becoming a major persona non grata.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 12, 2012 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr Smith, please go back to Orange County, where your values prevail. We don't mind making money here either, but we don't approve of callousness.
blackpoodles (anonymous profile)
April 12, 2012 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Section 8 guarantees the landlord the full rent.
*"Why would a landlord want to participate in the Housing Choice Voucher Program?
Landlords who participate in the Housing Choice Voucher Program enjoy rent security in terms of the portion that is paid by the Housing Authority. Accepting program participants also helps keep vacancies low while providing landlords with good residents to fill their empty units. "
**Why would a landlord NOT wish to participate?
Because such rentals are more closely monitored for health and safety issues, and compliance with local regulations by ALL parties concerned.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 12, 2012 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Plenty of room to house these people downtown...oh wait I forgot, downtown space is taken up by bars for rich UCSB students. Sorry.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
April 12, 2012 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think the elephant in the room is that section 8 housing attracts low income (obvious) people and Smith probably wants to make it some sort of elitist complex devoid of poor people. I don't think it's about the money, it's about the people.
Bill, rich UCSB students go to USC.
SBLoc (anonymous profile)
April 12, 2012 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I no longer rent to section 8.
It was the yearly inspection that turned me off. My units at very well taken care of but the pickiness of the inspector was over the top costing a months rent every year.
loneranger (anonymous profile)
April 12, 2012 at 6:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Loneranger, please share details or a couple at least.. I sincerely want to know your perspective. What are a few examples that you felt are over the top, I promise not to attack you.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 13, 2012 at 12:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I used to live in this complex back in '05, the rent was $1,200. I thought that was a little high, but I was in a tight situation trying to move into a place right around the new year. The apartment was clean and in pretty good condition. The living room and kitchen area were VERY small, the bedroom medium sized.
The people on the bottom had the added benefit of a small fenced patio. However the rains that winter forced some of the tenants to move out for a few weeks due to flooding. There is laundry on site. One off-street parking spot, street parking can be difficult at times.
The real draw, I think, is the close proximity to city college. But you actually have to walk in the opposite direction a couple blocks before taking a long staircase up to campus from further away. Not a lot of city college students lived there when I was there, maybe they are trying to draw more of them down.. but there are cheaper complexes up the hill that are more conducive to socializing, so they would be looking for CC tenants maybe who want a more quiet place to live but are still close to school.
Personally I think this project is setup for failure. I can't imagine paying almost $1,500 for a 1 bedroom that small, I doubt the remodeling on the inside is THAT nice. It is also near a relatively bad neighborhood. If I had a $1,500 budget for a 1 bedroom near CC I think I could do a lot better, maybe even an ocean view or at least a peak.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 13, 2012 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is very frightening for people on fixed income to receive this type of notice. A friend of mine went through this and was very worried she would become homeless. With the stress her mental health declined. I was there to help her find a new place but it wasn't easy. She doesn't have a car and I don't know how she would have done it on her own.
LC (anonymous profile)
April 13, 2012 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To clarify. I rented to section 8 for about 4 year around 10 years ago, only 2 parties.
My units are very clean and in good order, yet every year there was a list of repairs. I can't remember them all but included small holes in window screens, no screen on the sliding glass door, small cracks. Nothing that normal tenants would have bothered to call on, and some we would have fixed when the unit turned over.
I also have a issue with the value/ethics of both section 8 renters. Single mothers with small babies, felt the could not work. The we're able body people certainly they could do something to earn money.
loneranger (anonymous profile)
April 13, 2012 at 10:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
poor people get stiffed in SB while multimillionaires in Montecito and Hope Ranch live in 5,000 square foot homes on 2 acres.If only there were more income equality,I think things could be better in SB.
Good Luck for the future,this kind of inequality will surely be the eventual downfall of this society.I don't think I need to elaborate further.
GluteousMaximus (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2012 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think Loneranger's points are important and thank you for sharing the details, may I encourage you to always do so- so that readers' imaginations don't fill in their own or ideas about yourself.
Its those kinds of details that need to be addressed (screens, cracks ect that other tenants wouldn't "have bothered to call on". Doesn't sound like a slum. A certain degree of reasonableness is needed all around.
As for Section 8 recipients I have known, all were indeed disabled and if they could, strove to be part of and productive in the world.
Most people don't want to just sit around the house. There are a few who abuse the system making it harder for people with legitimate claims and even those who try to help them.
I also agree with Gluteous in terms of economic inequality, I think such equality comes via a level playing field and equal opportunity. Some people need a bit of assistance through no fault of their own, some demand a free ride. It's not always easy to differentiate the two.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2012 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So you are saying the person that goes to college and medical school should make the same income as who? A nurse?
The person that goes for it and becomes a successful CEO should makes the same as who? An administrator?
I think Santa Barbara is lucky to have people living in 5,000 sq ft homes on 2 acres paying $40-50k a year in property tax.
Good to have discourse but it seems we are talking capitalist vs communism. Yes, I am a capitalist.
loneranger (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2012 at 6:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Where did I say everyone should get the same income?
But to be honest, most actors, oil painters, photographers and writers deserve much more money than the highest paid CEO, IMHO. What have these highpriced CEOs brought our country? Certainly not the jobs they shipped overseas.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2012 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Many writers, actors, painters do make more than CEO's.
I think people look at the few publicized salaries and think all CEO's make that kind of money. I saw a report for SB county a few years ago and the average CEO salary of a company >100 people was in the range of $250-300k a year.
If you want companies to stop sending jobs overseas, American consumers need to stop buying goods made out of the USA.Are you willing to pay 50-100% more for clothing and goods made in the USA. Japanese are willing to pay more for items made in Japan, but Americans tend to want more for their dollar. Change that mentality and companies will change.
loneranger (anonymous profile)
April 15, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Remember when companies took pride in the durability of their product? You're absolutely right, Americans need to look at the labels. What good is buying a $300 phone year after year? remember when one lasted a lifetime?
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 15, 2012 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I hate Section 8
Why? It is not the mom or grandmother who causes problems –but her children and her children’s friends. They are a magnet for unlawful behavior and gang members. Trust me-I have been there and done that.
edukder (anonymous profile)
April 16, 2012 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Section 8 was originally intended for widows and orphans; it has become a huge federal disaster.
However, that's not the point of the article. The point of this article is that Mister Smith is a liar.
It would be nice if the article actually explained WHY Mister Smith chose to ditch Section 8, and the guaranteed government-issued monthly rent payments that go along with Section 8. Maybe it has something to do with government bureaucracy and regulations.
Wait, were you looking for a fair and balanced article? Duh, this is the Independent. Lol. ;-)
Schifter (anonymous profile)
April 17, 2012 at 12:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All that government bureaucracy and regulations are just terrible, making the slumlords comply with the law and all that inconvenient stuff.
Rental prices are rising because of the stagnation in new building and decline in supply, and the increase in demand because free and easy mortgages are no longer available.
The market responds through the behaviour of slumlords like Mister Smith here.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
April 17, 2012 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)