San Fernando Valley Los Angeles Attorneys
Navigation Two
Phone Number

Entries in legislation (15)

Wednesday
Aug312016

California Ballot 2016: Pros and Cons of Props 57-61

Litigation AttorneyEnvironmental Litigation

Stephen T. Holzer
818.907.3299

 

This is the second post in our California Ballot 2016 series – providing the “nutshell” versions of each of the 17 state-wide measures voters must decide in November. Please refer to our first post in the series: Props 51-56, for information about those measures.

California Election State Measures

 

Proposition 57: The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act

 

Individuals convicted of nonviolent felonies may be eligible for parole after completing sentence for the primary offense under this initiative. Additionally, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation will be allowed to award credits for good behavior (including rehab and education), and juvenile court judges (instead of district attorneys) will be able to determine if persons aged 14-17 should be prosecuted and sentenced as adults under specific conditions. 

This measure is highly controversial. 

Who’s Voting Yes on Prop 57?

Supporters for Governor Jerry Brown’s initiative complain that about 10 percent of the state’s general fund is spent on jails, and that a court-ordered prison population cap will mean an arbitrary release of inmates, which will be dangerous. California’s money will be better spent on rehabilitating non-violent prisoners; and judges will more carefully review juvenile history and the circumstances of the crime before deciding to try a youth as an adult. 

The Yes on 57 initiative is endorsed by the California Democratic Party, State Law Enforcement Association, Catholic Bishops of California, Chief Probation Officers of California, among others.

Who’s Voting No on Prop 57?

The Stop Early Release of Violent Criminals (SERVC) coalition is comprised of various district attorneys throughout California, police officers’ associations, county sheriffs and political officials.

SERVC claims Prop 57 will allow certain dangerous criminals, including those convicted of rape, human trafficking, kidnappings, drive-by-shootings, and others, to be released from prison early; disregards sentencing by judges; and overturns aspects of previous voter-approved laws (such as the Victims’ Bill of Rights, Marsy’s Law, etc.) made to keep the public safer.

 

Proposition 58: English Language Education 

 

As of 1998, California teachers were required to teach Limited English Proficient (LEP) students predominantly in English – bilingual classes were kept to a minimum. Proposition 58 seeks to repeal provisions of the 1998 law (then numbered Prop 227) and require schools to provide structured English language immersion programs.

Who’s Voting Yes on Prop 58?

Supporters of Prop 58 say the old law is too restrictive. Under Prop 58, school districts will be required to identify a plan for teaching English proficiency to LEP students as rapidly as possible, to provide structured immersion programs, and to allow educators, parents and community members to offer input. Schools will be able to adopt other teaching methods as needed. Additionally, the students who are already proficient in English will have increased opportunity to learn a second language.

Those endorsing Prop 58 include the Asian Law Alliance; California Latino School Boards Association; the California Democratic Party, Labor Federation, Teachers Association, and SEIU California, among others.

Who’s Voting No on Prop 58?

The primary opponent of Prop 58 at this time seems to be Ron Unz, the author of 1998’s Prop 227, which he claims was judged an “enormous educational triumph by nearly all observers.”

A Los Angeles Times opinion piece seems to argue both sides of the coin. Some of the warnings re Prop 58 include:

  • Expense of bilingual education programs;
  • California’s lack of qualified bilingual teachers;
  • Dual immersion programs have proven track records for success, but the participating teachers, students and parents are highly motivated.

 

Proposition 59: Overturn Citizens United Act

 

Prop 59 is an advisory question. It doesn’t change laws in any way, or overrule Supreme Court decisions – it primarily serves as a barometer of public feeling.

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission that the government cannot restrict political expenditures by nonprofits, as such actions would violate freedom of speech. (Citizens United is a non-profit Political Action Committee (PAC) that promotes corporate interests, socially conservative ideals, and political candidates upholding those same beliefs.)

The proposed 2016 Overturn Citizens United Act seeks to live up to its name, in philosophy. Prop 59 asks voters to show support for: 

  • Requiring state officials to propose and ratify an amendment to the federal Constitution overturning the 2010 court decision and similar precedents;
  • Allowing regulation of campaign contributions;
  • Ensuring all citizens are able to communicate their views to each other regardless of wealth; and
  • Ensuring corporations do not have the constitutional rights of human beings. 

Who’s Voting Yes on Prop 59?

The Money Out Voters In (MOVI) coalition claims our Congressional leaders spend 30-70 percent of their time fundraising rather than serving the people; that in 2010 about 93 percent of income gains went to the top one percent (in terms of wealth) of the population; and that after the U.S. Supreme Court decision for Citizens United v. FEC, corporate spending for election ads skyrocketed to 1,139 percent.

Support for Prop 59 comes from the California Democratic Party, Consumer Watchdog, California Labor Federation and a host of elected officials in the state senate and assembly. (This movement is not limited to California – organizations across the nation are calling to Overturn Citizens United.)

Who’s Voting No on Prop 59?

In 2014 the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a lawsuit to strike the Overturn Citizens United measure (then called Prop 49) from the ballot. They succeeded, but the California Supreme Court reversed in January with a 6-1 ruling. The primary argument seems to be that this initiative just crowds the ballot, and is a waste of voter time. 

 

Proposition 60: California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry 

 

This is the initiative that keeps on giving – the legislative gift that keeps on spreading. In 2012, Measure B started as a Los Angeles City measure, but was later put on the county ballot. When it passed, adult film production companies threatened to leave, and one porn company filed a federal suit to overturn it.

The state’s Prop 60 for 2016 voters is similar to Los Angeles County’s Measure B. It will: 

  • Require performers to use condoms when sexual intercourse is filmed;
  • Require porn producers to foot the bill for vaccinations and testing for sexually transmitted infections (STIs), obtain California health licenses; and post condom use requirements on location;
  • Impose liability on those with monetary interests in an adult film, including the producers, performers, and talent agents who refer their clients to producers who don’t comply to the condom law;
  • Specify that anyone involved in the adult film or living in California can enforce the law, if passed. 

Who’s Voting Yes on Prop 60?

Proposition 60 supporters say that condoms have already been required for pornographic films in California since 1993 – Prop 60 will just improve enforcement. Since 2004, over two dozen adult film actors and actresses were infected with HIV on the job, which costs California taxpayers millions of dollars in care. Additionally, the threats of adult film producers to leave the state are not reliable:  California and New Hampshire are the only states where the adult film industry is legal, and Nevada, which legalizes prostitution in some areas, also has condom laws.

Prop 60 endorsers include the Aids Healthcare Foundation, the American Sexual Health Association, the California State Association of Occupational Health Nurses, among others.

Who’s Voting No on Prop 60?

Opposition to Prop 60 is primarily headed by the Free Speech Coalition, which claims a new condom law will affect more than adult film studios, but also smaller business endeavors and hobbyists: individuals with cams, performer websites, and clips and content trades. Additionally, Prop 60 will open the door to private citizens wanting to sue anyone in the adult film industry; and that anyone involved in porn production, down to the crew members could be held liable in lawsuits.

A Mercury News editorial states Prop 60 is dangerous for another reason:  As written, the measure sets up the CEO of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation as a state porn “czar”, with seemingly unlimited powers. And a writer for The Advocate expresses another concern re Prop 60:  in the adult entertainment industry, many performers are also film producers and have their own, independent, adult websites. Under Prop 60 they too are liable to be sued by anyone, and thus have real names, addresses and other information provided to stalkers, vigilantes and the public in general.

 

Proposition 61: California Drug Price Relief Act

 

The aim is to ensure state agencies don’t pay more for prescription drugs than the Department of Veteran’s Affairs. Prop 61 would apply to any health program in which the California government pays for a drug, regardless of whether or not the state actually bought the drug directly from the drug maker or not. It gives the state the power to negotiate, and exempts drugs provided by programs funded through Medi-Cal (which already negotiates with the pharmaceuticals).

Who’s Voting Yes on 61?

Those who endorse Prop 61 claim the VA pays 40 percent less than Medicare Part D (the federal drug program for seniors) for medications because the VA has the power to negotiate with the pharmaceuticals. The savings to the state of California would total billions, which could be better used to fund other health programs. Supporters also claim the pharmaceuticals spend 19 times as much money on advertising than they do on research and development of new products – any arguments regarding fewer new cures are just a scare tactic.

This measure is endorsed by AARP California, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, California Nurses Association, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, and various elected officials at the state, county and local levels.

Who’s Voting No on 61?

Most Californians would be excluded from the purported benefits, say the Prop 61 opposition. Additionally, armed forces veterans could be hurt by the measure, as the pharmaceutical discounts are given by drug makers in honor of military service – if the pharmaceuticals must apply the same discount to government agencies they may have to increase prices across the board, affecting not just veterans but all prescription drug buyers. Finally, the opponents complain the initiative is vague and red-tape laden.

Veteran’s organizations across the state are opposed, as well as the California Medical Association, California Psychiatric Association, the California Taxpayers Association, several labor associations, the California Chamber of Commerce, California NAACP, and others.

Next in our voting guide series: the death penalty; guns & ammo; marijuana; and plastic bags – Prop 62 through Prop 67.

 

Stephen T. Holzer is the Chair of our Environmental Practice Group and a business litigation attorney. 

Disclaimer:
This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

 

 

 

 

Wednesday
Aug242016

California Ballot 2016: Pros and Cons of Props 51-56

Litigation Los AngelesEnvironmental Litigation  

Stephen T. Holzer
818.907.3299

 

Californians must decide on 17 initiatives in the November election this year, and those are just the proposed measures of state-wide concern. Never mind the many local initiatives affecting counties and neighborhoods. The state props cover a range of topics like porn, drugs, guns, and death. Then there are the more tedious but still critical initiatives regarding bonds, legislative transparency, education, etc.

That’s a lot to think about, so we thought we’d break it down with a quick ballot reference guide. You’ll find a brief description of each measure, and then a who’s for, who’s against, and why section – with reference links for more information. (If you want the full text of each prop, click on the title for each measure.)

We begin the first segment in our 2016 Election Guide series: California Propositions 51-56, below. (Click Props 57-61 or Props 62- 67 to read about the others.)

Proposition 51: California Public Education Facilities Bond Initiative 

Should the state issue $9 billion in bonds for constructing or improving public schools educating students from Kindergarten through community college? The proposed funds generated would be allocated as follows: 

  • $3 billion to build new schools
  • $3 billion to modernize existing schools
  • $2 billion to buy, build, and improve community colleges
  • $500 million for charter schools
  • $500 million for technical education facilities 

Who’s Voting Yes on Prop 51?

Proponents of Prop 51 claim the state’s schools are deteriorating to the point of becoming unhealthy and unsafe for students; and that California’s last school bond initiated 10 years ago is now out of money. They also claim a current $2 billion backlog of improvement projects for seismic renovations, other safety concerns and technology needs.

Both the California Democratic and Republican parties, the California Chamber of Commerce, numerous school districts and state elected officials have endorsed this bill.

Who’s Voting No on Prop 51?

The opposition to Prop 51 describes its organization as a coalition of supporters of California taxpayers and educators opposed to sprawl and developer abuse. Their Facebook page posts links to more opposition from The Mercury News, East Bay Times, among others. Both articles cite Governor Jerry Brown who calls the referendum a “blunderbuss effort that promotes sprawl and squanders money that would be far better spent in low-income communities.”

The opponents also cite a need for better planning by local school districts, and for developers to foot their fair shares of the costs, noting that this initiative was bankrolled by the construction industry. 

Proposition 52: California Medi-Cal Hospital Reimbursement Initiative 

In order to receive federal Medicaid funding, the states must contribute their own money. California does this partly through the Hospital Quality Assurance Fee (HQAF) assessed on both public and private hospitals since 2009 – resulting in about $3 billion in federal funds disbursed annually for Medi-Cal programs. Some of the HQAF monies however, have been diverted into California’s general fund over the years. Prop 52 aims to make it harder for the state to divert hospital fees by requiring 2/3 voter approval before doing so.

Who’s Voting Yes on Prop 52?

The Yes on 52 Campaign says the hospital fee program is set to expire in 2018. The program generates about $3 billion in federal money for Medi-Cal (about $18 billion over seven years), which primarily benefits children, seniors and working families. Citing the Legislative Analyst’s Office, Yes on 52 further claims the program will save California $1.5 billion in costs for children’s health care by 2020, and increases support to local public hospitals. The state legislature will need voter approval to dip into the program.

Support for Prop 52 include the California Children’s Hospital Association, the California Association for Nurse Practitioners, both the Los Angeles and California Chambers of Commerce and various elected officials of both the Democratic and Republican parties.

Who’s Voting No on Prop 52?

Those who oppose Proposition 52 seem to be less organized but include the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, according to Kaiser Health News. The post cites SEIU-UHW’s director of governmental relations:

…SEIU-UHW supports the arrangement in principle but that the legislature is the most appropriate venue for deciding how to use the money raised. Lawmakers can respond to an evolving health care system, but if Californians vote directly on the hospital proposal, their decision would be harder to undo later…

Proposition 53: No Blank Checks Initiative 

Should bond projects that cost more than $2 billion require voter approval? Government projects of that amount or more that are billed to the state’s general fund already require voter approval – but revenue bonds do not. This initiative targets state over-spending by giving voters the right to greenlight or stop big ticket projects, and prevents large projects from being broken down into smaller jobs to get around voter approval requirements.

Who’s Voting Yes on Prop 53?

The Stop Blank Checks’ first priority is to keep elected officials from creating new debt to pay for multi-billion dollar projects, at the cost of California taxpayers. The Pro-Proposition 53 website says California’s debt exceeds $330 billion – the third worst of all the states. It also cites the cost of California’s high-speed bullet train: nearly $10 billion was approved by voters for the project, but costs are now estimated at $68 billion, which may be paid for through revenue bonds.

Dean and Joan Cortopassi – owners of large food and agri-businesses based in Central California, are the initiative’s primary supporters.

Who’s Voting No on Prop 53?

The opposition is much bigger than the support so far. The No on Prop 53 faction claims the initiative will take away local government’s ability to issue revenue bonds to make improvements. For example, voters in Northern and Central California could theoretically vote against raising funds to improve the sewer system in Encino, if it comes with a price tag of over $2 billion. On a larger scale, can Los Angelenos wait up to two years to vote on I-405/US 101 interchange repairs after a devastating earthquake? (Presumably the federal or state governments would provide emergency funding in such a scenario.)

The opposition to Prop 53 include the Association of California Water Agencies, State Sheriff’s Association, League of California Cities, California Chamber of Commerce, California Hospital Association and others. 

Proposition 54: California Legislature Transparency Act 

If this initiative is approved, the legislature would be required to publish every bill (except some regarding emergency measures) in print and online at least 72 hours before a legislative vote; and to record public proceedings to be posted online within 24 hours of the proceedings. Members of the public may also record these public proceedings. All recordings, whether made by legislators or private persons, may be used for any legitimate purpose.

Who’s Voting Yes on Prop 54?

This one gets bipartisan support. The Yes on Prop 54 coalition cites a need to rein in special interest groups who have a history of getting 11th hour revisions made to bills benefitting themselves – without giving lawmakers an opportunity to read, or the public an opportunity to comment on those changes. The audiovisual recordings stipulations provide a record of proceedings, since most members of the public are unable to attend those proceedings and thus have no opportunity to comment.

The bill is supported by the California Chamber of Commerce, the California State Conference of the NAACP, and the state’s League of Women Voters, among others.

Who’s Voting No on Prop 54?

There is a group pushing for a no vote, for the same reason, believe it or not: to deny special interest groups. The No On Proposition 54 alliance says the bill will hinder legislators in developing bipartisan solutions; 72 hours gives special interest groups more time to launch a counter-attack, and it will be more difficult for lawmakers to take action in emergencies.

The group counts the state’s Democratic Party, Labor Federation and others among those who want to defeat the initiative. 

Proposition 55: California Children’s Education and Health Care Protection Act of 2016 

About $6 billion per year was raised when voters approved Proposition 30 back in 2012, through increased taxes imposed on those earning more than $250,000 per year, and through an increased sales tax. The money benefitted K-14 education (11 percent to community colleges; the remaining to grade, middle and high schools). Under Prop 30, the personal income tax increase will expire in 2019, and the increased sales taxes will expire the end of this year.

Prop 55 maintains the current tax rate on high-income individuals and couples for an additional 12 years. (The sales tax is not addressed in this measure and will presumably sunset on December 31st.) Additionally, the measure will allocate up to $2 billion to healthcare programs for children and their families in certain years.

Who’s Voting Yes on Prop 55?

The Yes on 55 Help Our Children Thrive website claims the reversion to a lower income tax rate on high earners will cost California schools about $4 billion per year, and that all taxpayers will benefit when the sale tax increase (0.25 percent) expires.

Yes on 55 is chiefly supported by the Association of California School Administrators, California Federation of Teachers, and the California Medical Association.

Who’s Voting No on Prop 55?

An organized opposition force doesn’t seem to exist at this time, but the California Chamber of Commerce recommended a no vote on Prop 55 last May. The Chamber doesn’t like the virtual permanency of what was supposed to be a temporary tax increase, and cites a state surplus of $3 billion, a proposed balanced budget by Governor Jerry Brown, and the volatile nature of personal income tax revenues. In short, the Cal Chamber characterizes the higher taxes as unnecessary. 

Proposition 56: California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2016 

This is a proposal to raise cigarette taxes by $2.00 per pack to fund healthcare, tobacco use prevention, tobacco-related medical research and law enforcement. Other tobacco products and nicotine e-cigarettes will be similarly taxed. The current tax on tobacco is $0.87 per pack – the lowest in the nation.

Who’s Voting Yes on Prop 56?

The Yes on 56 organization says the tax will reduce youth smoking, help fight cancer, and only target tobacco and nicotine users. Citing studies, they claim 90 percent of smokers start using tobacco as teenagers, and that flavored e-cigarettes are targeting that age group. Additionally, Yes on 56 says every ten percent increase on cigarette costs has a direct correlation to reduced teen smoking – a seven percent drop.

Yes on 56 is endorsed by the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, as well as various other health, dental and business groups.

Who’s Voting No on Prop 56?

A few websites by tobacco and vaping, or e-cigarette concerns are showing opposition to this measure, and a Sacramento Bee article reports a $17 million effort to defeat Prop 56. An organization called Not Blowing Smoke has taken to social media, particularly Instagram, to make their points, including: 

  • Government and pharmaceuticals will lose money when smoking rates decline;
  • The bill is full of loopholes – revenues could be used to fund other projects not related to tobacco use;
  • Over 9 million smokers in the U.S. have traded in their cigarettes for less harmful vape products – but a nearly 70 percent tax increase could hinder those transitions. 

A seemingly more organized effort to defeat the tobacco tax encourages voters to “follow the money” – claiming it’s the health insurance companies and special interest groups will benefit financially. The Stop the Special Interest Tax Grab is fronted by Phillip Morris, R.J. Reynolds and a “coalition of taxpayers, educators, healthcare professionals, law enforcement, labor and small businesses.”

Check back with us: we’ll tackle initiatives to regulate felony parole, bilingual education, campaign finance, pornography and prescription drugs – Props 57-61 next.

Stephen T. Holzer is the Chair of our Environmental Practice Group and a business litigation attorney. 

 

Disclaimer:
This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

Wednesday
Nov212012

2013 California Tenant Law - Landlord Obligations Upon Foreclosure (AB 2610)

Corporate Litigation Lawyer Los AngelesBusiness Litigation  

 

Paul C. Bauducco
818.907.3245

 

Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 2610 in September, a California landlord tenant law which gives current renters more time to stay at a property when a landlord is undergoing foreclosure.

The new law will bring the state more in line with federal law regarding protecting tenants on foreclosed properties. (Senate Bill 1191 is the bill we discussed in my last blog, Responsibilities of Landlord in Default and Foreclosure, which addresses notices to prospective tenants. You may also want to read Seven New Laws in Effect January 1st, for an overview of other legislative changes affecting California property owners and managers.)

AB 2610 amends the Civil Code (section 2924.8) and the Code of Civil Procedure (sections 415.46 and 1161b). When a Notice of Sale is posted on a property, the new owner must post a notice in the same manner which informs tenants of protections available to them.

Landlords must notify tenants that:

1. If they are month to month tenants, the new owner must give them a new lease or rental agreement, or give them 90 days notice before evicting them.

2. If they have a fixed term lease, the new owner must honor the lease, unless:

a.  The new owner will occupy the property as his/her primary residence. 

b.  The tenant is the mortgagor, or the child, spouse or parent of the mortgagor. 

c.  The lease was not the result of an arms’ length transaction. 

d.  The rent is well below fair market excluding any federal, state or local rent control laws.

Landlord Responsibilities After a Notice of Default

 

While SB 1191 pertains to landlords who provide single-family, or four or fewer units in a multi-family dwelling, AB 2610 is broader, having no limitations on residence size.

The law will become operative on March 1, 2013 and will remain in effect until December 31, 2019.

One more thing:

Existing law permits the buyer of the foreclosure property to use a prejudgment claim of right of possession against a holdover former owner.

Assembly Bill 2610 specifically states that this existing law will not limit the rights of the tenant to also file a prejudgment claim of right of possession before judgment. Moreover, the tenant may also object to enforcement of a judgment for possession whether or not the tenant was served with the claim of right to possession.

 

Paul C. Bauducco is the Chair of the Business Litigation Practice Group at our firm. Contact him via email if you have any questions regarding construction defects, landlord tenant laws or real estate litigation: pbauducco@lewitthackman.com.

 

Disclaimer:
This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.
Wednesday
Nov072012

California Landlord Tenant Law – Responsibilities of Landlord in Default and Foreclosure (SB 1191)

Corporate Litigation Lawyer Los AngelesBusiness Litigation Paul C. Bauducco
818.907.3245

 

New California landlord tenant laws go into effect in 2013 for rental property owners facing foreclosure.

Senate Bill 1191 was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown in September, adding Section 2924.85 to the Civil Code. (Read about other new laws for landlords, housing associations, and property managers in last week's blog, Seven New Laws in Effect January 1st.)

 

Notice of Default - California Civil Code Section 2924.85
(Effective January 1, 2013)

 

If you provide single-family homes or multi-family dwellings of four or fewer units for rent and have received a notice of default for a mortgage or deed of trust for the property, you are required to provide written notice – in English and other languages per California Civil Code Section 1632 – of that default to any prospective tenants.

In your notice to a prospective tenant, you must disclose that the property may be sold in foreclosure and that the tenant may, or may not be forced to move in the future.

You should also state that a new landlord or property owner must honor the lease unless the new owner chooses to occupy the property as a primary residence or if there is a "Just Cause for Eviction Law" applicable in your city.

If you are buying a rental property in a foreclosure sale, you'll need to provide the tenants with a 90 day notice of eviction if you plan to evict.

 

Penalties for Violating Section 2924.85

 

Section 2924.85 provides for certain tenant rights in the event a landlord fails to give the required notice, including:

  1. Allowing the tenant to void the lease and recover the greater of one month’s rent or twice the actual damages suffered; or

  2. If a foreclosure has not occurred, allowing the tenant to elect not to terminate the lease, but to deduct an amount due to the landlord equal to one month’s rent.

 

Foreclosure Notice - California Civil Code Section 2924.8
(Effective March 1, 2013)

 

As a property owner, you should direct your managers to deliver written notices of foreclosure to existing tenants in writing.  The exact language for the Notice is set forth in Section 2924.8, including notice that:

  1. Landlord LawForeclosure has begun which may affect the tenant’s right to continue to live in the property.

  2. The property may be sold 20 days or more after the date of the notice.

  3. The new property owner may give the tenant a new lease or provide the tenant with a 90 day eviction notice.

  4. The tenant may have the right to stay in the property longer than 90 days if he/she has a fixed term lease, which the new owner must honor, unless the new owner will occupy the property as a primary residence.

  5. In some cases and in some cities, where there is a “just cause for eviction law”, the tenant may not have to move out.

  6. The tenant may wish to contact a lawyer or legal aid office to discuss his/her rights.

Paul C. Bauducco is a Construction Defect and Real Estate Litigation Attorney at our Firm. He is also the Chair of the Business Litigation Practice Group. Contact him via email: pbauducco@lewitthackman.com.

Disclaimer:
This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.
Thursday
Nov012012

California Election - Los Angeles County Measure by Measure

Los Angeles Environmental AttorneyLos Angeles Environmental & Business LitigationStephen T. Holzer
November 1, 2012

Los Angeles Environmental Attorney

We've already discussed the pros and cons of the California Propositions appearing on the ballot next week, with a look at what major groups were for, or against each initiative.

This time, we're going to take a look at some of the Measures up for vote in Los Angeles County and the San Fernando Valley – though there are many others that pertain to individual cities in Southern California. (If you'd like a look at all of the ballot measures, click here.)

 

Los Angeles County Election Ballot Measures

 

The first three, Measures A, B & J, will affect all Los Angelenos, while the last two, Measures HH & MM, affect only those in and around the Santa Monica Mountains and the San Fernando Valley. 

 

 

Measure A:  Appointment of County Assessor – County of Los Angeles

Should the Los Angeles County Assessor's position be appointed, or elected? Currently, it's an elected job, but this measure seeks to change the California Constitution and the Los Angeles County Charter to make the position an appointed one. This is a non-binding vote, meaning it's a temperature check to see what the public thinks.

Opposition to Measure A:

The Los Angeles County Democratic Party, the Republican Party of Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles Times all advise voting NO on Measure A.

Opponents say that even though elected assessors may be susceptible to giving tax breaks to campaign donors, appointed assessors will be influenced by their appointers – boards of supervisors with an interest in keeping tax monies rolling in at a maximum rate.

Support of Measure A:

The Long Beach Telegram suggests a YES vote as the better choice, citing John Noguez's alleged abuse of power while in his position as County Assessor as a prime reason why.

 

Measure B:  Los Angeles Porn Actors Required to Wear Condoms Act

Now here's a hot topic. Should we make adult film actors wear condoms while shooting porn? This Safer Sex Initiative also requires the Los Angeles Department of Public Health to conduct inspections and enforce the Act – it's the enforcement that's at issue here, as a city ordinance already requires the porn stars to wear condoms.

Opposition to Measure B:

The adult film industry, the Republican Party of Los Angeles, and two Los Angeles newspapers all oppose the Safer Sex Act, citing another tax on the people as well as more runaway productions. The San Fernando Valley is an informally acknowledged capitol of adult entertainment, and has been since the 1970s.

Support of Measure B:

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation and the Los Angeles County Medical Association say Measure B will help reduce the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases with no cost to taxpayers. 

 

Measure J:  Los Angeles County Sales Tax for Transportation

This measure will continue the ½ cent sales tax increase (2008 voter-approved Measure R) scheduled to end in 2039, to extend another 30 years, to 2069. Measure R (and now J) is meant to finance new transportation projects and hasten those already in planning. To pass, Measure J needs a 2/3 supermajority vote.

Opposition to Measure J:

Two city supervisors and some local groups like the Bus Riders Union and the Beverly Hills Board of Education who form the Measure J opposition say it promotes gentrification – certain groups asked the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to upgrade the Crenshaw Boulevard Line, and to rebuild affordable housing destroyed when the Gold Line was built in East L.A. But the agency has "stonewalled" these requests. Some are calling Measure J a "blank check" to MTA.

Support of Measure J:

MTA says approval of Measure J will cost LA taxpayers approximately $25/year/individual, on average – but will generate $90 billion in revenue between 2039 and 2069. The Los Angeles Times and other major news groups support the measure, citing new jobs, less traffic and better accessibility to LA's more popular areas. 

 

The San Fernando Valley - Measures HH & MM

Measures HH and MM are similar. They are parcel taxes to help fund the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, or MRCA.

The MRCA acquires, maintains and improves open spaces, parks and wildlife corridors. The public agency improves fire prevention, protects water quality and facilitates security, among other things, at these places. MCRA has been funded by a 20 year old property assessment that will expire soon.

Measure HH helps MCRA to provide these services from the East Santa Monica Mountains into the Hollywood Hills by imposing a $24 per year tax for 10 years. The funds can only be spent in the Santa Monica Mountains east of the 405 freeway.

Measure MM imposes a $19 per year tax for 10 years to provide the above services in Encino, Tarzana and Woodland Hills. 

Opposition to Measures HH & MM:

There doesn't appear to be an organized opposition to the measures, though there are a few lone voices naysaying HH & MM.

Support of Measures HH & MM:

Both HH supporters and MM supporters have the backing of the Los Angeles Democratic Party, the Los Angeles Daily News, California State Assembly Member Bob Blumenfield, Los Angeles City Council Member Paul Koretz, and various homeowners' associations affected in the San Fernando Valley.

Need more California Election information? Read up on the pros and cons of Propositions 30-35, and Propositions 36-40.

 

Stephen T. Holzer is an Environmental and Business Litigation Attorney at our Firm, as well as the Chair of our Environmental Practice Group. Contact him via email: sholzer@lewitthackman.com.

Disclaimer:
This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.
LEWITT HACKMAN | 16633 Ventura Boulevard, Eleventh Floor, Encino, California 91436-1865 | 818.990.2120