City Councilmembers Try to Use Palisades Fire as Reason for Rent Freeze

(Editor’s note: this story first appeared in the Westside Current on January 30 under the title “Park Challenge Lack of Data as Tensions Flare Over Rent Freeze.”)

By JAMIE PAIGE

After a contentious seven-hour meeting filled with heated debate, shifting amendments, and impassioned public testimony, the Los Angeles City Council voted Wednesday to send a proposed rent freeze and eviction defense measure back to committee for further refinement. The decision was reached in a 10-3 vote.

Five amendments were introduced on the floor, adding to concerns that the measure had not been fully vetted.

Councilmembers Hugo Soto-Martínez, Eunisses Hernandez, and Ysabel Jurado opposed the delay. Councilman Curren Price recused himself, as he is a landlord, and Councilwoman Monica Rodriguez was absent.

The original motion, authored by Soto-Martínez, Hernandez, and Councilman Adrin Nazarian, called for the city attorney to draft an ordinance prohibiting certain evictions for fire victims and imposing a citywide rent freeze through January 31, 2026.

A Debate Over Policy and Process

Supporters of the proposal pushed for swift action, warning that landlords were already finding legal loopholes to raise rents and evict tenants. Opponents argued that a one-year rent freeze and eviction restrictions would place an unfair financial burden on small landlords who are still recovering from the COVID-19 moratorium.

Councilman John Lee criticized the proposal as overly broad.

“This is a blanket policy,” Lee said. “It’s going to make the housing crisis worse by putting another burden on landlords.”

Councilman Bob Blumenfield shared similar concerns, emphasizing that the city had already taken steps to help fire survivors, including activating WorkSource Centers through the Economic and Workforce Development Department. He suggested that rental assistance through Measure ULA, the city’s voter-approved property transfer tax, could be a more targeted approach.

“With COVID … we needed to do this, and it was difficult for housing providers,” Blumenfield said. “Where is that threshold between the COVID emergency and an emergency like this? The folks who are affected—we need to do everything we can to help them. But whether it really is justified to do this kind of harsh market impact, I don’t see the evidence of it.”

Soto-Martínez defended the proposal, rejecting claims that it was an eviction moratorium and instead calling it an “eviction defense” measure for tenants at risk.

“This is meant to help the people who have had economic hardship or have lost their jobs due to the fires,” he said.

Rising Tensions on Both Sides

The council chamber was packed with tenants saying they feared displacement and landlords struggling with rising costs. Public comment stretched for three hours, with speakers frequently clashing over the city’s role in regulating housing during disasters.

“I’m on the verge of losing my properties,” said Dexter McLendon, a small landlord who owns affordable rental units in South Los Angeles. “Taxes, insurance, registration fees, utilities—everything has gone up, and now you’re telling me I can’t adjust my rent for a year?”

Danny, another housing provider, argued that previous eviction moratoriums had left property owners footing the bill for public policy.

“We were told rent wasn’t being waived, just delayed,” he said. “But how does someone who hasn’t paid in months suddenly afford $30,000 in back rent? That’s not how the real world works.”

Tenant advocates, meanwhile, framed the proposal as a necessary lifeline for those still recovering from the fires.

“This is not a blanket policy,” said Daniel Jimenez, an organizer with Keep LA Housed. “It is targeted relief for people who lost their jobs due to the fires. Landlords will do everything they can to push out tenants and jack up the rent. If we don’t step in, we know what happens next.”

Park Challenges Data Behind Proposal

Councilwoman Traci Park, who represents areas affected by the wildfires, challenged the measure, questioning whether it was based on clear data about displaced workers and tenants.

“Do we even know how many households have experienced income loss due to businesses being destroyed or interrupted by the fires?” Park asked city housing officials.

The Los Angeles Housing Department acknowledged that while 751 multifamily units had been damaged or destroyed—75 percent of them rent-stabilized—they did not yet have data on how many workers had lost jobs or income due to the fires.

“So just to be clear,” Park pressed further, “we don’t know how many workers have been impacted or the extent of their financial hardship?”

“That is correct,” a housing department official confirmed.

Park also noted that existing tenant protections under the city’s Just Cause Ordinance already prohibit evictions for nonpayment unless a tenant owes more than the fair market rent for their unit size.

“If someone lost income due to the fires and can’t pay February’s rent in full, can their landlord evict them right now?” she asked.

A housing department official responded that evictions for nonpayment are not currently allowed unless the amount owed exceeds the fair market rent threshold.

Park criticized the proposal as a political move rather than a genuine solution for fire victims.

“If this motion is really about freezing the next RSO rent increase rather than protecting a small universe of workers, then I can’t support the policy or derivative uses that is using a disaster in my district as a pretext for some other political agenda,” she said.

Hernandez Pushes Back

Councilwoman Eunisses Hernandez sharply rejected Park’s comments, arguing that the crisis extended beyond the fire zone and impacted working-class Angelenos across the city.

“I have people in my district who are gardeners, nannies, housekeepers—who are undocumented, who’ve lost everything, who can’t just walk into a restaurant and get another job,” Hernandez said.

“The crisis is in your district, but it reverberates across the 15 districts of the city,” she continued. “This is not a political agenda. I’m talking about people … that are going to lose everything too.”

During her testimony, Park emphasized that her office was actively working to assist anyone who lost their job due to the fires, urging her colleagues to connect displaced workers with her team.

“If you have someone in your district who lost a job because of the fires, please let us know,” Park said. “My staff and I are working to get jobs for everyone impacted.”

Motions, Amendments, and Procedural Delays

Throughout the meeting, council members proposed various changes to the measure, shifting its scope and intent.

Blumenfield, who ultimately moved to send the proposal back to committee, expressed frustration over the rapidly evolving nature of the policy.

“We are making wholesale changes on the fly,” he said. “Instead of addressing these matters in a responsible way in committee, we are trying to push this through without a full understanding of the long-term implications.”

Lee agreed, criticizing the lack of procedural clarity.

“This couldn’t even pass a Rule 23 vote, so it was sent to committee—only to be waived out without discussion,” Lee said. “Now, after hours of debate, we’re still unclear on key details.”

The council did not vote on any of the five proposed amendments, which were also sent to committee. Among them was one from the motion’s original authors that would have rescinded the call for a one-year rent freeze.

Concerns Over Post-Disaster Rent Increases

Soto-Martínez, Hernandez, and Nazarian cited historical patterns of rent inflation after disasters as justification for taking action.

They pointed to Lahaina, Hawaii, where median rent surged 44 percent in the year after the 2023 wildfires, and counties surrounding Paradise, California, where rental prices rose more than 20 percent in the two years following the 2018 Camp Fire.

“California law outlaws rental increases of greater than 10 percent during a state of emergency,” the motion read. “But that protection expires after 30 days, creating an opportunity for unscrupulous landlords to wait and then initiate unaffordable rental increases.”

The motion’s authors also cited reports that rents in Los Angeles had increased between 15 and 64 percent on Zillow after the fires.

What Comes Next?

The L.A. County Board of Supervisors recently passed wildfire-related tenant protections that bar evictions for displaced individuals and pets until May 31, 2026, in unincorporated areas.

The motion will return to the Housing and Homelessness Committee for further review.