Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Evictions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bell Gardens hears extensive public comment on nonpayment eviction threshold ahead of second reading
Summary
Residents, tenant advocates and landlords debated a proposed nonpayment threshold (item 10.5) at a second‑reading hearing. Supporters said a one‑month threshold would prevent displacement; apartment‑industry representatives urged publicity for rental‑assistance instead. The council removed 10.5 from the consent calendar for separate consideration.
The Bell Gardens City Council heard nearly four hours of public testimony during a second‑reading agenda item on a proposed tenant eviction nonpayment threshold (item 10.5), with dozens of residents and organizers urging the council to adopt protections they say would prevent displacement.
Community organizer Mateo Hill, speaking for East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, said those protections are limited and necessary: "We're not here asking for the abolishment of rent. We're just asking to give tenants more time," he said, arguing a one‑month Fair Market Rent threshold would keep families housed while preserving small landlords. Other speakers — community organizers, mental‑health providers and educators — described the stress and long‑term harms of eviction and urged the council to adopt the measure to protect families and children.
Not all testimony supported the threshold. Jesus Rojas, representing the Apartment Association of Los Angeles, warned the proposal would "do harm to far more renters than good" and urged the city to better publicize its rental assistance program rather than adopt the nonpayment threshold he said would favor bad actors. Rojas said the ordinance's use of a small‑area fair market rent standard would exclude many renters from protection.
Council staff listed the item as a second reading; the council took 10.5 off the consent calendar so it could be discussed separately and did not vote on final adoption during this meeting. The city manager previously noted 10.5 as a second reading on the agenda and staff materials listed the item for further consideration. The transcript does not record a final council vote on the ordinance.
What happens next: Because 10.5 was pulled from the consent calendar and no final vote was recorded in the transcript, the ordinance remained under council consideration at the close of the meeting. Council members and staff signaled continued public engagement and follow‑up work on implementation details, outreach and the city's existing rental‑assistance options.
