A South Los Angeles building where residents had complained of slum-like conditions, including not having hot water for months, was largely empty this week, after the housing department issued an order to vacate and the owner offered residents relocation money in exchange for an agreement waiving legal claims.
For the residents of 5700 S. Hoover St., it was a predicament similar to one often faced by tenants across the city who are offered cash to leave their homes and must grapple with whether to take the money and go, or try and assert their legal rights and face the uncertainty of how things will play out in the end.
They had sought help for months as they faced deteriorating conditions in the complex of more than 30 units, which is owned by an entity affiliated with the temporary housing provider Soul Housing. The building, where most residents used shared facilities, had only two working communal bathrooms and two communal showers; there was mold in the bathrooms and bedrooms, and rats and cockroaches infested the shared kitchen.
In late July, the Los Angeles Housing Department issued an order to vacate because of the conditions in the building and ordered the owner to pay the residents relocation fees, but the owner appealed the order to pay.
Last week, residents said, they were told they had to leave by Aug. 19.
Some residents told The Times they felt pressured to sign the agreements out of fear that they would be forced to leave and would not get money to help with the immediate need of finding a place to live. They said they were unsure where they would go.
“I was like, ‘I don’t know what else to do, because, if I don’t sign, are they going to give me my money? What’s going to happen?’” said resident Daviell McKinley. “I didn’t want to wait until Monday to find out.”
David Smith, director of litigation for the nonprofit Inner City Law Center, which has been representing several residents in recent weeks, said he believes it was illegal for the owner to attach conditions in order to pay relocation benefits because the payments are required by law.
“The tenants, including our clients, ultimately signed this, what we consider to be an illegal and unenforceable release, because that was the only way the owner was going to give them their money,” Smith said.
Some tenants said they were given $14,000. The city requires landlords to pay relocation fees of at least $13,500 to tenants who have lived in a rent-controlled building for three or more years when they face a no-fault eviction. Others said they received less than that amount.
Davon Monroe, who said he’s lived in the building since 2018, said he was paid $5,000. A motel that was offered temporarily to residents is too far from his neighborhood, so he declined and rented a room for the time being. He’s unsure where he’ll go next.
“Sadly I just have to figure it out.”
Eric Schames, chief operating officer of Soul Housing, said the offers went above and beyond to help the residents start over. Schames said he also offered residents 14 days at a motel.
“Every single person that was there was thanking us, was appreciative,” he said.
A small number of residents were offered less than the required amount because they were not identified as residents by the housing department and did not have proof of tenancy, he said.
Schames has said he bought the building from its previous owner in a bankruptcy sale believing there were nine squatters living there and unaware that there were actually dozens of residents.
“As an affiliate of Soul Housing, whose entire purpose and mission is to provide supportive housing and care to homeless individuals, the owner is trying to help these people get out of this building, which has been deemed not up to code, and to find new housing and the owner is helping them do that by paying them more money than they’re entitled to,” said Alexander Safyan, an attorney for the owner.
Sharon Sandow, a spokesperson for the housing department, said that legal waivers such as the one residents were asked to sign are neither required nor prohibited by the city and that the department did not get involved in the agreement.
“We are solely focused on ensuring the tenants receive the relocation funding they are entitled to receive,” she said.
The Times wrote about the complex and its condition in early July. Many residents said it was housing of last resort — a way to keep a roof over their heads when they had few other options.
A decade ago, the city vacated tenants from the building amid similar complaints that it had become squalid and unlivable.
The most recent owner bought the building in November. Residents said that it had been in decline for some time but that it deteriorated significantly in recent months.
When a reporter visited in July, residents said they were boiling water on the stove in order to take baths. There were several children and babies living in the complex.
After a reporter asked about the conditions, Schames told The Times he had agreed to provide residents with relocation fees totaling about $500,000 so they could permanently leave the building.
Later that month, the Los Angeles Housing Department issued an order to vacate, saying code violations were so extensive “that the immediate health and safety of the tenants is endangered.” The order required the owner to pay the relocation fees.
Then, this month, Schames appealed the ruling.
Last week, residents were offered the checks to leave in exchange for signing paperwork releasing the owner “from any and all claims.”
A 57-year-old resident who asked to not be identified told The Times he also turned down the motel because it is too far from the community where he feels comfortable.
He is renting a room for now but has no idea where he will go next, he said.
“I’m kind of depressed. I’m homeless now,” he said. “They shouldn’t have done people like that. I thought it was unlawful to do that but I guess it’s not.”
McKinley, who has lived in the building since 2021, said she was disappointed with the way things were handled.
“This was our home,” she said. “Even though the landlord treated it the way they did, it was a home, it’s what we could afford. And they took advantage.”
On Monday, three tenants remained in the building. One, a woman in her 70s who asked to not be identified, told The Times she hoped to stay until she finds another place to live.
