Annexation will materially reduce tenant protections unless conditions are imposed.
This conclusion is NOT a scare tactic (as Hemet United says we are doing) or political. It is structural and legal.
Difference Between the Ordinances
The two ordinances regulate rent in fundamentally different ways.
Riverside County Ordinance 760/760.2:
- Is substantive rent stabilization
- Rent increases are capped by law
- Increases above CPI are illegal unless justified
- Protection is automatic
- The burden is on the park owner
Hemet Ordinance 772:
- Is procedural rent review
- There is no rent cap
- Increases are lawful unless challenged
- Protection is complaint-driven
- The burden shifts to the tenant
From a regulatory standpoint, these are not equivalent systems.
Based on a comparative analysis of Hemet Ordinance 772 and Riverside County Ordinance 760/760.2, annexation without conditions will result in a measurable reduction in tenant protections. The county ordinance provides substantive, automatic rent stabilization, while the city ordinance provides only discretionary review. This difference will predictably increase rent burdens and displacement risk. These impacts are avoidable through conditions of approval or adoption of equivalent protections.
The last two city council meetings have seniors in a mobile home park asking the city for help with the imposed rent raises they area facing and cannot afford on their fixed incomes. Hemet’s current ordinance is by tenant petition and impacts a vulnerable population.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Protection Feature | County 760/760.2 | Hemet 772 |
| Rent increase cap | ✅ Yes (CPI-based) | ❌ No |
| Increases presumptively illegal above cap (County Cap-3%, Hemet-8%) | ✅ Yes | ❌ No |
| Owner burden of proof | ✅ Yes | ⚠️ Mixed / discretionary |
| Automatic protection | ✅ Yes | ❌ No |
| Tenant must initiate action | ❌ Not required | ✅ Required |
| Defined economic standards | ✅ Yes | ❌ Largely absent |
| Mandatory findings | ✅ Yes | ⚠️ Limited |
| Predictability | High | Low |
What If the Two Ordinances Conflict?
The city ordinance controls. Always.
- Cities have constitutional authority over municipal affairs.
- Rent control and mobile home regulation are treated as municipal affairs for charter and general-law cities alike.
- County ordinances are subordinate inside city limits
Common Misconception (Important)
❌ “The county ordinance stays in effect until the city passes something new.”
✅ Incorrect, unless:
- Hemet affirmatively adopts it, or
- LAFCO requires it as a condition of annexation
Without that, the county ordinance dies on annexation day for that land.
Is There an Automatic Gap or Freeze?
No legal vacuum
California law avoids regulatory gaps. Typically, one of three things happens:
- Immediate replacement
Hemet’s ordinances apply automatically on the annexation effective date. - Transitional adoption (common)
Hemet may temporarily adopt county regulations by reference until city rules are applied. - LAFCO-imposed transition terms
The annexation resolution may specify:
- Which ordinances apply
- For how long
- Whether existing regulations are “grandfathered”
- Which ordinances apply
Based on a comparative analysis of Hemet Ordinance 772 and Riverside County Ordinance 760/760.2, annexation without conditions will result in a measurable reduction in tenant protections. The county ordinance provides substantive, automatic rent stabilization, while the city ordinance provides only discretionary review. This difference will predictably increase rent burdens and displacement risk. These impacts are avoidable through conditions of approval or adoption of equivalent protections. With the City of Hemet forming an Annexation Review Committee, rent control better be on the list on how to mitigate for current and potentially future residents. I believe now is not the time, but if there ever is a time, Hemet has work to do.
Sincerely wondering when questions and concerns became “scare tactics”–🤨🤔