In the Oakwood neighborhood of Venice, where multimillion-dollar homes now line streets that were once home to Black working-class families, 246 units of deeply affordable housing continue to stand as a vital defense against displacement. The residents of Holiday Venice, a scattered-site Section 8 development built in the 1970s, have spent decades fighting to keep their homes affordable and their community intact.
Their struggle has taken them from neighborhood rallies to courtrooms to the offices of federal housing officials in Washington. Over time, their organizing led to a rare victory: a 20-year affordability guarantee, a legal right of first refusal to purchase the property, and tenant protections that go beyond what federal housing policy typically provides. Their story reflects a broader battle against gentrification, but also shows what is possible when a community organizes and refuses to back down.
The fight began long before the 2009 lawsuit that ultimately forced a legal settlement. In the late 1990s, private investors began acquiring the Holiday Venice buildings. These properties had originally been developed by Black community members using HUD Section 236 subsidies. Built in the late 1960s and early 1970s, they were intended to serve low-income families for 40 years under affordability restrictions backed by federal mortgage agreements. By the late 1990s, the buildings had passed into the hands of private investors, including Namco Capital Group and New Venice Investors. These new owners attempted to prepay the federally subsidized mortgages, which would allow them to lift the affordability restrictions and raise rents.
In 2001, tenants organized a major protest. More than 150 residents, faith leaders, and supporters marched through Venice and rallied outside the Brentwood mansion of one of the property owners. They carried signs, chanted, and demanded that their homes remain affordable. Among those who joined the rally was Congresswoman Jane Harman, who pledged to work with HUD to protect the tenants. Housing attorney Elena Popp warned that the threat of displacement was far from over. While the owners ultimately withdrew their prepayment request, tenants recognized that the issue would resurface. From that moment on, tenant leaders built a permanent campaign to defend their homes.
By the late 2000s, the properties had changed hands again. GH Capital, led by Gregory Perlman, took ownership and renewed efforts to prepay the mortgages. This time, the stakes were even higher. The mortgages were scheduled to expire naturally between 2011 and 2015. Prepayment would remove the project-based Section 8 protections and allow units to be rented at market rate after tenants moved out. Residents feared that this would erase the last remaining project-based affordable housing development on California’s coast.
Tenants organized through the Holiday Venice Tenant Action Committee and worked closely with People Organized for Westside Renewal, a Santa Monica-based group. They held rallies, met with elected officials, and proposed a plan to purchase the buildings themselves in partnership with Mercy Housing, a nonprofit affordable housing developer. They believed this was the only path to long-term affordability and local control.
Their efforts gained political support. In December 2008, Senator Barbara Boxer and Congresswoman Jane Harman sent a joint letter to HUD urging the agency to deny the prepayment request. They argued that Holiday Venice continued to serve a critical housing need and that affordability must be preserved. The Venice Neighborhood Council passed a resolution echoing this demand. Los Angeles City Councilmember Bill Rosendahl also voiced support for tenant ownership of the buildings.
Despite this widespread support, HUD quietly approved the prepayment in early 2009. The agency did not require the owner to guarantee affordability going forward. In response, the tenants filed a lawsuit in federal court. They alleged that the approval violated Section 250 of the National Housing Act, which bars prepayment unless the housing is no longer needed for low-income families. They also challenged HUD’s internal guidance, which allowed owners to substitute weaker Use Agreements in place of the original affordability restrictions.
The Use Agreements permitted rent increases that exceeded affordability standards and stripped away key tenant protections. Immigrant families with mixed immigration status were especially vulnerable because federal rules prorated their subsidies. As a result, some households faced rent hikes of more than 70 percent. Meanwhile, GH Capital stood to collect more than seven million dollars in residual receipts, a pool of unspent subsidy funds that had built up in the project accounts. Tenants argued that this money should be returned to the buildings, not extracted as profit.
As the lawsuit advanced, HUD and the property owner entered into negotiations with the tenants. In 2011, they reached a landmark settlement. The agreement provided a new 20-year project-based Section 8 contract, which ensured affordability through 2031. It included a right of first refusal if the buildings were put up for sale, rent protections for mixed-status families, and a requirement that the owner conduct a capital needs assessment. The settlement also required that a tenant liaison be consulted on all rehabilitation plans and that project reserves be adequately funded.
Although the tenants did not succeed in forcing HUD to revise its broader policies, and the agency did not reclaim the residual receipts, the outcome at Holiday Venice was a rare and meaningful victory. It secured long-term protections for 56 units and became a model for other organizing efforts across the country.
But that settlement only covered part of the complex. The remaining 190 units, which were originally developed using Section 236 financing but were not included in the lawsuit, are on track to lose their affordability restrictions in 2029. These units make up the majority of Holiday Venice and are home to many of the same families who have fought to remain for decades. Unless a new preservation plan is secured, these homes could be converted to market rate or repositioned in a way that displaces the current tenants.
Speaking at Oakwood Park on Juneteenth in 2025, Kendra Moore, president of the Holiday Venice Tenant Action Committee, reminded the crowd that the clock is ticking. “We are now here in 2025, which leaves us with five years left. That five years is gonna come quick,” she said. “It leaves us with the five years in our contract, so we are here today to speak to our community and our neighboring communities to stand with us as we fight for these last five years.”
Moore made clear there are only two paths forward. She called on the owner to either sign a new long-term agreement or sell the buildings to the tenants. “Those are the only ways it’s gonna happen—a forever contract or if we buy the buildings.”
Preservation could involve partnering with a nonprofit developer, using public funding to acquire the buildings, or securing new affordability covenants tied to any future sale, refinancing, or land use decisions. Tenants may also pressure HUD to require a new use agreement with deeper protections or to tie future federal funding to affordability commitments. But Moore stressed that none of it will happen without collective effort. “We’re asking our city council, we’re asking our government, we’re asking our neighbors, we’re asking the business neighbors, we’re asking the old residents that used to live in Venice that may not live in Venice anymore—this is still our home and we need to secure 15 buildings so that we can remain where we were born and raised and grew up.
Moore closed her remarks with a call to action. “We want to save the housing that we have, and we want to save our rent controlled housing as well.” She reminded the crowd that showing up matters. “When we start marching and knocking on doors and coming out, calling, we’re asking when we have meetings, please show up. We want to make this happen in our community.”
The 2031 affordability protections secured through the legal settlement remain in place for part of the complex, but 2029 is now looming for the rest. The residents of Holiday Venice have already proven what is possible through years of organizing and persistence. They are still here, and they are not done.