The epoch times

California Bill Strengthens Eviction Restrictions for Property Owners

Evicting a ⁤tenant in California may soon⁣ prove more difficult ⁤after state lawmakers passed a bill that would require proof by a ​landlord‌ for what’s known as a ‍“no fault” eviction.

Senate⁤ Bill 567, authored⁣ by Sen. María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles), would ⁢also mandate 12 months ⁣of occupancy ‌for owners or a family ⁤member, if occupying the ⁤rental was the ​cause for the tenant eviction.

Under the new law, property​ owners would have to move in within 90 days of evicting a tenant, who cannot‌ be over 60, disabled, or ⁤terminally ill. Additionally, the bill would ⁤require that the owner or family member moving in cannot‌ already live in another rental unit on⁢ the property‍ and that there are no comparable units available.

Related Stories

“Although existing law provides for some basic ⁢protections from rent-gouging and unjust evictions, it has been proven that there ⁢are ‍glaring loopholes in the law that ⁤have left too⁤ many tenants unprotected from eviction even when in compliance with ⁣their lease,” Ms. Durazo said in the Senate analysis ‍of the⁢ bill.

Effective in 2020, ⁣Assembly ⁤Bill 1482—the existing law—provided ⁤tenant protections by capping rent ‍increases at 5 percent plus inflation or⁤ no more than 10 percent and⁢ required a justifiable‌ cause for ‍no-fault evictions. The bill sunsets in 2030.

According to the recent analysis,​ since the current ⁢law became effective some⁢ property owners have‍ used loopholes ​to evict tenants with the intent of a substantial renovation or‌ demolition, or to move in a family member or themselves, but have then turned around and re-rented the property at ⁤a much ⁣higher price instead.

What SB 567 Could Mean for⁤ California Property Owners

“Unfortunately, unscrupulous landlords sometimes claim such ⁣a move-in as a basis for eviction, but neither they nor⁢ a family member actually move into the unit,” according⁣ to​ the analysis.

SB ‌567 addresses such issues by requiring a written eviction⁣ notice, name ⁤of the family member moving in, and the right for tenants to request⁢ proof the⁤ intended ​occupant is an owner or related to ‌the owner.

For those seeking ⁣to evict ⁣tenants over a substantial remodel⁢ or demolition, such must require a vacancy of at least 30 days and owners must prove the work can⁣ only be accomplished ​safely if the unit is unoccupied. A‌ written notice explaining the work⁢ to ​be done, a timeline, and permits for the renovations are also required, according to ‍the bill⁢ text.

Multiple cities statewide are considering local ordinances to tighten up ⁤the state’s current tenant protections such as Burbank, Chula Vista, and San Diego,‍ according to ​a Sept.‍ 14 Assembly Floor analysis.

In the same analysis, lawmakers referenced one example of‌ such “abuses of power” from last year‌ when an owner in Encinitas evicted⁢ several ⁢tenants based on a substantial remodel, including new paint and flooring, but later ⁣re-rented the units ​for 50 percent more without completing the repairs.

“Jurisdictions across the state are seeing ⁣significant‍ abuse of ‍the substantial remodel provision,”⁤ they ‍wrote.

Those in support of the bill argue ⁢that the state’s⁢ current law has⁢ failed​ to prevent unjust evictions.

What ⁢SB 567 Could Mean ‍for California Property Owners

But ‌some opposed to the⁢ bill,⁢ like property⁢ owners, say they are being pushed out of the ‍rental housing market from ‌overregulation, especially coming on the heels of eviction ⁢moratoriums during the ⁤COVID pandemic.

“Many of ⁣our members are just reeling from the past three years or ⁢so of not being able to increase their rent, not being able⁤ to collect rent in the LA area … Owners⁢ have been struggling, liquidating their retirement savings, basically they’ve⁢ had no rights ‍for three years under all these COVID regulations,” Daniel Yukelson, executive director‌ of The Apartment⁤ Association of Greater Los Angeles told The Epoch Times.

With about 10,000 members, Mr. Yukelson said regulations in⁣ California have led to around 100 members monthly leaving the rental⁢ industry, since the onset of such due‍ to COVID.

“There’s⁤ just ​regulations like this that are basically pushing people out ‌of business. I see ⁣it in our membership all the time. We’re losing numbers ⁢all the time. ‌Our membership is a leaky bucket,” he said.

If the new bill ‍is signed ⁢into law, exiting the rental housing business could also⁣ now prove difficult with‍ potential civil lawsuits from failing ⁢to meet the bill’s⁣ eviction requirements,⁤ which Mr. Yukelson said‌ could further push away​ those interested in⁤ the⁣ industry.

“If an owner wants to exit the rental housing business,⁢ under SB‍ 567, they’re opened up to all kinds of lawsuits from their former ⁢tenants. If they make one mistake or ​don’t do something ⁣right, they’re subject to multiple lawsuits,” he said.

According to the same Senate analysis of the bill, owners who violate the provisions of the new law could be sued by tenants for damages up to three times the actual damages incurred by⁢ the eviction, as ‍well as for punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.

One of the unintended consequences of the bill, according to Chip ‌Ahlswede, vice president​ of⁣ external affairs for the Apartment Association of Orange County, is the 12-month occupancy requirement for​ an ⁣owner or their family moving in.

“There’s so many different reasons why somebody comes into a unit … a kid going to college … someone getting sick or needing palliative⁤ care … we’re ⁣right here next to Hollywood where [Hollywood] shoots happen for six months at ​a time on location,” he told ​The Epoch ‍Times.

In such situations, unexpected things happen, he said,‍ such as⁣ a child in college transferring schools, or the death ​of a sick family ⁤member, before the required 12-month period.

“It seems like it was a⁤ quick simple ⁣answer to a ​complex problem,” he said of the bill, ⁢which Gov. Gavin Newsom has until Oct. 14 to sign into law or veto.

Others‍ also‍ say the current law hasn’t had enough time to show⁤ its effectiveness, with the⁣ current one rushed.

“AB ⁤1482 hasn’t had ⁤sufficient time to do what it was intended‌ to do. ⁤It went into ⁤effect in early​ 2020,​ right as the pandemic hit, and obviously ​we had lots⁣ of eviction ⁣moratoriums‌ and other ‍things in ⁢place,” said Molly ⁢Kirkland,⁢ director of‌ public affairs for the Southern California Rental Housing Association—representing landlords and property managers in San Diego, Imperial, and southern Riverside⁢ counties.

She additionally said the added regulations could push out independent‌ owners.

“We still have quite a ​few property owners who are owed well over $10,000 in COVID ⁢era rent‍ … when you keep adding more and⁣ more regulation, on top of what’s already in ⁢place, ‌it becomes difficult ‌for‌ owners and managers⁢ to operate rental​ housing and our fear is that’s just going to push independent ⁣owners out of the marketplace,” she​ told‍ The Epoch Times.

In a letter ⁣to the governor sent earlier this month, other apartment associations representing landlords ‍and property managers‌ all over ⁣the state ⁢asked for a veto of the bill.

“SB 567’s impacts will badly⁢ hurt independent, small “mom-and-pop” property owners ‌who may⁤ need assistance making‌ ends meet and require to be​ housed themselves within their ‌rental property,”‌ said apartment and rental‌ housing ⁢associations‍ of Southern‍ California, Orange County, the ‌East Bay, North⁢ Valley, Santa Barbara, Los ⁣Angeles, Northern California, and others.

According to​ the same letter, California has the lowest eviction rate amongst the country’s 10 largest states, and restrictions under the new bill are unreasonable and may also lead to tired and outdated rental stock.

“Owners of rental properties are in the housing business, not the eviction business. Evictions are costly and time consuming, and always are a last ‍resort for housing providers. SB 567 poses major barriers for​ housing providers seeking to remodel and enhance their properties ‍for residents. With rising labor and materials costs, and with the added⁣ mandates, property owners will be forced to ⁤hold off or forgo​ improvements altogether,”​ the⁢ letter ‍reads.

How do proponents of SB 567 argue ⁣that​ it will protect vulnerable tenants from⁣ unfair evictions and prevent deceptive eviction practices?

Ista, and Oakland. These local ordinances aim‍ to further restrict “no-fault” evictions ‌and provide ‌more ​security for tenants ‌facing eviction.

Supporters of SB 567 argue that it is necessary to close the existing loopholes in the law and protect vulnerable tenants from unfair evictions. They believe ‌that requiring proof from landlords for “no-fault” evictions will prevent landlords from ‌using this ⁤as a means to raise rents or ‌evict tenants ⁣without proper justification. By mandating a 12-month occupancy period for owners or family members, the bill aims to prevent ‍deceptive eviction⁢ practices where​ landlords claim to move in but do not actually do ⁤so.

Opponents of ‍the bill argue that it puts undue burden ‌on property owners and restricts their ability to manage their properties.⁤ They claim that the bill infringes⁣ on property rights and may discourage investment in rental housing. They ⁢also argue that the additional requirements for eviction notices and proof of ownership create unnecessary bureaucracy and ​could lead to ‍delays in the ⁣eviction process.

Whether SB 567 becomes law or ⁤not, the debate surrounding tenant evictions in California highlights the ongoing need to⁢ balance‍ the rights of​ landlords and ‌the protections of tenants. With​ the‍ high cost ⁢of housing ​and the⁤ increasing vulnerability of renters, finding a fair and equitable solution is crucial. Lawmakers, tenant advocacy groups, and ⁤property owners will‍ continue to grapple with these‍ issues to ensure a just and stable housing market in California.



" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases

Related Articles

Sponsored Content
Back to top button
Available for Amazon Prime
Close

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker