Bill advances but not before being watered down
Measure opposed by landlords, Realtors and bankers aims to shore up renter rights
A bill to shore up eviction protections for tenants survived the California Senate last week, but only after real estate interests forced the removal of several significant provisions.
The measure, from Sen. María Elena Durazo, D-Los Angeles, advanced to the Assembly on a 21-12 vote, the minimum majority required for passage. It moved forward despite fierce opposition from the California Apartment Association, Realtors and mortgage bankers.
Durazo authored the measure to strengthen the state's existing system of renter rights laws, passed in 2019 with Assembly Bill 1482. It established a framework of “just cause” eviction rules governing when and how landlords can legally terminate a lease.
Landlords can evict tenants for “no fault” or “at fault” reasons. For example, tenants would be at fault for their evictions if they are not paying their rent.
The new bill, SB 567, came in response to continued concerns from tenant advocates that landlords take advantage of loopholes in “no fault” eviction rules. This system allows them to evict tenants even if the renters have not broken the terms of their lease.
Landlords can terminate tenants' leases to move into units, to make substantial repairs or to take units off the rental market.
Advocates say some landlords cite these causes to evict tenants when they are actually trying to get around the state's 10% cap on rent increases.
Durazo's original bill would have lowered the maximum rent increase to 5% and created more limits around no-fault evictions. Property owners or their family members who moved into units would have to occupy them within 90 days and live there for at least three years.
To legally evict tenants for renovations, repairs would have needed to be substantial enough that the landlord required 60 days to complete them. The fixes would also have needed to be non-cosmetic and essential to maintaining health and safety. Those taking properties off the market could not rent them again for at least 10 years.
Landlord and real estate organizations saw the changes as a betrayal of AB 1482, which they say they negotiated in good faith. The groups say they are especially frustrated because SB 567 comes on the heels of COVID-19 eviction moratoriums.
“(AB) 1482 was different,” said Debra Carlton of the California Apartment Association. “Fourteen eightytwo was this long (process), everyone was involved. Everyone was sitting at the table. That's not what they did. They just said, `This is what we want. And this is what we're going to do.' So there was no collaborative concept at all.”
The Senate Judiciary Committee stripped the rent cap portion of Durazo's bill in April.
Committee Chair Tom Umberg, D-Santa Ana, allowed SB 567 to advance to the Senate Appropriations Committee. However, approval was contingent on Durazo negotiating with Umberg over a series of amendments related to potential loopholes and enforcement mechanisms.
The amendments lowered the occupancy period for owners or family who evict tenants to move into units. They must live in rentals for one continuous year, rather than three years.
Substantial repairs requiring tenants to leave must take at least 30 days rather than 60 days. The amendments removed the provision allowing evictions for renovations only if they are required for the health and safety of tenants. Renters have a right to return only if the landlord does not make the repairs.
Landlords removing properties from the market no longer have to wait 10 years before renting them again.
A section that would have prevented some no-fault evictions for tenants who are older than 60, disabled or terminally ill was removed. Also cut was a provision that applied eviction protections to renters as soon as they begin their tenancies. Currently, they apply only if renters have lived in their units for at least a year.
The bill did retain some new enforcement mechanisms that enable residents and cities to sue landlords who illegally evict tenants or raise rents.
When asked about the amendments, Umberg was explicit about his distaste for rent control and related measures. He said he did not support AB 1482, but was willing to work with Durazo for a compromise that allowed for better enforcement of existing law.
“This is the most expansive enforcement mechanism for tenants rights in California history,” Umberg said. “For the first time, a tenant actually has a right to cause of action for, in essence, wrongful termination. It is a huge expansion. And that's why the Realtors and the Apartment Association still strongly oppose them. And the fact that it got 21 votes that was it, it nearly failed. That's a consequence of there's still strong opposition.”
Before the vote, Durazo said she was still pushing the bill, even with the substantial changes, because advocates continue to support it.
Shanti Singh of Tenants Together said her organization and the others that rallied at the Capitol in April have a better understanding of the conditions renters face than Umberg and those who weakened the bill.
“I'm not quite sure how well-informed that decision-making was, in terms of what to keep what to take out, et cetera,” Singh said. “I'm glad that there's still enforcement provisions in this bill. And they are very important and will prohibit a significant number of violations, hopefully. Or at least allow tenants to seek damages for those violations.”