Ask the Governor to Veto Harmful Rental Bills
Protect Your Ability to Occupy Your Property and to Assess & Reduce Risk!
SCRHA worked diligently this legislative session to stop or improve a number of bills. A vast majority of bad bills were stopped this year, but some made it through the process and now sit on the Governor's desk awaiting his signature or veto.
AB 12 (Haney) and SB 267 (Eggman) both ignore a rental housing providers need and right to protect their investment. SB 567 (Durazo) seeks to make terminating tenancy to move into a property or to improve one much more difficult.
Take Action today! There's still time to stop these bills from becoming law.
AB 12, if signed, will limit security deposits to no more than the equivalent of one month's rent (with a very narrow exemption for owners of just a few units). This limit may work for some housing providers and their properties, but repair and cleaning needs vary, as do amounts of unpaid rent at the end of a tenancy. Moreover, many housing providers will take higher deposits as means to help qualify tenants. Removing the flexibility with security deposits will result in fewer options for renters with poor credit or rental history.
SB 267 will alter the screening process for applicants with government subsidies if it becomes law. Already housing providers must use a different formula for assessing the income of voucher holders. The bill seeks to remove the ability to use credit screening in the application process unless the prospective tenant is offered the option of providing lawful, verifiable alternative evidence of the applicant’s reasonable ability to pay the portion of the rent to be paid by the tenant. The rental owner or manager must allow the applicant a "reasonable" amount of time to provide the evidence...but the proposed law does not define the timeframe.
SB 567 is an attempt to alter the Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482) before it has had a fair chance to work without the outside forces of the pandemic. While the bill has been dramatically altered since its introduction, thanks to SCRHA advocacy, it remains problematic. For termination of tenancy based on an intent to occupy by the owner or family member, would require that the owner or family member occupy the property for a minimum of 12 continuous months. The bill would add more noticing requirements when substantially remodeling or demolishing a unit. An owner who attempts to recover possession of a rental unit in violation of the law would be liable to the tenant in a civil action for up to 3 times the actual damages, in addition to punitive damages.