Democrats have a 2/3 majority in the State Senate. Once again, that is turning out to be a supermajority more in theory than in practice.
(1) SB 529
Here’s the text of SB 529, by Connie Leyva Maria Elena Durazo, which deals with Tenant Rights — specifically, establishing just cause rather than “at will” eviction for most renters. While this would not help people in mobile home parks, a topic that Vern has written on extensively here, “just cause” evictions would help the security of renters.
SECTION 1.
Chapter 2.9 (commencing with Section 1954.700) is added to Title 5 of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, to read:
CHAPTER 2.9. Tenant Associations
1954.700.
For purposes of this chapter:
(a) “Condominium” has the same meaning as defined in Section 783.(b) “Landlord” means an owner, lessor, sublessor, or any other person or entity entitled to offer any residential unit for rent or entitled to receive rent for the use and occupancy of any rental unit.(c) (1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2), “rental unit” means a room or a group of two or more rooms designed, intended, or used for human habitation and includes apartments, condominiums, stock cooperatives, single-dwelling units, and hotel units.(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), “rental unit” does not include any of the following:(A) Housing accommodations in any hospital, convent, monastery, extended care facility, asylum, nonprofit home for the aged, or a fraternity or sorority house.(B) Mobilehomes subject to the Mobilehome Residency Law (Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 798) of Title 2 of Part 2 of Division 2), recreational vehicles subject to the Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Law (Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 799.20) of Title 2 of Part 2 of Division 2), or floating homes subject to the Floating Home Residency Law (Chapter 2.7 (commencing with Section 800) of Title 2 of Part 2 of Division 2).(C) Transient occupancies described in subdivision (b) of Section 1940.(d) “Single-dwelling unit” means a single detached structure containing one dwelling unit for human habitation and accessory buildings appurtenant thereto located on a lot or parcel and all housing services provided in connection with the use or occupancy thereof.(e) “Stock cooperative” has the same meaning as defined in Section 11003.2 of the Business and Professions Code.(f) “Tenancy” means the right or entitlement of a tenant to use or occupy a rental unit.(g) “Tenant” includes a tenant, subtenant, lessee, sublessee, or other person legally in possession or occupying a rental unit.(h) “Tenant association” means a group of tenants from three or more rental units that are owned or operated by the same landlord who form or maintain an organization, whether incorporated or unincorporated, to improve housing conditions, amenities, community life, or the contractual position of the member tenants.1954.701.
(a) (1) (A) Tenants shall have the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of a tenant association, subject to any restrictions as may be imposed by law, or to refuse to join or participate in the activities of a tenant association.
(B) Each tenant association subject to this chapter shall adopt bylaws or an operating agreement for purposes of its internal governance.(2) Notwithstanding any lease provision to the contrary, a landlord shall allow tenants and tenant organizers to engage in conduct related to the establishment or operation of a tenant association, including, but not limited to, the following:(A) Distributing leaflets in lobby and other common areas or under tenants’ doors and posting information on bulletin boards.(B) Initiating contact with tenants, conducting door-to-door surveys to ascertain interest in establishing a tenant association, or offering information about a tenant association.(C) Offering assistance to tenants to participate in tenant association activities.(D) Convening tenant association meetings onsite in a manner that is fully independent of the landlord or the landlord’s representatives. In order to preserve the independence of tenant associations, a landlord or a representative of the landlord shall not attend meetings of a tenant association unless invited by the tenant association.(b) (1) This section does not require a landlord to provide nonresident tenant organizers with access to parts of a building or property that are not accessible to the public generally, unless the nonresident tenant organizer is a guest or invitee of a resident of the property. A landlord may impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on access to lobbies and other common areas for the purpose of conducting activities related to the establishment or operation of a tenant organization.(2) This section does not reduce or limit the rights set forth in Section 1942.6.(c) It is the intent of Legislature that this chapter add protections for tenants that seek to engage in organizing activities through a tenant association. Therefore, this chapter shall not preempt, limit, supplant, or otherwise reduce the rights of tenants under other state or local law, except to the extent that the other law is inconsistent with this chapter.1954.702.
(a) Notwithstanding any other law, the tenancy of a member of a tenant association subject to this chapter shall not be terminated, and its renewal shall not be refused, except for cause, which shall be stated with specificity in writing in the notice of termination or nonrenewal.
(b) (1) Subject to subdivision (e) of Section 1954.703, any Any landlord who attempts to terminate the tenancy of a member of a tenant association for cause, as provided in subdivision (a), shall provide the tenant a written notice to quit or terminate that recites the grounds under which the landlord is proceeding. The landlord shall provide the notice before or at the same time as, or as part of, the written notice of termination set forth in Section 1946 or 1946.1, as applicable, or the three-day notice described in Sections 1161 and 1161a of the Code of Civil Procedure, is served on the tenant.(2) If a tenant who is a member of a tenant association receives a written notice to quit or terminate from a landlord that does not recite the grounds under which the landlord is proceeding, the tenant may notify the landlord that the tenant is a member of a tenant association subject to this chapter and request that the notice be withdrawn. Within seven days of receiving a request to withdraw a notice to quit or terminate pursuant to this paragraph, the landlord shall rescind the notice in writing. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a landlord from subsequently providing the tenant a written notice to quit or terminate that satisfies the requirements of paragraph (1).(c) This section shall not be construed to prohibit the enactment, adoption, amendment, or enforcement of an ordinance or initiative by a city, county, or city and county establishing just cause eviction controls, including, but not limited to, just cause for eviction laws.1954.703.(a)(1)A tenant who is a member of a tenant association consisting of five or more units has a limited statutory right to withhold rent as set forth in this section. Subject to subdivision (h), members of a tenant association may, by a majority vote, initiate proceedings to withhold payment of rent for up to one month in response to grievances or complaints with the landlord pursuant to this section.
(2)At least 30 days before withholding rent pursuant to this section, the tenant association shall provide written notice to the landlord that contains all of the following:
(A)A list of the grievances for which the members of the tenant association are seeking redress and, for each grievance listed, a resolution that would be satisfactory to the association. Each grievance shall fall into one of the following categories:
(i)conditions that fail to meet the standards set forth in Section 1941;
(ii)conditions constituting a breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment;
(iii)denial of any housing right conferred by applicable local, state, or federal law; or
(iv)any rent increase greater than the locally applicable consumer price index that cannot be justified on the basis of nonroutine maintenance expenditures.
(B)Notice that the tenant association plans to exercise the right to withhold payment of rent in accordance with this section if the landlord does not, within 30 days from receipt of the notice, comply with the tenant association demands or reach an alternate agreement that is satisfactory to the tenant association.
(C)The address to which the landlord should deliver a response.
(b)Within 10 days of receiving written notice pursuant to subdivision (a), the landlord shall mail or personally deliver to the tenant association a written response to that notice. For each grievance listed in the notice, the landlord shall indicate whether the landlord will resolve the grievance as proposed by the tenant association or meet with the tenants in good faith to discuss an alternative resolution.
(c)Within 20 days of receiving the written notice pursuant to subdivision (a), the landlord shall meet with the tenant association. The parties may agree to have a mediator present at the meeting, provided that the cost of the mediator, if any, is not charged to the tenants or their association. At the meeting, for any of the grievances listed in the notice which the landlord has agreed to resolve in the manner proposed by the tenant association, the landlord shall provide a progress report. For all other grievances listed in the notice, the landlord shall confer in good faith with the tenant signatories about alternative ways to resolve each grievance.
(d)No sooner than 30 days after delivering the written notice of grievance to the landlord, if the members of the tenant association are not satisfied with the landlord response or progress that the landlord has made toward resolving the grievances listed in the notice, the tenant association may authorize the withholding of one month’s rent under this subdivision. Each member of the tenant association exercising the option to withhold rent pursuant to this subdivision shall:
(1)purchase a money order or cashier’s check, payable to the landlord, in an amount equal to one month’s rent, and shall hold that money order or cashier’s check until the resolution of the grievances specified in the written notice provided pursuant to subdivision (a) of this section or until the one-month withholding period has lapsed, whichever occurs earlier;
(2)sign a written notice to the landlord indicating that the tenant is exercising the tenant’s right to withhold rent pursuant to this section; and
(3)attach to the written notice a copy of the cashier’s check or money order demonstrating that the member has complied with paragraph (1) of this subdivision.
(e)The landlord shall not serve a written notice to quit or terminate pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1954.702 or take any action to terminate tenancy or evict members of the tenant association withholding payment of rent pursuant to this section during the one-month period in which the members of the tenant association are withholding rent in accordance with subdivision (d).
(f)At any time during the one-month period in which the tenants are withholding rent, the landlord may report to the tenants regarding the status of the grievances. If all grievances on the list have been resolved in the manner deemed satisfactory by the tenants, each tenant shall promptly deliver to the landlord the cashier’s check or money order purchased pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of this section.
(g)(1)Except as provided in subdivision (f) or in paragraph (2) of this subdivision, no later than seven days following the end of the one-month period in which the tenants withheld rent pursuant to subdivision (d), each tenant who exercised the right to withhold payment of rent shall tender the money order or cashier’s check held pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) to the landlord in payment of the rent previously withheld pursuant to this section, unless the tenant association and the landlord agree to an alternative arrangement. Rent paid within this seven-day period, or pursuant to an alternative arrangement agreed to by the tenant or the tenant association and the landlord, shall not be considered a late payment of rent and shall not be subject to any penalty or fee for the late payment of rent.
(2)Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if the landlord failed to strictly comply with any of the requirements specified in subdivisions (b) and (c), payment of the rent withheld by a member of a tenant association pursuant to this section shall be waived.
(h)A tenant association shall not initiate proceedings or withhold rent pursuant to this section more than two times per calendar year.
(i)This section does not preempt any ordinance, resolution, or other rule or regulation of a city or county establishing or utilizing a binding dispute resolution process for landlords and tenants that would impact the obligation to pay the withheld rent or otherwise provide greater protections for tenants’ rights than those provided under this section.
(j)This subdivision shall not be construed to limit any other lawful basis for withholding rent.
1954.704.1954.703.
(a) Notwithstanding Section 1942.5, a landlord who retaliates against a tenant for exercising the tenant’s right to join, form, or participate in the activities of a tenant association, or who otherwise violates any provision of this chapter, shall be liable to the tenant in a civil action for all of the following:
(1) The actual damages sustained by the tenant.(2) Injunctive relief.(3) Punitive damages in an amount of not less than five hundred dollars ($500) nor more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each retaliatory act where the landlord has been guilty of fraud, oppression, or malice with respect to that act.(b) In any action brought for damages for a violation of this chapter, the court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party if either party requests attorney’s fees upon the initiation of the action.(c) The remedies provided by this section shall be in addition to any other remedies provided by statutory or decisional law.(d) In any action by a landlord to recover possession of a rental unit, the tenant may raise as an affirmative defense any violation of, or noncompliance with, this chapter.
(2) The Ongoing Vote
Here’s the ongoing vote on SB-529:
Unless I’m mistaken, all 13 Republican State Senators are among the No votes, along with Democrats Bill Dodd (Wine Country), Cathleen Galgiani (San Joaquin/Modesto), Jerry Hill (San Mateo), Melissa Hurtado (Fresno/Bakersfield) — and Bob Archuleta. Archuleta is, along with Linda Sanchez, one of the two state legislators who represent the least amount of Orange County. Archuleta represents Buena Park as well as areas from Hacienda Heights and La Habra Heights to Bellflower and Lakewood and up to Commerce and Montebello. He’s basically Los Angeles’s problem to solve, and he isn’t strictly needed for the 21 votes needed to pass the bill. (Atkins will make it 19, Hurtado is people’s guess to make it 20 if it matters, and so they need just one more vote beyond that to pass it.)
The Democrats who haven’t voted are even more interesting. One is Senate Leader Toni Atkins, who was traveling and has said that she’ll vote yes. (A vote for the bill to be brought up for later reconsideration passed the day that this was published.) Aside from her are four “moderate” (or, as I’d call them, “conservative” Senators: Steve Glazer (East Bay inland from San Francisco), Ben Hueso (Imperial County and San Diego County’s border area with Mexico), Richard Roth (our neighbor to the east in Riverside County) — and our own Tom Umberg.
Umberg represents 2/15 of Long Beach and 2/7 of Orange County, including half of Huntington Beach, a fifth of Anaheim, and all of Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Fountain Valley, Westminster, Los Alamitos, Seal Beach, and a smattering of neighboring areas. Needless to say, this include a huge numbers of renters. This has become a steadily, if marginally, blue district at the State and Federal levels. Aside from the ethics of the vote, Umberg has much more to gain from turning out grateful renters than from pissing off (generally already Republican) landlords.
We will, I expect, debate the policy choices behind the bill below. Politically, though, this is just above a no-brainer — call it a “some-brainer” — for Umberg, unless perhaps he thinks that no one is watching.
Hate to break it to you, Senator, but people are watching. Senator Umberg’s offices can be reached at (916) 651-
I’m sorry, but the argument here is that a property owner shouldn’t have the right to control her or his property or freely engage in commerce because reasons?
I sincerely hope that our legislators in Sacramento aren’t playing games with the right to own property.
Because of negative externalities, yes. But if you want to increase needless homelessness and welth inequality and stress and disruption in the lives of blameless tenants and their children, you can leave the status quo as is.
Right, because tenements haven’t done worse.
Let’s drop the hyperbole and keep it to a discussion of liberties and rights.
My right to own property is not eroded because I’ve entered into a contract regarding custody or possession.
Here endeth the discussion.
Your moral right, or your legal right? Because plenty of places have done it, so I don’t think that you can be talking about your legal right.
Plenty of places have also made abortion inaccessible. Doesn’t make it right, legal, or moral (irrespective of how you might feel about the issue.)
This is basic contract law. Proposing to eliminate one of the primary conditions of entering into a contract– a meeting of the minds– is ridiculous.
If a landlord does not desire to continue a contract, tough nuts. That’s her choice. That’s good cause.
*As usual, we have to challenge the RC mode of conduct. First off, that mentality carried over into the famous case of Dr. Sammy Lee…back in the 1950’s. The Asian US Olympic Diving Champion was refused to even buy property in Orange County. People could discriminate based on Sexual Preference (Gays in Hiding!), Ethnic background (Even Hungarians!) and of course Political Persuasions…….Yeah, that’s call California Property Rights in the 1950’s. Today, unless you are a single white girl in your 20’s try to rent a small apartment in Corona Del Mar, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach or other pristine areas of our county. The landlords are looking for “Chum” and if you are not a possible victim, you may have some problems renting for very long in any of these locations. So, someone 102 (How many years left might she have?) Can’t stay another 2 years after being in the same place for 30?
Come on RC….give us your best argument…can’t wait to here it. What she didn’t do her dishes for two days? Too many collectibles? Hmmm.
Apples and oranges, Ships.
The issue is the shift in how a meeting of the minds works with respect to time. This legislation makes a point in time agreement permanent where it is currently for a mutually agreed period of time. That’s screwed up.
Refusing to negotiate a contract based on class status is a different issue.
Concerning the 102 year old, I understand the owner of the property wants his daughter to live in the space.
I don’t have a problem with that. He should be able to house his family in a property he owns. He has an absolute right to do just that.
*Oh my, the Glass is half full argument. Please! If someone rents a property….the concept is that a normal yearly lease establishes a certain amount of predisposition. The cost of moving, if you haven’t checked is huge. Most people do not have a hand bag and a pillow case to move. Therefore, if you are so concerned with Property Rights, do this make the time certain….15 minutes and see how many takers you get. There is a Time in Grade Issue here. Normally, Landlords don’t keep people for over three years unless they are consider “Good Renters”. Normally, the notice for someone like the 102 old, would have been 1 year. So what was the notice again? 90 Days? Yeah, we got that too after 8 years and paying out of our own pocker for outside upgrades to the property along the way.. No sir, there needs to be some clarity here which does not include, asking a 102 year old to move because your flaky teenage daughter can’t find a roommate that will put up with her!.
You’re inventing facts. Stop.
The notice to terminate a month-to-month lease (which is the lease in question believe it or not) is not one year. That’s just nonsense. It varies by location, but 90 days is quite reasonable. This was a month-to-month.
I’m pretty sure 102 years old qualifies one as an adult. An adult can make a decision to enter into a long-term lease or a short-term lease, the former having a more significant financial commitment versus the latter in exchange for higher risk.
I don’t know anything about this individual’s daughter, flakey or otherwise, but you’re willingness to assign such a negative adjective along with inventing facts to support your case are both evidence of bias.
Perhaps you ought to take a step back and consider this in broader light. Specifically, why you find it reasonable to confine a landlord to a permanent condition while allowing the tenant to leave a lease at the end of term without “good cause”.
While moving does cost quite a bit, so does leaving a space vacant while a new tenant search occurs. I agree that a certain reliance occurs over long-term occupancy (which is much more significant in mobile homes including a tenant’s capital investment), it also includes significant avoided costs associated with ownership. After all, the only real benefit from renting is lower outlay in the short term. Yet here we are proposing to tilt the equilibrium from one party to another without any appreciation for how the market will react to upending one party’s rights.
At the end of this, you have 1000 years of contract theory that respects the rights of adults to enter into mutually beneficial commercial arrangements, and in the other you have politicians who want to give away free crap in exchange for votes.
In this case, the free crap is a relief of adult responsibility, specifically the responsibility to make smart long term financial choices and risk.
That’s not worth lowering the number of suppliers willing to enter the rental housing market. The result of a stupid policy like this one is increased housing scarcity, which either gets resolved with waiting lists, higher rent, and/or poorer living conditions.
I’m not too worried about tilting things too far in the direction of tenants. Here’s the practical effects on the ground of such a bill:
– It gives tenants an extra incentive to be well-behaved, because now they really have a stake in it, a reward for it. That’s good for owners.
– Generally, the bona fide necessity to use a house for owner occupancy, or for that of a family member, is considered good cause. So there’s no massive incursion on property rights there.
– Landlords will generally be better equipped for any lawsuit, and there’s a “loser pays” provision, which discourages both frivolous lawsuits and frivolous defenses.
– Tenants who do sue their landlords get written into the book of Bad Tenants, along with those who get evicted, don’t pay off their total rent due, destroy their property beyond their damage deposit, etc. They — along with the increasingly large numbers of tenants with bad credit — will then have trouble rending in OC. So suing a landlord over unlawful eviction will not be a step to be taken lightly.
You’re far exaggerating the danger of this. Meanwhile, you seem to give no weight to the negative externalities, such as yanking kids out of a school because their parents are evicted despite being good tenants, and may not be able to find new housing — and may end up on the street.
You don’t seem to think that renters have cognizable rights. As you like to say: noted. But they have statutory rights that override the common law, An this can and should be one of them
*We love the MY Property Right or Wrong Argument. However, you have to ask yourself a couple of questions: (1) Are there Slumlords in The OC? (2) Is there sexual harrassment by Property Owners? In a buyers market where every other house is empty….do you call that Market Driven Economics? (4) In a thin market, where Rental Property is at a Premium…..is it OK to arbitrarily kick out long term
renters just to kick up the rent? (the 90 Day Provision?).
Our point is simple – Fair is Fair. In the days when the owner/managers of Lido Isle were giving out Toasters and begging people to move there…was that an imposition on the Property Owner? How about giving out $10,000 Community
Club Membership to get people to move into Big Canyon? How about discounting $8 million dollar homes in Newport Coast to get folks to flip their property and jack up prices? Yeah, the joys of home ownership go this way:
(1) Your happiest day – when you buy it. (2) The most happiest day – when you sell it. This applies of course to Yachts, Designer and Collectible Autos, Art and any other Object D’Art! So RC, we feel your pain, however – abuse of those under your aegis….is not attractive! We have experienced some wonderful landlords and some very bad ones…..One thing is certain: In a growing society
the norms need to be spelled out to avoid the many issues, which used to include landlords taking off the front door – because someone didn’t pay their rent. Now, the OC Sheriff’s come out and either ask you to vacate premises or be arrested. Dr. Greg, has it correctly – regarding those renters which want to fight the system……it is a very painful process and can have very painful repercussions!
“We love the MY Property Right or Wrong Argument.”
I don’t. It’s usually a variation on “keep your big government hands off my medicare!”-style arguments: disingenuous, contradictory.
The Developer money will be pouring in like a flood in Oklahoma! Remember the mantra of the Republican Party: “Renters are lower than Whale Snot!” The chances of passage of any meaningful reform for Renters must come City by City….as it has in Santa Monica and others. The Reps from Modoc County could care less. The best that can be expected is to set limits on Annual rate increases. However, then the Owners balk because they claim they have to make upgrades and put in new equipment….And so it goes! The good news is that The Trumpster is holding back Immigrants that would normally crank up the Rental Rates….by creating the higher demand. By the way, if anyone notices, the price of autos is staying low, because the immigrants are not coming in to buy and the amount of cars on the lots good up every day.
Someone is getting sloppy: Bill’s author is Sen. Durazo. Bill passed on reconsideration 37-0.
Someone was in a rush and dealing with several other things online, and is much worse at proofreading than he once was. Thank you for reading so closely. I’ve corrected the authorship error (not sure how that happened) and included the intended discussion of the other Democratic No votes besides Gagliani.
Word online is that State Senators has not been getting many calls on this, but as of yesterday they are starting to come in. So those interested in calling Umberg should do so!
*As we said….those of us that are happy with their Rental issues…..we have to just “dummy up”. Those that have been hammered by “Slum Lords” that kick people out after many years……well, we have done that too! In any event, many times it is not that great to even own the property…..because Government has a wonderful way of screwing those folks too!
“That’s not worth lowering the number of suppliers willing to enter the rental housing market.”
An odd claim; in effect, Ryan is suggesting suppliers need to be able to act maliciously in order to enter the rental housing market. Most theories of free market assume reasonable buyers and sellers; why should a rule barring malicious constraints interfere with that? And why should anyone assume landlords need the ‘freedom to be malicious’ in order to freely contract?
No I’m not.
Never said anything remotely resembling that anyone should any maliciously.
Come on now.
Ryan – aside from the definitions, in its current form, 701 sets some rules for associations, 702 sets some rules for their operation, and 703 sets penalties for interference with associations (the important ones – the punitives – for malice, fraud, or oppression).
Your earlier arguments about the threat to 1000 years of contract law, the loss of property on the free market, the inability for meetings of the mind etc. if this bill goes forward indicate that you see some serious threat in this bill.
But the text mainly raises penalties for interfering with tenant rights to band together – penalties of 703. Those penalties are only a meaningful threat to landlords who intend to act maliciously (or fraudulently or oppressively – I’m not completely certain where the lines are drawn).
I wrote that after reading the current terms of the bill (omitting the struck text), which to my eye, don’t actually do that much in terms of penalizing gouging. Tenants can form a tenant association (and why not?) – landlords cannot interfere with those associations.
The only real obligations created by this law concern the notice terms – what is the threat to the free market arising from mandating ‘clear terms’ – unless someone needs to refrain from providing notice, or requires doing so ambiguously? I can understand economic and similar complaints about the bill as previously written, but in its present form, it’s basically a ‘tenant associations’ bill, rather than a ‘rent gouging’ bill.
SF Weekly reports that it died by one vote – http://www.sfweekly.com/news/state-bill-to-protect-organized-tenants-from-eviction-fails/
*As we said initially: “The Big Developer Money will roll in and that will be the end of it.”
The concept of a Tenant Association is so foreign to The OC Real Estate Market
that we could hardly take the proposal seriously. “Tenant Associations” may work in SF or some places in SD….but the rest of the State has more diverse problems. If you were talking about tenement living with say 30 or 40 renters, you might have a good argument….but even then….you usually have a Super
for those facilities that lives in the complex. Renters go to the Super to repair
toilets and sinks, broken infrastructure that includes electrical outlets, plumbing of various issues which includes showers and tubs. Flooring, holes in the plaster board and limited painting. These facilities can fall into the Slum Category when the Owner fails to empower the Super or the Super is ripping off the renters and not spending for repairs that are needed. If the Renters call The Board of Health and ask for an inspection…….especially for mold or infestations of cockroaches or other vermin…including rats…..usually, the owner gets written up and has to make the necessary corrective action. When they don’t, the County or sometimes the City can fine the Owner a great deal. So, the reality is that you really don’t need a “Tenant Association” to accomplish these things!
Usually, when the Renter that called in the Health Department is found, they have an immediate rental increase and are put on a marked for eviction list.
Property Rights……Hmmmm.