Yeah, this is late notice, but it’s imperative that if Tom Umberg or Dave Min is your State Senator, that you call them today – MONDAY APRIL 24 – because tomorrow, Tuesday, the Homelessness Prevention Act is being voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which they both sit, and neither Democrat has committed to supporting this vital legislation. In fact, Umberg is the CHAIR of that committee, so if he wanted to he could KILL this bill in his infancy – but you won’t, right, Tom?
- UMBERG (representing Santa Ana, Orange, Fullerton, most of Anaheim, La Habra, Placentia, and parts of Long Beach & Whittier) – (714) 558-3785 or (916) 651-4034.
- MIN (representing Irvine, Anaheim Hills, Costa Mesa, Tustin, Laguna & Newport Beach, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, & parts of Orange & Huntington Beach) – 949.223.5472 or 916.651.4037.
NOW you want to know – as well you should – “What IS this HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION ACT?” Lawmakers are sometimes a bit clever when nicknaming their bills, but “Homelessness Prevention Act” is a VERY appropriate name for Senator Maria Elena Durazo’s SB 567 – if it passes its greatest effect would be preventing the homelessness of thousands and thousands of tenants over the coming years … and we don’t need more homelessness out there, do we?
But basically, SB 567 is a revisiting and strengthening of 2020’s AB 1482, “the Tenants Protection Act,” which was certainly progress but very compromised and full of holes – it’s been largely unenforced including here in Anaheim, there were too many loopholes in the eviction protections, and the yearly rent increase cap of CPI + 5% generally means an unmanageable 10% raise per year. It’s high time to revisit and strengthen the Tenants Protection Act, and that’s what we’re doing here.
- FACT. The nonpartisan US Government Accountability Office has determined that a $100 increase in rent prices translates to a 9% increase in homelessness – THUS, SB 567 is properly called the Homelessness Prevention Act.
- FACT. CORPORATE LANDLORDS – who are by far the worst offenders, not the mom-and-pop landlords down the road – raked in $55 BILLION since COVID times. Nobody is driving them bankrupt or trying to.
Here’s a FACT SHEET for the bill, and here’s a real handy SUMMARY and FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS. But its basic three components as I mentioned are:
- Lowering AB 1482’s rent cap from what’s generally 10% right now (CPI plus 5%) to JUST CPI, and NO HIGHER THAN 5% (rent raise per year!)
- Closing existing, and commonly exploited, loopholes in “no fault” eviction protection (click here for the gory details)
- And adding some enforceability, or TEETH, to this thing! We’ve already noticed, particularly in the Spanish-speaking sections of Anaheim, landlords continuing to behave as though AB 1482 never happened – and most of the tenants don’t know any better either. Click here for the details on more effective ENFORCEMENT.
Dispelling some myths.
The side with all the money in a political disagreement is always real creative in devising and propagating certain MYTHS, to help keep things going the way they want. I mean, they got loads of capable people on their PAYROLL whose very bread and butter is the creation of these myths! Here are a few:
- “Nobody’s gonna want to develop new housing any more, it won’t be worth it.” BULLSHIT. Under both existing AB 1482 and proposed SB 567, new properties ARE EXEMPT FROM RENT CAPS FOR 15 YEARS. Besides that, a USC review of numerous rent control studies showed that ordinances like this have little to no impact on new construction.
- “Why should anyone build affordable housing now?” DUMB QUESTION. For one thing, affordable housing units are exempt from the existing law (AB 1482) and that won’t change under SB 567. This bill does not impact affordable housing rent caps.
- A friend of mine who calls himself “a good landlord” frets that with rent control, most landlords will not be motivated to keep up their properties and then we’ll have substandard housing… because they’re not making a profit! COME ON! Of COURSE they’ll still be making a profit and will need to fulfill their responsibilities! How did the cap in AB 1482 come to include CPI PLUS 5% ANYWAY? Why should landlords enjoy some God-given right to INCREASE THEIR PROFITS 5% EVERY YEAR? Enough already, people are hurting! Let me remind you again – CORPORATE LANDLORDS RAKED IN $55 BILLION SINCE COVID TIMES.
Mobile Home Owners are Screwed as Always
(thanks to John Saunders of course)
We’d been following the progress of Assemblyman Muratsuchi’s AB 1035, which aimed to extend the protections of the Tenants Protection Act (AB 1482) to the more-and-more rent-gouged, and often elderly, population of mobile home owners. And we were devastated to hear that a powerful committee chair had changed that into a “two-year bill” which means it’ll be put off another year or two.
Well, now we’ve learned why – everyone is waiting for the outcome of rent-gouging Mobile Home Park speculator John Saunders’ (left) LAWSUIT against Sharon Quirk-Silva’s AB 978 for unfairly singling out his Rancho La Paz park for protection.
And as it turns out one of the original intentions of this new Homelessness Prevention Act was to “expand the protected population” by including mobile home owners … but that just got amended OUT of the act (hopefully temporarily), again, because of Saunders’ lawsuit. So, go to hell, John Saunders!
If you’ve read this far…
Don’t forget the important thing today (Monday) is to call Senator Umberg at (916) 651-4034 and/or Senator Min at (916) 651-4037 and ask them urgently to support the Homelessness Prevention Act in their Judiciary Committee tomorrow (Tuesday.) And if you’re still not convinced, then maybe this letter from A VERITABLE S-LOAD of caring organizations will help:
Dear Senator Durazo:
Our organizations are pleased to support SB 567, the Homelessness Prevention Act, which will protect California renters from unjust evictions and exorbitant rent increases. According to a recent study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, a $100 median rent increase led to a 9% increase in homelessness. By enacting these protections your bill promises to prevent more people from being pushed into homelessness and provide greater housing stability for low-income renters, predominantly people of color, who are disproportionately impacted by the state’s housing crisis.
In 2019, California enacted AB 1482 (Chiu), the Tenant Protection Act (TPA), which provided some protections for certain California renters. For renters covered by the TPA, it established both a rent cap to prevent the most egregious rent gouging and just cause eviction protections that for the first time at the state level provided that renters cannot be evicted unless the landlord can establish that they have a valid reason for the eviction. These just cause protections allow a landlord to evict a tenant for at-fault causes such as non-payment of rent, but limit the circumstances in which a landlord can evict a tenant when the tenant is not at fault.
While helpful, the TPA left numerous loopholes leaving renters vulnerable to homelessness. After several years of experience with the TPA, we know that the state’s renters need more. Too many tenants remain unprotected, rents are still allowed to be increased beyond what most renters can afford, and loopholes in the current law have led to widespread abuses that leave many covered renters vulnerable to eviction even when they are in compliance with their lease.
Between 2017 and 2022, homelessness increased 30% across the state, faster than anywhere else in the country. Now that eviction moratoriums and many of the pandemic-era renter protections that kept families housed are gone, homelessness will continue to rise at an even faster rate unless we act. Over the last several years, property values have increased substantially. As landlords and homeowners continue to grow their equity, essentially profiting off of the state’s dire housing shortage, we must ensure renters have housing stability by limiting rent increases and strengthening eviction protections.
Our organizations hear from renters every day who are facing rent increases or no-fault evictions who are either not covered by the TPA or for whom the protections of the TPA’s no-fault just cause provisions are illusory. Rapidly rising rents are endemic in California and threaten the stability of all renter households, yet the TPA leaves hundreds of thousands of renters unprotected by allowing unlimited rent increases for renters living in most single-family homes and condos. Even those who are protected by the TPA’s rent cap provisions can face a rent increase of as high as 10% each year, far too high for many struggling renters and unnecessary for landlords–increasingly large corporate entities–to make a reasonable return on their investment.
One of the central goals of the TPA was to prevent unjust evictions without cause. Unfortunately, for covered renters, those protections do not even begin until they have lived in their home for at least 12 months and sometimes not until two years into their tenancy. Additionally, once covered by this protection, renters too often find that the “no-fault” provisions that allow an eviction for owner-move-in, substantial rehabilitation, or withdrawal of the unit from the rental market provide no meaningful protection at all. Landlords too easily claim to be doing one of these things without any requirement of proof or any post-eviction obligation to follow through. “Withdrawal from the rental market” and “substantial rehabilitation” in particular have become magic words for landlords seeking a free pass to avoid all of the protections of the TPA.
Because the law lacks sufficient parameters–parameters that are common in many locally enacted rent stabilization ordinances–landlords can assert a no-fault just cause as the reason for eviction without having to prove anything about their actual intent. Tenants facing an unjust eviction cloaked in these magic words are nearly powerless to defend themselves. The result is rising evictions and, for the most vulnerable tenants, the very real prospect of homelessness.
SB 567 responds to the present-day reality faced by millions of California renters and provides greater housing stability for more renter households by strengthening the Tenant Protection Act, closing easily exploitable loopholes, and providing for robust enforcement. The bill:
- Lowers the annual rent cap to the increase in the consumer price index (CPI) or 5%,
whichever is lower. - Provides greater specificity around the allowable “no fault” just causes for eviction to
address rampant abuse of these provisions. - Requires just cause to evict tenants from the beginning of a tenancy.
- Enhances tenants’ ability to defend themselves in eviction cases by requiring landlords
to strictly comply with the TPA. - Expands both public and private enforcement of the TPA.
As inflation soars, and state and local eviction protections enacted during the pandemic come to an end, the gaps in existing state protections are impacting more and more renters, who are facing significant rent increases and a spike in “no fault” evictions. The Homelessness Prevention Act will provide critical safeguards to stop abuses and ensure that renters can stay in their homes.
Thank you for your leadership on this important issue. We look forward to working with you to enact these critical protections.
CLICK HERE FOR THE LIST OF SIGNATORIES, IT IS TOO DAMN LONG.
Now call Tom and Dave.
I called!
Thanks once again for your efforts to spread the truths that need to be shared.
GO TO HELL, JOHN SAUNDERS!
At 11:12 this morning (before *I* called him and spoke to a very friendly lady who said she’d “Add me to the list”) Min tweeted:
“I don’t know who needs to hear this, but the tactics of trying to intimidate or bully my staff to try to lobby me on a particular bill are VERY counterproductive.”
WTF? I don’t know this guy well, but it sounds like “If you bug me too much on an issue you care about, I’ll just do the opposite.” Did anyone really “intimidate or bully his staff?”
https://twitter.com/SenDaveMin/status/1650563353176334342?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Hat-tip the Angry Armenian American.
Wow. Really fucking stupid move. But very telling.
Reminds me of Tom Daly who used to ALWAYS complain about being “browbeat” by “progressives.” And Correa who still does.
Jury’s still out, I hope Min is better than that…
Your hope always springs eternal.
Nearly.
Watching the judiciary hearings now, will live-blog.
PS you type-a guys who are always brimming with cynicism and pessimism, are just as often proven wrong as I am.
Or nearly.
Incorrect You can never go broke underestimating the moral fiber of politicians.
It’s not about a disagreement on their moral fiber, but the fact that sometimes for ONE reason or another they can surprise you and do the right thing.
My wife is like you, always expecting the absolute worst, and then she says “Well sometimes I’m wrong but at least I’m never disappointed.” I on the other hand need a reason to get out of bed in the morning.
This is not a defense of Min, but just pointing out the difference between what Min criticized: “the tactics of trying to bully or intimidate my staff to lobby me…”
If that “bullying or intimidation of his subordinates” is what really happened, then his reaction might be understandable. A boss protecting one’s subordinates from some sorts of abusive actions seems admirable. The question is: WERE these abusive actions?
The problem with this protectiveness against “abuse by the public” is that it creates a gaping exception that can swallow the core Democratic rule of allowing public petitions of grievances. Frankly, it’s really easy, convenient, and hard to check to assert that something beyond what’s acceptable has taken place. If someone purporting to favor a bill makes threats to a subordinate, call the cops
But is telling a subordinate that it will simply stain their reputation if they are working for a deciding vote about such legislation without trying to influence their boss to do otherwise — which, after all, may be true! — something that should weigh against the side of the issue being considered? Frankly, I think that that’s bad policymaking.
If one wants staff that will not develop their own views on issues, will not listen to the public, and that are too frail to be subjected to public condemnation of their boss’s votes, then just put that in the published job description. Yes, there’s a point at which such argument can become abusive — but it’s a pretty damned high threshold.
If Min thinks that this threshold was met, he should be completely clear about what happened and what was wrong with it — so perhaps activists can warn their colleagues not to cross that (presumably high) line.
But Min should recognize that he leaves himself open to the conclusion that he simply wants to stifle criticism of himself by rendering it counterproductive — which is a shitty thing to do to people who may be harmed by his vote, it should be unnecessary to add — and that he himself will be judged accordingly.
Min should understand that OC has a long history of better legislators being convinced to get worse ones to stand with them on decisively bad committee votes. If there was any pressure, in either direction, between Umberg and Min for the other to fall in line to give the requester cover, I consider it an extremely important story. Anyone aware of this should send a leak to the VOC, perhaps with a link to this comment. (We don’t have the investigative capacity to do it Justice.)
No one bullied, there was chanting singing posters and community members sharing stories. People were rallied outside Min nor his staff were available it would be hard to identify staff as there all nestled in offices various floor levels, consistent traffic flow in lobby heavy security it would be a gross move that breaks moral policies for any supporter to approach anyone whether they are on his staff or any others this was a clear attempt to defame the character of those who ask for these leaders to think beyond their pockets.
To remember that families are important even though Sacramento families work hard just because they can’t afford to line their pockets, doesn’t mean the corporate entities who are being supported by these gentlemen should have anymore access then what’s already set aside for them.
Hence the first word of my paragraph being “If.” As in “even if we assume that X happened, it doesn’t justify Y response.
To reiterate: even if come people had been “bullying” (by Min’s or his staff’s standards, which I expect would be inappropriately dismissive of critical political speech), his reaction that he may vote based on his rejection of those (supposedly bad) actions — without even bothering to spell them out! — was inappropriate. (Of course, he has bigger problems than this now.)
Min showed a hand with this lie . It would have been impossible to know who his staff were if there were any available .
Since it’s baseball season. It’s a mad, mad, mad world!
https://www.tiktok.com/@pitchingninja/video/7192281868262264107
Both Friedman and Krugman agreed that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of available housing.
Fuck those guys.
That’s not true! The only conversations continuing to be had attention given to homeless crisis is to build more properties but who owns those properties Who gets into those properties SB567 would stop landlords from excessively increasing rents match the surrounding market rates, deliberately pursing a certain demographic of people.
SB567 would hold Prop Managers & landlords accountable for all repairs that are considered normal wear and tear instead of opting out but using renovations laws but never making repairs or evicting tenants prior to making repairs once repaired increasing rents instead of allowing tenants the opportunity to continue to pay to live in a unit that is up to code .
You are making perceptive comments here and I hope that you’ll consider doing so under your own name. But even if not, you’re still safely within the site rules against making anonymous attacks on others, so carry on.