Several EXTREMELY HARMFUL, proposed State Bills were able to make it out of Committees and are NOW up for “floor review” in their house of origin (Senate or Assembly). We need all members to call the state representatives in the districts where you own property and tell them to VOTE NO on the following destructive, proposed bills:
- Assembly Bill 2216 (Required Acceptance of Pets) – This bill will prohibit a rental housing provider from asking a rental applicant if they will have a pet living with them in the rental unit. The proposed bill does not allow rental housing providers to charge pet deposits or fees to offset and recover potential damages caused by pets. (UPDATE: This bill is now dead!)
- Assembly Bill 2347 (Extended Time for Tenant to Respond to Eviction Complaint) – This bill will extend the time a defendant in an unlawful detainer (eviction) lawsuit has to respond from five court days to ten court days (e.g., excludes court holidays and weekends) after the complaint is served on the defendant.
- Assembly Bill 2493 (Restrictions on Charging Applicant Screening Fees) – This bill will prohibit charging applicant screening fees unless a housing provider permits the use of a “reusable screening platform” (see definition below) or when a housing provider knows or should have known no unit is available for rent. The bill also requires that housing providers deliver to each applicant a copy of their screening report within seven days. Lastly, the bill requires that housing providers select from the pool of qualified applicants meeting their screening criteria in the order received – in other words, property owners will be required to select the “first” applicant meeting their rental criteria, and not the “best” overall applicant. (Note: A “reusable screening platform” means a service that allows an applicant to pay one fee that entitles the applicant to submit ten or more credit history and criminal background reports with rental applications within a period of not less than 30 days.)
- Assembly Constitutional Amendment 10 – This bill would amend California’s Constitution and require that the state recognizes the fundamental human right to adequate housing for everyone in California. The measure would obligate state and local jurisdictions to respect, protect, and fulfill this right, by all appropriate means, including through expanded tenant protections and lower “rent caps,” free legal representation for tenants, and similar anti-landlord rights measures.
- Senate Bill 1201 (Disclosure Requirement for Beneficial Owners of Corporations) – This bill will require that any “beneficial owner” (see definition below) of more than 10% of a corporate entity provide an annual statement containing their names and complete business or residence addresses under penalty of perjury.
(Note: A “beneficial owner” is a person that has ownership receives the benefits of ownership without being on title of an asset.)
ACT NOW! Please contact your state elected representatives in the State Assembly (for A.B. 2216, A.B. 2347, A.B. 2493, and ACA 10), and contact your elected representatives in the California Senate about S.B. 1201. Look-up your representatives using the link below for any and all districts in California where you own properties – Please call rather than email for best impact! Be sure to let your representatives know that you either live or own property in the legislators’ district! LOOK UP YOUR LEGISLATORS HERE: https://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov.
Further details about these proposed, harmful State bills along with the reasons elected officials absolutely should oppose the bills and VOTE NO follows. Please continue reading.
More About Assembly Bill 2216 (Haney)
Please tell your elected state representatives in the California Assembly to VOTE NO on Assembly Bill 2216 (Asm. Haney). Allowing pets in residential rental units should be decided at the time of negotiating a lease agreement between property owners and renters, not by government mandates. While many rental property owners in California allow pets, others do not and have significant concerns for the following reasons:
- Owners Can be Liable or Falsely Sued: Property owners may face liability risks if a tenant’s pet injures a resident or visitor at a rental property. Even if property owners are not directly responsible, they could still be held liable or accused of liability and incur costs associated with their legal defense for real or alleged damages or injuries resulting from the pet’s actions.
- Property Insurance Claims or Canceled Insurance: A claim filed against the property owner’s insurance, whether the property owner is liable or not, can result in loss of insurance coverage or substantial increases to insurance premiums. Today, California faces a major insurance crisis, and it has become difficult for property owners to not only secure affordable coverage, but any coverage whatsoever, and at the same time, despite significantly higher insurance premiums, the amount of coverage being provided is significantly less. Insurance companies will surely have yet another reason to cancel policies in the event A.B. 2216 is passed.
- Property Damage Caused by Pets: Pets can cause damage to rental property, and in some cases, the damage may be significant. The damage caused by pets could lead to costly repairs or replacements for a housing provider. This latest bill proposal by Assemblymember Haney is a double-“whammy” because just last year and effective on July 1, 2024, a bill by the same author (A.B. 12 by Asm. Haney) limits the amount of security deposit property owners may collect to only one month’s rent. Unfortunately, not all pet owners are responsible, and may leave pets unattended for several hours while at work or otherwise, resulting in excessive noise or damage to a rental unit. Additionally, not all pet owners clean up after their pets or walk them to appropriate areas to relieve themselves, which may result in unsanitary and unhealthy conditions at a rental property.
- Allergies and Health Concerns Will Prevent Renters from Obtaining Housing: Some tenants may have allergies to pet dander or fur, or have experienced past trauma from prior dog bites. It’s unfair to subject other tenants to the mental and physical stress caused by living among dogs that may appear to them as vicious. Passage of A..B 2216 will surely prevent individuals and families from obtaining housing in the event they have severe allergies or fear of bites.
- Pets Cause Noise and Disturbances: Pets, particularly dogs, can create noise disturbances for neighbors or other tenants in the building. Noise disturbances can lead to friction among neighbors at a property. As noted earlier, not all pet owners are responsible and may leave pets unattended for too many hours resulting in excessive barking or damage to a rental unit.
More About Assembly Bill 2347 (Kalra)
Please tell your elected State representatives in the California Assembly to VOTE NO on Assembly Bill 2347 (Asm. Kalra). The unlawful detainer (eviction) process in California already can take up to six months for full adjudication. This bill merely further delays a process that is already fraught with delays and extra time for tenant defendants who can make several rounds of initial rejections and appeals, request jury trials and continuances, and string out proceedings for many months while housing providers are unable to collect rent. This uncollected rent is then not received by property owners and not reported to the state or local jurisdictions, and as a result, the state and/or local jurisdictions lose desperately needed tax dollars. Passage of A.B. 2347 only means further pain and suffering being inflicted on the state’s rental housing providers who are still reeling from the impacts of uncollected rent and lack of rent increases during a period of hyper-inflation and COVID-era moratoriums.
More About Assembly Bill 2493 (Pellerin)
Please tell your elected state representatives in the California Assembly to VOTE NO on Assembly Bill 2493 (Asm. Pellerin). Assembly Bill 2493 will significantly increase a housing provider’s risk of legal exposure during the tenant screening process and will open housing providers up to additional risk of fraudulent documentation.
- Increased Legal Exposure: Housing providers will be required to select and approve all applicants on a “first completed application, first to meet criteria” basis, leaving them legally exposed to applicants who are denied but may wish to take issue with the selection process undertaken by the property owner. In addition, A.B. 2493 creates an express obligation on the part of the owner to provide a copy of the tenant screening report within seven days, and failure to do so inadvertently or otherwise could create legal exposure.
- Prohibition From Selecting “Best Applicant”: If A.B. 2493 passes, property owners must select on a “first applied, first to meet rental criteria basis.” However, not all applications or applicants are the same, and no longer will property owners be able to choose among the “top” applicants within a pool of applications received. Furthermore, this bill will make the applicant selection process confusing and open-up housing providers to legal exposure in the event their selection process does not comply with A.B. 2493.
- Delays in Leasing / Lost Income: The requirement under A.B. 2493 that housing providers choose and approve applicants in order received based upon having met established rental criteria could delay the leasing process, and accordingly, result in lost income. Applicants for rental housing often have several options under evaluation, and by requiring housing providers to select and approve applicants on an as received and as qualified basis, will often cause delays should the first applicant need additional time and then find other housing, and meanwhile, another qualified applicant may have also just “moved on.”
- Increased Document Fraud Potential: Fraudulent documentation during the screening process is a real and fast-growing problem. Over 80% of eviction cases started out with fraudulent documentation being provided during the screening process. The use of fake or doctored reusable tenant screening reports, along with the preponderance of other fake documentation (e.g., bank statements, paystubs, etc.) has been a costly problem for housing providers. According to document fraud detection service, Snappt, 93.3% of apartment owners, developers, and managers saw application fraud in the last 12 months, and the average fraud rate for 2023 was 7.9%.
More About Assembly Constitutional Amendment 10 (Haney)
Please tell your elected state representatives in the California Assembly to VOTE NO on Assembly Constitutional Amendment 10 (Asm. Haney). Assembly Constitutional Amendment 10 will obligate our state and local governments to respect, protect, and fulfill this right, by all appropriate means, meaning through expanded tenant protections and “rent caps,” use of eminent domain to acquire affordable housing, provide free legal representation to renters facing eviction (even if due to non-payment of rent or other lease violation), increased taxes levied to fund homeless solutions, and a number of other solutions that would severely restrict property rights and increase all types of fees and taxes. Moreover, once passed and signed by the Governor, and then voted on as a ballot measure, this change to the California Constitution would be very difficult to later amend, absent another vote of the people.
More About Senate Bill 1201 (Durazo)
Please tell your elected state representatives in the California Senate to VOTE NO on Senate Bill 1201 (Sen. Durazo). This bill will create a life and safety problem for all owners of rental housing throughout California by requiring disclosure and making a public record of all 10% or more beneficial owners of corporations’ names and addresses. In today’s political environment, with the volatile discourse occurring between tenant groups and owners of property, the passage of this bill will lead only to protests and destruction of property and individual homes and businesses.
Adding insult to injury, A.B. 1201 exempts major corporate owners that own property through Real Estate Investment Trusts (“REITs”), and also allows the California Secretary of State to impose more and more fees on corporate entities – this places the burden on smaller owners because REITs are exempt, and the entire burden of increased fees will impact smaller businesses throughout the state, rather than larger corporations.
Help Stop the Insanity – Here’s What You Can Do to Help
IF YOU ARE SICK AND TIRED OF THE CONSTANT BARRAGE OF HARMFUL REGULATIONS, PLEASE CONSIDER MAKING A CONTRIBUTION TO AOA’S POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE.
Please, please donate NOW! You can contribute online at https://aoausa.com/pac/ or mail the coupon below with your check made payable and addressed to AOA PAC to 6445 Sepulveda, Suite 100, Van Nuys, CA 91411.