News

State Legislature approves — and limits — eviction protections amid pandemic

Assembly Bill 3088 will create a 'transition period' requiring partial pay between September and February

On Aug. 31, California lawmakers approved AB 3088, which extends the state's moratorium on evictions until Feb. 1, 2021, while requiring renters to make partial payments. Embarcadero Media file photo.

Hours before California's eviction ban was set to expire, state legislators approved a bill Monday that will extend temporary — and limited — protections to tenants who can't pay their rent because of pandemic-related hardships.

After several days of negotiations, both houses of the state Legislature voted Aug. 31 to approve Assembly Bill 3088. The bill creates a "transition period" between Sept. 1 and Jan. 31, during which time tenants who attest to experiencing financial hardships are required to pay 25% of their rent to qualify for eviction protections.

The bill, which Gov. Gavin Newsom negotiated with state legislators and apartment builders late last week, cleared the Senate Monday afternoon by a 33-2 vote, with Sens. Patricia Bates, R-Laguna Niguel, and Mike Morrell, R-Rancho Cucamonga, dissenting and five other senators abstaining. Later in the evening, just two hours before the eviction moratorium was set to expire, the Assembly approved the bill by a 56-8 vote.

Authored by Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, the bill is a marked departure from his prior proposal to extend eviction protections. That bill, known as AB 1436, would have prohibited eviction of tenants who couldn't pay rent because of pandemic-related hardships either until April 2021 or until 90 days after the state lifts its state of emergency, whichever date is earlier.

Supporters of AB 3088 acknowledged Monday that the bill is a stop-gap measure and that legislators will need to do far more to support both tenants and landlords in their next session. The choice, they said, was taking this limited step or doing nothing at all and risking mass evictions when current eviction protections expire.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Mountain View Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

The move took on particular urgency on Aug. 13, when the Judicial Council of California voted to end its ban on eviction proceedings, effective midnight on Sept. 1. Chiu called the bill an "imperfect but necessary solution to an enormous crisis."

"If we don't act by midnight tonight, any tenant who'd been unable to pay any and all unpaid rent, would immediately have to pay that rent back or be subject to an eviction," Chiu said Monday evening, less than three hours before the moratorium's expiration. "A wave of massive eviction would be catastrophic — catastrophic for homelessness and COVID-19 spread. It would turn this recession into a Great Depression."

Sen. Anna Caballero, D-Salinas, made a similar point earlier in the day, in advocating for the bill on the Senate floor. Caballero said the legislators need to "establish new protections to get us through the next few months to prevent a wave of mass evictions in the middle of a public health emergency with no clear end in sight."

"The unprecedented job loss experienced by tenants have left many landlords struggling to cover the rents and responsibilities they have," Caballero said. "This burden is especially hard for small mom-and-pop landlords who depend on rental income to cover their living expenses."

Sen. Steven Bradford, D-Gardena, called the bill "a six-month bridge for both tenants and landlords."

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

"It's a compromise that the legislators and stakeholders can support and it will keep both tenants and landlords viable and afloat for the next six months," Bradford said.

While the compromise easily cleared the Legislature, it faced some critics from both sides of the political spectrum. Bates voted against it, saying it doesn't offer enough protections for landlords and does not go far enough in requiring tenants to provide proof of hardship. Tenant advocates, including the San Francisco-based group Tenants Together, argued that the new bill is both too weak and too complex.

The group argued that the bill's "complex provisions will make the legislation inaccessible to renters and the public." Lupe Arreola, executive director of Tenants Together, said in a statement that Newsom's compromise with the legislators "passes the low bar of it being better than nothing."

"If he cannot convince the legislature to pass a decent proposal, he must step up and use his executive power to enact a true eviction moratorium before evictions resume Sept. 1. California's 18 million renters are counting on him."

The California Apartment Association, meanwhile, lauded the new bill, which it characterized as a major improvement over AB 1436. The Sacramento-based group, which represents owners of rental properties, praised legislators for advancing legislation that includes "protections for tenants truly harmed by COVID, while ensuring that owners can evict nuisance tenants and residents who can afford to pay rent but choose to game the system instead," according to a statement from Tom Bannon, CEO of the group.

Find comprehensive coverage on the Midpeninsula's response to the new coronavirus by Palo Alto Online, the Mountain View Voice and the Almanac here.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

State Legislature approves — and limits — eviction protections amid pandemic

Assembly Bill 3088 will create a 'transition period' requiring partial pay between September and February

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Tue, Sep 1, 2020, 9:56 am

Hours before California's eviction ban was set to expire, state legislators approved a bill Monday that will extend temporary — and limited — protections to tenants who can't pay their rent because of pandemic-related hardships.

After several days of negotiations, both houses of the state Legislature voted Aug. 31 to approve Assembly Bill 3088. The bill creates a "transition period" between Sept. 1 and Jan. 31, during which time tenants who attest to experiencing financial hardships are required to pay 25% of their rent to qualify for eviction protections.

The bill, which Gov. Gavin Newsom negotiated with state legislators and apartment builders late last week, cleared the Senate Monday afternoon by a 33-2 vote, with Sens. Patricia Bates, R-Laguna Niguel, and Mike Morrell, R-Rancho Cucamonga, dissenting and five other senators abstaining. Later in the evening, just two hours before the eviction moratorium was set to expire, the Assembly approved the bill by a 56-8 vote.

Authored by Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, the bill is a marked departure from his prior proposal to extend eviction protections. That bill, known as AB 1436, would have prohibited eviction of tenants who couldn't pay rent because of pandemic-related hardships either until April 2021 or until 90 days after the state lifts its state of emergency, whichever date is earlier.

Supporters of AB 3088 acknowledged Monday that the bill is a stop-gap measure and that legislators will need to do far more to support both tenants and landlords in their next session. The choice, they said, was taking this limited step or doing nothing at all and risking mass evictions when current eviction protections expire.

The move took on particular urgency on Aug. 13, when the Judicial Council of California voted to end its ban on eviction proceedings, effective midnight on Sept. 1. Chiu called the bill an "imperfect but necessary solution to an enormous crisis."

"If we don't act by midnight tonight, any tenant who'd been unable to pay any and all unpaid rent, would immediately have to pay that rent back or be subject to an eviction," Chiu said Monday evening, less than three hours before the moratorium's expiration. "A wave of massive eviction would be catastrophic — catastrophic for homelessness and COVID-19 spread. It would turn this recession into a Great Depression."

Sen. Anna Caballero, D-Salinas, made a similar point earlier in the day, in advocating for the bill on the Senate floor. Caballero said the legislators need to "establish new protections to get us through the next few months to prevent a wave of mass evictions in the middle of a public health emergency with no clear end in sight."

"The unprecedented job loss experienced by tenants have left many landlords struggling to cover the rents and responsibilities they have," Caballero said. "This burden is especially hard for small mom-and-pop landlords who depend on rental income to cover their living expenses."

Sen. Steven Bradford, D-Gardena, called the bill "a six-month bridge for both tenants and landlords."

"It's a compromise that the legislators and stakeholders can support and it will keep both tenants and landlords viable and afloat for the next six months," Bradford said.

While the compromise easily cleared the Legislature, it faced some critics from both sides of the political spectrum. Bates voted against it, saying it doesn't offer enough protections for landlords and does not go far enough in requiring tenants to provide proof of hardship. Tenant advocates, including the San Francisco-based group Tenants Together, argued that the new bill is both too weak and too complex.

The group argued that the bill's "complex provisions will make the legislation inaccessible to renters and the public." Lupe Arreola, executive director of Tenants Together, said in a statement that Newsom's compromise with the legislators "passes the low bar of it being better than nothing."

"If he cannot convince the legislature to pass a decent proposal, he must step up and use his executive power to enact a true eviction moratorium before evictions resume Sept. 1. California's 18 million renters are counting on him."

The California Apartment Association, meanwhile, lauded the new bill, which it characterized as a major improvement over AB 1436. The Sacramento-based group, which represents owners of rental properties, praised legislators for advancing legislation that includes "protections for tenants truly harmed by COVID, while ensuring that owners can evict nuisance tenants and residents who can afford to pay rent but choose to game the system instead," according to a statement from Tom Bannon, CEO of the group.

Find comprehensive coverage on the Midpeninsula's response to the new coronavirus by Palo Alto Online, the Mountain View Voice and the Almanac here.

Comments

Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Sep 1, 2020 at 3:21 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Sep 1, 2020 at 3:21 pm

From what I understand, all you need is to document you lost your job due to COVID and that establishes your qualification for this protection. Landlords are not entitled to investigate your finances if you prove your getting unemployment insurance.

This is going to drive many landlords here crazy, because it will require them to wait until after the legislation expires before going to civil court.

Unless the COVID situation extends further, thus this legislation may be extended until the COVID crisis is over.

I would not hold my breath. I would plan on this going to continue till the end of 2021.

The landlords should be lobbying to get unemployment insurance boosted to at least 85% or previous income for the long haul, thus they CAN get FULL rent. But are these people smart enough to understand this? Or are they simply ignoring the easy solution to this problem?


Gary
Registered user
Sylvan Park
on Sep 1, 2020 at 7:15 pm
Gary, Sylvan Park
Registered user
on Sep 1, 2020 at 7:15 pm

No Steven. Not it. Try it your way and send us a postcard from wherever you end up. This law is one of 3 laws landlords will need to follow. The other two are (1) the county ordinance and (2l the city ordinance.


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Sep 1, 2020 at 9:40 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Sep 1, 2020 at 9:40 pm

Gary,

You might be right, the CDC might order an eviction freeze

Here is this story (Web Link)

If you got a CARES payment or the enhanced unemployment in the past, you qualify for this eviction ban.

So now we have a federal ban, a state ban, a county ban, and a city ban.

How bad can it get for landlords?

I find it amazing that the CDC actually has this power. For Public Health impacts.

This order goes to the end of the year too.

Landlords are better to reduce their rents in order to provide more ability to have their rents paid, especially given that the city has seen a 15.9% loss of average rent in this year. Let alone the not reported reductions in current rents being paid voluntarily.


Gary
Registered user
Sylvan Park
on Sep 1, 2020 at 11:49 pm
Gary , Sylvan Park
Registered user
on Sep 1, 2020 at 11:49 pm

Don't forget to apply postage to your postcard. Check with the Postmaster General to ascertain the cost of that postage. Surely, he would know.


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Sep 2, 2020 at 1:41 am
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2020 at 1:41 am

Gary,

If I follow you, since the County and the City ordinances require eviction moratorium WITHOUT any partial payment for rent as long as one is unemployed due to COVID, are you saying that one should not make the partial payments?

Also, aren't the County and City required to comply with STATE laws?

I am very confused. Are you saying that the new State law does not count?

Are you saying that the CDC order does not count?

Please make it clear does the City eviction moratorium found here apply anymore (Web Link) It states:

Affected tenants need to:

Determine eligibility

A tenant must have a significant decrease in income because of the pandemic, like:

Job loss or layoff
Business, store or restaurant closure
Reduction in hours worked
Substantial decrease in business hours or demand
Need to care for homebound children or sick family members
Federal, State or local actions that prevent a tenant from working
-or-
Have substantial out-of-pocket medical expenses due to the pandemic"

Does the County eviction moratorium apply found here (Web Link)? It states:

"​If you are a tenant, you ​can use this form to provide your landlord with documentation of substantial income loss and/or substantial out-of-pocket medical expenses as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic as soon as possible.

Examples of substantial loss of income due to COVID-19 include:

Job loss or reduced work hours
Missed work to care for a family member infected with COVID-19 or a child due to school closure
If the business qualifies as a small business, closure of a place of business or substantial decrease in business income."

On both pages job loss or loss of income is grounds for the eviction moratorium. So proof of receiving unemployment insurances, like a printout of your Ca EDD bank card activities are proof enough. As long as during the previous month you received benefits.

Unless the County and the City requires more, but the text is clear, it doesn't require any financial disclosures from tenants to landlords. As long as you have proof you lost your job by no fault of your own and are receiving unemployment insurance.

Please your very confusing, why would anyone need a postcard if they are protected in this way?


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Sep 2, 2020 at 1:57 am
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2020 at 1:57 am

Gary,

I think what your saying is if you do not fill out the proper forms and provide the record of CA EDD payments you are at risk.

VERY IMPORTANT.

ALL TENANTS MUST FILL OUT THE PDF form found at the City Website and provide EDD records of payment to your landlord within 7 days of rent payment, I suggest you send a copy certified mail with return receipt for proof.

That is the process described by the City, I already used it for last months rent, I have had NO complaints by my landlord. Just follow the rules and you are good.


Gary
Registered user
Sylvan Park
on Sep 2, 2020 at 10:27 am
Gary , Sylvan Park
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2020 at 10:27 am

Steven, you could just use a full first-class stamp on your postcard. Check with the Postmaster General about the price. Paying too little won't work. As to the new state law, shouldn't the CITY GOVERNMENT advise renters (and persons with mortgage due) what the law provides and how it interacts with the city and county laws? This year's Mayor (Margaret Abe-Koga) should make sure the matter is on the City Council's next agenda. That would encourage the production of an city update for residents.


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Sep 2, 2020 at 10:50 am
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2020 at 10:50 am

In response to Gary you said:

“As to the new state law, shouldn't the CITY GOVERNMENT advise renters (and persons with mortgage due) what the law provides and how it interacts with the city and county laws? This year's Mayor (Margaret Abe-Koga) should make sure the matter is on the City Council's next agenda. That would encourage the production of an city update for residents.”

The State laws are AUTOMATIC because as far as the City Government goes, the City Charter clearly says the state laws are to be complied with. The City Charter says this:

"Article II. - Powers of the City.

Section 200. - Generally.

The city shall have the power to make and enforce ALL LAWS AND REGULATIONS IN RESPECT TO MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, subject only to such restrictions and limitations as may be provided in this Charter and in the Constitution of the State of California. IT SHALL ALSO HAVE THE POWER TO EXERCISE ANY AND ALL RIGHTS, POWERS AND PRIVILEGES HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER ESTABLISHED, GRANTED OR PRESCRIBED BY ANY LAW OF THE STATE, by this Charter, or by other lawful authority, or which a municipal corporation might or could exercise under the Constitution and laws of the State of California. The enumeration in this Charter of any particular power shall not be held to be exclusive of, or any limitation upon, this general grant of power.

Section 201. - Procedural Authority.

THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE POWER AND MAY ACT PURSUANT TO ANY PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY ANY LAW OF THE STATE, UNLESS A DIFFERENT PROCEDURE IS ESTABLISHED BY THIS CHARTER OR BY ORDINANCE.”

Now from what I see here, the City Council is AUTOMATICALLY required to comply with the new law. There is no need for any “City Council Actions” at all. Either Comply with the new law or not, but if you don’t you will be held accountable. If any actions like evictions are attempted without a written demand for perhaps 25% of the rent by a landlord has not been done, the courts will be given no choice but to throw out any attempt at eviction. I think you know this. Please try not to mistakenly deceive readers here?

Since the PDF form is too big, a postcard cannot suffice, especially if you provide any other documentation of your status.

I thin you are just trying to be intentionally ignorant of the situation in order to delay compliance. As you know ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. Landlords are already given fair notice given the news reporting of what they are required to act on. They cannot claim that they aren’t aware of this.


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Sep 2, 2020 at 10:59 am
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2020 at 10:59 am

Gary,

I am sorry, you are right about one thing, the City CAN make better protections so can the County.

If the City decides to make better protections, who am I to argue?


Gary
Registered user
Sylvan Park
on Sep 2, 2020 at 11:18 am
Gary , Sylvan Park
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2020 at 11:18 am

Not what I suggested at all.


Gary
Registered user
Sylvan Park
on Sep 2, 2020 at 12:55 pm
Gary , Sylvan Park
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2020 at 12:55 pm

Steven did stumble across another issue the CITY GOVERNMENT should address. Yesterday, the federal government (CDC) issued its own so-called "eviction moratorium" that seems to permit renters to swear under penalty of perjury (subject to years in federal prison) that they cannot afford to pay the rent (it is more specific) and should not be evicted for nonpayment. See Curbed NY article online for starters. The regulation might form the basis for a defense to eviction if the landlord nonetheless sues. The regulation, of course, is just an effort by Trump to get votes for his re-(s)election. But it is a FOURTH LAW applicable to Mountain View residents the City Government should should address.


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Sep 2, 2020 at 2:08 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2020 at 2:08 pm

Gary,

You are correct that there are multiple rules being made here. The CDC rule is the first branch from the federal laws, then the state laws, then the county ordinances, finally the city ordinances. If any of the laws made by the state are better, they are still enforceable. If the county provides better protection they are also enforceable. And if the city provides better protection it is also enforceable.

But your also trying to intimidate renters by writing a threat, and you know it.

There are nearly 6 million people out of work in CA, and they are now not getting anywhere near enough unemployment insurance to pay rent. It looks like it should be VERY easy to prove that they aren't able to pay rents. Thus your threats are completely EMPTY.

That is about 10% of the state of California.

What the landlords are really confronted with is the "model" of California housing is falling apart.

Landlords should just notify their tenants that filed their paperwork for the previous eviction protection that they are responsible for 25% of their current rents due to the new state law.

It is no what I wanted but that is the current law. I will be happy to pay that rate and when the COVID crisis is over we can work out the recovery, but EVICTIONS are out.

Let the competition for the voters commence, and if that means that the City Council must grant superior protection to sell the voters to reelect Margaret Abe Koga and Lisa Matichak, so be it.


Gary
Registered user
Sylvan Park
on Sep 2, 2020 at 7:21 pm
Gary , Sylvan Park
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2020 at 7:21 pm

Wrong Steven. I am trying to alert renters to developments and suggest they not get their legal analysis from you. Picking up where we left off, instead of trying to determine the price of postage for a postcard, buy your postcard at the post office wherever you end up. - postage included. Of course, with Trump, we don't know when post offices will be open. Maybe at noon on January 20, 2021.


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Sep 2, 2020 at 7:45 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2020 at 7:45 pm

Gary,

the Post Offices are open NOW.

I agree, the tenants should get legal advice. I am not a lawyer.

BUT.

Your information is spotty at best. If you are an attorney, please disclose your BAR id? Given you are in effect giving legal advice to us.

To me, I think your just trying to intimidate the renters from exercising their rights.

TO ALL TENANTS, PLEASE SEEK A VALID ATTORNEYS ADVICE? But do not follow advice from me because I am not an attorney or an anonymous source like Gary.

That's all


Gary
Registered user
Sylvan Park
on Sep 2, 2020 at 9:38 pm
Gary , Sylvan Park
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2020 at 9:38 pm

There is a saying about a little knowledge as you have about the law. A little knowledge is dangerous. If you were just getting yourself evicted, at least you would not be harming others. But you just cannot stop posting ignorantly. A mental health problem evidently. But it puts others at grave risk.


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Sep 2, 2020 at 9:38 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2020 at 9:38 pm

Just another example of what is to come here in Mountain View.

The Business Insider reports that rents are at a 6 year low in San Francisco. (Web Link)

What is the cause, the Tech Exodus from what the report indicates?

I can imagine the property owner in Mountain View are reeling due to the price cuts they are having to make during this period, and these are not the CSFRA units, but current market ones.

OMG you should look at Zumper price trends in Mountain View found here (Web Link)

A Studio Apartment at its peak in Aug 2019 on average was $2899, now it is $2095 a reduction of 28%. A Single Bedroom Apartment at its peak in Jun 2018 on average went for $3990, now it is $2499, a reduction of 37%. A Double Bedroom Apartment at its peak in Jun 2018 on average went for $5000, now it is $3200, a reduction of 36%. A Triple Bedroom Apartment at its peak in Dec 2018 on average went for $5500, now it is $4300, a reduction of 21%

And realize these apartment prices are skewed because most are luxury units in Mountain View. Investors in the Mountain View Rental market must be in effect freaking out.

For example when my landlord bought the property I live in in Feb 2016 the prices were like this:

A Single Bedroom Apartment on average went for $3120, now it is $2499, a reduction of 19%. A Double Bedroom Apartment on average went for $3570, now it is $3200, a reduction of 10%. A Triple Bedroom Apartment on average went for $4000, now it is $4300, an increase of 8%

But there are at most 2 units in my building that are 3 bedroom.

It looks like the prices have returned to the same prices as 2014 here.

In effect the rental business in Mountain View is really in trouble.


Steven Goldstein
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Sep 2, 2020 at 9:51 pm
Steven Goldstein, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2020 at 9:51 pm

Gary,

WHERE is your BAR association card? You keep of trying to make it personal, just like all the others that have no evidence to back up their claims. This is how Donald Trump and his group act, if you can't prove your point with evidence and logic, simply insult, threaten, or personally attack the others that do not agree with you.

So far no eviction for me.

I gather you "invested" into an apartment building here, and now your seeing the value of it falling like I just described.

And all you can do is attack anyone you can find as a scapegoat. Sorry as the famous saying goes: "Past performance is no guarantee of future results."

The reality is that this area is going to go through a ice cold period in property markets. Unless people are getting "FREE" loans.

Not likely.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.