Of 1,200+ bills that Gov. Gavin Newsom signed this legislative session, two are noteworthy for both renters and landlords.
Bills Passed Protecting Renters on Screening Fees, Security Deposits
California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed both AB 2493 and AB 2801, aiding renters in both their search for a new abode and departures from current apartments. AB 2493, introduced by State Assembly member Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz), prohibits a landlord from charging a prospective tenant a screening fee to applicants not selected for a vacancy.
AB 2801, introduced by State Assembly member Laura Friedman (D-Burbank), makes a number of changes to law governing the return of security deposits.
In giving legislative updates to the Santa Monica Rent Control Board, legislative advocate Brian Augusta stated that application fees are a barrier that renters face “almost everywhere they go,” paying the fees despite typically not being picked for a unit. AB 2493 remedies this, as fees will be returned to any applicant not selected to an occupancy.
Alternatively, a landlord must have a screening fee policy “under which they review applications in the order received, the first qualified applicant gets the unit, and fees are not charged to any applicant who is not considered.”
“Hopefully [the bill is] a useful improvement for folks who are paying multiple fees at every property to try and find a unit,” Augusta added.
Also signed by Newsom, AB 2801 changes security deposit regulation to require the landlord to provide photographic evidence of necessary repairs and proof they were completed. Landlords taking chunks, or the entirety, of a security deposit for unspecified repairs or damages is something Rent Control Board Commissioner Anastasia Foster called “downright fraud,” stating the bill will “change lives of everyday people.”
Screen Your Tenant Today!
Gain peace of mind with AAOA’s credit, criminal, and eviction reports.
In a legislative update earlier this year, Augusta stated there was “a lot of abuse” with security deposits, adding that landlords “assume that they’re going to get most of the security deposit back” from renters.
AB 2801 also states that landlords cannot require a tenant pay for professional carpet cleaning or other post-tenancy professional cleaning services “unless reasonably necessary to return the premises to the condition it was in at the inception of the tenancy.” The bill also prohibits deposit money from being taken under the area of “ordinary wear and tear” of an apartment.
Augusta pointed to other signed bills of note, including AB 846 introduced by Mia Bonta (D-Oakland) and AB 2347 introduced by Ash Kalra (D-San Jose). AB 846 requires the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTAC) to adopt a rent cap via regulations that applies to existing Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program properties.
Earlier this year, CTAC adopted regulations to impose a rent cap similar to the Tenant Protection Act on newly-constructed LITHC properties, with AB 846 adding the application to existing LITHC properties.
AB 2347 is something Augusta said has been “long discussed,” extending the time tenants facing an unlawful detainer eviction action have to file proper paperwork to respond in court. The bill extends the period from five to 10 days, which Augusta stated gives tenants more time to “seek advice, marshal their defenses, get to the courthouse, file the right paperwork and have their day in court.”
The story of the 2023-2024 legislative session was seeing a high surplus in the state budget fall to a significant deficit in a short period of time, forcing housing advocates to invest time on actions that won’t cost much state money.
That said, the Governor’s office and state legislature agreed on another $500 million increase in the LITHC program, which Augusta says provides “some investment” even in a lean year.
“We went from dreaming big about how could we invest some of these public resources to really trying to hold onto what we have,” Augusta said.
The legislative advocate also previewed proposition votes in the Nov. 5 election, including Prop 5 which would allow approval of local infrastructure and housing bonds for low and middle-income residents with a 55% vote, rather than the current two-thirds vote needed.
Looming large is also the vote over Prop 33, which would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995 and allow for more local control in rent control laws. An action that has failed to pass in several previous election cycles, Prop 33 is unique in adding a provision that if voters enact it, opposition cannot “come back to the legislature and re-enact Costa-Hawkins,” according to Augusta.
He added that opponents use that provision to say Prop 33 will repeal more housing laws than just local rent control, creating “confusing” messaging for voters, as well as the fact the proposition isn’t adding legislation, just repealing it.
“It’s not creating anything other than an opportunity for local governments to restore their authority to regulate rents in ways that Costa-Hawkins prevents them from doing,” Augusta said.
Source: Santa Monica Daily Press
Accessibility