Sacramento Report

By Monica Williamson

Pundits seem to agree that the first half of the 2007-08 legislative session was one of the strangest and least productive sessions in recent history. Although it started with much fanfare and optimism that the Legislature would solve such vexing issues as health care and the state’s looming water crisis, at the end of the day, partisan politics stalled progress of any significant (and even most insignificant) legislation. Although a special legislative session to deal with the two major public policy issues—health care and water—was still in progress at press time, conventional wisdom holds that a solution, if any, will come from a vote of the electorate during the 2008 elections.

From a business owner’s perspective, this is not necessarily bad news. Fewer new laws generally translate into fewer new requirements and/or mandates. Indeed, of the more than 3,000 bills introduced in 2007, those bills detrimental to the rental housing industry were not signed into law.

Below is a recap of a number of bills covered by CAA covered by CAA this year. For a more complete report of all bills lobbied by CAA, visit CAA’s website at www.caanet.org.

Signed by the Governor
AB 976
This bill prohibits cities and counties from passing any laws that require property owners or their agents to make any inquiry, compile, disclose, report, or provide any information about the immigration or citizenship status of a tenant, prospective tenant, occupant, or prospective occupant of residential rental property. This bill was aimed at local ordinances, such as the one passed in Escondido in 2006.

At CAA’s request, the author of the bill, Charles Calderon (D-Montebello), took amendments to clarify that AB 976 does not prohibit a property owner from complying with any legal obligation under federal law and does not prohibit a property owner from requesting information or documentation necessary to determine a prospective tenant’s or prospective occupant’s financial qualifications or to verify his or her identity.

Under AB 976, local governments cannot: require a property owner to inquire about or report the citizenship or immigration status of applicants or residents; and require a property owner to deny tenancy or evict tenants based on citizenship or immigration status.

Under AB 976, property owners cannot: make any inquiry regarding the citizenship or immigration status of an applicant or resident; and require an applicant or resident to make any statement or certification regarding his or her citizenship or immigration status. Under AB 976, property owners may: request information or documentation necessary to determine or verify the financial qualifications or identity of applicants or residents; and ask applicants to show photo identification so long as it is not limited to documents that are issued only to U.S. citizens. If an applicant does not have a social security number or a driver’s license, a property owner can ask the applicant for other identifying information. If a credit reporting agency is unable to provide a complete report about credit history and the owner is unable to obtain the information, “insufficient information to evaluate creditworthiness” is a valid reason for denying an application.

AB 1013
Existing law established a pilot project in Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento and the city of Alameda allowing a city attorney to file an eviction action against a tenant in a private building when that tenant is accused of illegal drug use. AB 1013, sponsored by Paul Krekorian (D-Glendale), extends the identical pilot process to cases where the tenant possesses illegal weapons or illegal ammunition, or both, and uses the premises to further that purpose.

SB 706
This bill, sponsored by George Runner (R-Antelope Valley), expands an existing pilot program (currently in place in Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland and San Diego) to the City of Palmdale, allowing city attorneys to file an eviction against a person who engages in drug-related activity on the premises.

Vetoed by the Governor
AB 548
This bill would have required an owner of multifamily housing to provide recycling services on or after January 1, 2008. CAA requested amendments to the bill to clarify that rental property owners would not be mandated to provide recycling services where it would be economically or practically infeasible. The author, Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys), declined to amend the bill, and it was subsequently vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, in part because of concerns about the burden it would have placed on the rental housing industry.

AB 864
This bill would have added a new provision to state law that required any buyer of property against which a notice of substandard condition had been recorded to file with the enforcement agency a plan that included the timeline, costs, and available financial resources for the correction of substandard conditions, and proof of any liability insurance. It was sponsored by Mike Davis (D-Los Angeles).

Failed Passage in the Legislature
The following are two bills that would impact the rental housing industry and stand a good chance of coming back next year.

SB 464
This bill is intended to require a residential property owner who seeks to remove rental property from the market or to convert it to nonresidential use to have owned that property for three years. This bill was placed on the Senate Inactive File at the request of the author, Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica).

SB 482
The intent of this bill would be to create an optional program that allows a tenant to purchase a surety bond in lieu of posting a security deposit with the landlord. The author, Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), did not move this legislation; it is now a two-year bill.

---

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of SFAA or SF Apartment Magazine. Monica Williamson is CAA’s vice president of public affairs. Copyright © 2008 by SF Apartment Magazine. All rights reserved.