Last week, we posted about the new Senate Bill designed to hose landlords and property owners, and we had quite a bit of traffic to it. There is a bit of buzz about it out in the blogosphere, so we thought we’d do yet another cut/paste of an email that showed up in our inbox just today (been outside for a while and no time to post) from the California Association of Realtors. Happy Reading!
“SB 464 (Kuehl) which forces landlords to stay in business for at least 5 YEARS and requires that landlords give ALL tenants a ONE YEAR notice of termination of tenancy, should ANY tenant be a senior (62 years of age or older) or disabled. C.A.R. opposes SB 464 because it is an outrageous attack on private property rights and because it will cause fewer rental units to be available to families who need them.
SB 464 will be considered by the entire Senate as early as Monday, April 29th.
Please call your state Senator to urge him to vote “NO” on SB 464!
Please call Senator Leland Yee At (916) 651-4008
In 1985, C.A.R. successfully sponsored the “Ellis Act,” which prevented local governments from passing laws that restricted the ability of landlords of residential property to go out business. Since then, several attempts have been made to severely weaken the Ellis Act. SB 464 is one of the most radical attempts yet to control private property and those who own it. SB 464 will make possible for local governments to restrict the ability of landlords to go out of business unless they have owned the property for five years. This effectively forces a landlord to remain in business that long and makes residential rental property a less attractive investment.
Additionally, SB 464 will require, in rent control jurisdictions, that all tenants in a property be given a ONE YEAR notice of termination of tenancy if EVEN ONE unit is occupied by a senior (62 years old or older) or someone who is disabled.
WHY C.A.R. IS OPPOSING SB 464:
·Discouraging investment in rental housing is bad policy. SB 464 will have a chilling effect on rental property ownership. Substantially limiting a property owner’s right to legitimately go out of business will decrease maintenance and appearance, property values, selling prices, and the ability to obtain a loan on rental property. Investors will simply look elsewhere and ultimately there will be fewer residential units available to rent.
·Property owners cannot see FIVE YEARS into the future. Existing law sets reasonable and foreseeable standards for landlords and tenants. Owners stay in business for economic reasons. SB 464 creates an unreasonable and unjustified attack on property owners that legitimately want to go out of business.
·This bill will force long-time owners to proactively evict tenants. A long-time owner who has struggled under a local jurisdiction’s rent control ordinance will be forced to proactively evict tenants prior to putting their property on the market.
·Property owners will have fewer options. Those who must go out of business due to economic hardship will have less options when selling their property since fewer investors will be interested, thus lowering the sales price and making it more difficult to maintain and/or improve the property.
·Adequate protections already exist for tenants. Seniors and the disabled are currently given a one-year notice that the landlord is going out of business because they have a more difficult time finding replacement housing. All other tenants receive 120 days. Most agree that the one-year notice is ample time for seniors and disabled tenants to find replacement housing. It is unnecessary to extend this protection to all tenants.”
–Ellis Act Getting Tougher or Easier [sfn BLOG]