Telepeer

Senate Bill 567 would do more harm than good in solving California’s housing crisis

June 27, 2023

For three generations, my family has been in the rental property industry, and I count myself among the many Californians who are concerned with issues regarding housing supply and affordability.

As president of the California Rental Housing Association (CalRHA), I am deeply concerned about legislation like Senate Bill 567, introduced by Sen. María Elena Durazo, D-Los Angeles, that, if passed, would impose unnecessary and unreasonable restrictions on property owners.

Keep in mind, our association of 25,000 members are for the most part individuals and families operating like small business owners who rely on rental properties as an income source, not the owners of large apartment complexes.

Simply put SB 567 is unnecessary. A major barrier that SB 567 presents is the expansion of “just-cause” eviction provisions, making it increasingly challenging for housing providers to manage their properties efficiently. By limiting the ability to terminate tenancies, when necessary, this legislation places significant burdens on small property owners who rely on rental income to sustain their businesses and support their families.

The Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482) already establishes laws and regulations for small property owners, namely concerning rent caps and reasons for ending a renter’s tenancy early. AB 1482 is set to be reevaluated in ten years, and before legislators determine its overall effectiveness, an impact study will be conducted.

Why would we impose stricter legislation when we haven’t had time to see the effects of AB 1482 and whether it is able to meaningfully address California’s housing affordability crisis?

I speak on behalf of my family and the CalRHA members I represent, we are at a loss as to why the legislature would pass a new bill that proposes drastic changes to an existing one.

SB 567 in its current version also imposes unreasonable restrictions on property owners’ rights to repossess and occupy their rental units or to sell their properties. It goes to extremes that I would argue would make rental property owners give serious pause on whether to continue renting their properties or not.

For example, say a property owner needs to take care of a family member and move them into their rental property, thus having the current renter vacate. SB 567 states that the property owner’s relative needs to live in their unit for 12 months straight and claim that as their primary residence for the duration.

In other words, they need to plan to house a family member for one year. There are circumstances and events in life we have no control over, and being expected to be able to predict someone’s housing future for the next three years seems unrealistic.

Opinion |

Natalie Rubalcava: The way forward on hotel worker safety in Anaheim

Opinion |

John Phillips: Joe Biden’s Kamala Harris problem

Opinion |

California budget being misused to provide special interest goodies

Opinion |

On the Janus Supreme Court ruling anniversary, we remind public employees of their rights

Opinion |

Stephen Faessel: Providing housing is key to solving the homelessness crisis in Orange County

I’ll provide another example about imposing extreme time related restrictions, and one that is worth considering, especially during an economic recession. SB 567 would require property owners who wish to withdraw their property from the rental market to remove ALL the units at that residential property. There are numerous reasons an owner might need to pause renting one or two units, but withdrawing all units from the rental market means displacing renters during a homeless crisis.

The issue of housing access and concerns around eviction are at the heart of arguments in support of this bill, but they are inaccurate. California has the lowest eviction rates among the country’s 10 most populous states.

SB 567 fails to consider unique circumstances faced by small-scale housing providers who have dedicated their lives to housing Californians. It is not the solution to California’s housing crisis. One solution to get out of our increasingly worse housing crisis is to increase supply, not complicate and limit it and that’s exactly what SB 567 would do.

Earle Vaughan serves as president of the California Rental Housing Association.

Orange County Register

News Details

Senate Bill 567 would do more harm than good in solving California’s housing crisis

Related Articles

News

CONTACT INFO

QUICK LINKS

SERVICES

CURRENT NEWS