BILL ANALYSIS ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2743| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ THIRD READING Bill No: AB 2743 Author: Nava (D) Amended: 6/7/10 in Senate Vote: 21 SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 3-2, 6/15/10 AYES: Corbett, Hancock, Leno NOES: Harman, Walters ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 63-7, 5/13/10 - See last page for vote SUBJECT : Real property: rentals: animals SOURCE : Paw Project DIGEST : This bill prohibits a landlord that allows tenants or occupants to have animals on the premises from doing any of the following: (1) advertising the property in a way that discourages an individual from applying because their animal is not declawed or devocalized, (2) refusing to allow, negotiate, or make the property available for occupancy because of a person's refusal to declaw or devocalize an animal, (3) requiring a tenant or occupant to declaw or devocalize an animal that is allowed on the premises, (4) giving preferential treatment to a person because their animal is declawed or devocalized, or (5) discriminating in the terms of the occupancy, or provision of services, because a person owns an animal that has not been declawed or devocalized. CONTINUED AB 2743 Page 2 This bill imposes a civil penalty of $2,500 per animal for every violation that results in the declawing or devocalizing of an animal, and a $1,000 penalty for every violation that does not result in the declawing or devocalizing of an animal. This bill permits a person harmed by a violation, or a 501(c)(3) corporation that is either dedicated to the protection of animals or whose mission includes the protection of fair housing laws, to enforce that penalty. ANALYSIS : Existing law prohibits any person from performing, or otherwise procuring or arranging for the performance of, surgical claw removal, declawing, onychectomy, or tendonectomy on any cat that is a member of an exotic or native wild cat species, and from otherwise altering such a cat's toes, claws, or paws to prevent the normal function of the cat's toes, claws, or paws, unless the procedure is performed solely for a therapeutic purpose. (Pen. Code Sec. 597.6.) Existing law generally prohibits discrimination and related conduct with respect to the rental or sale of housing accommodations on the basis of a person's race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, and other factors. (Gov. Code Sec. 12955.) Existing law generally regulates the terms and conditions of residential tenancies and governs the obligations of tenants and landlord under a lease or tenancy. (Civ. Code Sec. 1940 et seq.) This bill prohibits any person or corporation that occupies, owns, manages, or provides services in connection with any real property, including the individual's or corporation's agents or successors-in-interest, from doing any of the following if they allow an animal on the premises: 1. Advertise, through any means, the availability of real property for occupancy in a manner designed to discourage application for occupancy of that real property because the applicant's animal has not been declawed or devocalized. AB 2743 Page 3 2. Refuse to allow the occupancy of any real property, refuse to negotiate the occupancy of any real property, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny to any other person the occupancy of any real property because of that person's refusal to declaw or devocalize any animal. 3. Require any tenant or occupant of real property to declaw or devocalize any animal allowed on the premises. 4. Give preferential treatment in terms of the right of occupancy or the provision of services to another person because that person owns an animal that has been declawed or devocalized. 5. Discriminate in terms of the occupancy or the provision of services against another person because that person owns an animal that has not been declawed or devocalized. This bill provides that nothing in the bill shall prevent the inclusion, in an occupancy agreement, of a provision that a present or potential occupant may not declaw or devocalize any animal that will be allowed on the premises. This bill confers standing to enforce the bill's provisions on any person harmed by a violation, or an organization formed in compliance with Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that is dedicated to the protection of animals or whose mission includes the protection of fair housing laws. This bill also provides that a person may sue for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, or for monetary relief as provided below. This bill provides that, in addition to any other penalty, a violation of the bill that results in the declawing or devocalizing of an animal shall result in a civil penalty of not more than $2,500, per animal, to be paid to the person whose animal was declawed or devocalized in violation, or to a 501(c)(3) organization that is authorized to bring an action. This bill additionally provides that a violation that does AB 2743 Page 4 not result in the declawing or devocalizing of an animal shall result in a civil penalty of not more than $1,000, to be paid to the plaintiff. This bill defines animal, application for occupancy, claw, declawing, devocalizing, nontherapeutic, and owner. This bill also enacts various uncodified findings and declarations regarding the effects of declawing and devocalizing. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No SUPPORT : (Verified 6/17/10) Paw Project (source) California Apartment Association California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation City of West Hollywood Nolan-Taft Management United Animal Nations Western Center on Law & Poverty OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/17/10) California Veterinary Medical Association The Animal Council ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office, "Eight local governments in California have recently banned the practice of cat declawing (Berkeley, Beverly Hills, Burbank, Culver City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Santa Monica, West Hollywood), recognizing the practice as inhumane. And many governments at all levels have banned the practice of devocalization. Nonetheless, a search of rental listings throughout California produces a number of properties with landlords and managers requiring that potential owners will be considered only with declawed cats or devocalized dogs . . . both of these practices can have unintended consequences for property managers, physical complications for animals, and emotional and financial AB 2743 Page 5 consequences for pet owners." ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Animal Council, in opposition, contends, "Amending the well understood word "debark" - simply reducing volume of barking - to the term "devocalize" being used by political opponents of this lawful veterinary procedure leads to inaccurate presumptions that a dog would be rendered silent. Rather debarked dogs retain a wide range of noise making abilities that can be annoying or disturbing to the legal public nuisance level in residential settings and [result in] law enforcement action against the owner and dog. Intentional use of other than plain language in legislation is troubling and problematic. Also, because pet keeping tenants are not a legally protected class, granting standing to enforce and obtain their own civil penalties to certain organizations only increases the incentive for landlords to bar all pets rather than risk the costs of dealing with adversarial, sometimes ideologically inclined organizations not otherwise interested in a party [or] the tenancy. Lack of or loss of rental housing is a major relinquishment risk for pets, [such] that AB 2743 . . . creates additional barriers to rental housing for pet owners and new disincentives to landlords to individually negotiate pet rentals either at the beginning of or during tenancy." ASSEMBLY FLOOR : AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Charles Calderon, Carter, Chesbro, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Galgiani, Hall, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jones, Lieu, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Monning, Nava, Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Smyth, Solorio, Audra Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran, Villines, Yamada, John A. Perez NOES: Anderson, Conway, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore, Harkey, Logue NO VOTE RECORDED: Caballero, Cook, DeVore, Hagman, Jeffries, Knight, Norby, Silva, Skinner, Vacancy AB 2743 Page 6 RJG:do 6/17/10 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END ****