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: 8/20/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 3-2, 6/15/10
AYES: Corbett, Hancock, Leno
NOES: Harman, Walters
SENATE FLOOR : 19-14, 8/11/10 (FAIL)
AYES: Alquist, Cedillo, Corbett, DeSaulnier, Ducheny,
Florez, Hancock, Kehoe, Leno, Liu, Lowenthal, Padilla,
Pavley, Price, Romero, Simitian, Steinberg, Strickland,
Yee
NOES: Aanestad, Ashburn, Cogdill, Correa, Denham, Dutton,
Emmerson, Harman, Hollingsworth, Huff, Runner, Wolk,
Wright, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Negrete McLeod, Oropeza,
Walters, Wiggins, Vacancy, Vacancy
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
CONTINUED
AB 2743
Page
2
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.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/20/10 strike the proposed
prohibition on preferential treatment and discrimination,
and revise civil penalty provisions.
Senate Floor Amendments of 7/15/10 make a
technical/clarifying change.
ANALYSIS : Existing law regulates the terms and
conditions of residential tenancies and governs the
obligations of tenants and landlords under a lease or
tenancy.
This bill prohibits a landlord that allows a tenant to have
an animal on the premises, from advertising or establishing
rental policies in a manner that requires a tenant or a
potential tenant with an animal to have that animal
declawed or devocalized, for nontherapeutic purposes, as a
condition of occupancy. This bill imposes a civil penalty,
not to exceed $1,000, for each violation of these
provisions, to be paid to the person or entity that brings
the action. This bill specifically authorizes a person to
seek declaratory or injunctive relief for a violation of
this prohibition.
This bill additionally authorizes specified law enforcement
prosecutorial entities to enforce these prohibitions.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/4/10)
Paw Project (source)
California Apartment Association
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
City of West Hollywood
Nolan-Taft Management
AB 2743
Page
3
United Animal Nations
Western Center on Law & Poverty
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/4/10)
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
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
AB 2743
Page
4
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
RJG:dok 8/23/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****