BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1925|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1925
Author: Ma (D), et al.
Amended: 8/7/12 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 4-0, 7/3/12
AYES: Evans, Blakeslee, Corbett, Leno
NO VOTE RECORDED: Harman
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-1, 5/7/12 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT : Real property: rent control
SOURCE : California Apartment Association
DIGEST : This bill limits the level of compensation for
the temporary displacement of a tenant household for less
than 20 days to both of the following: (1) temporary
housing and living expenses of $275 per day, as specified;
and (2) actual moving expenses if it is necessary to move
the possessions of the tenant household. This bill applies
the above provision only to units governed by the local
rent stabilization ordinance in the City and County of San
Francisco and applies those limits notwithstanding any
local law to the contrary.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides that cities and counties
have within their police power the authority to enact rent
control laws so long as property owners are assured a fair
CONTINUED
AB 1925
Page
2
rate of return. (Birkenfeld v. Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal.3d
129.)
This bill, notwithstanding any local law to the contrary,
limits levels of compensation in the City and County of San
Francisco for the temporary displacement of a tenant
household for less than 20 days to both of the following:
temporary housing and living expenses of $275 per day
per tenant household; and
actual moving expenses if it is necessary to move the
possessions of the tenant household.
This bill allows the $275 per day limit to be adjusted
annually by the City and County of San Francisco in an
amount equal to the Consumer Price Index, beginning on
January 1, 2014.
This bill provides the landlord with the option to provide
a comparable dwelling unit and pay any actual moving
expenses in lieu of daily compensation and requires the
unit to be comparable to the tenant household's existing
housing in location, size, number of bedrooms,
accessibility, type, and quality of construction, and
proximity to services and institutions upon which the
displaced tenant household depends.
This bill provides that these provisions shall not be
construed to do any of the following:
terminate, interrupt, or amend, in any way, a tenancy
subject to the lease provisions, or the rights and
obligations of either party, including, but not limited
to, the payment of rent;
create or affect any grounds for displacement or
requirements of a landlord seeking temporary
displacement, except the payment of relocation fees for
displacement not exceeding 20 days; and
affect the authority of a public entity that may
regulate or monitor the basis for eviction.
AB 1925
Page
3
This bill provides that if a federal or state law regarding
relocation compensation is also applicable to the temporary
displacement, the tenant may elect to be compensated under
those other provisions instead.
This bill specifies that these provisions affect only
levels of compensation for a temporary displacement of less
than 20 days and do not affect any other local procedures
governing temporary relocation.
Background
On November 6, 2006, voters in the City and County of San
Francisco approved Proposition H, Relocation Assistance for
No Fault Tenant Removal, by a vote of 52.93% (120,916) to
47.07% (107,541). That proposition required landlords to
provide additional relocation payment to tenants that have
resided in a residence for more than 12 months when a
landlord evicts tenants to: (1) use the property for at
least three years of the landlord's principal residence, as
specified; (2) demolish the rental unit; (3) permanently
remove the rental unit from use as housing; (4) temporarily
regain possession of the unit to make improvements; or (5)
rehabilitate the building. Under the proposition, eligible
tenants can receive a relocation payment of $4,500, and
tenants who are disabled, over age 60, or have a child
under 18 living in the unit receive additional relocation
payment of $3,000. Those amounts are increased annually to
account for inflation. Regarding the passage of
Proposition H, the San Francisco Chronicle reported:
With almost two-thirds of San Franciscans living in
rental units, the odds were heavily stacked from the
start in favor of passage of Proposition H, a ballot
measure that will significantly boost relocation
payments for evicted tenants. The measure passed easily
Tuesday with 54 percent of the vote.
Authored by the San Francisco Tenants Union, the measure
immediately increases the minimum payment for no-fault
evictions to $4,500 from $1,000. No-fault evictions
occur most often when landlords want to move themselves
or a family member into a unit or when an owner needs to
undertake major repairs.
AB 1925
Page
4
"There are a significant number of evictions happening
in San Francisco," said Ted Gullicksen, manager of the
Tenants Union. "Tenants recognize that if they are
evicted, they are going to face difficult times."
The Small Property Owners of San Francisco spent $80,000
on a campaign to defeat the measure, passing out flyers
and winning the support of Mayor Gavin Newsom. The
group argued that the measure will actually harm tenants
because the large relocation payments will discourage
owners from making building repairs. (Kottle, S.F.
Renters Stand behind Prop. H, S.F. Chronicle (Nov. 9,
2006) p. D3.)
This bill, sponsored by the California Apartment
Association, preempts that Proposition by limiting the
levels of compensation in the City and County of San
Francisco for the temporary displacement of a tenant
household for less than 20 days.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/7/12)
California Apartment Association (source)
California Association of Realtors
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
Most rent control communities have local laws that
require some form of compensation that landlords must
pay if they permanently evict a tenant out of the rent
controlled unit.
In 2006, San Francisco voters passed Proposition H,
which required landlords to provide relocation payments
when tenants were evicted through no fault of their own.
While the intent of Proposition H was intended to
provide tenants with additional financial protections to
help cover moving costs and obtain a new apartment in
the event the tenant was evicted, Proposition H also
required landlords to pay relocation benefits even when
AB 1925
Page
5
tenants were temporarily displaced.
The author further notes that this bill would create a
"more reasonable formula in the event a landlord must
temporarily locate a tenant . . . ."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-1, 5/7/12
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Atkins, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter,
Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson,
Donnelly, Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Beth Gaines,
Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Gorell, Grove, Hagman,
Halderman, Harkey, Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber,
Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lara, Logue,
Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mansoor, Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell,
Monning, Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan,
Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio,
Swanson, Torres, Valadao, Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams,
Yamada, John A. P�rez
NOES: Ammiano
NO VOTE RECORDED: Brownley, Fletcher, Furutani, Hall,
Portantino
RJG:k 8/8/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****