California 2017-2018 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB2364

Introduced
2/14/18  
Introduced
2/14/18  
Refer
3/22/18  
Refer
3/22/18  
Report Pass
3/22/18  
Report Pass
3/22/18  
Refer
4/2/18  
Refer
4/2/18  
Report Pass
4/25/18  
Report Pass
4/25/18  
Refer
4/25/18  
Refer
4/25/18  
Report Pass
4/30/18  
Refer
5/1/18  
Refer
5/1/18  
Report Pass
5/3/18  
Report Pass
5/3/18  
Refer
5/7/18  
Report Pass
5/8/18  

Caption

Rental control: withdraw from accommodation.

Impact

The proposed changes in AB 2364 have the potential to significantly impact California's housing laws and tenant protections. By extending the time frame from two years to five years during which the provisions apply to owners offering accommodations again, the bill provides added security for tenants. Additionally, by reducing the period for legal action from three years to one year for displaced tenants to claim damages, the bill aims to streamline and expedite tenant recourse. This legislation changes the dynamics of the rental market, potentially benefiting tenants who might otherwise face homelessness after being displaced by landlords seeking to withdraw units from rent.

Summary

Assembly Bill 2364, introduced by Assembly Members Bloom and Chiu, seeks to amend provisions concerning rental control, specifically related to the withdrawal of accommodations from rental markets under the Ellis Act. The bill aims to enhance protections for tenants who face displacement due to such withdrawals, by modifying the conditions under which landlords must re-offer accommodations once they are available again for rent. One of the significant changes includes eliminating the requirement that displaced tenants must notify the owner in writing within 30 days to express interest in re-renting the unit, instead allowing verbal communication of their desire to be considered for such offers.

Sentiment

Reactions to AB 2364 have been mixed among legislators and stakeholders. Proponents argue that the bill reinforces tenant rights and provides essential safeguards against abrupt evictions and a lack of rental options. They view these reforms as necessary in a housing market characterized by scarcity and high demand. Conversely, some property owner associations and landlords are concerned that the bill may deter investment in rental properties, arguing it could lead to a reduction in the supply of available rentals as it adds more obligations and potential liabilities for property owners. This division suggests a broader tension between tenant protections and landlord rights within housing regulation discussions.

Contention

A contentious point within AB 2364 is the balance between providing adequate protections for tenants and the implications for landlords. Critics of the bill express concern that while it aims to support displaced tenants, it may also undermine landlords' ability to manage their properties effectively and adapt to changing market conditions. The legislation seeks to supersede legislative intent from previous court rulings—specifically Nash v. City of Santa Monica—related to landlord withdrawals under the Ellis Act, which could provoke further legal and political debates on property rights and housing policy.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB1399

Residential real property: rent control: withdrawal of accommodations.

CA AB982

Residential real property: rent control: withdrawal of accommodations.

CA SB567

Termination of tenancy: no-fault just causes: gross rental rate increases.

CA AB854

Residential real property: withdrawal of accommodations.

CA AB3077

Residential real property: tenancy: termination: withdrawal of accommodations.

CA AB2050

Residential real property: withdrawal of accommodations.

CA AB2608

Licensed Mental Health Service Provider Education Program: former foster youth.

CA AB2313

Electronic benefits transfer system.