Emergencies: COVID-19: commercial tenancies: evictions.
The implications of SB 939 are significant for state law, particularly in how it modifies existing eviction processes and landlords' rights. The bill declares evictions carried out in violation of its provisions as void and unenforceable, establishing a clear framework for tenant protections. Additionally, it imposes fines for harassment or retaliatory actions against tenants, reinforcing the protections provided to them. Landlords are compelled to adhere to new requirements such as providing written notice about the protections available under the bill to their tenants, thereby increasing transparency within the leasing process during the emergency.
Senate Bill 939 aims to address the challenges faced by commercial tenants amid the COVID-19 pandemic by introducing temporary protections against eviction. Specifically, the bill prohibits landlords from evicting commercial tenants during the state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor on March 4, 2020, in relation to COVID-19. It protects small businesses, non-profit organizations, and other entities impacted by the pandemic, allowing them to negotiate with landlords to modify lease terms without fear of eviction due to nonpayment of rent incurred during the pandemic. These provisions are aimed at ensuring that commercial tenants can maintain their operations and avoid financial ruin during a public health crisis.
The sentiment surrounding SB 939 is largely supportive, particularly among advocates for small businesses and tenants' rights. Proponents view the bill as a necessary intervention to support vulnerable businesses during an unprecedented crisis. However, there are concerns among landlords and some businesses that the bill may complicate recovery efforts after the emergency by delaying the collection of owed rent or hindering landlords' ability to manage their properties effectively. The discourse is often polarized between those who prioritize tenant security and those advocating for landlords' rights.
One notable point of contention is the exclusion of publicly traded companies and their affiliates from the protections provided by the bill, which has raised questions about equity and accessibility for different types of businesses. Critics argue that all commercial entities, regardless of their size or status, should be afforded the same protections in crises like the pandemic. The bill's temporary nature, with provisions set to expire either on December 31, 2021, or two months after the end of the declared emergency, also generates debates about its long-term sustainability and effectiveness in addressing ongoing challenges faced by commercial tenants post-crisis.