Hiring of real property: dwellings: untenantability.
Impact
If enacted, AB 628 will have significant implications for landlord-tenant relationships across California. Landlords will be required to repair or replace any recalled stove or refrigerator within 30 days of being notified of the recall by a manufacturer or public entity. This provision is intended to ensure that tenants are provided with safe and up-to-date appliances, thereby avoiding potential health and safety hazards. Furthermore, the bill allows tenants and landlords to agree that tenants may provide and maintain their own refrigerator, but stipulates that this condition cannot be a prerequisite for tenancy, reinforcing tenant rights.
Summary
Assembly Bill 628, introduced by Assembly Member McKinnor, seeks to amend Section 1941.1 of the Civil Code regarding the tenantability of dwellings in California. The bill aims to enhance the basic living conditions for tenants by adding the requirement that any dwelling must include a stove and refrigerator that are both maintained in good working order. This bill will specifically influence leases entered into, amended, or extended on or after January 1, 2026, effectively setting a new standard for what constitutes a habitable residential unit.
Sentiment
The sentiment around AB 628 appears generally favorable among tenant advocacy groups, which see the bill as a positive step towards ensuring better living conditions. Supporters argue it elevates the standards for tenant safety and accountability on the part of landlords. However, some landlords and real estate groups might view these increased obligations as potentially cumbersome, leading to concerns about the costs associated with compliance and potential legal liabilities. Overall, the discussions surrounding the bill reflect broader tensions between ensuring housing safety and maintaining landlord flexibility.
Contention
One notable point of contention surrounding this bill is its exclusion of certain types of dwelling units, including permanent supportive housing, which critics argue may overlook vulnerable populations that often reside in those housing types. The exemption for specific residential settings raises questions about the equitable application of safety standards across different types of housing. There may also be debates regarding the feasibility and fairness of requiring landlords to address recalls proactively, as the logistics of such repairs can vary significantly between different landlords and properties.