AB 828 - Temp Moratorium on foreclosures and unlawful detainer actions: COVID-19
August 4th, 2020
"A bill in response to COVID-19 would allow the courts to force rental property owners in California to reduce rents by 25%. The bill, AB 828 by Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, also would force landlords to subsidize the rents of their tenants.
Ting’s proposal ignores the robust rent and eviction controls already in place across California. It provides no assurances that landlords can collect rent, remove problem tenants, or get a fair hearing in the court system.
AB 828 denies equal justice to housing providers by:
Allowing the courts to force landlords to reduce rents by 25% — even if a tenant cannot show a COVID-19 hardship or need.
Allowing the courts to set rents and change rental agreements already in place.
Assuming every tenant is facing a COVID-19 hardship and must be compensated for it.
Protecting nuisance tenants. The bill does not require tenants to answer an unlawful detainer complaint.
Mandating that rental property owners demonstrate an economic hardship to collect the contracted rent.
This unfair bill would allow the government and courts to give reduced rent and extended tenancies to all renters, even those not facing economic hardships. At the same time, it provides no safeguards for landlords." - CAA Net
For more info on the bill, click here.
July 29, 2020
Notes from Shun Zhang of RE/MAX 1000 Realty participated in the special meeting and has given the following update,
"Special Meeting from Temple City regarding DISCUSSION OF COUNTY EVICTION MORATORIUM AND POTENTIAL RESPONSE TO COUNTY REQUEST FOR COMMENTS.
The County of Los Angeles’ eviction moratorium and tenant protections and the County’s request for incorporated cities to provide feedback on the County’s proposed terms; and
Give direction regarding whether the City of Temple City wishes to provide a formal response or take a position on the County’s moratorium.
The county has requested the city needs to make the term more favorable to the tenant and other terms that they should follow the county. If the city disagrees, the county may potentially take over the local eviction moratorium. Fortunately, council member Pro Tem Yu made a recommendation and motioned that they should stick with their own local eviction moratorium and should respond back to the county with the explanation and reason why they would like to have their local eviction moratorium. The rest of the council members also motioned. The mayor mentioned that there may be potential lawsuit due to the decision with their own local jurisdiction which they are prepared."