Bill would authorize tenants to shelter families facing homelessness

19

A newly introduced bill would authorize California tenants to use their rental units to provide shelter for people facing homelessness.

Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel

Although the bill has not yet been finalized, AB 1188 by Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel, D-Van Nuys, is expected to authorize renters to house an individual or family at risk of homelessness for up to 12 months, even if doing so would violate the lease.

This page contains members-only content!
Sign In To Viewor learn more about joining CAA

Tagged:

  • We have been members of CAA since the late 80’s and appreciate all the good work you have done on behalf of landlords. In this please do everything you can to defeat AB 1188.

    Thank you again.
    Laura T

    Sacramento, CA

  • Perhaps Mr. Gabriel will be willing to pay the increased water and gas costs I’ll have to pay if homeless families can be moved into my units.

  • California is rapidly becoming so Socialist that we will be controlled by government from the leftists. I’m becoming very disillusioned in even owning rentals.

  • Sherry Troglin
    Why would anyone want to be a landlord anymore, as it it is we don’t have any rights, everything is for the tenants. Every time you have to evict a tenant the court always sides with them, no matter how much proof you have against the tenant they always win. The landlord does not have any rights and no protections from tenants. We went into the business to invest our money and get a return on it, we have all the responsibility of maintenance, insurance, mortgage ect. The tenants can trash your house, not pay rent and then go to court and say you are a bad landlord. And they always win in court and now they you want us to take in the homeless.

  • I am a manager in Hanford,Ca and our homeless is awful and we are a small town.But I truly do not want this law to pass.We screen our tenants very closely and I do not want them to be able to bring in just anyone.Utilities are high enough as it is.

  • Worst law I have seen! No tenants should ever be told to deliver their home, homelife, privacy and basic
    freedoms to house homeless persons. This is an invasion of everyone’s liberties and freedoms.
    AB1188 should be defeated at all costs. Joanie 3-22-2019 @ 2:47 pm

  • When does the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution start to kick in?

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Check the last phrase. It seems like these liberal politicians are skating on thin ice. It might be time for CAA to start talking about inverse condemnation – treble damages in California.

  • This proposed bill is ludicrous – once again the tail wagging the dog. While I’m all for helping the homeless and providing sensible housing, doing so is a function of government, not property owners. Moreover, to propose such legislation without specifics, be it undefined restrictions on the number of “guests” (fire code?) or assuring the landlord a road to compensation for damages, increased use of common utilities, or wear and tear etc., is mere thievery. Unintelligent and politically expedient legislative tactics. As more anti-landlord measures are proposed and implemented, I seriously contemplate exiting the business of being a landlord.

    Meanwhile, rarely is the discussion of means testing tenants raised (CAA are you listening?). Means testing would help mitigate long term nesters who not only pay relatively low controlled rents (SF restricts increases to 60% of CPI) but seriously reduce the housing supply by never vacating and/or subletting (think NYC). Why is a tenant who earns far more than a landlord so protected (rhetorical)?

    With a myriad of anti landlord bills both current and proposed, California, and especially the likes of San Francisco, is working overtime to discourage rental housing ownership and development, and disregarding the will of the people; with the defeat of Prop 10, the voters last November overwhelmingly made it clear that such legislative notions are unacceptable. But still, from one side of their legislative mouths, the likes of Chiu and Gabriel scream for more housing and greater protections for tenants while from the other side, they legislate measures that do far more damage than good, factually worsening the housing crisis that they willingly promulgate for the sake of political expediency — look no further than San Francisco’s failed rent control as proof.

  • Thank you for your comments. We absolutely hear you when it comes to means testing. That is an argument we made on Proposition 10 and have used on other local proposals.

  • The concept behind AB1188 places the housing of the homeless on the backs of apartment owners. That is not where it belongs. This is a Statewide problem and should be handled and addressed by the State. Your article notes other legislation pending by the State that would be far more appropriate in addressing this issue. Please take whatever action you can to see that AB1188 does not become a law.

  • I find the arrogance of Jesse Gabriel outrageous! This bill must be defeated so soundly, it never raises its ugly head again. The government is again trying to shirk responsibility by forcing landlords to put their property at risk of overcrowding, utility overload, possible damages by those who are fleeing homelessness due to eviction and other risks. Property values will fall due to mass exodus of landlords selling if this passes.

  • We should all get on the internet and write letters to state reps. This is a feeble attempt that tries to give proof that the legislature is trying to solve the homeless problem. This won’t do anything to solve that problem.

  • I could not agree more with everyone commenting. Please do everything you can to not allow this to pass. So many issues that it isn’t fair to the other tenants in my complex who came into my units the right way. I am a crime free property and pay for water and multiple utilities.

  • We must stop this. Or pass a law that anyone selling stocks must also contribute a percent of their earnings to a housing fund – this is an outright taking of my personal property rights – I am struggling right now to remove a tenant with a BAD guest even with the laws that exist! And years ago we gave the OK to shelter a “homeless sister” – who brought her bedbugs, roaches and lice into the property. Is there some kind of occupancy rules that makes sure a two bedroom unit is not suddenly housing 10 peiople?

  • Each of these socialist bills removing my property into the hands of the State of California, if passed, is only putting more and more stones on my back and providing just another and another reason to sell my properties and move to another state. Where have these legislators been living all their lives? Do they know how ridiculous what they are purposing is in actual life?

  • The homeless need a lot more than housing. They also need food, clothing, transportation, and auto insurance. Perhaps this ludicrous bill should also demand that the food industry feed them with free food, the department stores provide them free clothing, the dealerships set them up with a free car, and the insurance industry pay for their auto insurance. I take great pride in providing quality housing and spare no expense in their maintenance, but strongly object to turning my properties into homeless shelters for untold numbers of people. Has the legislature lost its mind?