Landlords in California who legally evict a renter must now pay one month of the tenant’s rent to reduce the costs of relocation.
A federal appeals court has upheld a state law passed in 2020 that gave financial help to renters who were evicted because the owner was moving into the property, converting it to a condominium or demolishing it, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
The law, sponsored by then-Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, requires such owners to repay a month’s rent to the tenant or cancel the final month’s payment.
A lawsuit by the owners’ group Better Housing for Long Beach accused the state of unconstitutionally confiscating their property by requiring the payments under the law.
But while the suit was pending, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an Oakland ordinance – similar to laws in San Francisco, San Jose and Los Angeles – requiring property owners to pay all of a legally evicted tenant’s relocation expenses.
The court said Oakland landlords had chosen to evict the tenants, and that the Supreme Court has upheld the government’s authority to impose property-related fees, such as property taxes, and fees related to an owner’s use of the property, such as the costs of cleaning up hazardous wastes.
On June 6, the Supreme Court left the ordinance intact by denying review of the owners’ appeal.
The relocation rules of the state law are “nearly indistinguishable” from those that were upheld in Oakland, a three-judge panel of the appeals court said.
Paul Beard, a lawyer for the Long Beach property owners, had argued that the law was a “forced transfer of hard-earned funds” and that the state “cannot force owners to bear public burdens” that should be paid by the general public, such as the relocation costs of legally evicted tenants.
But the court said California is not confiscating private property, just requiring assistance by owners who made the decisions to rent the residence and later to evict the renters. The state is not denying any government benefit to the owners or interfering with their control of their property, the court said.
Beard said his clients may ask the full appeals court for a new hearing before a larger panel, or appeal the case to the Supreme Court.
He said the payment required by the California law is “more closely connected” to the owners’ property interests than the Oakland ordinance because it is based on the rental value of the property, and not the renter’s relocation costs.
[San Francisco Chronicle] – Dana Bartholomew
Read more
Residential
Los Angeles
California moves to extend eviction ban, Covid rent relief
Politics
San Francisco
San Francisco approves nation’s strongest set of tenant union protections