Tenant Law
Tenant Rights are Human Rights
Contributors
THE DREADFUL PROPOSITION 98, Part I -- Slashing Renter Protections StatewideWednesday, April 30, 2008
If Proposition 98 passes, rent control and all of the most essential tenant protections in cities across California will be no more! A landlord will no longer have to have a “just cause” or “good cause” to evict a tenant. Landlords will be able to serve any tenant with a 30 Day Notice and unless the Notice is served for a retaliatory or discriminatory purpose, the tenants will likely have no viable defense! Prop 98 is not even entitled as a measure to end Rent Control and Just Cause. It is billed as an “Eminent Domain” Initiative. This proposition is brought to you by the same people, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, who were responsible for one of the worst propositions the State of California has ever seen, Prop 13, which decimated cities and counties throughout the state and led to California having the most atrocious public education system of any major state in the nation.
For the legal analysis of Prop 98's impact on the rental housing market, the Western Center on Law and Poverty in Sacramento has written an excellent report. The report was made available by the S.F. Tenants Union and can be downloaded (.pdf) at http://www.sftu.org/071220%20Western%20Center%20Memo.pdf. The language of Prop 98 will re-define parts of tenant laws we have taken for granted as an unconstitutional "taking" of private property. It is not only rent control and just cause provisions which will be outlawed, but condo conversion limits, 30 and 60 day notice requirements for rent increases & evictions, and limits on landlords' ability to keep security deposits. Passage of Prop 98 will mean landlords will evict tenants who currently live in rent control jurisdictions solely to increase their profits and get more rent for their rental units. So only people with a lot of money will be able to live in wide areas of San Francisco and other California cities. Senior citizens, students, lower income working class people, artists, many people of color and other diverse populations will be forced to leave. There will be a mass exodus of tenants from Los Angeles and the Bay Area -- most likely in the hundreds of thousands -- if this proposition passes. We don’t need cities like San Francisco to mostly be an enclave for the wealthy.
Prop 98 was put on the ballot for the June 3rd Election because of historically low turnout in mid-year elections. We are confident that if tenants turn out in mass throughout California that Prop 98 will lose. But people need to vote. You need to tell everyone you know to register (last day is May 19th) and to vote. Don’t take your tenant rights for granted. If you are a landlord or an owner of real property who is not a tenant, please consider the detrimental impact this initiative will have on the demographics of places like Oakland, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Berkeley.
All the major environmental groups have come out against Prop 98 because of the serious detrimental impacts it would have for California’s air, land, water, flora and fauna. Most notably, prohibitions on building in environmentally sensitive areas will be lifted and laws protecting wetlands or habitat preservation will be ended. Please read the next blog entry here to get an overview on some of the environmental consequences of Prop 98.
THE DREADFUL PROPOSITION 98, PART II -- Gutting Environmental and Land Use Law for Private Profit
If passed, Proposition 98 would change our California Constitution to make environmental and land-use regulations – even those enacted for the health, safety and welfare of the public or to preserve our fragile environment – invalid or too expensive for the State to implement and enforce. The law would add a “regulatory takings” clause to the Constitution, which (in addition to wiping out tenant protections as Ken outlined in Part I) would require the government to pay owners for any arguable decrease in their profits caused by environmental or land-use regulation.
Even if the regulated activity is harmful to the health of the citizens, the community and the environment, this change in our Constitution would allow owners to claim their absolute right to engage in such activity, and to demand that taxpayers compensate them for their total lost profits which are "taken" from them when by regulations which limit, control or prevent their ability to engage in the activity. While the regulations attempt to limit how much certain moneyed interests can exploit and damage our shared land and resources, these same interests would be able to cry about losses due to the regulations, and force the government to pay them to keep from polluting! The law would be so stacked that nearly every regulation for health, safety and the environment would become too costly for Government to enforce, and the right to maximum profit would rise above and squash the Californians’ rights to sensible planning, clean air, environmental preservation and more. The owner could go so far as to sue to invalidate the very regulations which protect our resources, our land, our air and our water.
According to a legal analysis of Prop 98 by the law firm of SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP (prepared for and made available by the California League of Conservation Voters Education Fund), regulations which could be invalidated by greedy property owners and business, or which could become a legal means for such profiteers to extort endless sums from California taxpayers include the following:
Proposition 98 would also negatively effect our ability to protect rare species and their habitats, to protect wetland areas, to protect water quality, air quality, and to protect and limit our exposure to hazardous substances.
Because such regulations impose “costs” on big polluters and make green companies and industries more competitive with dirty and exploitative corporations, Prop 98 would have all of us subsidize the polluters for their increased costs and decreasing business, or would allow them to invalidate the regulations so they could exploit, pollute and damage the environment without restriction. No matter how small or how large the alleged “costs” of the regulation, regulated owners and businesses could extort money from the State indefinitely, and would have no incentive to seek more productive and less damaging ways to make money. Worse, the ambiguities intentionally placed in this measure will lead to protracted legal battles over nearly every proposed environmental statute, rule or regulation, tying up time government resources in the courts and further preventing the implementation and enforcement of important controls and protections.
This initiative goes even farther than the defeated Proposition 90 of 2006 in allowing corporations, polluting industries and large landowners to undo and prevent environmental regulations in California. It was a bad idea then, and the voters rightly rejected it. Prop 98 is an even worse idea now. We must not let it become law and to unravel our important tenant, environmental and land use protections.
If Proposition 98 passes, rent control and all of the most essential tenant protections in cities across California will be no more! A landlord will no longer have to have a “just cause” or “good cause” to evict a tenant. Landlords will be able to serve any tenant with a 30 Day Notice and unless the Notice is served for a retaliatory or discriminatory purpose, the tenants will likely have no viable defense! Prop 98 is not even entitled as a measure to end Rent Control and Just Cause. It is billed as an “Eminent Domain” Initiative. This proposition is brought to you by the same people, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, who were responsible for one of the worst propositions the State of California has ever seen, Prop 13, which decimated cities and counties throughout the state and led to California having the most atrocious public education system of any major state in the nation.
For the legal analysis of Prop 98's impact on the rental housing market, the Western Center on Law and Poverty in Sacramento has written an excellent report. The report was made available by the S.F. Tenants Union and can be downloaded (.pdf) at http://www.sftu.org/071220%20Western%20Center%20Memo.pdf. The language of Prop 98 will re-define parts of tenant laws we have taken for granted as an unconstitutional "taking" of private property. It is not only rent control and just cause provisions which will be outlawed, but condo conversion limits, 30 and 60 day notice requirements for rent increases & evictions, and limits on landlords' ability to keep security deposits. Passage of Prop 98 will mean landlords will evict tenants who currently live in rent control jurisdictions solely to increase their profits and get more rent for their rental units. So only people with a lot of money will be able to live in wide areas of San Francisco and other California cities. Senior citizens, students, lower income working class people, artists, many people of color and other diverse populations will be forced to leave. There will be a mass exodus of tenants from Los Angeles and the Bay Area -- most likely in the hundreds of thousands -- if this proposition passes. We don’t need cities like San Francisco to mostly be an enclave for the wealthy.
Prop 98 was put on the ballot for the June 3rd Election because of historically low turnout in mid-year elections. We are confident that if tenants turn out in mass throughout California that Prop 98 will lose. But people need to vote. You need to tell everyone you know to register (last day is May 19th) and to vote. Don’t take your tenant rights for granted. If you are a landlord or an owner of real property who is not a tenant, please consider the detrimental impact this initiative will have on the demographics of places like Oakland, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Berkeley.
All the major environmental groups have come out against Prop 98 because of the serious detrimental impacts it would have for California’s air, land, water, flora and fauna. Most notably, prohibitions on building in environmentally sensitive areas will be lifted and laws protecting wetlands or habitat preservation will be ended. Please read the next blog entry here to get an overview on some of the environmental consequences of Prop 98.
If passed, Proposition 98 would change our California Constitution to make environmental and land-use regulations – even those enacted for the health, safety and welfare of the public or to preserve our fragile environment – invalid or too expensive for the State to implement and enforce. The law would add a “regulatory takings” clause to the Constitution, which (in addition to wiping out tenant protections as Ken outlined in Part I) would require the government to pay owners for any arguable decrease in their profits caused by environmental or land-use regulation.
Even if the regulated activity is harmful to the health of the citizens, the community and the environment, this change in our Constitution would allow owners to claim their absolute right to engage in such activity, and to demand that taxpayers compensate them for their total lost profits which are "taken" from them when by regulations which limit, control or prevent their ability to engage in the activity. While the regulations attempt to limit how much certain moneyed interests can exploit and damage our shared land and resources, these same interests would be able to cry about losses due to the regulations, and force the government to pay them to keep from polluting! The law would be so stacked that nearly every regulation for health, safety and the environment would become too costly for Government to enforce, and the right to maximum profit would rise above and squash the Californians’ rights to sensible planning, clean air, environmental preservation and more. The owner could go so far as to sue to invalidate the very regulations which protect our resources, our land, our air and our water.
According to a legal analysis of Prop 98 by the law firm of SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP (prepared for and made available by the California League of Conservation Voters Education Fund), regulations which could be invalidated by greedy property owners and business, or which could become a legal means for such profiteers to extort endless sums from California taxpayers include the following:
– Regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under AB 32 and other laws to limit global climate change and protect communities from the dangerous effects of climate change;(SEE http://www.ecovote.org/no98yes99/smw-letter-re-jarvis.pdf)
– Regulations that protect coastal areas, forestland, farmland, and ranchland, as well as cultural and historic sites;
– “Smart growth” regulations designed to promote compact, walkable, and transit oriented communities that combine residential and commercial land uses; and
– Ordinary zoning regulations, such as restrictions on the development of polluting industry, adult businesses, and “big box” megastores.
Proposition 98 would also negatively effect our ability to protect rare species and their habitats, to protect wetland areas, to protect water quality, air quality, and to protect and limit our exposure to hazardous substances.
Because such regulations impose “costs” on big polluters and make green companies and industries more competitive with dirty and exploitative corporations, Prop 98 would have all of us subsidize the polluters for their increased costs and decreasing business, or would allow them to invalidate the regulations so they could exploit, pollute and damage the environment without restriction. No matter how small or how large the alleged “costs” of the regulation, regulated owners and businesses could extort money from the State indefinitely, and would have no incentive to seek more productive and less damaging ways to make money. Worse, the ambiguities intentionally placed in this measure will lead to protracted legal battles over nearly every proposed environmental statute, rule or regulation, tying up time government resources in the courts and further preventing the implementation and enforcement of important controls and protections.
This initiative goes even farther than the defeated Proposition 90 of 2006 in allowing corporations, polluting industries and large landowners to undo and prevent environmental regulations in California. It was a bad idea then, and the voters rightly rejected it. Prop 98 is an even worse idea now. We must not let it become law and to unravel our important tenant, environmental and land use protections.