Gov. Newsom's new bill allow tenants to pay only 25% of rent due (leasing, eviction)

[tikkasf]

"AB3088, which needed a two-thirds vote in both houses, passed 33-2 in the 40-member Senate and 56-8 in the 80-member Assembly. The bill was largely supported by Democrats, with a few Republicans joining them."



https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics...r-15528629.php

[tikkasf]

Originally Posted by evening sun

I agree, people who are having problems paying the rent now, are not going to miraculously come up with the thousands of dollars they will owe by March. Why can't the expanded unemployment benefits cover rents?

The expanded benefits were likely providing enough to cover rent.......when it included the extra $600 a week benefit. But, extension of that Federally funded benefit, albeit likely at a lesser amount, is tied up in partizan politics in DC. I think your point is valid regarding the difficulty of those tenants who can't make the rent now, being able to come up with possibly thousands of dollars later on. Later on though, the pandemic may be coming under control and jobs coming back and the money could be paid back over time, with time limit

One proposal out there is that Federal aid in the form of a loan to make up the difference the tenant can't pay the landlord. But, the tenant would be the one paying back the government in installments.

[vincenze]

This bill actually helps landlords to keep inflated rents.

If there are thousands of empty apartments in your area (after thousands renters have been evicted), a landlord has to lower her rents significantly until she finds a good renter with money.
---
Of course, if a current renter can't pay her inflated rent of $2,000 per month now, she won't pay 6x$2,000 = $12,000 in 6 months.

She could be replaced by a new renter who pays only $1,500, but always. The government doesn't want that.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by tikkasf

Later on though, the pandemic may be coming under control and jobs coming back and the money could be paid back over time, with time limit

Didn't the bill have a stipulation that repayment plans couldn't extend beyond a year from when the 25% payment option expired too? The whole thing seems like it's meant to keep people in place up until March, with the expectation that they will simply default on the balance after that point. For some people, that's probably a better option than saddling themselves with an extra payment even if they're digging out of their hole by that point. The worst a person can expect is to be sued, but for what? A wage garnishment of any type would be less than a normal payment plan. And so many people are going to emerge from the pandemic with bad marks on their credit, it won't even register. Lenders can't just stop lending money to everyone with some missed payments unless they want to go out of business too.

[tikkasf]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Didn't the bill have a stipulation that repayment plans couldn't extend beyond a year from when the 25% payment option expired too? The whole thing seems like it's meant to keep people in place up until March, with the expectation that they will simply default on the balance after that point. For some people, that's probably a better option than saddling themselves with an extra payment even if they're digging out of their hole by that point. The worst a person can expect is to be sued, but for what? A wage garnishment of any type would be less than a normal payment plan. And so many people are going to emerge from the pandemic with bad marks on their credit, it won't even register. Lenders can't just stop lending money to everyone with some missed payments unless they want to go out of business too.

I think you are correct on the repayment length terms.

[PamelaIamela]

Originally Posted by Igor Blevin

Right. Let the taxpayers clean up the mess AGAIN.

Taxpayers haven't fully funded Federal expenditures for the last SIXTY YEARS.
Some years more, some years less.
Looking at the last few trillions that were spent for this cluster@#$% I'd say we're well on the way to 'hardly at all' with consumer price inflation concerning pretty much no one.

At least not until all the US dollars sitting outside the country come home to roost.
Then the piper will want to be paid.
Till then ain't modern monetary theory great?

[goodheathen]

The minimum for renters in small, non-corporate buildings should be higher, at least by next year. If people can't afford the area, at some point they need to face facts and move. Fortunately a provision was included for owners of those properties to avoid foreclosure, but I don't think that is enough. My recommendation is for them to boost the minimum to 33% on January 1 if the monthly rent will not then be increased to tenants in 2021.

[dozener]

Landlords can just raise the rent until a 25% payment is enough for their expenses

[tikkasf]

Originally Posted by dozener

Landlords can just raise the rent until a 25% payment is enough for their expenses

That may not be possible depending on the type of rental




https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ca...law-2019-10-08

[Electrician4you]

Originally Posted by k374

what do you expect in a socialist state? either accept this kind of thing or move... I don't understand the constant whining by these landlords, the state is socialist and geared towards giving freebies to the poor... if you don't like that climate then don't become a landlord in CA.

Easy to say when you don’t have rentals. It’s a lot harder when you are established and the government just throws bricks through your windshield.

Originally Posted by tikkasf

"The California Apartment Association, the premier landlord lobbying group in the Capitol, has endorsed the proposal, while eagerly awaiting a federal hand flush with cash. "


https://calmatters.org/housing/2020/...eviction-deal/

The CAA is a joke. I don’t even understand why they call themselves a landlord lobby group