Gov. Newsom's new bill allow tenants to pay only 25% of rent due (August: section 8, apartment)

[HB2HSV]

I got this in the email just yesterday. It is shocking to me that a Governor can do this. I understand he proposed this at a last minute designed to sneak through the legislation. The State of California is officially a Socialist State now.

What is a small mom & pop landlord suppose to do if this bill passes? They will have no choice but go into forbearance/ foreclosure.

The following information was provided to us by the Apartment Association of California Southern Cities :

Yesterday, Governor Newsom asked the Legislature to support his tenant relief bill package. The Legislature must act on this by Monday August 31, 2020. A bill [not yet identified] will be rushed through the Legislature that may cause landlords/managers to fall into bankruptcy or foreclosure.

The proposed bill:
1. Will permit tenants to pay 25% of the rent due over the next 5 months
2. Will allow tenants to repay the remaining rent on or before May 31, 2022.

Because of the short time frame, we urge you to call your Assembly Member and Senator TODAY to make your voices heard!

AB3088: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/
billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB3088

[tikkasf]

From what I read, legislation appears to be a compromise between the competing parties.


https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics...t-15522982.php


"Newsom, legislative leaders, landlord groups and tenant rights advocates have been haggling over the measure for weeks, trying to find a way to avoid mass evictions of the millions of Californians who are out of work while also ensuring that landlords are able to meet their own financial obligations. Some of the people involved in the negotiations described them as the most intense they had ever been involved in."

[HB2HSV]

Originally Posted by tikkasf

From what I read, legislation appears to be a compromise between the competing parties.


https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics...t-15522982.php


"Newsom, legislative leaders, landlord groups and tenant rights advocates have been haggling over the measure for weeks, trying to find a way to avoid mass evictions of the millions of Californians who are out of work while also ensuring that landlords are able to meet their own financial obligations. Some of the people involved in the negotiations described them as the most intense they had ever been involved in."

But why is this a "compromise" at the sacrifice of mom & pop landlords?

If California wants to protect tenants, then it can use the "section 8" practice, and pay the other 75% of rent to landlords. If California is broke, then plead to the Federal government for relief.

Remember, it's Gov. Newsom that created this crisis in the first place by shutting down the business.

[tikkasf]

Originally Posted by HB2HSV

But why is this a "compromise" at the sacrifice of mom & pop landlords?

If California wants to protect tenants, then it can use the "section 8" practice, and pay the other 75% of rent to landlords. If California is broke, then plead to the Federal government for relief.

Remember, it's Gov. Newsom that created this crisis in the first place by shutting down the business.

What was the alternative to not shutting down non essential businesses ? We saw what happened when CA started opening up a bit to soon and fast.........surge in cases.
It not just residential tenants that have been having problem paying the rent......commercial tenants also.

[HB2HSV]

Originally Posted by tikkasf

What was the alternative to not shutting down non essential businesses ? We saw what happened when CA started opening up a bit to soon and fast.........surge in cases.
It not just residential tenants that have been having problem paying the rent......commercial tenants also.

You broke the economy, you own it.

[goodheathen]

Just because they - an affected group, I assume - could pay just 25% doesn't mean they wouldn't pay more. I think they will if they can and know the homeowner might otherwise go into foreclosure and everyone end up on the street.

I personally wouldn't make the minimum that low for private houses and apartment buildings with less than, say, 8 units.

Newsom does need to try harder to extract money from the Federal government.

[tikkasf]

Originally Posted by goodheathen

Just because they - an affected group, I assume - could pay just 25% doesn't mean they wouldn't pay more. I think they will if they can and know the homeowner might otherwise go into foreclosure and everyone end up on the street.

I personally wouldn't make the minimum that low for private houses and apartment buildings with less than, say, 8 units.

Newsom does need to try harder to extract money from the Federal government.

Well,.......I guess Newsom could call up Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi ask them to work something out regarding legislation that would provide money to the states......

[Mike930]

Originally Posted by tikkasf

Well,.......I guess Newsom could call up Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi ask them to work something out regarding legislation that would provide money to the states......

It would probably have to be veto proof because I doubt Trump would sign anything that would help California.

[tikkasf]

Originally Posted by Mike930

It would probably have to be veto proof because I doubt Trump would sign anything that would help California.

I agree......

[TeeGee7]

How can the government interfere with and alter contracts between individuals?

Makes no sense.