A companion measure, AB 1481 (and a similar bill AB 1697) that would require "just cause" for tenant evictions, did not advance from the Assembly by an end-of-May deadline, meaning neither will move to the state Senate, meaning its dead for the year (unless proponents undertake gymnastic legislative measures to advance its text.) here.)

On the vote, LB-area Assemblyman Patrick O'Donnell was recorded among "no votes recorded."

Ayes: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Berman, Bloom, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Eggman, Friedman, Gabriel, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Levine, Limón, Maienschein, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Quirk, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Santiago, Mark Stone, Ting, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon
Noes: Bigelow, Boerner Horvath, Brough, Cervantes, Chen, Choi, Cooper, Cunningham, Dahle, Daly, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Gallagher, Gray, Kiley, Lackey, Low, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Smith, Voepel, Waldron
No Votes Recorded: Bauer-Kahan, Cooley, Diep, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, O'Donnell

When the bill reaches the state Senate, it will have a new voting Senator: either LB Councilwoman Lena Gonzalez (who recently voted with a City Council majority (6-3) to direct the City Attorney to draft a "tenant relocation assistance" ordinance that will require landlords with over four units or more to pay tenants two months rent if the tenant chooses to leave rather than a pay rent increase beyond a certain amount.) She's in a runoff with Cudahy Councilman Jack Guerrero (who opposes rent control on principle as a conservative economist opposed to government marketplace intervention.) The race is being decided by vote-by-mail ballots (circulating since May 6) with polling-place voting on June 4.

If approved by the state Senate, AB 1482 would as a practical matter establish the principle of a statewide annual rent cap...and nothing would prevent the state legislature from subsequently reducing or increasing the Sacramento allowed amount.

Following an April 23 Assembly committee vote that advanced AB 1482 (rent cap), Gov. Gavin Newsom issued the following statement:

[Gov. Newsom statement] "The California Dream is in peril if our state doesn't act to address the housing affordability crisis. The cost of housing -- both for homeowners and renters -- is the defining quality-of-life concern for people across this state. Housing costs and rising rents threaten to erode our state's long-term prosperity. Families shouldn't be forced to live hours from where they work. Vulnerable residents -- seniors, families with small children and people on a fixed income -- shouldn't have to live in constant fear of eviction. And people across this state shouldn't be forced to spend their whole paycheck to keep a roof overhead. But that's increasingly the case throughout California. I am grateful that members of the Assembly voted today to continue moving forward on one piece of the housing affordability solution -- creating a renter protection package. I look forward to continuing this important conversation as proposals move through the legislative process.

>AB 1482 would apply to all rental units statewide except those already subject to rent control in a number of CA cities. A petition-initiated ballot measure that would have repealed the Costa-Hawkins Act (that currently prevents additional cities from enacting local rent control measures) failed passage in November 2018 (Prop 10) but supporters have advanced a new measure to appear on the November 2020 ballot. >[Scroll down for further.]

The Governor's support for a "package" of housing-related bills is consistent with views expressed by several Senate Dems at an April 24 state Senate Governance and Finance Committee hearing that advanced SB 50 (state preemption of aspects of locally enacted single family housing zoning) by state Senator Scott Wiener (D, SF).

For the upcoming May 7 LB City Council meeting, two LB Councilmembers -- Al Austin and Stacy Mungo -- have agendized an item to oppose SB 50 (LBREPORT.com coverage here.) SB 50's author, Senator Wiener, has endorsed Councilwoman Lena Gonzalez for a LB-southeast L.A. county state Senate seat (runoff election June 4 with vote-by-mail ballots flying starting May 6.) Gonzalez's state Senate bid has been endorsed by Mayor Garcia and Councilmembers Pearce, Price, Mungo, Uranga and Richardson.)

Sponsor

Sponsor

On April 2, Councilwoman Gonzalez voted with a Council majority (6-3, Price, Supernaw, Mungo dissenting) to direct the City Attorney to prepare a "tenant relocation ordinance" requiring landlords to pay two months rent (could range from roughly $2,700 to $4.500) to a tenant who chooses to leave rather than a pay rent increase beyond a City Hall-specified amount. LB landlords said the "tenant relocation ordinance" would amount to controlling rents, which city management denied [effectively letting Mayor Garcia and LB Councilmembers remain consistent with their previously voiced opposition to rent control.]

Sponsor

Shortly before casting her "yes" vote, Councilwoman Gonzalez stated:

...For me particularly this has been a very tough issue for me as a Councilmember in a downtown that has expanded and grown and has really displaced so many of my residents. So many of my residents it makes me not sleep at night. I will tell you that. It's very difficult...

[After colloquy with Assistant City Manager Modica confirming that the proposed ordinance doesn't limit rent increases] ...I just want to make sure because there are a lot of landlords that said they were keeping their rent very low. Then guess what? Then this ordinance doesn't apply to you. I'm glad. I'm glad you're keeping them low; This does not apply to you whatsoever...

So again, just to be clear: the City Council's never engaged in a rent control or just-cause [eviction] policy. We've never engaged in that, and that's even despite the multiple resident and economic pressures, and rightfully so by our residents. We've never engaged in those discussions or policies.

We've actually engaged in land use discussions that have aligned for neighborhood character when we wanted to and should have created a little bit more affordable housing. We've also been chastised as a Council in some regards for garnering funds for an annual homeless shelter. And even with all of that, to ensure that we have rooves over people's heads, to ensure that we were pushing when it came to affordable housing, people in our districts even now, and specifically in my district where 80% are renters are being displaced now. Now. And what I ask oftentimes is when is enough enough? When do we have to turn the curve and say, you know, while some have called this tenant welfare, some have called this you know Nazi control which is really sort of out of line and inappropriate, I would call this relief and improvement of quality of life.

And with roughly 60% of our residents renting their homes, Long Beach has almost double the amount of renters compared to the nationwide average. And like I mentioned, the 1st district has 80% renters.

This has been an issue personally, professionally for me that I'm sure we're getting right, not just to offer protections as the true spirit of the item when we first brought this forward in January 2018 but also as people mentioned here to create housing stability. It's really unfortunate when people are being consistently being, constantly displaced at a very rapid pace with absolutely no relief. And especially people with seniors, people with disabilities and very low income individuals. So well I'll just say here, and I know that there's been a lot of misinformation about what this policy says and what it includes...

In November 2018, CA voters declined to approve a petition-initated measures that would have repealed the statewide Costa-Hawkins Act currently limiting new local rent control measures.

Sponsor

Sponsor

Sponsor

Sponsor

Support really independent news in Long Beach. No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to development interests, advocacy groups or other special interests; or is seeking or receiving benefits of City development-related decisions; or holds a City Hall appointive position; or has contributed sums to political campaigns for Long Beach incumbents or challengers. LBREPORT.com isn't part of an out of town corporate cluster and no one its ownership, editorial or publishing decisionmaking has been part of the governing board of any City government body or other entity on whose policies we report. LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. You can help keep really independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.