|
|
 |
|
 |
January 2006 |
|
| |
|
|
| |
SIXTY-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT WILL REVERT TO THIRTY |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
California landlords will undoubtedly be pleased to hear that, effective January 1, 2006, there will be a change in the law regarding the minimum amount of time for giving notice to terminate a month-to-month tenancy that has been in effect at least one year. Instead of the current sixty-day requirement, it will revert to the thirty-day notice that had been the law for quite some time.
Usually, significant changes of this sort are the result of some legislation that was passed during the most recent session. In this case, however, the important fact is that a piece of legislation, Senate Bill 51 (Kuehl) failed.
First, some background, as provided by the Senate Legislative Analyst: In 2001, a pilot program was established for three low-vacancy rental markets in the Los Angeles area. Sponsored by Senator Kuehl, it required that landlords in those regions give a minimum of sixty-days’ notice to tenants who had lived in the dwelling for at least one year. In 2002, that program was expanded to the whole state, again as a result of legislation introduced by Senator Kuehl.
But the 2002 legislation (SB 1403) was subject to a three-year “sunset provision”. A sunset provision specifies that the legislation to which it is attached will expire at a certain time, unless a subsequent bill repeals the sunset. As the legislative analyst puts it, “Sunset provisions are useful tools for reaching compromise when it appears that actual experience under the law may provide empirical evidence of its usefulness or its unintended or undesirable impacts.”
This year’s legislation, SB 51, was designed to repeal the sunset provision that had been attached to the 2002 law requiring a sixty-day notice. What the hearing testimony showed was that the actual experience did not yield unequivocal empirical evidence. Much of the testimony was anecdotal, and it cut both ways.
For example, the bill’s author submitted testimony that “the amount of available housing in certain California cities is the lowest in the nation and dropping. Los Angeles hosts the lowest vacancy rate in the nation with 3%... San Diego’s rate is the second lowest with 3.2%... [and] the Inland Empire and Orange County are the fourth and fifth lowest…”
On the other hand, the California Housing Council and a number of property owners associations from around the state argued, “By all accounts, rents in California markets have stabilized. Vacancy rates have increased substantially in many markets; so much so that owners are now giving move-in concessions and tenants are taking advantage of the high vacancy rates and increased competition by demanding and getting rent reductions.”
The California Apartment Association argued that the sixty-day notice requirement was harmful to the majority of tenants because “it delays the removal of ‘problem tenants’ who pose a health or safety threat to other residents.” To that, supporters of the bill argued that existing law already provides landlords with an expedited process for seeking the eviction of tenants who had caused a nuisance or otherwise violated the rental agreements. But these processes, the Apartment Association argued back, are both costly and lengthy, placing an undue burden on landlords.
And on and on the arguments went. What’s a poor legislator to do? Well, in this case the legislature found insufficient cause to continue the sixty-day notice requirement. SB 51 did not pass, and the notice requirement will revert to thirty days as of the first of the year.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
