Governor of California

Gavin

Newsom signed several new laws to protect renters from eviction and high rental costs, including a bill limiting the number of people who pay security deposits upfront.

The bills strengthen California’s already robust renter protection laws and are intended to prevent vulnerable, low-income renters from becoming homeless and exacerbating one of the state’s worst crises.

Here are three bills Newsom has signed into law

the past weeks

and one he vetoed due to cost concerns:

Limitation of security deposits

One of the most significant measures Newsom signed this year is Assembly Bill 12, which prohibits landlords from charging more than one month’s rent as a security deposit.

Assemblymember Matt Haney, a San Francisco Democrat who authored AB 12 along with anti-poverty groups and labor unions, argued that high security deposits were often the barrier to people finding affordable housing, especially in wealthier cities along the coasts with more exorbitant rents. Prices.

The opposition, including Republicans and moderate Democrats, argued that landlords take risks when renting out their homes, and that security deposits ensure they have enough money to cover any damages incurred. Reduce how much

bee

Landlords can charge costs in advance. Opponents of the bill warned that this could mean more rental properties are taken off the market.

“Further limiting a property owner’s ability to financially cover property damage or unpaid rent is an unfair imposition on rental property owners,” the California Apartment Assn. wrote in opposition to the bill.

The bill will come into effect on July 1.

Strengthening an anti-eviction law

California lawmakers passed a bill in 2019 that created new rules against eviction and limited annual rent increases to 5% plus inflation.

This year, Senator Mara Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) introduced Senate Bill 567 to tighten these rules and ensure that

That

Landlords did not take advantage of what proponents of the measure called loopholes to illegally throw out tenants.

California renters will see a cap on rent increases under the bill sent to Newsom

The new law

signed by Newsom

adds enforcement mechanisms to ensure this

That

owners don’t use permitted evictions to remove low-income residents, then turn around and put the unit back on the market at a higher rent. It was also opposed by business groups, apartment and rental associations and moderate Democrats.

“Today is a victory for all Californians,” Michelle Pariset, director of legislative affairs at the nonprofit Public Advocates, said in a statement as SB 567 was signed. “This law will allow more of our neighbors to remain in their homes!

The law comes into effect on April 1.

Study of social housing

Lawmakers in recent years have largely failed to pass bills to create more social housing, a type of state-owned mixed housing popular in Singapore and Austria.

that is it

often cheaper than typical rental units.

This year, Senator Aisha Wahab (D-Hayward) introduced Senate Bill 555 to explore how California can move forward in public housing development, through a combination of purchasing existing buildings or producing new housing. The bill requires the California Department of Housing and Community Development to release a robust study by December. August 31, 2026, outlining financing options and availability of public land, along with challenges

That

that the state might face in pursuing social housing.

Bill for the construction of social housing was vetoed

Critics of Bill Newsom’s signature public housing scheme pointed out that a study does not build new homes.

Instead, they supported Assembly Bill 309, a bill from Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-San Jose) that would have created a new program within the Department of General Services to eventually develop up to three public housing projects on surplus land owned by belongs to the state. .

Newsom vetoed the bill in October. 7, arguing that the state was already developing affordable housing on surplus land, while claiming the bill “could potentially cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars.”