Gilroy
– To tenants’ advocates, it’s a godsend: an extra 30 days that
could spare evicted renters from homelessness.
To landlords, it’s a nuisance: another 30 days that problem
tenants can linger in rented rooms, wreaking havoc and repelling
good tenants.
Gilroy – To tenants’ advocates, it’s a godsend: an extra 30 days that could spare evicted renters from homelessness.
To landlords, it’s a nuisance: another 30 days that problem tenants can linger in rented rooms, wreaking havoc and repelling good tenants.
Starting Jan. 1, a state law doubled the time evicted tenants have to clear out. The bill applies to long-term tenants, those who’ve rented for a year or more. Now, those renters have 60 days to clear out. After a similar law expired last year, a Fremont assemblymember resurrected it as AB 1169 – a hotly contested bill that passed the state assembly and got the Governor’s signature last August.
Frustrated landlords say the bill delays their efforts to oust no-good tenants. Two years ago, when a previous 60-day law was in effect, San Jose landlord Carlos Padilla was revolted by used condoms and trashy-looking women, turning up outside one tenant’s door. It was, he feared, a one-room brothel. But Padilla said he couldn’t turn up enough evidence to let him turn out the tenant in three days. Instead, he resorted to no-fault eviction.
“I’d call the police, but they wouldn’t get there in time. I even hired security – for $600 a month, for three months – but [the tenants] would scramble,” he recalled. Even after 60 days, the renter refused to leave, forcing him to formally evict her. “They stayed there well over 90 days. Meanwhile, other tenants were complaining. Four good tenants moved out, and it built up a bad reputation for that complex.”
But tenants’ advocates say landlords can still evict tenants in a pinch, if they’ve skipped rent checks or violated their leases. The law applies only to no-fault evictions, which don’t require proof of a problem. Besides, they say, such problems pale alongside the plight of shucked tenants.
“If they can prove the person’s a problem tenant, they can still use a faster termination process,” said attorney Phyllis Katz, California Rural Legal Assistance. “The social benefit in eliminating or reducing homelessness should be balanced against the landlord’s interest in a speedy eviction process.”
For low-income tenants, she said, “30 [more] days can mean the difference between locating housing, and homelessness.”
Roughly 70 percent of Gilroy’s market-rate rental units are occupied, according to market research firm RealFacts’ most recent data. But the field is considerably narrower for cheaper digs and for subsidized apartments. Waiting lists for affordable Gilroy complexes such as Wheeler Manor, Villa Esperanza, and the Monticelli Apartments run from one to three years; others have closed their waiting lists.
“The lower the rent, the longer the list,” said Laura Ellenberger, Director of Property Management, South County Housing. Ellenberger says the housing market is tough, and eviction can be painful. Still, she’s not excited by the new law, which she says scapegoats landlords.
“Eviction is something we don’t move into lightly,” Ellenberger said. In the past year, she estimated, South County Housing has only issued a few no-fault evictions. “We want our units full, and it’s a lot of work and a lot of expense to evict someone.”
It cost more than $3,000 in legal and eviction fees to kick out Carlos Padilla’s problem tenant, he said, plus money poured into property damage left by the disgruntled renter, and rents left unpaid as other tenants fled. Even after 60 days pass, vexing tenants can stay put if they contest the eviction in court. Katz contends that the neediest tenants can’t afford to fight eviction.
“The only defenses a tenant can raise are discrimination, or retaliation,” she said, and both require proof. “I’m assisting people who work at Laundromats, in retail, in fast-food restaurants … Even moving expenses can be prohibitive for low-income people, and often they can’t save for a security deposit on short notice. Those 30 days make a difference.”
Meanwhile, landlords say it’s tough to muster the evidence needed to eject problem renters.
“For instance, you might be pretty sure that someone is dealing drugs, but you’d need other residents to testify,” said Eric Wiegers, local executive director of the California Apartment Association’s Tri-County Division, which represents Santa Clara, San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties. “It’s hard to get them to testify against drug dealers. So landlords use the no-fault process, which allows you to simply remove that person.
“When you’re dealing with a bad tenant,” he added, “60 days can be a really long time.”
Wiegers’ organization lobbied against the bill in 2006, flooding the Capitol with letters and phone calls. Representatives John Laird and Simón Salinas, who represent Gilroy, voted to support it. CAA is still gathering complaints about the provision from landlords: The law expires in January 2010, and they’d like to sink it for good.
When they do, warns Katz, tenants’ advocates will push back. Last year, community groups such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, declared the law their number-one housing priority, and they won’t surrender those extra 30 days without a fight.
“It’s excellent legislation,” said Katz, “and low-income tenants need that time.”
