Eviction moratoriums — state, county and city

August 11, 2020 by Fred Allebach

Eviction moratoriums have been a confusing set of overlapping federal, state, county and city rules. As these rules begin to expire, tenants face the possibility of an eviction tsunami, through no fault of their own other than being underpaid workers.

The state’s Judicial Council has said its emergency rule preventing the issuing of an eviction summons will expire on August 14. Everyone is now waiting to see what the Governor and the Legislature will do.

Common ethical sense says that the emergency orders and tenant protections need to be kept in place until the pandemic is over. Accumulated unpaid rents, even just two months’ worth, will be near impossible for working class families to pay off. Mass evictions would ruin people’s credit, devastate the economy through more loss of workforce, and lead to more Covid-19 exposure through homelessness and lack of ability to shelter in place.

For landlords, it may be more pragmatic to keep existing tenants, reduce rents to a working-class-supportable level, and work out a payment plan for back rents. If tenants are evicted, they may never pay, and renting to new tenants in the C-19 environment is an uncertain proposition.

The elephant in the room is that the whole economic system is unethical and needs to be changed. This ethical problem manifests through the eviction moratorium, as a struggle between the rights of landlords and tenants. This in a system that has historically favored the American aristocracy: property owners, white people, and big money.

Nationally, the expiration of the CAREs Act $600 a month expanded unemployment benefit means “an estimated 30–40 million people in America could be at risk of eviction in the next several months…” This on top of inequitable benefit distribution and systemic negative C-19 impacts on minorities and renters. As the avatar of white power, let’s not kid ourselves that the Trump administration really cares. California is on its own.

 Governor Newsom has extended the C-19 emergency order until 9/30, and he will likely extend it again. But the heat is on state electeds, to head off an eviction tsunami. 

There are currently two bills in the legislature, SB 140, and AB 1436. SB 140 would give tenants until 2034 to pay back rents and tenants would repay the state at tax time. Landlords would be given tax credits for the amount they did not collect. Major shortcoming of this bill: Participation by landlords is voluntary.

 With AB 1436, tenant’s credit would be protected, and tenants could never be evicted for unpaid rent that accrued during the pandemic. The grace period would be 12 months after February, 2021, or 90 days after the Governor’s emergency order was lifted, whichever came first.

The last day in this cycle to pass a state bill is August 31.

 The County is now waiting to see what the State does. The County eviction moratorium was passed under authority granted by the Governor’s executive order, in place until Sept. 30. Said the County Director of Public Health, Dr. Mase, “We need strong protections, without these, evictions are likely to surge, leading to increased spread of C-19.” Without a house, there is no shelter in place. Evictions will certainly lead to loss of life.

 The County eviction moratorium is limited to C-19-caused non-payment of rent, with potentially onerous proof requirements for tenants, that failure to pay rent is from a substantial loss of income, and that a self-certifying letter would not be adequate proof. The County may also eliminate a provision for landlords to be able to charge late fees.

 The City of Sonoma’s eviction moratorium cribbed heavily off the County moratorium and runs with the Governor’s order until 9/30. Like the County, this is only for C-19-related non-payment of rent. Onerous tenant proof requirements, too? The city moratorium would cover tenants even if the Judicial Council emergency order was not in effect. The City has a 180-day grace period, includes commercial tenants, and prohibits late fees. The City will maybe also offer landlord-tenant mediation services.

 At the August 3 City Council meeting, Amy Harrington said, “As long as we don’t have a cure for Covid, that means we are going to be in a state of emergency” and no eviction summons can be served, “so basically, 90 days after a cure for Covid” people can start to be served with an eviction or unlawful detainer lawsuit.

 However, the status of the Judicial Council emergency order is now up for grabs. At any rate, said city attorney Jeff Walter, “it’s going to be a long time” before the state of emergency is over.

 Conclusion: Multiple layers of rules and emergency orders are in play. The ball is now in the state legislature’s court. The Governor has not come out to support AB 1436 or SB 140. The legislature does not seem to have time to pass anything by 8/14, the date of the Judicial Council’s emergency order expiration prohibiting eviction summons. In my opinion, it looks like the Judicial Council will have to hold on and not sunset their emergency rule, until such time as the legislature and Governor get it together.

 The real question is who will get greater consideration — landlords or tenants? Given that politicians generally tend conservative and are beholden to donors, big business, and big money lobbyists, tenants can realistically fear the worst outcomes based on real-life power differentials. The difference with this eviction moratorium scenario is the moral and ethical dimension. 

The sheer scope of potential human suffering and health issues that stand to unfold should the Governor, Legislature, and Board of Supervisors side with the big money, brings into clear relief exactly who politicians represent. The contrast is too clear. Hanging so many tenants out to dry would be callous and unethical.