Senate Bill 448 Aims to Streamline Property Reclamation and Protect Communities
Sacramento, CA – Amid growing concerns over unlawful property occupation, Senator Thomas J. Umberg (D-Santa Ana) has introduced Senate Bill 448, also known as the Trespassing Response and Remedies Act, to address the rising issue of squatting across California.
“At a time when the supply of rental housing is extremely low, I’m proud to be authoring a measure that delivers a comprehensive process for Californians, local governments, and law enforcement to tackle the issue of illegal squatting,” said Senator Umberg, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “SB 448 will help ensure that quality, affordable housing remains accessible to lawful renters, and that our communities are protected from the dangers and disruptions caused by illegal trespassing.”
Squatting—the unauthorized occupation of vacant residential properties—has become a nationwide problem, particularly as housing costs soar. While squatting remains illegal in California, existing laws provide squatters with certain rights, making their removal a costly and time-consuming process for property owners.
In recent years, internet forums and dark web pages have emerged, offering guides on how to break into vacant homes and claim residency. The problem has become so widespread that several states, including New York, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, passed laws in 2024 to crack down on unlawful property occupation.
SB 448, sponsored by the California Rental Housing Association (CalRHA), seeks to provide landlords with a clear and efficient legal framework to reclaim their properties while maintaining key renter protections.
“Unauthorized trespassers, or squatters, are a growing problem threatening property owners and renters in our state,” said Adam Pearce, President of CalRHA. “SB 448 offers a clearly defined and straightforward framework for property owners to reclaim their properties and protect our neighborhoods. We’ve seen firsthand how illegal trespassers take advantage of victims of disasters and occupy vacant properties. We simply cannot allow that to happen in Southern California’s fire-stricken neighborhoods. We’ve worked closely with Senator Umberg to develop a solution that will protect these property owners as they begin to rebuild.”
If passed, SB 448 would bring California in line with other states taking action against unlawful trespassing while ensuring that property owners have an effective recourse to reclaim their homes. The bill is expected to receive strong support from housing advocates and property owners seeking to curb illegal squatting and maintain access to lawful rental housing.
“While squatting remains illegal in California, existing laws provide squatters with certain rights, making their removal a costly and time-consuming process for property owners.”
Squatters should never have any rights as they’re braking the law. If they refuse to leave they should be dragged out and sent to jail.
From a practical standpoint, jail is a costly solution.
So you’re a DOGE man when it comes to sending criminals to jail?
Just messing with you…
Understood. In general, I would say that part of the problem with dealing with issues of homelessness is that none of the solutions are cheap.
You mean the issues of the effects society of years of tolerating mental illness and drug addiction on our streets and casting it in the protective language-casing of the word “homelessness” ?
Alan, the issue is more complex than simply ‘tolerating’ mental illness and addiction. Homelessness is a complex crisis driven by a lack of affordable housing, economic instability, and inadequate mental health and addiction services.
Conflating all unhoused individuals with addiction or mental illness oversimplifies the problem and ignores the many who are simply priced out of housing. And frankly isn’t helpful.
Addressing homelessness effectively requires policy solutions that go beyond criminalization or rhetoric—it means investing in housing, healthcare, and supportive services that actually break the cycle.
To quote you from another article:
“There’s really no point to continuing this discussion – we simply disagree on a basic level.”
But I’m sure we’ll continue the discussion, regardless.
But not today
A friend came across a couple of meth heads squatting on his property in the coast hills. He fired off a couple of shots (not at them). Squatting (and theft) problem solved. He told me he’d never fired a gun before. But it’s not like the cops are around the corner up in them thar hills.
This is Malik Washington. I’m glad you are all having this conversation. I agree with David that homelessness is a complex issue without any easy solutions. Not all homeless people are meth heads or mentally ill. Market-rate apartment rent is so high in San Francisco, that I found myself homeless after one bad argument with my ex. Sadly, there are a lot of people who are just regular folks trying to live in a nice place and they encounter adversity such as an illness, car accident, or loss of employment and voila, they end up homeless. I’ve been watching the fight for affordable housing in the Mission District in SF recently. It provokes me to think or ask the question, rather than criminalizing homelessness, why doesn’t Senator Umberg come up with a more creative or innovative plan which creates more affordable housing opportunities? It’s as if we are excited or anxious to punish our most vulnerable community members, but if I remember correctly, it was Senator Umberg that was supposed to be holding the California State Bar accountable for their inability to discipline bad actors. Seems like there’s a double standard at play here because the California State Bar is just as sorry as ever and I haven’t heard squat about that from Senator Umberg.
San Francisco is probably not a place were extremely-vulnerable people should try to live.
There’s so many other places to choose from.
There is a problem with your statement. 71% of those living in San Francisco, who are currently unhoused are from San Francisco and guess what in order to receive services you have to receive them from your home county so given that how do you suppose to accomplish what you’re suggesting?
How is “home county” defined or confirmed, and is that a policy in other places?
County where the individual became homeless
That’s a partial answer.
What’s to prevent someone from moving to the city on the “prior day” and then pursuing services, as an extreme example?
What type of address do they have to provide, and is it confirmed?
I don’t know
I already pretty much knew that “you don’t know”. And yet, you presented it as if it was relevant or important.
Ok
Also, what type of services are we talking about here?
Here’s a handy dashboard.
https://www.sf.gov/data–point-time-survey-results
It looks like the 71% figure was correct in 2022. In 2024, it is now 59%.
These figures come from the Point In Time count that counties conduct.
“The U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires all communities that receive grant funding from HUD for addressing homelessness to conduct an annual count of people experiencing sheltered homelessness and a bi- annual count of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness. In 2024, a sheltered and unsheltered count was conducted. The PIT Count helps inform federal, state, and local decision-making and resource allocation to effectively address homelessness. “
So it’s self-reported, limited to the 843 respondents (asked of those who claim to have lived in San Francisco before becoming homeless).
This implies something different than what David stated, regarding “residency requirements” to receive services – unless they’re only providing services to these respondents.
(Looks like there’s no confirmation process, regardless.)
The percentage of respondents who claim to have lived in the city for “less than a year” has increased rather significantly (from 13% to 32%).
And the percentage of long-term residents (who became homeless) showed a corresponding decrease, overall.
It would be interesting to know how many of the longer term respondents were priced out of rent-controlled units (if any).
Correction – it appears that the number of respondents for 2024 was 414.
The way that they presented that table combined two different years. (There’s better ways to create a table.)
So, since 133 of the 414 respondents stated that they lived in San Francisco for less than a year, we’re now down to 281 respondents who stated that they lived in San Francisco for more than a year.
And that the survey included “120 surveys administered to youth”.
What is the overall population of homeless people in San Francisco?
In any case, surveys like this (which rely upon voluntary responses) are not an accurate measure regarding the overall homeless population (in regard to the percentage of long term residents who became homeless).
So anyone stating that “XX” percentage of homeless individuals were long-term residents is simply blowing smoke.
In fact, the survey itself states that those who became homeless “elsewhere” weren’t even asked the question.
Does anyone else have the nerve to state that this survey represents anything at all?
It looks like this conversation went off track.
It’s about people illegally squatting in someone else’s home and making the laws easier for the rightful homeowners to evict them.