Sacramento, CA — In a move to combat homelessness and enhance housing stability, State Senator Dr. Aisha Wahab (D-Silicon Valley) has introduced the Keeping Californians Housed Act, also known as Senate Bill (SB) 436. This legislation aims to protect low-income renters from eviction due to nonpayment of rent, provided they can settle the amount owed after an eviction lawsuit has commenced.
Senator Wahab stressed the bill’s significance in a release on Wednesday, stating, “Ensuring renters are able to remain housed is crucial for housing stability of residents and as a homelessness prevention measure. It’s time we acknowledge that keeping people housed must be a core part of our strategy to address homelessness.”
The proposed measure aligns California with 21 other states by allowing renters to avoid eviction if they pay all back rent, even after legal proceedings have begun. It also ensures that tenants can maintain their residence if they provide documentation of approved rental assistance that covers the entire owed amount.
To further protect renters, SB 436 requires landlords to inform tenants of this new right when issuing the three-day notice to pay or quit, as well as in the court summons. Landlords must also provide information necessary for tenants to access rental assistance.
Currently, under California law, a landlord must issue a three-day notice to pay or quit before filing an eviction case for nonpayment. However, once this notice period lapses, renters can be evicted even if they later manage to pay the full amount due, a process that often disadvantages low-income renters who may need more time to secure financial assistance.
A report by Stanford Law School, titled “WIN-WIN: Paying Landlords and Keeping Californians Housed,” highlights these challenges and suggests improvements, which SB 436 seeks to address.
The bill, sponsored by Public Advocates, Tenants Together, and the Western Center on Law and Poverty, must clear Senate policy committees and pass off the Senate Floor by June 6, 2025, before moving to the Assembly.
Supporters of SB 436 argue that it benefits all parties involved. Suzanne Dershowitz, Senior Staff Attorney at Public Advocates, noted, “This bill is a win-win for every Californian. SB 436 would help renters stay in their homes, ensure landlords get paid, and allow public investments in rental assistance to flow more efficiently to address our affordability crisis.”
Shanti Singh, Legislative & Communications Director at Tenants Together, added, “The Keeping Californians Housed Act is a matter of basic fairness. If you can cover your missed rent, you should be able to stop your eviction, period.”
Benjamin Harrison, Housing Policy Advocate at the Western Center on Law and Poverty, emphasized the bill’s importance for vulnerable communities, stating, “Tenant rights to keep their housing without exorbitant fines and fees will specifically protect low-income renters from eviction, particularly as Black and Latine renters are subject to a disproportionate share of evictions.”
The bill represents a step toward addressing California’s affordability crisis and preventing unnecessary evictions and homelessness.
So land owners are supposed to subsidize people’s rent who can’t pay it, making owner rental property less desirable and more risky, thus driving up prices. Oh, but a landlord can sue their tenant to get the money, no big deal. Great strategy, bozos.
I don’t see the down sides that you do.
First, it allows tenants to avoid eviction by paying back rent owed – that seems reasonable
Second, it allows tenants to receive rental assistance that covers the amount
Third, it requires land lords to inform tenants of their rights when issuing a three day notice
Which one of these do you believe is unreasonable?
Are you aware that this would merely align California (the most expensive rental state) with half the country?
“First, it allows tenants to avoid eviction by paying back rent owed – that seems reasonable”
That does
“Second, it allows tenants to receive rental assistance that covers the amount”
Rental assistance? Allows or provides?
“Are you aware that this would merely align California (the most expensive rental state) with half the country?”
I’m guessing the blue half.
From the article: “ It also ensures that tenants can maintain their residence if they provide documentation of approved rental assistance that covers the entire owed amount.”
From that, it appears it allows them to use rental assistance to cover unpaid rent.
I don’t see anything outrageous in the proposal?
You win