By Jamie Joaquin
SACRAMENTO, CA — The California Legislature has voted down AB 897, a proposal that would have allowed for easier removal of squatters and trespassers from private property, according to The Center Square California.
Proponents of AB 897 argued the bill would ease the burden on property owners, allowing them to remove trespassers without leases while avoiding lengthy civil proceedings.
The bill’s author, Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, said, “When the rightful owner discovers that their property has been stolen by a trespasser, they dial 911, as most people in America would do. A police officer or a sheriff’s deputy shows up and says, ‘Sorry, we can’t help you.’ California is one of the only states where this nightmare is happening.”
“We’ve literally seen situations where the police officer or sheriff’s deputy advises the rightful property owner that they may be arrested for trespassing on their own property and for demanding that someone be removed. It is time for us to clarify in state law that squatters can be removed with due process,” DeMaio told the committee, as reported by The Center Square California.
However, critics argued that not only are existing mechanisms already in place to remove trespassers, but that the bill could exacerbate California’s homelessness crisis.
The Center Square California quoted nonprofit Housing California, which stated, “Rather than addressing the root causes of our state’s housing crisis, AB 897 would accelerate pathways into homelessness… Landlords and tenants currently have access to civil eviction processes designed to address unauthorized occupancy.”
Had it passed, AB 897 would have required individuals occupying a property without legal documentation to provide a valid lease or proof of rent payments within three days or face arrest. If documentation were provided, a hearing would have been scheduled within a week to determine its validity.
“Should the magistrate find the documentation is improper or fraudulent, the individual would be removed and subject to liability for damages and back rent based on the property’s fair market value,” The Center Square California reported.
According to the outlet, AB 897 would have applied only to squatters or trespassers without a lease agreement; those with documentation would still go through California’s formal eviction process—one that “…so heavily favors tenants that some individuals are now ‘professional tenants’ with serial, drawn-out evictions and unpaid rent.”
The Center Square California also cited Fox 11 reporter Matthew Seedorff, who highlighted two vacant Hollywood homes where approximately 20 squatters had moved in, prompting local complaints involving drugs, weapons, public nudity, and fires.
Los Angeles eviction attorney Avi Sinai noted the severe backlog of legal evictions in the state. “I’ve heard that LA County Sheriff is six months behind in eviction lockouts on some offices… six months to get a lockout date, on top of the eviction battle,” Sinai posted on X, according to The Center Square California.
In a follow-up interview, Sinai contrasted California’s legal process with other states where eviction cases are resolved more swiftly. “In other states, you go in front of a commissioner, you get a hearing date in two weeks, and it’s over. The sheriff comes in a couple of days. But here, even with a bench trial, it just takes forever,” he said.
Due to these delays, many property owners resort to “cash for keys”—offering unauthorized occupants money to vacate immediately rather than engage in prolonged legal battles. The Center Square California reported that such deals often fuel a cycle of squatting, with individuals taking cash and moving on to the next property.
I can’t believe the Democrats that run the state legislature didn’t pass this bill. California is a laughingstock of the nation.
Making it easier to remove squatters is another 80 – 20 issue that democrats come down on the wrong side of.
Politics and talking points don’t make good for nuance, but details matter in these bills. Not to mention, 80-20 issues are not written in stone.
So are you okay with squatters taking over someone’s property and making it a lengthy and expensive ordeal for the owners to get them evicted?
This is pretty close to my position: “ critics argued that not only are existing mechanisms already in place to remove trespassers, but that the bill could exacerbate California’s homelessness crisis.
The Center Square California quoted nonprofit Housing California, which stated, “Rather than addressing the root causes of our state’s housing crisis, AB 897 would accelerate pathways into homelessness… Landlords and tenants currently have access to civil eviction processes designed to address unauthorized occupancy.”
Until we actually address the problem, we’re just shuffling people around and such laws likely do more harm than good.
“critics argued that not only are existing mechanisms already in place to remove trespassers, but that the bill could exacerbate California’s homelessness crisis.”
The new law would’ve addressed the squatter problem by making it easier for the rightful property owners to evict them but would’ve still left in protections for lease disputes and other such cases. Not passing this bill will encourage more squatting.
Where will the people who are evicted go? Until that issue is addressed, all this stuff is musical chairs – at best.
That’s the evicted person’s (criminal’s) problem. It’s not up to any homeowner to have to suffer financial loss because someone else is homeless. And are all squatters homeless or are some taking advantage of a loophole in the eviction laws as they exist today which democrat legislators are obviously okay with even though the public is strongly against.
I guess your first sentence sums up my opposition to your view point. Often public opinion drives bad policy choice especially in the long run.
Squatting as a solution to homelessness? WTF.
No one is viewing squatting as a solution to anything, the problem I think is what happens after you evict people if you don’t have somewhere for them to go. This is the same problem with clearing encampments – it sounds good, people want it, but without a plan in place, it causes more harm.
David misses the “nuance’. LOL
“No one is viewing squatting as a solution to anything”…. but you are saying that the “root causes of homelessness” need to be solved before someone can have an individual removed from their property. So, in effect, you are saying that squatting is a solution to homelessness.
You still haven’t answered the question posed by Keith Olsen: WHY IS IT THE PROPERTY OWNER’S REPSONSBILITY TO HOUSE/SHELTER THE HOMELESS (CRIMINAL) SQUATTERS? Why do you feel that it’s justified to lay that burden on them?
The question to me isn’t whether it’s the responsibility of property owners – it’s clearly not – the question is the best way to address it – and that’s the key point of disagreement here.
You’re dancing around the question. By restricting the removal process you’re putting the burden on the property owners (possibly endangering them). So in effect, until someone figures out what to do with the illegal squatters, you are laying on the problem/burden on the property owners.
I think the problem is you are framing the issue solely as owners vs. squatters. But that ignores the deeper failure of a system that produces both mass homelessness and vacant housing. While restrictions on removal may burden property owners, the alternative—quick evictions without due process—risks humanitarian harm and ignores the reality that many have no place else to go. Neither Keith has addressed this issue.
The best way to address it is to make it easier for property owners to evict squatters. It’s not difficult. Private property owners aren’t responsible for the homeless.
“I think the problem is you are framing the issue solely as owners vs. squatters.”
Uhm, yes – that is the issue that the bill would have addressed.
If I’m understanding David’s position correctly, he’s stating that if you’re a privileged property owner, you get what you deserve regarding squatters since you didn’t fulfill your societal obligation to house them. As a result, it’s now your personal obligation to house your new “tenants” (and continue paying property taxes, insurance, maintenance, damage caused by your new “tenants”, etc.). And don’t show up on your property, or you’ll be subject to arrest.
Sort of like how it’s everyone else’s fault when someone ends up in prison, for not providing sufficient opportunity, etc. And no doubt, due to systemic racism; not crime committed by individuals.
Gotta wonder if that was some of the underlying belief on the part of the politicians and organizations that killed this bill. Almost holding property owners as “hostages” by killing this bill.
Do me a favor and don’t try to understand my position – lol
Don’t need to – you’ve said it yourself, above (more than once).
You seem to have some general legal knowledge (and connections with attorneys). Maybe the Vanguard can assist these tenants with fake leases. :-)
Think of all the social justice you can personally meter-out/administer. (Also, my guess is that this is documented somewhere in a “social contract”.)
“I think the problem is you are framing the issue solely as owners vs. squatters. ”
From the property owner’s standpoint (and the local community) WHAT MATTERS IS AN IMMEDIATE SOLUTION. That’s what the issue is. NOT THE SOLUTION TO THE UNDERLYING ISSUES OF THE PROBLEM.
What, do you expect? That property owners who have squatters will just decide to donate to the local housing shelters or start a community affordable housing fund? Call up their legislator to pass laws that support more homeless solutions funding? Then hope those solutions, donations and volunteer work yield a solution….over the next many months…years? In the hope the squatters move on from their property????
“Do me a favor and don’t try to understand my position – lol”
Generally Ron O and I agree on about 1/3 to 1/2 of things here. But his interpretation of your comments and response pretty closely lines up with my reading of your comments….and it appears to line up with other readers’ interpretation of your comments on the subject as well.
So I’d be interested in hearing you reply to Ron’s comment and interpretation to your response on this subject as it would answer my underlining question (and others with the same comment/question) as well.
Ron’s characterization distorts the argument.
The point isn’t that property owners “get what they deserve,” but that we should be honest about the root causes of housing insecurity. No one is suggesting individuals should be forced to bear the entire burden—but when the system fails to provide shelter, it inevitably creates legal and moral conflicts between public need and private ownership.
Equating this with excusing crime or denying personal responsibility also misses the mark. This is not about erasing individual actions, it’s about recognizing how policies, systems, and disinvestment shape outcomes. We have a general unwillingness to confront those systemic failures—blaming the vulnerable is easier than demanding accountability from government or addressing the housing crisis at its source. Until we are willing to do that, these kinds of cosmetic solutions are going to cause far more problems than we solve.
“We have a general unwillingness to confront those systemic failures—blaming the vulnerable is easier than demanding accountability from government or addressing the housing crisis at its source.”
Anyone squatting is not doing so out of “vulnerability”. They’re gaming the system – the system that’s being allowed to continue.
The same is true of almost all crime. That is, people (whom you claim are vulnerable) are victimizing those who actually ARE vulnerable.
There’s people who do this type of thing “professionally”.
There are places people can live “for free”. Slab City is one example. That’s a respectable situation – not causing much problem for anyone else, and is “officially” tolerated. It’s also a community where (for the most part) they watch out for each other, and actually create structure – literally. You can literally eat for free, there.
Basis for this statement?
You’re not going to like the answer to that (Slab City). (Several YouTube videos show what life is like, there. They even have a makeshift community kitchen/servers.)
It’s sort of like a commune, but not as controlled. The lack of control has some downsides (e.g., criminals can show up). It is patrolled by the local sheriff, however. (They interviewed one of the officers at the station, and he said that they sometimes direct people there – noting that anyone can stay.)
There are people who have talent in there, as well – artists, those with construction experience, etc.). They use solar energy for power, since there’s no other source.
As far as squatters are concerned, I can probably refer you to some articles regarding those who are gaming the system.
LOL
BTW, Slab City is not a viable or scalable solution. It’s unregulated, lacks basic services, and most importantly, isn’t an option for people with disabilities, children, or jobs tied to a region. Suggesting that people should simply relocate to a remote desert encampment to avoid “causing problems” shifts the burden away from society’s responsibility to address housing access, mental health care, and poverty in humane, sustainable ways.
So you’re still dancing to the same silly “bigger underlying problem” tune?
” it’s about recognizing how policies, systems, and disinvestment shape outcomes.”
NO IT’S NOT. That’s some progressive dogma (and I’m mostly a liberal) being spouted back as a response that has little to do with the issue at hand. THE ISSUE IS WHAT TO DO ABOUT SQUATTERS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. The issue is not how to solve the homeless problem. They are distinctly different problems. Related problems but different. This is what everyone here is trying to tell you.
“it inevitably creates legal and moral conflicts between public need and private ownership.”
That’s why there was need to create ways to help private property owners….managing the conflicts between the public and private is what government is for.
“Until we are willing to do that, these kinds of cosmetic solutions are going to cause far more problems than we solve.”
Problems for whom? Again those “cosmetic changes” are to help the property owners regain their property NOT SOLVE THE HOMELESS PROBLEM.
So please answer the questions about this issue: squatters vs. property owners. Let’s not hear anymore irrelevant commentary about the bigger homeless problem and it’s underlying issues….the inequality of it all…etc…
“ THE ISSUE IS WHAT TO DO ABOUT SQUATTERS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY”
Actually, that’s not the issue or at least not the whole issue. The issue is how to address this problem within an overall context. Unless you address that context, you’re not solving the problem. What’s hilarious to me is I get all these people on here talking about the need to address empty homes and then those very same people (some of them at least) are bemoaning property rights. You’re more consistent on this point, but there is a lot of irony from where I sit.
“BTW, Slab City is not a viable or scalable solution.”
It’s both – literally viable (has existed for years), and is scalable. Probably VASTLY scalable, if basic services were provided.
“It’s unregulated, lacks basic services, and most importantly, isn’t an option for people with disabilities, children, or jobs tied to a region.”
None of those statements are unilaterally true. There are people with disabilities there, children, etc. (There’s a school bus which picks them up, though I’d suggest NOT HAVING KIDS (or even a dog) in the first place if you can’t even take care of yourself.
The fact that most of these people couldn’t hold a job in society IS the primary reason they ended up in places like Slab City.
“Suggesting that people should simply relocate to a remote desert encampment to avoid “causing problems” shifts the burden away from society’s responsibility to address housing access, mental health care, and poverty in humane, sustainable ways.”
I’m not “suggesting” that they move there. But I have respect for those who do so (as well as the thousands of others living low-cost lives in semi-wilderness areas, off the grid, etc.). And in the case of Slab City, they help each other as well (and take pride in that).
A lot more respectable than gaming the system. Again, THOSE people aren’t “victims” – they’re professional criminals. (Sometimes, by “pretending” to be legitimate renters – at first.)
“What’s hilarious to me is I get all these people on here talking about the need to address empty homes and then those very same people (some of them at least) are bemoaning property rights.”
I’m on here almost everyday and I’m not seeing all these people.
Did you miss the whole discussion the other day?
“The issue is how to address this problem within an overall context.”
And here is the error in your ability to understand the problem at hand. You keep trying to redefine it to meet your desired goals (to fix the homeless problem). The rest of us in the real world are saying that it’s about property owner rights.
I mean….what I find hilariously frustrating is your obstinate desire (what about 4-5 posts and counting) at turning this debate into a homelessness solution problem.
“Unless you address that context, you’re not solving the problem”
WE’RE NOT TRYING TO SOVLE THE HOMELESS PROBLEM. We’re trying to make it easier to get rid of squatters. It’s like saying you have a small hole in the wall of your home and it’s allowing your neighbor’s dogs to come into your home, eat your food, track mud and stuff everywhere. But you don’t want to remove them because your neighbor isn’t home to take care of their dogs. And don’t go with the outraged by the analogy schtick….the point illustrated with the analogy was a good one.
“What’s hilarious to me is I get all these people on here talking about the need to address empty homes and then those very same people (some of them at least) are bemoaning property rights.”
Both of those issues (vacant homes, and property rights) are a result of capitalism – the same system that you advocate for in regard to your support for YIMBYism to “fix” the problems you care about. Which (despite being allowed to flourish), hasn’t worked out too-well for someone with your perspective. (And yet, you apparently continue to think it will. Drinking the “Scott Wiener cool-aid”, so to speak.)
But the main “problem” with your position is that the problems you seek a solution to are different than what “most” people view as a problem.
” . . . address empty homes ”
Address *what* about empty homes?
” . . . and then those very same people (some of them at least) are bemoaning property rights.”
Bemoaning property rights? Bemoaning how? How does one bemoan a property right? Property rights are what they are.
I believe this bill failed in committee, not by a vote of the legislature.
Here was the vote: (Y: 2 N: 3 NV: 0 Abs: 4) [FAIL]
It is also one of the simplest pieces of legislation I’ve ever read. (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB897#99INT)
Do you believe private property owners ever have the right to effect the removal of people from their properties, David?
DG, you are completely wrong about this. No nuance, period. The line, ” . . . the bill could exacerbate California’s homelessness crisis” is criminally insane gaslighting, and you should be prosecuted for even writing something that stupid :-|
I friend ran across a couple of meth-head squatters unexpectedly at a cabin of his in the Coast Foothills. Two on one, no law enforcement within 45 minutes. He fired his gun and scared them off. Told me he totally freaked out as he’d never fired a gun once in his life. So there’s another answer to you pro-homeless lunatics, like you DG, to your infernal question “where do they go?”. How about six feet under with a bullet?
I’m not trying to be flippant. These situations, that are often people who just own one or a couple or properties, can be one-on-one confrontations and dangerous. Rarely are squatters just people down on their luck. Now if you want to apply this to corporations having to go through a more thorough process that’s one thing as it isn’t going to be an unexpected confrontation, but to apply this to someone who might have a temporarily empty or vacation home is insanity, and you should take back your position and start thinking rationally. Booooo. Booooo. Booooo!
So if I own a second automobile and someone else doesn’t own a car they can steal it and I will have to go through months of legal proceedings and financial hardship in order to get my car back?
How is that much different than what homeowners have to go through with squatters in California?
Not different at all.
In fact, if someone steals your car and you call the police, they look at the registration (or verify by calling the DMV), make initial determination on ownership, and arrest the thief on the spot. They don’t hand they keys back to the thief and tell the vehicle owner that he has to go to small claims court and sue to get his car back.
A home should be no different. This seems to be a very reasonable bill. “Tenant” (scare quotes) have an opportunity to provide proof. 2 weeks are given to verify, and if they are fraudulent the squatter is evicted.
The only people who are against this are the ones who think that society can “solve” homelessness… or, more accurately, that society has a responsibility to provide EVERYONE basic needs beyond things like welfare and Medicaid.
I agree Brad. I don’t know what democrats are thinking are thinking not passing this bill.
Hopefully some day California voters come to their senses and vote them out.