Legislation Would Create New “Homelessness Prevention Fund,” Provide Legal Representation to Renters Most at Risk of Displacement and Homelessness; Approval Follows Growing National Momentum for Right-to-Counsel Programs
SACRAMENTO, CA — COVID-19 has exacerbated already concerning rates of eviction and homelessness, with an estimated 13.2 million adults—nearly 1 in 5 renters—behind on rent payments due to the pandemic. Data has shown that evictions are not only caused by economic hardships but are themselves a root cause of poverty and homelessness, as nearly 50% of homeless adults list evictions or rent-related issues as a contributor to their homelessness.
Last week, the California Legislature passed legislation to establish a statewide eviction defense program in California. The bill, AB 187, authored by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, would create a new “Homelessness Prevention Fund” to support education, outreach, and direct legal services aimed at preventing displacement and homelessness for particularly 
vulnerable California renters.
“Preventing evictions is key to addressing California’s homelessness crisis, particularly given the devastating impacts of COVID-19 on our most vulnerable renters,” said Assemblymember Gabriel. “As pandemic-related protections begin to expire, our eviction defense program will address one of the root causes of the current crisis and help prevent homelessness before it begins. It builds upon an approach that has been proven to protect vulnerable communities, save taxpayer resources, and improve the fairness and efficiency of our judicial system.”
While tenants are almost always unrepresented in eviction-related legal proceedings, those that do secure legal counsel are able to avoid disruptive displacement 95% of the time.
The Legislature’s approval of AB 1487 follows growing national momentum for eviction defense programs. Notably, after the Supreme Court rejected the Biden Administration’s most recent eviction moratorium last month, senior administration officials sent a letter to state and local government leaders encouraging the use of federal dollars to support right-to-counsel and eviction diversion strategies.
“COVID-19 has devastated countless Angelenos, and our most vulnerable residents need our support now more than ever. For people facing the threat of eviction, Assemblymember Gabriel’s bill represents a legal lifeline that can mean all the difference to keep them safe and in stable housing,” said LA Mayor Eric Garcetti in a statement last week.
San Francisco Assemblymember David Chiu added, “Tenants are consistently underrepresented in legal proceedings. The lack of legal representation leads to increased displacement and housing insecurity. I’m grateful for the support of our colleagues to ensure at-risk tenants can access the legal representation they deserve.”
AB 1487 is also supported by a number of legal services, tenants’ rights, faith-based, and anti-poverty groups.
Sasha Harnden of the Inner City Law Center noted, “This fund will ensure that we deploy eviction prevention resources in the most effective manner possible, allowing us to respond to issues as they arise to keep vulnerable renters housed. This is a key component to preventing displacement and homelessness, protecting the public health, and securing an equitable recovery shared by all Californians.”
“This bill is a critical step toward ensuring that legal aid is funded for all vulnerable tenants, the majority of whom are currently unrepresented and without help. Expanding and strengthening California’s legal aid network is a major step in the right direction to keep families safe and in their homes,” said Lorin Kline of Legal Aid Association of California.
Francisco Dueñas, Housing Now! added, “The prolonged global pandemic has exacerbated the housing insecurity many renters throughout California feel. If we are to stem the crisis of homelessness, we must provide vulnerable renters the protections they need to stay in their homes.”
The measure now heads to Governor Newsom’s desk, where it must be signed or vetoed by October 10, 2021.
If people want to work the jobs are available. It might not be exactly the job they prefer but who hasn’t worked a job they didn’t like to get back on their feet or to keep their family fed. I know I have during times when I was laid off. I feel the current situation is more that people are used to not having to work while they collect government subsidies and not having to pay their rent. The vacation has to end sometime, it’s time to get back to work.
The topic is evictions, not jobs.
People getting back to work in order to pay their rent is a big part of the problem of evictions.
In fact I would say it’s the biggest part.
No, because free pandemic money (“unemployment”) allows them to pay the rent, so no need to get a job. But NPR says the labor shortage isn’t real. Ask a particular local sushi restaurant what they think (and thousands of other small businesses). We’ll find out soon enough with the pandemic money ending sooner or later (or being extended and showing up as inflation – such as higher food prices – which hurts – the poor, most – hmmmm).
No problem – just print more money, and do so just ahead of inflation each time. 🙂
Just buy that pizza quick, before they get word.
For many, jobs and evictions are tied at the hip… but if a teacher gets laid off, and the only work they can find is a ‘burger-flipper’, having a job is no guarantee of ‘no eviction’.
Had I been laid off, a year after graduation from UCD, my first year working as an engineer, we could not have made rent, and may well have been evicted… that was a real threat, as prop 13 had just passed, and I was working for a City (no seniority, etc.)… fortunately Millbrae had been lowing its tax rates regularly, because they were experiencing expenditures that grew more slowly than revenue. Ironically, their revenues actually increased significantly due to prop 13. [At that time Millbrae was ‘socially moderate to liberal’, but ‘fiscally conservative’…]
So, if a poster ties jobs/other financial factors to threat of evictions, I’d opine it was on-topic… tying evictions to reductions in an asserted ‘welfare state’, or, ‘it’s their fault if they can’t pull themselves up by their bootstraps’, is marginal, at best, and trends towards “off-topic”.
My $0.02 worth.
Ka-Ching $$$!!!
Those are all non-profits
Exactly!
If renters really wanted to stave off eviction and pay rent there are plenty of jobs available. It’s time for the free ride to end and get Americans back to work.
Maybe if you get your side to vaccinate, then we can talk about jobs.
My side? Black people have some of the lowest vaccination rates and not too many of them are conservatives.
Maybe you need to get your side busy?
More hypocrisy. You really have to work to find a Republican in this town, and as I’ve pointed out before, a majority of Republicans have been fully vaccinated, and yes, many fewer percentage points than Democrats. But we live in DAVIS, and everyone I know who hasn’t been vaccinated is left of center. I believe your term for them was “crunchy granola types”. I totally get where they are coming from, and usually ‘side’ with them, but in this case I made the decision to get vaccinated. My point is, if you want to do something about people who aren’t vaccinated in this town, you need to work on the left leaning ‘crunchy granola types’ as you call them. I won’t even say your side, because I don’t see this as ‘sides’. I see fifty shades of grey.
Probably making it that much more likely that landlords won’t rent to those “at most risk of displacement”, and that fewer (new) market-apartment complexes will be built for those at that end of the spectrum. (As if new, market-rate apartment complexes would accommodate them in the first place.)
Good luck with that.
Do politicians ever think about the consequences of what they’re doing?
Very constructive post for this topic…