The lawsuit, filed last week by Tower Bridge Property Management and its owner, Tom Manning, targets a 2020 California law that bars landlords from turning away renters simply because they use a Section 8 voucher to help cover their rent. The program, formally known as the Housing Choice Voucher Program, is designed to help low-income tenants afford housing on the private market — though funding has never stretched far enough to serve every eligible household.

Tower Bridge, which oversees roughly 300 rental units in the Sacramento region, contends that the inspection and paperwork requirements tied to accepting voucher payments violate the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. Under the law, landlords who rent to voucher holders must first allow local housing authorities to inspect their units for health and safety issues, then submit documentation to both local and federal agencies.

The case, filed with backing from the libertarian-leaning Pacific Legal Foundation, mirrors arguments that have gained traction elsewhere. Earlier this year, a New York appellate court sided with a similar challenge and struck down that state’s ban on voucher discrimination. A conservative legal group in Virginia has raised a comparable argument there as well.

California is one of 15 states, along with Washington, D.C., that explicitly prohibit landlords from refusing tenants based on their use of housing vouchers. Since the law took effect, tenant advocacy groups have filed a string of civil rights lawsuits against landlords accused of skirting the requirement — often using undercover “testers” who pose as voucher holders to document rejections.

The issue drew national attention last month when a nonprofit watchdog organization accused Greystar, the country’s largest apartment landlord, of systematically denying housing to voucher holders nationwide, including in California properties.

The Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing Manning, has previously challenged other California housing policies, including developer impact fees and inclusionary zoning requirements that mandate affordable units in new construction.

It remains to be seen how the case will play out in California courts, but housing advocates are watching closely, given the precedent set in New York and the broader legal momentum against similar tenant protection laws in other states.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Landlord Challenges California Law Designed to Protect Low-Income Tenants appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The legislation became law over the weekend despite President Donald Trump declining to sign it. Trump withheld his signature not because he opposed the bill, but as a protest over the Senate’s failure to advance a separate, unrelated voter ID measure he had championed. Because he did not formally veto the housing package, it took effect automatically, without the fanfare that typically accompanies a presidential signing ceremony.

The timing is notable for congressional Republicans, who might otherwise have used the bill as a showcase achievement heading into a midterm election cycle in which affordability concerns are weighing heavily on voters. Instead, the law’s arrival came and went with little public celebration.

Housing advocates are calling the measure a rare and consequential moment for federal policy.

“I think the last time Congress passed anything of this magnitude, many of you were not even alive,” said Stephen Russell, president of the San Diego Housing Federation. “It is almost a once-in-a-lifetime event.”

The scale of the problem the law aims to address is stark. Most housing analysts estimate the country needs millions of additional units to bring costs down to a reasonable level, and California’s urban centers — including fast-growing pockets of the Inland Empire — carry an outsized share of that need. Nationally, the median home price hit a record $440,600 in June, according to the National Association of Realtors. In California, that figure would barely buy a starter home; the statewide median reached its own record of $930,260 just a month earlier.

The new law bundles together a range of tools rather than a single sweeping mandate. Among the provisions likely to matter most for California communities:

A system of federal grants that rewards cities for approving and building more housing, while withholding funding from those that lag behind — a carrot-and-stick approach aimed at breaking through local resistance to new development.

Regulatory changes designed to lower costs for manufactured and factory-built homes, an option increasingly seen as a faster, cheaper alternative to traditional construction, particularly for lower-income buyers.

A new program intended to speed up long-term recovery efforts following natural disasters such as wildfires — a provision with clear relevance for fire-prone regions across California, including areas of the Inland Empire that have faced their own blazes in recent years.

Whether the law delivers the kind of large-scale relief its backers are promising remains to be seen. But for a state where the gap between wages and housing costs continues to widen, even incremental federal action is being welcomed by local housing officials who have long argued that state and local efforts alone cannot solve the crisis.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California’s New Housing Law: What It Means for Residents appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.