Crouching on the sidewalk in front of his apartment building in San Francisco’s Tenderloin neighborhood last Monday, Bradford Berger shuffled through legal papers in a wrinkled manila folder. It was a stressful morning; he was scrambling to get ready for a chemotherapy appointment with his wife, who’d been diagnosed with lymphoma the month before.

In two days, sheriff’s deputies were scheduled to evict the two of them from the subsidized apartment they’d shared for the last 15 years — even after a local rental assistance program offered to pay the landlord, an affordable housing nonprofit, the back rent they owed.

It was a gloomy way to mark their anniversary for the couple, who’ve been married 19 years as of this month. It was also a fairly common situation, legal aid attorneys say.

California law allows landlords to evict tenants for nonpayment regardless of whether they are willing and able to pay their overdue rent. Tenant advocates say that undercuts the effectiveness of rental assistance programs, a key strategy local governments and nonprofits use to keep people housed. They’re pushing a proposal in the Legislature that would bring California in line with 21 other states that ban nonpayment evictions for tenants willing and able to pay up.

The California Apartment Association, which represents landlords, says the legislation is unnecessary because tenants can already delay evictions if they’re facing financial hardship, and has dubbed it one of its top five “rental housing killer” bills this year.

Nonpayment evictions plummeted during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when California banned them for tenants with pandemic-related financial challenges. They’ve since spiked in many areas. Of the 166,463 eviction notices filed in the city of Los Angeles between February 2023 and mid-November 2024, for example, 94% were for nonpayment of rent, according to the city controller’s office. Rent delinquency accounted for more than 85% of eviction cases in San Mateo County in 2023, a Stanford study found.

Statewide data on eviction causes, and how often landlords reject tenants’ attempts to pay, is difficult to obtain because eviction records are sealed, court statistics do not always include the cause of the eviction, and much of the negotiation takes place in mediation sessions and informal conversations in courthouse hallways.

Cities and counties have also expanded their rental assistance programs in recent years, helping to cover payments for tenants who fall behind due to temporary hardships such as a job loss or medical crisis.

In theory, the programs prevent homelessness. But payments can be slow in coming. Jacqueline Patton, supervising litigation attorney for San Francisco’s Eviction Defense Collaborative, says the average time from when one of her clients applies to payment actually reaching the landlord is about three months. The landlord needs to cooperate by sharing information about the debt owed and agreeing to accept the payment.

Meanwhile, California tenants have just three business days to respond to a landlord’s initial notice that they must pay rent or be evicted. After that, the property owner can proceed with the eviction regardless of whether the tenants have paid their bill. Tenants experiencing hardship can petition the court for a temporary stay to give them more time to find new housing, but it’s not always granted.

“(Tenants) missed a shift, they’ve applied for rental assistance and time just runs out,” said Juliet Brodie, director of the Community Law Clinic at Stanford University. “And they end up being displaced and homeless instead of giving that money to the landlord. And the landlord ends up chasing a money judgement that’s uncollectible and incurring the cost to turn over the unit.”

A ‘right to repair’

Landlords can work with tenants who’ve applied for help, and many do, often requiring that tenants commit to a payment plan or pledge to pay on time in the future. “Owners would rather have the rent than go to court,” said Debra Carlton, executive vice president of government affairs for the California Apartment Association.

But tenant attorneys say it’s also common for landlords to refuse payment once they’ve decided to evict. They say that because the property owner can choose whether to allow the tenants to catch up on rent, factors such as the tenants’ relationship with an onsite manager, or even their race or disability, can sometimes play a role.

“Discriminating in housing on the basis of a protected class is illegal and we don’t want landlords to have a workaround by saying I’ll accept rent from some tenants and not others,” Brodie said.

Property owners who file a nonpayment eviction may have other reasons to want to evict particular tenants, such as if they are not keeping their unit clean or antagonizing other tenants, said Daniel Bornstein, a San Francisco attorney representing landlords.

“The easiest type to prove is nonpayment of rent,” he said.

If tenants can wait to pay their back rent until a sheriff is knocking at their door, he said, there’s no incentive to pay on time, rendering the lease meaningless. “There has to be a line in the sand from a public policy standpoint or there never is an end point when the debt has to be paid.”

The bill pending in the Legislature would require a court to dismiss a nonpayment eviction if at any point before tenants are actually removed from their home, they can pay all the rent accrued up to that date. A court would also dismiss the case if the tenants provides proof they’ve been approved for rental assistance in that amount.

“If you are struggling and able to recoup the funds and pay what you owe, that eviction proceeding should have stopped immediately,” said bill author Sen. Aisha Wahab, a Democrat from Fremont.

The bill, sponsored by the renter advocacy group Tenants Together, is one of a number of efforts in recent years to extend the legal timeline for eviction cases, which in California unfold more quickly than a typical civil lawsuit. State lawmakers last year passed a measure doubling the time tenants have to file their official response when a landlord sues them to evict. Backers of those efforts point out that property owners who fall behind on their mortgages or utility bills often have months to catch up before facing consequences. Tenants, they say, should get the same grace.

The 21 states that allow renters to redeem their tenancy by paying back rent include blue and red states, according to a survey by the Stanford Community Law Clinic. Some allow tenants to pay their bills all the way up until they are physically evicted, while in others, they must pay before the case goes to trial. In some states, tenants also have to reimburse landlords for at least part of their attorneys’ fees.

Falling behind

Eviction sagas are often convoluted, punctuated by the kinds of misfortunes that disproportionately affect people on the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder. Berger, for example, has supported himself on disability payments since his back was crushed while he worked at a mechanic’s job years ago. He said he took in about $900 monthly after deductions, the sole income for the couple and their two cats since his wife stopped work after falling ill; their rent was about $250. “There’s not a lot left for food and cat supplies and laundry,” he said.

Last year, the couple fell behind on the rent, according to court documents. “I was juggling a lot of balls, and I guess I dropped one,” Berger said. Their landlord, the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation, offered a payment plan with the condition that they pay on time going forward. They made two on-time payments, the couple said in court filings, but in December Berger lost his wallet and they again fell behind. The city’s rental assistance program deemed them eligible for help, and Berger’s wife, Kimberly, wrote to their landlord asking for leniency.

“I am sure that you can imagine the impact that eviction and homelessness would have on me at this moment, given the severity of my disability,” she wrote, attaching a record of her cancer diagnosis.

Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation proceeded with the eviction. Through their attorney, Bornstein, they declined CalMatters’ requests for an interview.

To a landlord, the Bergers might simply look like unreliable tenants, who have more than once failed to pay rent on time. But Bradford Berger says he doesn’t understand why an organization that leases property from the San Francisco Housing Authority in order to provide supportive housing wouldn’t want to accept his checks. “They’re, like, contractors from the city. I would think they should be recouping as much money as they can however they can,” he said. “Especially if there’s no other problems and it’s just strictly financial.”

Marvellus Lucas, a comedian and nonprofit outreach worker also living in San Francisco, wondered the same thing. He, too, fell behind on rent after suffering an intestinal infection and helping to pay for his brother’s funeral. A second-generation San Franciscan, he worried about losing the $3,150 per month two-bedroom apartment that had become a gathering place for friends who’d been displaced to cities like Vallejo and Antioch.

He was relieved when his employer, the Booker T. Washington Community Center, helped him cover the $8,000 debt, he said — then stunned when his landlord (who also declined to be interviewed) moved to evict him anyway. After reaching out to San Francisco’s city-funded eviction defense program, he negotiated a settlement and was able to stay in his home.

Patton, the Eviction Defense Collaborative attorney, represented Lucas and said Wahab’s legislation would be a “game-changer” for San Francisco’s cadre of taxpayer-paid tenant attorneys, helping them save time and energy on similarly straightforward cases. “It would be so much less posturing – we would just be like, ‘We have the money, here is the money, dismiss your case.’ Instead of (going) back and forth for three months,” she said.

The Bergers weren’t as lucky as Lucas. On Wednesday, Bradford Berger said, eight sheriff’s deputies knocked on their door to evict them. The Bergers were out on the street, with just enough money for a few nights’ hotel stay and no firm plans.

The post They Tried To Pay Their Overdue Rent. Their Landlord Wouldn’t Accept It appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

When the government announced it would give rent vouchers, Aguilar, who wears her hair in a loose knot, felt relieved. But her landlord asked for cash instead.

Worried she would lose the home it had taken her a few years to find after she moved to the United States from Mexico to earn money to be able to pay for the education of her five children whom she had left behind, Aquilar contacted Catholic charities for rent vouchers. But the landlord would not accept those either.

Instead, she told Al Jazeera that the landlords’ employees stood in the building hallway, shouting insults and making it hard for her to pass through to her apartment.

At first, she slept with a stick, afraid they would break in and of the rats that scurried around her apartment. When she felt the landlords’ employees looking through the broken keyhole in her apartment door at night, Aguilar stopped sleeping. By November 2021, fear and sleeplessness got to her, and she moved out.

It began a three-year-long journey to find affordable housing in the city. Aguilar started living in her car by the city’s Dolores Park when she couldn’t find another place she could afford to rent. “I didn’t know any laws then, or I would never have left my house, whatever the situation,” Aguilar said.

Later, she learned that once she vacated her apartment, the landlord could charge a new tenant a much higher rent, according to a California law called Costa-Hawkins, which was passed in 1995.  It exempts single family homes, condominiums and post 1995 construction from local rental control laws which would limit the extent and frequency of rent increases. The law also allows landlords to charge higher rent from new tenants when rent-controlled tenants, like Aguilar, vacate the place.

The repeal of this act, to allow more expansive rent control, will come up in the November 5 ballot. Those opposed to it, mainly large developers and landlords, have raised more than $124m in the last year until October 28, California’s Secretary of State figures show, to fight this ballot measure. This is more than twice as much as the funds raised by the campaign to continue having rent-controlled housing.

An Al Jazeera analysis of campaign finance records found that much of the $124m was raised by large corporate real estate companies, such as the Blackstone Group, the Essex Property Trust, Equity Residential and Avalon Bay, which have investments from the California Public Employees Retirement System, the California State Teachers Retirement System and the San Francisco city employees’ retirement fund.

This fund flow from real estate companies allowed increased spending on flyers and advertising, skewing the battle for rent control in an election season where polls show that the cost of housing is the second-most important economic concern for voters after inflation.

Both presidential candidates have announced plans to tackle the housing crisis, including building more homes and making home buying easier. Vice President Kamala Harris has said she will bring laws to fight abusive corporate landlords whom she blames for rent increases.

Given that nearly half of all California residents and some other states are renters and often burdened by the costs, the battle over Costa-Hawkins will suggest whether supporting builders to make more homes or helping tenants stay in rent-controlled housing will be more beneficial to the average US resident.

The ballot measure to bring in rent control comes at “a difficult moment in many cities, with many people experiencing homelessness and housing insecurity”, said Mathew Fowle, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Housing Initiative.

This is particularly prevalent in California, “which has more renters than any other state,” said Maria Zamudio, the executive director of the Housing Rights Committee, a tenants’ rights organisation. “And this law leaves them at a razor’s edge,” she added.

Those who defend the law believe that prohibiting rent control will encourage developers to build and maintain more homes. A possible repeal would “hamper the construction of affordable housing, exacerbating California’s housing crisis”, say pamphlets opposing the proposition, dubbed Proposition 33.

The ballot measure also came up in 2018 and 2020 and was defeated. Fundraising by landlords this time has outstripped that on previous occasions when $76m and $95m were raised, respectively. On those occasions, too, the California Apartment Association Issues Committee, which is raising funds to oppose the proposition, outraised those supporting rent control by far, thanks to large real estate groups that get funds from California public employees and teachers’ pension funds.

“This is a very conflicted situation for pension funds,” said Eileen Appelbaum, the co-director at the Washington DC-based think tank Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). While retired public school teachers and employees are likely experiencing high rents, their pension funds are invested in real estate companies that fund the campaign against rent control, she said.

Bankrolling the opposition

Of the $124m raised by the lobby against the ballot measure, more than $88m was raised by a committee funded by the California Apartment Association Issues Committee, according to the California Secretary of State’s website. It got $32m from Essex Property Trust and $22.3m from Equity Residential, two of the largest corporate landlords in the state.

The Blackstone Group, the country’s largest private equity real estate company, gave $1m. It gave another $1.88m through Air Communities, a company it recently acquired. Avalon Bay, another large corporate real estate company, gave $20.135m. Carmel Partners, another private equity real estate company gave $1.48m.

Three other committees together raised $36m to oppose the ballot measure. Large real estate companies also funded some of these.

All of these companies have investments from Calpers, the California Public Employees Retirement System, a review of the Calpers 2023 portfolio showed. They also have investments from CalSTRS, the California State Teachers Retirement System. While the San Francisco Employees Retirement System does not publish its investment portfolio online, press releases said it had recently invested in Blackstone and Carmel Partners.

Spokespeople for Calpers and CalSTRS told Al Jazeera they had nothing to say on the issue. The other organisations did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

In essence, the private equity funds used the pension funds of California public employees, public school teachers, San Francisco municipal employees and state public employees to bankroll the opposition to rent control.

This funding allowed the campaign against the ballot measure to put out flyers against Proposition 33 across the state as well as advertisements claiming that a repeal of Costa-Hawkins would lead to cities setting rent boards that would “dictate what you can charge to rent out your own home”.

Dean Preston, a city supervisor in San Francisco and former tenant rights lawyer, told Al Jazeera that while the campaign against rent control “talks of small landlords, there is a range of landlords. We have seen corporate landlords being much more aggressive in evicting tenants.”

The ballot measure has come at a time when Unlawful Detainers, notices asking tenants to vacate homes within days, doubled, Preston said. More than 2,800 such notices were sent in the fiscal year 2023, up from 1,428 the previous year, according to city data, after a statewide moratorium on evicting residents for non payment of rent during the pandemic period ended. These were expected to rise further in 2024.

“We had set off an alarm to say that the health pandemic should not become a housing crisis,” Preston said in an interview at his San Francisco City Hall office. The city began a large rental assistance programme. “But we did see a wave of evictions.”

Susie Shannon, the policy director for Housing is A Human Right, the group that has sponsored the ballot measure to repeal Costa-Hawkins, told Al Jazeera the group sponsored it again because “wages have been stagnant for a while and rents have been going up. People are struggling. Some are couch surfing and others are homeless.”

Her campaign to support Proposition 33 raised a little more than $50m, funded largely by the Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF). The Foundation works in healthcare worldwide, including selling low-cost drugs, which are sourced through government discounts and sold at its pharmacies. It has also expanded into housing, buying single-room occupancy hotels to rent out to the unhoused. However, the Los Angeles Times has reported that these homes often have faulty plumbing, heating and electricity.

The battle over rent control has led to large landlords and real estate companies backing and funding a proposition requiring AHF to spend its revenues from discounted drug sales on patient care rather than funding rent-control measures. The California Apartment Association Issues Committee gave more than $40m to support this proposition to curb the AHF.

Evictions a tool to ‘raise rents’

One night, when Aguilar was sleeping in the backseat of her car near Dolores Park, she was awakened by policemen shining flashlights into her face. They searched her car and checked her papers. They left after finding her to be above board and unable to make rent.

After nearly a year of living in her car, Aguilar’s car was towed for illegal parking and she began living on a street by the park. She stayed up all night to keep an eye on her belongings and made sure to stay out of fights and more police trouble. “I was so scared,” she said, recalling those months.

Three months later, in January 2023, she found a shared room in South Francisco’s Daly City. It cost her twice as much as her old apartment had.

Aguilar regretted leaving her apartment in San Francisco City, thinking she should have suffered for a roof over her head.

“Some landlords have made it a business practice of evictions to raise rents,” Preston said about the Costa-Hawkins provision allowing landlords to charge higher rents from new tenants. Aguilar later believed this had led to her being forced out of her house.

The California Apartment Association, which opposes Proposition 33, says in its pamphlets that not allowing rents to rise when a new tenant comes “would dramatically reduce the flexibility to adjust rents between tenancies. Imagine never being able to bring your rents to market rates.”

But tenant activists believe allowing landlords to charge higher rents from new tenants encourages them to push out older ones, such as Aguilar.

“If people are evicted, all they have left is sidewalks and underpasses,” said Carol Fife, a city supervisor in Oakland. Fife had received an Unlawful Detainer notice, threatening to evict her within days for not paying one month’s rent. While she was able to fight against the notice and stay on, not all tenants are able to do so.

Alexander Ferrer, a researcher with Debt Collective, an organisation that created the Tenant Power Toolkit to help tenants fight eviction cases in court, found that such notices were being issued with less than two months rent due, threatening to force many residents out of their homes.

Living under a battery light

It has also meant that tenants cling to rent-controlled homes when they have them, as Aguilar wishes she had.

Valente Casas was out one December night last year when he heard that there had been a fire in the home below his in Oakland. The electrical fire in the double-storied house led to the power and gas going out in both storeys, never to return.

Casas works as a cleaner for businesses, but many of the offices he used to clean have shut down as employees work from home, cutting his income and hurting his ability to rent a new home. So, Casas has stayed in his unit, devising an elaborate system to live without power or gas. He has one battery-powered light he charges at work, buys small amounts of groceries every day since the fridge does not work, cooks on a camping stove, accumulates gas cans to light his stove, and watches shows on his mobile phone for as long as the battery holds out.

Then he sits on his bed in the dark until he can fall asleep.

At these times, “I think about what a stressful life this is,” Casas told Al Jazeera. He has lived in the apartment for 15 years. “But if I leave and look for a new place, my rent will go up at least 100 percent.”

Christian Dominguez, who lived in the apartment that caught fire, slept in his car for nearly three months after the fire. With the light of his mobile phone, he walks through the burned unit his family moved into the day he was born, two and half decades ago. The house had a beautiful fireplace, his father had fixed new flooring and cabinets, and Dominguez received his own bedroom. The fire gutted it all.

Dominguez and his father Narciso, who sells hot dogs at the Oakland Coliseum, have rented another place while this one stays ruined, even as Dominguez continues to spend time there. The landlord offered them no help other than to encourage them to move out, Dominguez and Valente said. They believe if they do, the landlord can fix the place and get a new tenant at a higher rent, making the repair worth the money. They have not had any interaction with city inspectors either.

Not far from Dominguez’s and Casas’s home, Marco Cajas’s apartment block also had a fire one January evening. The power did not come back for a month and a half, during which time Cajas showered at a relative’s place and shared meals with them. While power has now returned to his unit, it still is not back in some of the others, which get electricity through a generator parked in the compound. It spews smoke that has made the children sick.

Cajas and other residents have sued their landlord but stayed in the building because they know an affordable new place would be hard to find.

Aguilar, meanwhile, has begun volunteering for tenants’ rights groups, including the South East Tenants Association and Housing Rights Committee, to support tenants such as herself. She visits low-income tenants in San Francisco and helps organise them into unions. She photographs their broken windows, doorbells, faucets with no running water, and elevators that do not work. She sends them to building managers, asking for them to be fixed.

She is also part of a volunteer army that tenants’ rights organisations hope will help reach voters to counter the other sides’ extensive funding in the fight to repeal Costa-Hawkins.

Aguilar thinks it is possible that many people with decision-making power do not know about the Costa-Hawkins rule and how it hurts people. “I wish the authorities knew about Costa-Hawkins,” she said. “It would reduce families having to live on the street. Police treat them so badly, like criminals.”

Fiduciary responsibility

CEPR’s Appelbaum, who has written a book called Private Equity At Work, said there is not much pension funds can say to influence the investments of the private equity funds in which they are invested.

“Pension funds are told they have a fiduciary responsibility to maximise returns for retirees. Doing anything else would hurt that,” she said.

However, in 2018, state law was amended to expand the meaning of fiduciary duty of Calpers, the state’s largest public pension fund, allowing it to “take into account harmful external factors when determining the overall return of an investment”. In other words, pension funds had to keep in mind harmful factors and not just returns.

Jordan Ash, the housing director at the Private Equity Stakeholder Project, said an earlier analysis by the group had found that aside from California’s public employees and teachers’ pension funds, several city utilities’ pension funds – including the Los Angeles Department of Power and Water Employees Pension Fund and San Diego and Santa Barbara county employees retirement systems – have also invested in Blackstone funds that contributed to opposing the repeal of rent control in previous years.

Since then, several cities across the state, including Pasadena, have voted to expand rent control.

Shanti Singh, the legislative director for Tenants Together, a statewide tenants’ rights group, said more cities would look to expand rent control because she believes having volunteers such as Aguilar in communities helps reach out to voters, even without as much money as the opposition.

Aguilar lived in her shared room in Daly City for more than a year, commuting to organise tenants in city apartments and working as a cleaner in a city gym. She struggled to find a place in the city she could afford and still be able to send money to her children, whom she had not seen since she left home 18 years ago. They were children when she left, she said. Now, they have their own children.

“I came here to support my children in their careers,” Aguilar, who almost only speaks Spanish, said. The thought of them had kept her going through her hardest times. “That is what it is to love as a mother.”

Earlier this year, Aguilar had an accident that restricted how much she could work and made the long commute into the city harder. Recently, she moved back to the city but pays more in rent than she earns every month, leaving her in a growing pool of debt as well as the constant worry of being evicted again.

The post Rent control battle in California heats up, opposing investors pump money appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.