The Tenant Protection Act Will not reduce homelessness

Thanks to Inner City Law Center Director Adam Murray for his piece published on Nov. 7 under the headline, "Best Way to end homelessness? Prevent it from happening in the first place." He elucidates the main features of the Tenant Protection Act, which takes effect Jan. 1, 2020. The legislation is cause of celebration in some circles.

There is a problem, however. By implication, Murray assails rent-gouging landlords who evict poor tenants thereby putting them on the street in abject homelessness. I respectfully dispute his false premise. The implication of a causal relationship between eviction and homelessness is unsupported by data. Having myself evicted hundreds of tenants, I cannot recall any who were rendered homeless. I have found tenants to be resourceful people who can take care of themselves. Evicted tenants find another roof over their heads when they finally must vacate premises where they no longer belong. See below for more on this point.

Murray puts it this way: "[I]t should come as no surprise that about half the people experiencing homelessness say they are homeless because of an eviction or other financial reason." What is the sample size? What is the ratio between "eviction" and "financial reason"? Is it 5% evicted, or even 1% evicted versus 95% or more who cannot afford to pay rent? For how long do they remain homeless? Readers are left with nothing more than Murray's ambiguous, anecdotal impression, which should not be taken seriously with respect to eviction as the operative cause.

Here is what actually happens with tenants represented by tenant advocacy lawyers. They demand trial by jury, irrespective of the merits. Sometimes, but not often, a "pay and stay" settlement can be worked out. What settles virtually all other cases is waiver of back rent and several additional months rent free going forward, plus payment of so-called "relocation money," running into thousands of dollars. Additionally, the landlord incurs legal fees. That settles cases because it is the least bad option on a spectrum of bad landlord options. I do not know what a reader calls a settlement on those terms and conditions. I call it the "small shakedown." There is no other cogent way for me to explain such preposterous outcomes to my clients.

But it is not over yet. Post eviction, landlords wait to see whether the tenant will sue for habitability deficiencies. I call post eviction habitability lawsuits the "big shakedown." With all that windfall money in his/her pocket, the tenant can easily relocate, and not go homeless on the streets, unless that is what he/she prefers.

Now it is my turn to cite the anecdotal consequences of the current eviction regime on the availability of rental housing. Many embittered amateur landlords of one, or perhaps just a few units, which represent their life savings, sell and quit the industry. Whereas, professional owners of multiple properties may decide to invest their rental housing money in other states and depart from the system in California which they perceive to be rigged. I do not have data to back up those potential adverse impacts on the availability of rental housing. I leave it up to readers who understand the marketplace to contemplate the cause and effect relationship on housing availability.

There are still more concerns on a societal level. The current regime comes close to making the rental housing industry a regulated public utility. Is the government any good at running economic enterprises? I think not. Moreover, the outcome of eviction cases does not jibe with basic morality. What goes on in the head of a tenant who walks out of the courthouse with a sweetheart settlement in his/her hand? The tenant has received something for nothing. He/she spreads the word. It brings the court system into disrepute, I fear.