(The Center Square) – California legislators quashed a bill that would have made it easier to remove squatters and trespassers from private property.
Supporters said the bill would have made it easier for property owners to remove individuals who don’t have leases without having to go into lengthy civil proceedings, while opponents say it’s already possible to remove trespassers, and would worsen homelessness.
“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,” said bill author Assemblyman Carl DeMaio, R-San Diego, in committee. “We literally have 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.”
Opponents such as Housing California said the bill would worsen homelessness, and that that mechanisms already exist to remove trespassers.
“Rather than addressing the root causes of our state’s housing crisis, AB 897 would accelerate pathways into homelessness,” said Housing California. “Landlords and tenants currently have access to civil eviction processes designed to address unauthorized occupancy.”
Assembly Bill 897 would have required trespassers or squatters to provide documentation of their legal entry onto the property — such as a lease or proof of rental payments — within three days, or be subject to arrest. If documentation is provided, a magistrate would hold a hearing within seven days to determine whether the documentation is properly executed or meritorious.
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.
Yesterday, Fox 11 reporter Matthew Seedorff illustrated California’s widespread squatting by covering how an estimated 20 squatters had taken over two vacant homes in Hollywood, with local residents complaining about drugs, weapons, public nudity, and a series of major fires.
Los Angeles eviction lawyer Avi Sinai shared that even if a property owner is able to win an eviction proceeding, that the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department may not be able to get around to removing the trespasser for months.
“I’ve heard that LA County Sheriff is six months behind in eviction lockouts on some offices,” said Sinai on X. “Six months to get a lockout date. On top [of] the eviction battle.”
DeMaio’s bill would only have applied to trespassers who do not have a lease agreement. Those with lease agreements still would have gone through the state’s formal eviction process, which so heavily favors tenants that some individuals are now “professional tenants” with serial, drawn-out evictions and unpaid rent.
Sinai told The Center Square that while in other states evictions are quickly taken care of, California provides the right to a jury trial for eviction cases, resulting in lawsuits costing more time and money than landlords end up being awarded.
“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,” Sinai said in an earlier interview.
As a result, many owners turn to “cash for keys” agreements where, even in the face of tens of thousands of dollars of accumulated rent, it can still be cheaper and faster to offer a problematic tenant cash to move out immediately — at which point they move on to their next rental, and the cycle starts again.
