(I put this here because it has a factual answer - if it needs to be in Politics, feel free to move)
I’m in property management here in California. It’s a largish company and I’m the only Liberal in the office. Everyone else is strongly Right wing. So every policy change as it relates to property management brings on shouts 'Thank you, asshole, Governor Newsome". I am not a huge fan of the man, myself, but I get tired of their knee-jerk reaction… but I digress.
Anyway, in California, Section 8 applicants have always had to meet the same criteria as every other applicant, credit-wise. You are section 8, fine, we will take your vouchers but you need to otherwise meet the same qualifications as everyone else - good rental history, good credit, etc.
But that has apparently changed as of the first of this year. Section 8 applicants no longer need to qualify, credit-wise.
So my factual question is: Is this Gavin Newsom’s doing? I tried looking it up online but my google-fu is pathetic. For the record, I’m not claiming he’s not responsible… I’m just curious as to who is.
From the Bill Analysis tab of that page, the original Senate Judiciary analysis lists the author as Susan Eggman (D - 5th District [western San Joaquin County]). It also says it was based on or similar to other bills by Assemblywoman Luz Rivas (D-San Fernando Valley) and Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva (D-Fullerton).
You can also see who voted for it on that page, and while I didn’t look up each senator and assemblyperson, I’d guess based on the vote totals that some of the ayes must be Republicans.
In the Senate, it looks like 28 D & 3 R voted for the bill, while 3 R & 0 D voted against (with 4 D & 2 R not voting.) In the House, 62 D & 0 R for, and 12 R & 0 D against (with 6 R not voting.)
I did this by counting the Republicans; there aren’t that many in either house (8 & 18, respectively.)
Federally sponsored program that provides vouchers to allow lower-income people to find housing in the private sector (as opposed to “the projects” etc.).
It’s my understanding that such housing is in short supply and there’s a long wait list to get into anything.
Interesting that the prospective tenants ever had to fully meet credit / rental history requirements, as such tenants are (I would guess) less likely to have solid credit or rental history. Clearly not something I know much about; my S8 experience was related to hearing about financial control issues while consulting at HUD, back in the late 1980s.
We manage some very nice properties. In one neighborhood, the rents go for $3500 to a little over $4000 a month. We recently had to allow a section 8 tenant in - she pays $98 a month.
As an owner, you would want to have some control over who occupies your property so as to protect your investment (as an example, two months ago tenants moved out of a property they trashed and it took about $40,000 to get it re-rentable). But with laws the way they are now, if a S8 person applies we basically have to give it to them. There are no protections available to owners.
This isn’t necessarily true, I have no idea what the ratio is but we have rented to many S8 tenants with good credit.
Yes, but the remainder is wired to your account by the govmt on the 1st of the month, no?
Hereabouts, most landlords dont care or expect the S8 tenant’s portion to show up, so I hear
I am not in California nor a lawyer. From my reading of the bill, applicants still have to meet reasonable credit history-for the portion of the rent they are paying. No telling what would happen if the feds had to show a similar credit history for their portion… But a potential renter has to show good history for the part of the rent he/she is paying. Which is probably why it sailed through the state legislature.
In many cases a years long wait. There is only so much money and with rents rising so fast, the existing budget must be stretched further every year. But I know it isn’t quick.
The percentage is irrelevant - it’s about $100 a month, which I can assure you would be a big deal to our clientele. We manage over 400 properties and it’s my job to request funds from owners for stuff that’s actually needed -that’s tough enough. The thought that they would frivolously piss away $100 a month is laughable.