Installation Luncheon | GAD Holiday Luncheon

If you haven’t already done so don’t forget to register for our 2018 MCAR Installation Luncheon and our GAD Holiday Luncheon.

THANK YOU to our 2018 Installation Sponsors!!!

Supporting Sponsor: The Monterey Herald

Champagne Reception Sponsor: KW Coastal Estates

Table Sponsors:

Blue Adobe Mortgage

Chase Home Loans

Sotheby’s International Realty

StormND Simple IT Co.

Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

 

THANK YOU to our 2018 GAD Holiday Sponsors!

GAD Holiday Luncheon Sponsors:

Women’s Council of Realtors-Monterey Peninsula

Treehouse Mortgage Group

MCAR 2018 Installation Luncheon

A BIG THANK YOU to Monterey Herald for being our supporting sponsor! KW Coastal Estates for being champagne reception sponsor! Also Blue Adobe Mortgage, Chase Home Loans, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and Sotheby’s International Realty for being table sponsors!!! If you are interested in attending or being a sponsor please look at the information below for more details!

 

NEW! AB 646 Rental Disclosures Act

Heads Up for MCAR Members,

 

As of July 1, 2018 landlords and sellers must disclose if a rental property is located in a flood zone or flood hazard area. AB 646 requires certain information to be included in any new lease or contract renewal.

 

The required information that must be provided to potential and current tenants is not complicated. Please review the extract of AB 646 to ensure your disclosure paragraph meets the law’s requirements. Check with CAR legal or your attorney if you have additional questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legislative Update

By Scott Dick, Ed.D.

(Excerpted from car.org): Friday, June 1, 2018 was the Legislature’s “House of Origin” deadline. Any measure that did not pass over to the other house by that date will not move forward this session.

Here are a few highlights from last week, as the Legislature moves closer to summer:

Defeated: AB 2364 (Bloom and Chiu) Ellis Act
 – Enacted by the Legislature in 1985, and sponsored by C.A.R., the Ellis Act prohibits local government agencies from forcing property owners to continue to operate their private properties as rental businesses when they wish to stop doing so. Specifically, the Ellis Act, among other things, requires properties returned to the rental market before a 5 year “seasoning” period expires to include any deed-restricted or rent-controlled units previously located on the property. C.A.R. opposed AB 2364: it would effectively double that “seasoning” time period from 5 to 10 years. This, in turn, would have made it less likely that properties would be returned to the rental market, further aggravating California’s rental housing supply problems.

AB 2364 was defeated on the Assembly Floor thanks to the efforts of REALTORS® who responded to a C.A.R. Red Alert. The bill secured only 25 YES votes with 36 Assembly Members voting NO and the remainder not voting.

Defeated: AB 2925 (Bonta) Just Cause 
– Existing law allows landlords to provide a 30- or 60-day notice to a tenant without stating a reason for the termination of the tenancy. This bill would have prohibited a landlord from providing this notice unless the landlord had “just cause” and enumerated the reasons for termination in the notice.C.A.R. opposed AB 2925: it would have put good tenants in danger by making it extremely difficult to remove bad tenants who engage in behavior that violates the terms of their lease. AB 2925 was defeated on the Assembly Floor.

Tabled: AB 2618 (Bonta) Mandatory Property Management Certification Program – AB 2618 would have created a new property management certification program, and would have mandated all landlords and property managers who own or manage rental units to complete the program every two years. C.A.R. opposed AB 2618: it would have required real estate licensees to complete a mandatory property management certification program to perform property management services that they are already licensed to provide.

Thanks to the efforts of REALTORS® on Legislative Day, AB 2618 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee and will not move forward this session.

Moving forward: AB 2368 (Calderon) California Online Notary Act – Current law requires that specified documents related to a transaction be notarized in person. AB 2368 requires the Secretary of State to adopt standards that authorize the online notarization of documents. C.A.R. supports AB 2368: it seeks to improve and update the home purchasing process by making document notarization more convenient while providing necessary safeguards. AB 2368 passed off the Assembly Floor this past week.

Moving forward: AB 2890 (Ting) Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) 
– This measure seeks to prohibit local ordinances from adopting restrictive requirements (i.e. minimum lot size, lot coverage, or floor area ratio) on the construction of ADUs. The bill reduces the timeframe in which local governments must approve or disapprove an ADU to 60 days. Finally, this measure gives the Department of Housing and Community Development review and oversight authority over local ADU ordinances. C.A.R. supports AB 2890: it will help alleviate our housing shortage by streamlining the statewide development of accessory dwelling units. AB 2890 passed off the Assembly Floor last week.

Moving forward: SB 1087 (Roth) PACE: Program Administrators – In 2017, the Legislature passed AB 1284 (Dababneh) which required the licensing and regulation of Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program administrators and the solicitors and solicitor agents. Under these requirements, program administrators must be licensed by the Commissioner of Business Oversight. SB 1087 seeks to provide more clarity within the PACE program by implementing various substantive and technical changes including the following provisions: 1) establishing “good faith” determination of the borrower’s ability to pay, 2) improving safeguards on a consumer’s personal information by adding further specifications to the role of program administrators, 3) ensuring that DBO can take immediate action to discipline PACE solicitors and solicitor agents. C.A.R. supports SB 1087: it increases consumer protection with PACE transactions. SB 1087 passed off the Senate Floor this past week.

Update! AB 2364 was defeated!!!

Great news! AB 2364 (Bloom and Chiu) was defeated! It only secured 25 Yes votes, with 36 Assembly members voting No and the remainder Not Voting. All members of the Assembly were present, so those not voting did so intentionally.

This was an important victory for our fight to protect future real estate investments and private property rights.

As you know, C.A.R. opposed AB 2364 (Bloom and Chiu), which deterred property owners from returning to the rental housing business for 10 years. AB 2364 would have significantly weakened the Ellis Act by discouraging new rental housing investment and would have ultimately made the state’s housing crisis even worse.

 

 

 

Red Alert on AB 2364!

MCAR Members,

C.A.R OPPOSES AB 2364 (Bloom and Chiu), which deters property owners from returning to the rental housing business for 10 years. AB 2364 significantly weakens the Ellis Act by discouraging new rental housing investment and will ultimately make the state’s housing crisis even worse. AB 2364 will be considered by the entire Assembly this week.

Action Item

Call 1-800-798-6593 and enter your NRDS ID or the PIN number for your legislator followed by the # sign

to be connected with your legislator’s office.

Ask your Assembly Member to vote NO on AB 2364.

 

Issue Background

In 1985, C.A.R. successfully sponsored the Ellis Act, which is a bipartisan comprise reached by the Legislature to allow rental property owners to go out of business. Prior to the Ellis Act, unlike any other business, rental property owners were forced to stay in business, even when subjected to extreme financial conditions. The Ellis Act provides a reasonable solution that gives certainty to both rental property owners and tenants alike.

Specifically, the Ellis Act requires a property returned to the rental market before a 5-year period expires to include any deed-restricted or rent-controlled units previously located on the property. C.A.R opposes AB 2364 because, among other things, it seeks to weaken the Ellis Act by discouraging rental property owners from returning rental units to the market by effectively extending this 5-year period to 10 years.

 

Why C.A.R. is opposing AB 2364

Discouraging investment in rental housing is bad policy. AB 2364 will have a chilling effect on the state’s housing supply crisis. Substantially diminishing a rental property owner’s ability to return their property to the market will not only limit the number of available units but also adversely affect property values and the ability to finance property.

Rental property owners cannot see TEN YEARS into the future. Existing law sets reasonable and foreseeable standards for rental property owners and tenants. AB 2364 imposes unreasonable constraints on rental property owners who simply want to return their property to the market after 5 years.

Learn More