Crouched on the sidewalk outside his apartment in San Francisco’s Tenderloin district, Bradford Berger sifted through legal documents housed in a creased manila folder. It was a fraught morning last Monday; Bradford was prepping for a chemotherapy appointment with his wife, who received a lymphoma diagnosis just a month earlier. Life was already challenging enough, but in just two days, sheriff deputies were set to remove them from the subsidized apartment they had called home for 15 years. This looming eviction hung over them despite local rental assistance programs offering to settle the owed back rent to their landlord, a non-profit focused on affordable housing.
The eviction order cast a somber shadow over their anniversary this month, marking 19 years of marriage. Unfortunately, legal aid lawyers acknowledge that their predicament is not unique. California’s current legal framework allows property owners to evict tenants for unpaid rent, even if said tenants have the means and intention to settle their debt. This loophole, tenant rights advocates argue, undermines the efficacy of rental assistance initiatives, which are pivotal in preventing homelessness. In response, there’s a push in the Legislature to align California’s laws with those in 21 other states where landlords cannot evict tenants capable of clearing their dues.
The California Apartment Association, representing the interests of landlords, deems such legislation redundant. They argue that tenants already have options to delay eviction proceedings in cases of financial duress. The association has labeled this proposal among its top five “rental housing killer” bills of the year. During the COVID-19 pandemic, eviction rates for nonpayment significantly fell due to a statewide ban protecting those financially hit by the health crisis. However, such evictions have surged post-pandemic. For instance, Los Angeles recorded 166,463 eviction notices between early 2023 and late 2024, with 94% stemming from rent nonpayment, as per city controller data. Meanwhile, a Stanford report found that in 2023, over 85% of eviction cases in San Mateo County were due to delinquent rent.
Gathering statewide data on eviction causes is challenging, owing to sealed eviction records, inconsistent court statistics, and off-the-record negotiations during mediations. Nonetheless, cities and counties have amplified rental assistance efforts, helping tenants grappling with financial setbacks due to unforeseen crises like job losses or medical emergencies. On paper, these programs act as a barrier against homelessness, but slow payment processes can leave tenants in jeopardy. According to Jacqueline Patton from San Francisco’s Eviction Defense Collaborative, it’s not uncommon for funds to take approximately three months to reach landlords after applications are filed. This process necessitates landlord cooperation, from acknowledging the debt to consent to receive the help.
Meanwhile, California tenants face a tight timeline: they have merely three business days to respond to a landlord’s rent payment ultimatum before eviction procedures can advance, irrespective of any subsequent rent payments. Although tenants under hardship conditions can seek temporary stays in court to grant them more time, these are not guaranteed. Juliet Brodie from Stanford’s Community Law Clinic highlighted the human cost: “Tenants may miss a shift or wait on assistance, only to see time run out, resulting in displacement and homelessness. Meanwhile, landlords chase after potentially unrecoverable debts, incurring costs themselves.”
Proponents of the legislative bill argue it’d establish a safety net, ensuring evictions are halted if tenants eventually come up with the owed money or show proof of approved assistance. Debra Carlton from the California Apartment Association stated it’s common for property owners to work with tenants seeking aid, whether by adopting payment plans or asserting future rent punctuality. Nonetheless, tenant lawyers caution that many landlords reject payments once in motion towards evictions, often unjustly influenced by personal considerations like tenant-manager relations or even discriminatory practices. Brodie maintains, “Discrimination under the guise of selective rent acceptance undermines housing justice.”
Landlords, represented by attorneys like Daniel Bornstein, assert that motivations for eviction may extend beyond financial negligence, pointing to tenant behavior that negatively impacts the property or community. Nonpayment, he notes, is the simplest legal rationale to validate up to eviction. He argues for a stringent boundary; allowing indefinite rental payment delays demotivates timely payments and disrupts lease agreements. The legislative proposal aims to provide a reprieve, dismissing eviction if the tenants clear their outstanding rent before actual eviction or proffer evidence of pending aid approval. Bill author Sen. Aisha Wahab asserts that ceasing proceedings once tenants are able to pay should be the standard.
States permitting a financial redemption of tenancy diverge in conditions; some extend leniencies until physical evictions, while others conclude freedom to settle before court trials. Particular statutes also demand tenant contributions to landlord legal fees. Evictions, mired in complexity, often tell stories of hardship. Bradford Berger’s injuries from a past job left him reliant on disability payments which, after deductions, total a mere $900 monthly—the couple’s only income after his wife had to stop work due to illness. Their monthly rent, set at $250, left scant room for other necessities. After missing rent last year due to overlapping challenges, their landlord offered them a conditional payment plan which fell through following unfortunate events, like the loss of Berger’s wallet.
Despite available rental assistance deeming them eligible, their landlord, the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation, went ahead with the eviction, refraining from media interviews via attorney Daniel Bornstein. Bradford struggled to comprehend the eviction—especially when the organization is contracted to support housing through city engagement. “Recouping any money should be a goal, especially when the delay is purely financial and not behavioral,” Bradford remarked. Marvellus Lucas, a fellow San Franciscan, faced a similar scenario. Financial setbacks involving health issues and family expenses led him to miss rent, only for him to be met with surprise and eviction threats despite clearing dues with the help of his community center employer. Legal intervention eventually allowed him to stay.
Patton believes Wahab’s bill would streamline legal processes, saving resources for tenant lawyers by turning sufficient fund evidence into case closure opportunities, bypassing prolonged legal exchanges. Sadly, Bradford and his wife weren’t spared the ordeal; on Wednesday, an eviction saw them ousted with little more than temporary cash for a hotel stay. Their future remains uncertain.
