Not long ago, I had the pleasure of fielding a question posed to me via email from Maxwell Drati, an attorney from the Western Center on Law & Poverty, According to its website, the Western Center on Law & Poverty “was formed in 1967 by a passionate group of attorneys and legal scholars from USC, UCLA and Loyola law schools who sought to create a unique organization, driven by the belief that low-income Californians deserve the finest possible legal representation before every institution that shapes their lives.” In other words, among other things, the Western Center on Law & Poverty helps tenants who are facing evictions.

Mr. Drati had contacted me to “get property owners’ position about Senate Bill 436 which is looking at adjusting California’s eviction notice timeline.” Under the proposed Senate Bill 436, which we aggressively opposed and were fortunately able to stop from moving forward during the 2025 Legislative Session, tenants would be provided 14 days to “pay or quit” rather than the current 3-days. That would mean 14 days before housing providers could start the process of filing an unlawful detainer (eviction) complaint.

In his effort to add credence to his inquiry, Mr. Drati informed me: “The goal [of Assembly Bill 436] is to give tenants a chance to pay and avoid court if they’re just temporarily behind. It doesn’t change landlords’ ultimate right to collect rent or regain possession — it just adds a little more time up front.” What’s that? Help tenants avoid court? What about rental housing providers who are forced into situations where they must bear the cost of all that unlawful detainer “fun,” stress and cost?

He then went on: “We’re hoping to understand how small and mid-size landlords view the bill — and whether clarifying that chronic nonpayment isn’t protected would make you more comfortable or neutral on the bill.” Ahh, make the chronic non-payers exempt from protection. He tried throwing us housing providers the proverbial “bone” to make us feel better. To that, and the entire “14-day thing,” I said then and say now that’s an absolutely hard no.

For housing rental providers, I explained to my new tenant advocate friend, Mr. Drati, any eviction is a last resort. These eviction situations are not only costly and time consuming, but they are also stressful for all owners. I explained that we have made great sacrifices to invest in housing and have risked our capital to be in the housing business and not in the eviction business. Our clear priority is always to “house” and to always avoid use of the word “evict.” As a result, I explained, we would never, never ever, support any extension of the current 3-day notice process. We cannot accommodate a “14-day Pay or Quit” notice nor 10-day nor even 4-days. Already, just last year, tenants have already been given the gift of an extension when they were provided with an additional 5 days (to 10 days) to respond to an unlawful detainer complaint. We “gave” already, Mr. Drati, at the office.

Since the time of my exchange with Mr. Drati, things of course, have gotten worse for some. For those who own rental housing in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County are now subject to two, no longer one, months economic Fair Market Rent (or FMR) threshold before any action can be taken to collect. Now, owners in unincorporated areas must wait it out before even issuing a three (3) day notice until the FMR threshold is exceeded. Other jurisdictions like the City of Los Angeles require a one-month FMR threshold be exceeded while others require that one month of rent owed be outstanding. Clearly, if 14-days vs. 3-days was all there was, that would be like a walk in the park compared to the economic threshold concept.

Unfortunately, all these bureaucratic hurdles and buying of time for renters who are behind on rent only lead to these renters digging themselves quite a “hold” of debt that they can never possibly overcome and repay absent a miracle. By allowing delayed action at debt collection, I believe, we are only running more credit records and as a result, ruining more lives – these renters will merely end up struggling to find future housing and be challenged to overcome their economic turmoil.

Too Much One-Side Regulation Already!

Here in the once “golden state” of California, we often see unlawful detainer cases that can take up to 6 months (or more) with delays for jury requests, continuances, and all the hurdles that housing providers must overcome and can inadvertently neglect. These hurdles, which for one minor infraction can send us back to step one, include building signage requirements like tenant protection notices and right to counsel notices, listing number of bedrooms on notices served within the City of Los Angeles or unincorporated County of Los Angeles, filing the notice to “pay or quit” within jurisdictional requirements, meeting economic threshold of fair market rent, etc., and then some.

Then, and only then, if you’ve made it past the goal line beyond adjudication, it often takes some Sheriff’s departments up to 60 days just for a lockout. All this time, your tenants are sitting in your rental unit all for free. For this pleasure, the process often costs upwards of $50,000, and as a result, we find our members merely settle out of court via cash-for-keys, although rent has been unpaid for months or some other lease infraction has occurred. Yes, it stinks!

The regulations today are already so unbalanced in favor of our customers we call tenants; we are losing developers that are willing to invest in housing and people who are willing to operate rental housing. We are losing the small, independent owners, our “moms and pops,” who have traditionally provided the bulk of naturally occurring affordable housing. These same moms and pops are the ones who are often willing to work with their tenants, who better know their tenants on a personal level, and who are more willing to give them a break when a crisis occurs.

So, 11 more days is a non-starter for most if not all of us. Owners who need to meet mortgage and other obligations around the beginning of the month would be forced to juggle their finances and merely be dealing with tenants who habitually pay rent 14 days late. While well intentioned, I suppose, all these regulations meant to protect tenants have become far too complicated for most small owners, and their risk profile has increased tremendously.

Add to the ever-growing risk profile of owners that we are in an insurance crisis and rates have doubled or tripled for some (mine doubled). What we continue seeing these days is a desire on the part of our elected officials to eliminate private property with a campaign of death by a thousand cuts. Those 11 additional days would be another one of these thousand cuts, and eventually, some of us will reach a tipping point and scream “uncle.” It’s daunting to say the least.

We all, tenants and housing providers included, would be far better served if the government did not put private citizen property owners in the position of being a lender for 14 days or otherwise, and if the government provided a rental assistance program so that the rent could be paid and housing providers could stay in the business of providing housing services. This way, court could be avoided entirely, and tenants would not be at risk of losing their housing. The current system is merely private welfare where housing providers are de facto being forced to provide free housing services for extended periods when tenants do not pay legally owned rent. This is not how things are supposed to work in the U.S.

There’s so much regulation yet so little time. We can make necessary changes if we work together. Help us to fight back on your behalf by making a contribution to our political action committee at www.aagla.org/candidatespac or to our Legal Fund at www.aagla.org/legalfund.

Daniel Yukelson is currently the Chief Executive and Executive Director of the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (AAGLA). As Certified Public Accountant, Yukelson began his career at Ernst & Young, the global accounting firm, and since then had served in senior financial roles principally as Chief Financial Officer for various public, private and start-up companies. Prior to joining AAGLA, Yukelson served for 12 years as Chief Financial Officer for Premiere Radio Networks, now a subsidiary of I-Heart Media, and then 3 years as Chief Financial Officer for Oasis West Realty, the owner of the Beverly Hilton and Waldorf Astoria Beverly Hills where he was involved with the development and construction of the Waldorf. Yukelson also served for 6 years as a Planning Commissioner and for 3 years as a Public Works Commissioner for the City of Beverly Hills.