By: Danielle M. Leidner- Peretz, Founder of DLP Government Relations LLC

Six years after governments responded to the pandemic with sweeping emergency powers that reshaped housing policy and the relationship between government, property owners and renters, the limits of that authority are still being tested.

During the pandemic, as a lobbyist advocating for rental housing providers, I suspected that a precedent had been set, though the extent of it was unclear.

The door had been opened.

The first indication came in February 2025, following the devastating wildfires and windstorms. Much like COVID-19, housing policy once again imposed significant responsibility on the rental housing industry. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors established a countywide six-month eviction moratorium (affirmative eviction defense) due to the wildfires with a 12-month deferred rent repayment period, leaving housing providers with a financial burden for up to eighteen months.

Later in 2025, the issue was revisited once more, this time stemming from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activities. In October 2025, County Counsel explained in a presentation on options for an eviction moratorium that court-upheld moratoria were tied to a declared emergency, temporary and narrowly tailored, protected owners’ rights and required rent repayment. County Counsel acknowledged that temporary relief could present long-term challenges. Observing County Counsel’s presentation, I recall sensing hesitation.

What began as an extraordinary emergency measure was now emerging as a recurring policy response. While the Board did not adopt an eviction moratorium tied to immigration actions, they declared a local emergency, a necessary precursor, leaving the option open. Tenant advocacy groups continued pushing for an eviction moratorium, but no action was taken.

In February 2026, the Board proposed and later adopted an increase to the eviction threshold in the County’s unincorporated areas for non-payment of rent, from one-month Fair Market Rent (FMR) to two. Unexpectedly, Supervisor Horvath proposed a separate countywide temporary eviction threshold of three months FMR for renters impacted by Federal immigration actions. While not an eviction moratorium, the impact on the industry was the same, an attempt to use emergency powers to mandate countywide eviction restrictions.

The events that unfolded were surprising and revealing. At the next Board meeting, Supervisor Horvath’s motion failed to receive a second. No debate. No vote. It simply died procedurally.

The reaction in the room was immediate. In my opinion, that moment spoke volumes.

Litigation risk was likely a factor. Under California law, local emergency authority generally applies to disasters, public health crises, or other conditions that threaten life and property and are beyond the County’s ability to manage on its own. Using that authority in response to Federal immigration activities is arguably tenuous. Had the County imposed the proposed eviction restrictions, it would presumably have faced judicial scrutiny and claims of overreach.

Against this backdrop and amid strong rental industry opposition, the lack of a second spoke louder than a failed vote. The pandemic opened the door to broad housing policy under emergency authority. The Board’s recent rejection suggests that the door may not be as wide open as some believed.

Danielle M. Leidner-Peretz is the Founder of DLP Government Relations LLC, specializing in expert advocacy and ethical insight. She offers strategic counsel across a range of policy issues, delivering tailored, results-driven solutions for navigating complex government and regulatory challenges. She previously served as the Director of Government Relations for the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles. For more information, go to www.dlpgovernmentrelations.com.