LA may get wildfire eviction protections countywide. Here’s what we know

The L.A. County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to pursue new eviction protections for renters countywide who lost income because of the wildfires.

Supervisor Lindsey Horvath' motion — which passed, 4-0, with Supervisor Kathryn Barger abstaining — directs county staff to develop the policy for a future vote. The move comes just days after a similar proposal failed in the L.A. City Council.

According to the motion, preliminary data from the Department of Economic Opportunity estimates that over 20,000 businesses and more than 125,000 employees were affected by the January fires.

The proposed scope

The protections, which mirror COVID-era eviction rules, tap into countywide powers available to supervisors during an emergency.

That means tenants could be covered across the whole of L.A. County, including people who live in a city that doesn't have this protection, like the city of L.A.

The vote directs the county counsel and the Department of Consumer and Business Affairs to return to the board on Feb. 25 with a motion.

If it's ultimately approved, tenants would have a defense against eviction for non-payment of rent originally due between Feb. 1 and July 31. (The plan was originally set to give tenants a yearlong protection period but was scaled back to six months as a compromise during the meeting.) Landlords wouldn’t be allowed to put late fees or interest on the debt owed, and it would have to be repaid within 12 months after the end of the protection period.

To be eligible for the protections, tenants must:

• Have lived in the rental unit prior to Jan. 7.
• Have lost at least 10% of their income.
• Have a 2024 household income equal to or less than 150% of the Area Median Income (for L.A. County, that’s $147,300 for a family of four).
• Be enrolled in or have applied to a wildfire relief program, applied for unemployment benefits or other qualifying income assistance program, or be actively seeking  employment.
• Self-attest, under the penalty of perjury, to their landlord in writing for each month rent is past due that they’re unable to pay due to direct financial impact from the wildfires. (If the final plan is approved, the county will create a sample attestation form for tenants to use.)

Under the motion, direct financial impact means a tenant lost income through issues such as their workplace burning, being laid off, losing work hours or losing clients. Any income replacement, such as unemployment insurance, would be taken into account.

Landlords would still be allowed to file for eviction if they believe the attestation to be fraudulent or otherwise incorrect. Tenants who end up in court would have to prove they qualify for the protections. If a judge found that a tenant committed perjury, they could face fines and jail time.

Money for landlords

Also part of the motion is a plan to create a fund to help tenants pay back rent, similar to resources created during the pandemic.

Supervisors Barger and Janice Hahn pushed for a revision in the proposal that requires funds to go directly to landlords.

If approved, the total fund would start with a minimum of $10 million, and officials would be required to seek philanthropic support in addition to county funds.

If a rent program launches, Barger urged that money get into landlord's hands within 60 days.

Response to the moves

Multiple groups showed up and wrote in to give input on the motion, including property owners, lawyers and tenants.

The Pasadena Foothills Realtors Association, along with many other landlord interest groups, took issue with the plan not requiring “verifiable” proof of hardship.

" We currently allow landlords to self affirm that they are a small landlord in order to raise rents," Horvath said in response to the concerns. "We don't require them to provide documentation, and so I believe this is a consistent standard in the county. Otherwise, are we saying we trust property owners more than we trust tenants?"

The California Apartment Association also opposed the protection period, calling it an overreach that would strain property owners. Matt Buck, the association's vice president of local public affairs, spoke to the Board saying they should focus on direct financial assistance instead.

"A broad, lengthy moratorium open to abuse is not the right approach to addressing a localized tragedy," Buck said. "We don't want to repeat the policy mistakes of COVID-19."

The Rent Brigade, a new independent collective that’s been tracking rent gouging after the fires, told the board the protections would help disincentivize landlords from evicting tenants and relisting units at higher rates.

Katie Clark, an organizer with the Altadena Tenants Union, also told the board she lost everything in the Eaton Fire and that her neighbors are facing evictions and rent increases.

“This is truly the minimum the county should do to extend protections to residents whose lives have been devastated by these fires,” she wrote.