In the wake of emergencies, the real estate industry in California faces unique challenges. Understanding the state's anti-price gouging laws is crucial whether you're a sales agent, broker, or property manager. These laws not only protect consumers during crises but also guide professionals in maintaining ethical standards.

Here's what you need to know: 

The Essence of Price Gouging in Real Estate
Price gouging occurs when prices for housing, rentals, or other essential services are significantly increased to exploit an emergency. For real estate professionals, this typically relates to the pricing of rentals, homes for sale, and emergency lodging. The goal is to prevent undue strain on those affected by disasters, ensuring access to housing remains fair and equitable.

California’s Stance on Price Gouging
California law, specifically Penal Code Section 396, restricts increasing the price of housing and other essential services by more than 10% following an emergency declaration. This applies to sales, rentals, and services across the board, ensuring that real estate professionals are aligned with legal and ethical pricing standards during critical times.

Timing and Application of the Law
These protections activate immediately upon an emergency declaration by federal, state, or local authorities and are initially set for 30 days. For real estate-related services, like reconstruction and cleanup, the period extends to 180 days. Importantly, officials can extend these timeframes to meet ongoing needs, affecting how properties are marketed and managed.

Staying Informed on Declarations
Real estate professionals should closely monitor emergency declarations to comply with legal requirements. This includes staying updated through the Governor's website and local government channels. Awareness of state and local declarations is key to ensuring your practices align with current regulations. The following locations are under price gouging protections.

Who and What Is Covered?
The statute broadly applies to all entities within the real estate sector, including individuals and companies involved in selling, renting, or managing properties. It covers a wide range of necessities, notably including rental housing, hotels, and motels, ensuring that the industry's response to emergencies is comprehensive and compliant.

Addressing Cost Increases and Violations
If your costs increase due to supplier price hikes, the law allows the cost to be factored into pricing, provided it can be justified. However, compliance with the statute is closely monitored, and violations can lead to severe penalties, including fines and criminal charges. Ensuring transparency and fairness in pricing is crucial to avoid legal repercussions.

Role of Real Estate Professionals in Compliance
As gatekeepers of housing and essential services, real estate professionals have a pivotal role in upholding these laws. This involves adhering to pricing regulations and advising clients and the community on their rights and protections. Your guidance can help navigate the complexities of emergencies, ensuring access to housing remains fair and stable.

Conclusion
For real estate professionals in California, understanding and complying with anti-price gouging laws is essential. These regulations ensure that during emergencies, the industry acts with integrity, maintaining fair pricing and access to housing. By staying informed and adhering to these laws, you play a vital role in supporting communities during their most vulnerable times, reinforcing the ethical standards that define the real estate profession.

This link provides useful guidance for identifying if a state of emergency affecting price gouging in rental housing is in effect. Simply locate your rental property's county on the list and note the code (a letter in parentheses) next to it. Then, refer to the explanations at the bottom of the page to understand which price gouging laws apply to your situation

Important Disclosure
Please note that the information provided in this blog post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Real estate laws and regulations can be complex and subject to change. While we strive to present accurate and up-to-date information, we cannot guarantee the completeness, reliability, or applicability of the content to your specific situation.

As a real estate professional, it's essential to understand your actions' legal implications, especially in emergencies and price-gouging laws. Therefore, we strongly recommend consulting with a qualified attorney or legal expert to obtain advice tailored to your specific circumstances. Doing so will ensure you navigate these challenges with the utmost compliance and integrity, safeguarding your professional practice and the communities you serve.

C.A.R. strongly opposes ACA 13, a proposed state constitutional amendment. This proposal aims to make it harder for California voters to bring about changes through initiatives by increasing the percentage of votes needed to pass state and local measures. C.A.R. is against ACA 13 because it would weaken Proposition 13, potentially leading to higher taxes on homeowners and restricting their ability to prevent tax increases.

C.A.R. has issued a Red Alert, urging all California REALTORS® to contact their Assemblymembers and ask them to vote against ACA 13.

Look for the email sent to you from realtorparty@car.org with the subject line "RED ALERT: Protect Prop 13 and Voter Rights."  If you don't see it, please check your spam.

Currently, voter initiatives and constitutional amendments (except for certain taxes) require a simple majority to pass. ACA 13 seeks to change this by requiring any measure attempting to increase the vote percentage for passing local or state ballot measures to meet the same increased percentage requirement. This would impact citizen-led initiatives and not measures referred by the Legislature, creating an uneven playing field.

C.A.R. opposes ACA 13 because:

1. It could raise the cost of buying and owning homes by weakening Proposition 13 protections. ACA 13 wants to undo safeguards set by Proposition 13, which set a 2/3 vote requirement for local governments to raise various homeowner taxes. Passing ACA 13 would make it tougher for homeowners to defend against unjust taxes.

2. It would diminish the power of California's voters. Changing rules solely to avoid certain outcomes goes against the principles of fairness.

3. ACA 13 would exacerbate difficulties for working families to afford homes. A recent report showed that California's housing affordability hit a 16-year low. Higher property taxes could intensify challenges for first-time buyers, hindering their transition from renting to owning. This is crucial for narrowing the state's wealth gap and aiding the diverse population in achieving homeownership and building savings.

PLEASE HELP DEFEAT ACA 13 – CONTACT YOUR ASSEMBLYMEMBER TODAY

Look for C.A.R.’s Red Alert email from realtorparty@car.org

With a subject line that says:
“RED ALERT: Protect Prop 13 and Voter Rights”

San Diego County staff recommends home energy audits during the home sales process.

This strategy is part of a  "Draft Playbook"  released by County staff.  The Playbook is described as a "menu of actions" that is intended as a resource for local governments who seek to take action on decarbonization.

PSAR opposes point-of-sale mandates.  Point of Sale mandates hurt buyers and sellers. They make homes more expensive to buy and since they target such a small number of homes, they do very little to address carbon reduction.

The County is accepting feedback on the Draft Playbook until Thursday, February 2.  Please leave a comment now explaining why point-of-sale or "time-of-sale" mandates are a bad idea.  It is most important to demonstrate how these mandates will impact your clients. 

To add a comment, click on the box below to open the County document, scroll to the section of the document you would like to comment on, and click the section.  A popup window will appear to allow you to leave a comment. 

You will find that point-o-sale mandates are described in the "Requirement" section of items 4.4.1 and item 5.5.1. Time-of-sale is also referred to in section 5.5.4.2.  Click on each of those sections and leave a comment.

For a list of reasons why point-of-sale mandates are a bad idea, you are welcome to refer to the letter from PSAR President Jason Lopez to the County, CLICK HERE to see the letter. You are encouraged to share those ideas in your comments. 

For questions or concerns, please email gad@psar.org. 

Cal Fire is looking for public input on proposed changes.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, typically called CAL Fire, is updating its wildfire risk maps for rural, unincorporated areas throughout the state. It’s been 15 years since the maps were updated.

The updates have the potential for increasing the cost of homeowners insurance in those rural communities reclassified by CAL Fire as more susceptible to wildfires. Metropolitan cities and urban areas are not included in the current updates process.

The public is invited to comment and ask questions about updates to CAL Fire’s Wildfire Hazard Severity Zones (WHSZ) maps. The deadline for public comment is Feb. 3, 2023.

PSAR members are invited to visit a website and enter a property’s address on a map showing CAL Fire’s updates to WHSZ maps. Visit https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/wildfire-preparedness/fire-hazard-severity-zones/, then scroll to the bottom to find “FHSZ Viewer” and enter an address in the search bar.

You can also visit https://bit.ly/calfiremaps to compare proposed 2022 updates to WHSZ maps, compared to WHSZ maps used in 2007, the year when WHSZ maps were last updated. At this website, you can use a swipe tool to toggle between the maps from 2007 and 2022, and see how ratings for areas have been changed to moderate, high and very high risks.

A CAL Fire statement said fire scientists and wildfire mitigation experts have used science-based and field-tested models to assign a hazard score based on factors that influence fire likelihood and fire behavior. Factors include fire history, existing and potential fuel (natural vegetations), predicted flame length, blowing embers, terrain and typical fire weather for an area.

CAL Fire also said insurance companies, including insurance agents and brokers, have been involved throughout the process to ensure cooperation between all sectors to better support Californians.

These changes to wildfire ratings are expected to impact insurance rates, as well as eligibility. While California has a FAIR property insurance plan that provides basic insurance to individuals unable to get coverage, this coverage is considered a “temporary safety net” until the homeowner can obtain a traditional homeowners policy. Even then, homeowners may need to obtain additional insurance from another carrier to increase their coverage to an adequate level.

Written comments can be mailed to FHSZ Comments, California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection, P.O. Box 944246, Sacramento, CA 94244-2460.

Comments also can be emailed to Josh Black, San Diego’s contact for the WHSZ map updates program. Black can be reached at josh.black@fire.ca.gov or (619) 609-3413.

PSAR's Mission is to empower Real Estate Professionals.

Since 1928, the Pacific Southwest Association of REALTORS® has played a significant role in shaping the history, growth and development of the Real Estate industry in San Diego County.

The Pacific Southwest Association of REALTORS® (PSAR), a 4,000-member real estate trade group for San Diego-area REALTORS®, recently noted the 10-year anniversary of its merger between two San Diego regional REALTOR® associations, including the El Cajon-based East San Diego County Association of REALTORS® (ESDCAR) and the Chula Vista-based PSAR.

PSAR's Mission is to empower Real Estate Professionals.

Since 1928, the Pacific Southwest Association of REALTORS® has played a significant role in shaping the history, growth and development of the Real Estate industry in San Diego County.

Candidates for the 2022 General Election who are Pro Real Estate

 

PSAR's Mission is to empower Real Estate Professionals.

Since 1928, the Pacific Southwest Association of REALTORS® has played a significant role in shaping the history, growth and development of the Real Estate industry in San Diego County.

STOP California's Legislature from Taxing Families
out of Homeownership

PSAR OPPOSES Senate Bill 1105 (Hueso) and Senate Bill 679 (Kamlager) each of which creates an unelected agency with the power to impose a range of new property taxes.  Those taxes would make keeping and getting into a home more expensive and difficult, potentially taxing people out of their homes and pushing homeownership out of reach for many of California's working families. Homeowners need YOUR help to STOP these bills!  Please ask your clients to TAKE ACTION NOW!

SB 1105 grants vast, unchecked, taxing and bonding authority to an unelected Housing Agency Board in San Diego which would consist of 6 appointed representatives, serving 4-year terms that can by resolution, or initiative, impose: 

• special taxes on real property,
• a parcel tax,
• a gross receipts business license tax,
• a special business tax,
• a documentary transfer tax,
• a special land value windfall tax, or
• a commercial linkage fee.

The proposed Agency requires revenues generated to assist in the construction of housing broadly defined. Revenue could go to large developers of rental homes and no restrictions on the agency purchasing single-family homes which could then further limit the opportunities for home ownership. The costs of solving California’s housing problems should not be placed on working Californians struggling to stay afloat and keep their homes in a tough economic environment, especially when there is a 97 billion dollar state surplus.
 
Similar to SB 1105, SB 679 would establish a local Housing Agency in LA with a 19-member “governing board” to raise revenues through: 

• a parcel tax
• gross receipts business license tax
• a document transfer tax, or
• the issuance of bonds to fund affordable housing preservation (acquiring, rehabilitating, deed restricting, etc.).

Here’s how you can help:
  
Ask your clients, friends, and family to TAKE ACTION and continue posting on social media!

We are stronger together, and your voice will help us defeat SB 1105 and SB 679.

For questions, please contact realtorparty@car.org. 

Members of the Pacific Southwest Association of REALTORS^® (PSAR) made a powerful statement for property rights on behalf of housing providers while attending a recent Chula Vista City Council meeting where the subject of a new rent control ordinance was on the docket.

The City Council was considering an aggressive and overreaching ordinance that imposes additional regulations on housing providers. The controversial proposal, if passed, would negatively impact new housing creation by tightening restrictions on remodeling, owner move-ins and rental unit withdrawals, as well as expanding noticing and relocation assistance requirements.

Following over five hours of public comments, including testimony from many PSAR members, the City Council tabled a vote on the proposed ordinance, titled the “Residential Landlord and Tenant Provisions.” The Council stated that more data on the topic and potential language revisions are needed.

The actions taken by PSAR members were considered invaluable in the successful effort to prevent the Council from implementing an ordinance that would exacerbate the housing crisis. A revised version of the ordinance is expected to be considered by the City Council at a July 12 session.

Among the PSAR members who spoke at the May 17 city council meeting: Pat Russiano, Mike Campbell, Mark Scott, Nikki Coppa, Rich D'Ascoli, Yvonne Cromer, Robert Cromer, Mitch Thompson, George Ching, Eric Sutton, Peter Carlseen, Sam Calvano, Lupe Soto, Earl Jentz, Myllissa McCann and Josh Morales.

Richard D’Ascoli, PSAR CEO, stated in his testimony, “Most housing providers and owners are good people and most renters are good people. This extreme ordinance will punish every homeowner who may want to rent out a home and every renter who can’t find a place to rent.”

D’Ascoli cited a city staff report that included information from the Legal Aid Society of San Diego. According to the data, “no-fault” eviction disputes involve fewer than .27 percent of the 33,000 rental homes in Chula Vista annually, pointing to a much smaller issue.

The number of evictions totaled 13 in March, three in February, and seven in January. “Shouldn’t we help those 13 households rather than impact 33,000 rental units?” D’Ascoli asked. “Most housing providers are good actors, it’s the few we need to address. Let’s focus on them and not punish the entire city.”

D’Ascoli identified the long-term ramifications of the proposed ordinance: “Rent control and similar market restrictions will discourage the creation, maintenance, and upgrade of rental housing stock. This ordinance will discourage additional rehab and negatively impact the low-income renters the provisions were intended to serve. This ordinance also will reduce the value of properties in Chula Vista, compared to similar properties in other cities. Prudent property owners will choose to buy or build in areas with less cost and regulatory risk.

“Chula Vista will stagnate as the incentive to replacing aging, smaller complexes with upgraded, more dense buildings will no longer exist. Owners of single-family rental homes will either sell to national real estate investment trusts or they will sell to new owner-occupants. Available rental stock will decrease. Prices for renters will increase because supply will continue to be highly restricted. Also worrisome is the provision that anyone who violates any part of this law could be charged with a crime and sent to jail for up to six months.”

Other speakers from PSAR made the following points:

-- Burdensome regulations will result in less available housing, not more. This ordinance adds to the regulatory burden.
-- Provisions in the ordinance meant to prevent harassment of tenants would deter property owners from dealing with nuisance tenants.
-- Added renovation regulations would deter owners from upgrading rental properties, thus hurting tenants and surrounding neighborhoods.
-- The ordinance would create new, vague “anti-harassment” rules regulating landlord-tenant interaction, expanded notification requirements of up to 365 days, and higher relocation payments.
-- Landlords would be required to offer evicted renters, even if those renters caused property damage, the first right of refusal to move back in after a renovation.
-- The state of California recently enacted protections for tenants with AB 1482. That law provides sufficient regulation of landlord-tenant relationships.

Coalition partners with PSAR on the proposed Chula Vista ordinance included the Southern California Rental Housing Association (SCRHA) and the San Diego Association of REALTORS® (SDAR).

More Articles and News Coverage

Renters, Landlords at Odds Over Proposed No-Fault Eviction Proposal - Mitch Thompson shows new appliances as part of remodeling efforts. KPBS-TV, 05/17/2022.

Chula Vista City Council Postpones Eviction Moratorium Protection Vote - No decision after more than five hours of public comments and postponement until July 12. KPBS-TV, 05/18/2022.

Chula Vista City Council Considers Controversial Tenant Protection Ordinance - PSAR board member Jason Lopez explains the proposal is a solution looking for a problem. KUSI-TV, 05/18/2022.

Chula Vista Considers Ordinance Strengthening Protections for Tenants - PSAR 2022 President Max Zaker and PSAR member Mitch Thompson tell NBC 7 how the proposal would actually hurt tenants. KNSD-TV NBC 7 San Diego, 05/16/2022.

Chula Vista Council Hears from Over 50 Speakers - The meeting lasted for hours as landlords say the proposed ordinance would force them to sell their properties. KGTV-TV 10News, 05/17/2022.

Decision Postponed on Controversial Renters' Protections - Quote from PSAR CEO Rich D'Ascoli: "...An ordinance that is overreaching..." KFMB-TV, CBS8, 05/18/2022.

Please remember to vote on (or before) June 7th.  All California active registered voters received a vote-by-mail ballot.  For more information on your voting options, Click Here.  

Candidate Guide

PSAR is a non-partisan organization.  PSAR Members, and the clients they serve, run the gamut of the political spectrum.  However, they are united in their mission to protect private property rights and promote homeownership.  That mission is core to PSAR's Government Affairs Committee.    

The Government Affairs Committee received requests to provide recommendations on the candidates running in the races listed below.  After vetting the positions of the candidates on issues that impact private property rights and homeownership, the committee determined that, among likely candidates, the following candidates are most inclined to promote private property rights and homeownership if elected to the offices they seek:

County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk,(For General Election in November)     Jordan Marks	80th Assembly District: David Alvarez	38th Senate District: Brian Jones
Chula Vista Mayor:  John McCann	Chula Vista Mayor: Jill Galvez	Chula Vista Mayor: Rudy Ramirez
Chula Vista City Attorney: John Moot	Chula Vista City Council District 1: Robert Cromer

Once again, please remember to vote!