Fiscal Impact
The bill extends existing provisions that require owners of assisted housing developments to demonstrate compliance with certain requirements under penalty of perjury, which is identified as a state-mandated program. While the bill states 'no reimbursement is required by this act' due to creating a new crime or infraction, the enforcement of the expanded just cause and rent cap provisions by city attorneys and county counsels (as explicitly authorized in the bill) will likely incur some increased administrative and legal costs for local governments. These costs are expected to be modest, primarily related to increased litigation or enforcement actions, rather than large-scale program implementation. The range reflects potential variations in enforcement activity across jurisdictions.; The bill extends provisions requiring owners of assisted housing developments to demonstrate compliance under penalty of perjury, which is identified as a state-mandated program. However, the bill explicitly states that no reimbursement is required because the only costs incurred by local agencies or school districts would be due to the creation or change of a crime or infraction. This suggests minimal direct fiscal impact on the state budget for implementation. There might be minor increased costs for local governments (e.g., city attorneys or county counsel) for enforcement actions related to violations of the rent cap or just cause eviction provisions, as the bill explicitly authorizes them to seek injunctive relief. These costs are likely to be offset by fines or civil penalties in successful cases, or absorbed within existing legal department budgets. Therefore, the fiscal impact is estimated to be low to moderate, primarily for potential increased enforcement activities at the local level.; The bill states that 'no reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.' This implies that the direct fiscal impact on state and local governments is considered negligible or offset by existing enforcement mechanisms. However, there could be indirect fiscal impacts related to reduced demand for social services due to improved housing stability, which are not quantified here.