Emergency ban on evictions against Sacramento County renters affected by COVID-19 fails

An enforceable law temporarily banning evictions against renters who have been financially affected by the coronavirus pandemic in Sacramento County may be weeks away.

The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday passed a non-enforceable resolution that would temporarily ban evictions against tenants affected by the coronavirus pandemic, but failed to pass an emergency ordinance on the same subject that would give the ban the force of law.

Instead, the board is expected to convene Wednesday for a special meeting to consider the same emergency ordinance as a regular ordinance, which would require a simple majority. That regular ordinance would also temporarily ban evictions against tenants affected by the coronavirus pandemic, but wouldn’t take effect until May 1.

The economic fallout stemming from COVID-19, the potentially deadly disease caused by the virus, has already been widespread and deeply felt – tens of thousands are filing for unemployment benefits in the state or seeing their hours reduced significantly, as industries cut back to reduce the spread of the virus. Some are having to stay home to care for sick loved ones or children no longer at school.

Under Sacramento County’s proposed ordinance, modeled after the one passed by the city of Sacramento last week and proposed by Board Chair Phil Serna, tenants in unincorporated communities who can prove they’ve been financially impacted by the virus have up to 120 days, or about four months, after the state of emergency declaration ends to pay deferred rent.

In the last week, both the county and California Gov. Gavin Newsom have ordered all residents to stay at home except for essential chores and jobs to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

“These are unusual circumstances,” Serna said during the meeting. “I don’t see how we can simultaneously order people to stay at home if they find themselves in a position where they become homeless and therefore expose themselves more to the virus.”

The resolution, which offers a “clear expression of the county’s desire and hope” but isn’t enforceable, required a simple majority and passed with support from Serna and supervisors Susan Peters, Don Nottoli and Patrick Kennedy.

The emergency ordinance required a four-fifths vote to pass and take effect immediately. It failed Tuesday, with Supervisors Peters and Sue Frost voting against it, arguing that landlords would be unfairly financially impacted because of the potential loss in property income.

Frost said that while the emergency ordinance was “well-intended,” she believed it would only help “a very small portion of the problem” while extending “hardship to others.”

“We’re the ones who have asked people stay at home,” Frost said. “The best solution for this problem is not to pass the burden onto other people, onto the landlords, but to provide cash to everyone.” She added she wanted to wait to see what kind of federal stimulus support the county would receive in the coming days and weeks.

Kennedy said during these unprecedented times, “It’s incumbent upon us to help those that are most vulnerable.”

“I do believe there are far more protections in place for property owners than tenants,” he said during the meeting.

More than a dozen cities and counties across California – including San Francisco, Oakland and Los Angeles – have recently passed emergency ordinances that ban similar evictions in their jurisdictions. Apartment landlords with government-backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages can avoid foreclosure if they don’t evict tenants, the Federal Housing Finance Agency announced Monday.

As of Monday in Sacramento County, at least 88 people have tested positive for the virus, and four people have died from COVID-19. But a dearth of testing locally and beyond has made it difficult to get a clear picture of how widely the virus has already spread.

“This is at its essence a public health measure. Some at the dais may not believe the scale of the threat,” Serna said.

“That is not true,” Peters responded, in a tense exchange.

Serna continued: “You only need to see what’s happening in Italy and in Spain, you only need to hear the governor of California every afternoon explaining the death toll going up. ... I don’t think we can take the time to vet this to be a perfect ordinance because of the nature of the threat.”

This story was originally published March 24, 2020 at 1:35 PM.