Issue link: https://thepbsa.uberflip.com/i/1502055
PBSA Journal PAGE 4 MAY/JUNE 2023 Except where otherwise indicated, articles are copyright © by PBSA 2023. All rights reserved. "W elcome to the Hotel California…you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave…" For some odd reason, that song has run through my head for the better part of the last two years. While California has not formally adjourned for the year (that will be in mid- September, just after we wrap the Annual Conference) it has hit a number of relevant deadlines for if and when bills can move forward for the remainder of the year. For both good and bad, none of the three major California bills beat the deadlines. For the good: It gives us a slightly longer window to work to alter or defeat the two bills (SB 460 and SB 809). For the bad: It makes us have to wait out getting our date of birth access fix (SB 647) across the finish line. To be clear, none of these measures are dead yet, and our opposition legislation remains a great threat, but it does give time for a quick breath and to strategize with our allies. The bill's sponsors will not stop working these bills, and neither will we. That stated, with this pause it seems now would be an excellent time to remind you of our three major California measures and what's at stake as PBSA continues to work diligently in the interest of our members. SB 647 (Formerly SB 1262) – After last fall's Gubernatorial veto of SB 1262 – following an extensive team effort by PBSA, CDIA, and our California allies – extensive rewrites were done to the DOB access language we presented in California. Once we arrived at something more workable, Senator Steven Bradford (last year's sponsor) introduced SB 647. Further language edits followed as it was referred to the Senate Public Safety Committee. Unfortunately, SB 647 was not granted a public hearing in time to meet the April 29 deadline for hearings and as a result, is frozen in committee until next year. There are occasional, albeit slim, chances to see 647 grafted onto other legislation already on the floor. We will look for those opportunities but are not overly optimistic given how controlled legislation is once it makes it from committee. SB 460 – This bill amounts to a defacto ban on criminal screening in tenancy. In many ways it mirrors the actions of Alameda County, Oakland, and Berkeley to restrict what landlords can research and consider in screening new tenants. The bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee but like SB 647 never received a hearing due to multiple postponements to better polish the language. At this juncture, we do not yet have that language available to us. As with 647, the odds of this bill being amended into an active bill are possible but highly improbable. SB 809 – This bill, at least in its original form, would be the grandaddy of them all. With a string of bans, limits, and regulations on background screens it would, in many ways, amount to a blanket prohibition on screening outside of anything required by U.S. Federal law. Since its inception, SB 809 has seen a massive rewrite that improved it from the doomsday scenario it was when first introduced but it still remains a massive burden (and in some cases still a prohibition) on screening in the state. SB 809 received a hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee in late April just ahead of the deadline. It was passed in amended form by the committee and moved to the Senate Appropriations Committee. After a delayed hearing the bill was ultimately held by the committee until further notice, likely making it a two-year endeavor. Of course, PBSA remains active on legislation across the country, and has found great success. Most recently, PBSA has been actively advocating for Virginia-style privacy language in states considering those measures. States like Iowa, Florida, Indiana, Montana, and soon Texas have heard PBSA's advice and embraced privacy options that allow the industry to function free from extensive burdens. PBSA continues to monitor and engage with legislation across the U.S., but California remains a key focus of our efforts. Not just for the benefit of those in California, but for every state seeking to emulate it. It's a never-ending battle, and I encourage you to stay involved. It will take all of us working together to take on this challenge and many more to come. l California Legislative Updates By Brent Smoyer, State Government Relations and Grassroots Director U.S. State Government Relations Update