Napa, CA — A controversial bill aimed at streamlining the removal of squatters and trespassers from private property in California has been defeated in the state legislature. Assembly Bill 897, authored by Assemblyman Carl DeMaio, R-San Diego, sought to make it easier for property owners to reclaim their land from individuals without leases, bypassing what supporters described as lengthy and ineffective civil proceedings. However, the proposal faced strong opposition from housing advocates, who argued it could worsen the state’s homelessness crisis.
The bill proposed that trespassers who do not have a lease agreement would be required to provide documentation proving their legal right to be on the property—such as a rental agreement or proof of payment—within three days of being confronted. If they failed to do so, they would face arrest. A magistrate would then hold a hearing within seven days to determine if the documentation was valid. If found to be fraudulent or improper, the individual would be evicted and potentially held liable for damages and back rent.
DeMaio, who authored the bill, argued that it was essential to protect property owners from a growing problem in California, where squatters often remain on properties for extended periods, sometimes causing significant damage. He cited instances in which law enforcement officials refused to assist property owners, telling them they might face arrest themselves for attempting to remove trespassers. According to DeMaio, this situation is unique to California, where property owners can face significant hurdles in regaining control of their property.
“When the rightful owner discovers that their property has been stolen by a trespasser, they dial 911, as most people in America would do. A police officer or a sheriff’s deputy shows up and says, sorry, we can’t help you,” DeMaio said during a committee hearing. “It is time for us to clarify in state law that squatters can be removed with due process.”
Opponents, however, voiced strong concerns over the potential consequences of the bill. Housing California, an advocacy group focused on affordable housing and homelessness, warned that the measure could escalate the state’s homelessness crisis. They argued that current eviction laws and civil proceedings were already sufficient to handle unauthorized occupancy and that AB 897 would only push more people into homelessness.
“Rather than addressing the root causes of our state’s housing crisis, AB 897 would accelerate pathways into homelessness,” the group said in a statement. “Landlords and tenants currently have access to civil eviction processes designed to address unauthorized occupancy.”
While the bill would have applied only to individuals without leases, those with formal lease agreements would still have gone through the state’s existing eviction process, which often favors tenants. Critics noted that California’s eviction procedures are much more time-consuming and expensive than those in other states. In some areas, it can take months for law enforcement to execute an eviction, leading property owners to explore alternative methods, such as “cash for keys” deals, where tenants are offered money to vacate the property immediately.
Avi Sinai, a Los Angeles eviction lawyer, explained that the lengthy eviction process often forces landlords to wait for months before they can remove problem tenants, even after winning an eviction case. “In other states, evictions are much quicker,” Sinai said. “But here, even with a bench trial, it just takes forever.”
In addition to the backlog in eviction proceedings, reports of widespread squatting across the state have drawn public attention. A recent report by Fox 11 highlighted a case in Hollywood where an estimated 20 squatters had taken over two vacant homes, leading to complaints about public safety concerns, including drug use, weapons, public nudity, and multiple fires. The situation underscored the growing frustrations of property owners dealing with the slow-moving eviction process.
Despite the concerns raised by property owners, Housing California and other opponents of the bill argued that the measure would only exacerbate the problem of homelessness without offering long-term solutions. They emphasized that eviction should not be seen as the only answer to California’s housing crisis and that addressing the root causes of homelessness, such as a lack of affordable housing and economic instability, should be a priority.
As the debate over AB 897 continues, it highlights the ongoing tension between the rights of property owners and the state’s efforts to address homelessness. While the bill may have failed this time, the broader conversation about how to handle squatting and unauthorized occupancy is far from over. California’s housing crisis remains a pressing issue, with no easy solutions in sight.