Assembly Bill 12 is yet another attack on rental housing providers. The Legislature must reject it.

Elected officials constantly introduce legislation such as Assembly Bill 12, introduced by Assemblyman Matt Haney, D-San Francisco, which negatively impacts rental housing providers. This bill will prevent us from fulfilling our crucial responsibility in our communities to ensure that families have safe and well-maintained homes.

It is true that most renters are responsible and honest. I am grateful I suffered only one recent horror story. Flexible security deposits enable us to enjoy a partnership with our renters, rather than an adversarial relationship. The larger security deposits required of marginally qualified renters keeps them honest, because they can recover the funds. AB 12, however, will limit the security deposit to equal only one month’s rent. As you will see, the deposit is not large enough to cover the costs inflicted on us when renters cause problems.

Ana and Joe applied to rent a lovely two-bedroom apartment.  This attractive community of 12 apartments   is home to long-term, quiet, responsible families who appreciate our standards of cleanliness, courtesy, and prompt service.

Ana and Joe really wanted our apartment and did their best to qualify. They did not have much rental history, having lived on a military base (or so they said). To compensate, we asked for three month’s rent in advance, and they agreed.

They immediately created problems.  They ignored our parking rules, were noisy at late hours, and consistently refused to cooperate with our managers.

They brought in a large German shepherd, claiming it was a comfort animal needed so Ana could work at her job. The rules and penalties regarding acceptance of comfort animals are so strict, we were intimidated into accepting the animal. They left the animal alone on the premises all day, belying her claim that she needed it in order to work. The dog’s constant barking disturbed the neighbors. They did not pick up the dog’s feces from their backyard, causing a stench that drifted to their neighbors.

By the time they used up their advance rent, we realized we needed to evict them. We gave them a termination of tenancy with five weeks advance notice. We hoped the convenience of a long notice period would encourage them to move out.

Instead, they started to pay rent late with various excuses. Eventually we were driven to file the eviction lawsuit. As soon as they were served with the papers, they gave us the keys. They had actually moved out quietly, weeks ago, deluding us by leaving the dog alone in the apartment.

Both the apartment and yard were full of dog feces, their stench, and fleas. The carpets were ruined. They destroyed the large glass patio door, which the manufacturer replaced, saving us the $1,000 cost.

Our costs exceeded the security deposit by $2,300, including unpaid rent, the discounted legal fee, cleaning, and repairs. It is virtually uncollectable. Had we asked for a larger security deposit instead of advance rent, we would not have lost $2,300. The renters had no incentive to behave responsibly. They got their $2,000 back by not paying rent.

In a perfect world these problems do not occur, but we do not live in a perfect world. That is why legislation like AB 12 will not protect housing providers and rental communities. We need to be able to recoup losses when renters are dishonest.

The tools of strict screening of rental applications, the ability to levy larger security deposits when deemed appropriate, plus effective eviction laws, are necessary for safe, clean, and orderly apartment communities. I urge legislators to vote NO on AB 12, so we can avoid this and worse horror stories.

Julia Araiza operates a few small apartment houses in Orange County and she serves on the Board of Directors of the Apartment Association of Orange County.