In April, residents of a La Mesa apartment complex had to evacuate their homes during a four-hour standoff after a woman allegedly threatened to burn down the building.
According to police, she had been seen holding two suspected Molotov cocktails beside a propane tank.
One detail in the news coverage stood out: Police had been called to the location before and had previously interacted with the woman.
For neighbors, a serious disturbance is more than a police call. It can mean leaving their homes, fearing for their safety and wondering whether it will happen again.
Housing policy must account for those residents, too.The Southern California Rental Housing Association recently surveyed its members, and the findings reinforce that concern. Nearly 76% reported experiencing tenant behavior involving threats, harassment, intimidation, violence or other actions that created safety concerns.
Respondents also reported incidents affecting other tenants, property staff and contractors.
That should broaden the way we talk about tenant protections. Most conversations about California’s housing policies focus on affordability and preventing unnecessary evictions.
Those are important goals. But sometimes the issue is repeated violence, threats or harassment that affects the quality of life and safety of everyone around it.
Some lawmakers are taking tenant protections in a troubling direction by arguing that landlords should not be able to consider a tenant’s criminal history at all.
For example, California already limits tenant background checks by capping application fees, restricting criminal history lookbacks, and banning the use of arrest records or blanket bans.
Recently, state lawmakers have sought to further limit how housing providers can use criminal background checks when screening prospective tenants — pushing to make “criminal history” a protected characteristic.
Screening is only one part of the equation. Housing providers also need a reasonable path to intervene when serious problems emerge after someone moves in.
Yet removing a tenant whose behavior poses a legitimate safety risk can involve a lengthy legal process.
While that process plays out, life at the property doesn’t stop. Neighbors still have to walk to their cars, use common areas and put their children to bed at night. Property managers and contractors still have to show up for work.
The consequences of those delays showed up clearly in our survey. Three-quarters of the housing providers surveyed said legal or regulatory requirements delayed removing a tenant whose behavior created safety concerns. And 65% said delays in removing a violent or disruptive tenant resulted in other tenants complaining or moving out
Housing providers are forced to adapt. Most said safety concerns have changed how they operate their properties, including installing security systems, changing office procedures and avoiding certain tenant interactions.
California has worked hard to strengthen tenant protections. But protecting tenants must also mean protecting them from dangerous behavior occurring where they live.
Those goals are not in conflict. California shouldn’t force communities to choose between tenant protections and public safety. What happened in La Mesa is a reminder of what can be at stake when repeated disturbances escalate into violence and why the safety of neighbors and others in the surrounding community must remain part of the conversation.
Alan Pentico is Executive Director of the Southern California Rental Housing Association.
