California 2021-2022 Regular Session Status: In Committee 6 D cosponsors

AB 2050 — Residential real property: withdrawal of accommodations.

Last action — Ordered to inactive file at the request of Assembly Member Lee.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law, commonly known as the Ellis Act, generally prohibits public entities from adopting any statute, ordinance, or regulation, or taking any administrative action, to compel the owner of residential real property to offer or to continue to offer accommodations, as defined, in the property for rent or lease. Existing law authorizes any public entity that has in effect any control or system of control on the price at which accommodations are offered for rent or lease to require by statute or ordinance, or by regulation, that the owner notify the entity of an intention to withdraw those accommodations from rent or lease, and to require that the notice contain specified statements. This bill would, when a public entity has a price control system in effect, prohibit an owner of accommodations from filing a notice with a public entity of an intention to withdraw accommodations or prosecuting an action to recover possession of accommodations, or threatening to do so, if not all the owners of the accommodations have been owners of record for at least 5 continuous years, with specified exceptions, or with respect to property that the owner acquired within 10 years after providing notice of an intent to withdraw accommodations at a different property for a period of 10 years from the date the new property is acquired, This bill would require an owner of accommodations notifying the public entity of an intent to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease, as provided, to identify each person or entity with an ownership interest in the accommodations, as provided. That information would be available for public inspection. The bill would prohibit an owner or any person or entity with an ownership interest from acting in concert with a coowner, successor owner, prospective owner, agent, employee, or assignee to circumvent these provisions. The bill would provide specified, nonexclusive remedies for a violation. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Ordered to inactive file at the request of Assembly Member Lee.

  2. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  3. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 10. Noes 4.) (May 4).

  4. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 2.) (April 19). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  5. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  6. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.

  7. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 6. Noes 1.) (April 5). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  8. Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D.

  9. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on H. & C.D. Read second time and amended.

  10. Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D.

  11. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on H. & C.D. Read second time and amended.

  12. Referred to Coms. on H. & C.D. and JUD.

  13. From printer. May be heard in committee March 17.

  14. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 8 co-sponsors · 113 not signed on · 3 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (8)

Not signed on (113)

113 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 113 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Do pass.

Passed 10 Yea · 4 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 4101
Democratic 6001
Republican 0300
Total 10402
% of votes cast 63%25%0%13%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Levine — Yea
Holden — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Bigelow — Nay
Eduardo Garcia — Not Voting
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Not Voting
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Davies, Laurie Republican Nay
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 6 Yea · 2 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 1203
Democratic 5000
Total 6203
% of votes cast 55%18%0%27%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Cunningham — Nay
Kiley — Nay
Holden — Not Voting
Maienschein — Not Voting
Jim Patterson — Not Voting
Mark Stone — Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary]

Passed 6 Yea · 1 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 5000
Unaffiliated 1001
Republican 0100
Total 6101
% of votes cast 75%13%0%13%
How each member voted (8)
Member Party Vote
Kiley — Not Voting
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Subjects

housing
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 2050 do?
Existing law, commonly known as the Ellis Act, generally prohibits public entities from adopting any statute, ordinance, or regulation, or taking any administrative action, to compel the owner of residential real property to offer or to continue to offer accommodations, as defined, in the property for rent or lease. Existing law authorizes any public entity that has in effect any control or system of control on the price at which accommodations are offered for rent or lease to require by statute or ordinance, or by regulation, that the owner notify the entity of an intention to withdraw those accommodations from rent or lease, and to require that the notice contain specified statements. This bill would, when a public entity has a price control system in effect, prohibit an owner of accommodations from filing a notice with a public entity of an intention to withdraw accommodations or prosecuting an action to recover possession of accommodations, or threatening to do so, if not all the owners of the accommodations have been owners of record for at least 5 continuous years, with specified exceptions, or with respect to property that the owner acquired within 10 years after providing notice of an intent to withdraw accommodations at a different property for a period of 10 years from the date the new property is acquired, This bill would require an owner of accommodations notifying the public entity of an intent to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease, as provided, to identify each person or entity with an ownership interest in the accommodations, as provided. That information would be available for public inspection. The bill would prohibit an owner or any person or entity with an ownership interest from acting in concert with a coowner, successor owner, prospective owner, agent, employee, or assignee to circumvent these provisions. The bill would provide specified, nonexclusive remedies for a violation. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
Who sponsors AB 2050?
AB 2050 is sponsored by Ting, Allen, Benjamin (Democratic), Stern, Henry I. (Democratic), Lee, Alex (Democratic), Kalra, Ash (Democratic), Bloom, Bonta, Mia (Democratic), Carrillo, Juan (Democratic), and Nazarian.
What is the current status of AB 2050?
This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 2050?
Track AB 2050 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 2050

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 2050

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →