If you work or own commercial assets in California write your state congress person to oppose SB 939
Some lowlights from SB 939:
 
SB 939 makes it illegal to even serve notice to terminate a tenancy until a FULL YEAR AFTER the State’s COVID-19 Emergency Order expires.  
 
SB 939 gives one party the upper hand by making the common act of serving a notice to terminate tenancy a VIOLATION OF THE STATE’S UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES and creates a $2,000 penalty.
 
SB 939 enables the confusing patchwork of local ordinances on the same topic, making it even more complicated for any business that has buildings in multiple jurisdictions.
 
SB 939 allows restaurants, bars, and entertainment venues with a decline in revenue of 40% as compared to before shelter in place and will face an ongoing reduction of capacity of 25% or more, to engage in good faith negotiations with their landlord to modify any rent or economic requirement regardless of the term remaining on the lease.
 
Under SB 939, should the tenant and landlord not be able to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement, the tenant shall have the option to terminate the lease and not be liable for more than three months rent from the start of the Shelter in Place to cover the entire rest of the lease term.
 
Under SB 939, any third-party guarantees will expire with the lease termination.
 
SB 939 will be in effect for at least 22 months from March 2020 until December 31, 2021, OR two months after the end of the state of emergency, WHICHEVER IS LATER.
[{"id": "fqqp55f", "text": "What the fuck?? If that happens, then what about the lenders on these properties? And the bond holders of those mortgages? \n\nThis could create another 2008 but much worse...likely gonna be bad either way but this seems like it would just add gas to the fire", "replies": [{"id": "fqrf0id", "text": "unless there's an SNDA in place, the lender can wipe out those leases when they foreclose.", "replies": [], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fqqvbnz", "text": "I don\u2019t know much about CA Real Estate laws but it seems like they\u2019re doing everything they can to make it next to impossible to operate as a mom and pop independent landlord.", "replies": [{"id": "fqsjpqv", "text": "Even commercial developers that are fairly large will get fucked.\n\nThey have debt just like mom and pops and operate on a similar debt ratio. They can\u2019t afford to hold up if this passes.\n\nThe only winners are the bank.", "replies": [{"id": "fqsuk4a", "text": "How does the bank win if landlords have to default on loans?", "replies": [{"id": "fqu9bfk", "text": "Landlord or developer buys property for 5 million. He improves it through investment or doesn\u2019t but rent still goes up and increases value of property. Now property is worth 10 million bank get great return even if they foreclose it.\n\nOther scenario is landlord or developer restructure debt that is more favorable for bank.\n\nNew construction really gets hosed because they are really leveraged for growth so they lose their investment and bank gets even better return.\n\nDevelopers have better returns and growth than banks but it\u2019s a lot of work. So the bank gets rewarded without doing the work.", "replies": [{"id": "fquo8mz", "text": "Banks are only allowed to keep what is owed to them, any additional gains from the foreclosures sale is not profit, it has to be returned to the original borrower.", "replies": [], "depth": 5}], "depth": 4}], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fqqvs3n", "text": "Lol, The US is racing to unwind any remaining free market remnants, CA is going for the kill shot.\n\nWho would want to be a landlord in this situation?\n\nYou can\u2019t evict, your tenants have all the rights, personal guarantees are voided, and more.\n\nGovt is supposed to uphold contracts, not flush them down the toilet.", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fqrip8s", "text": "This is so investors can come in a buy up everything cheap as it will all be in foreclosure. More for wall street", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fqrnrft", "text": "why go after landlords? \n\nwhy not got after grocery stores.  write a law that says \"if a person steals groceries from the grocery store, you can't persecute them\"", "replies": [{"id": "frap1wu", "text": "That\u2019s pretty much already the case in California lol. I wish I was exaggerating.", "replies": [{"id": "frb9ywd", "text": "yeah I live in LA. Ridiculous. It's a freaking supply issue here but they keep blaming it on greedy landlords", "replies": [], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fqs6t2h", "text": "AIR CRE made a [post](https://www.aircre.com/legislative-alert-oppose-sb-939-2/) about this today.", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fqsltey", "text": "Here is the bill:\n\n[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill\\_id=201920200SB939](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB939) \n\n\" *(a)\u00a0It shall be unlawful for a person, business, or other entity to terminate a tenancy, serve notice to terminate a tenancy, use lockout or utility shutoff actions to terminate a tenancy, or otherwise endeavor to evict a tenant of commercial real property, including a business or nonprofit organization,* ***during the pendency of the state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor on March 4, 2020,*** *related to COVID-19, unless the tenant has been found to pose a threat to the property, other tenants, or a person, business, or other entity.* \"\n\nI'm not reading this the way you are.  Although the law is operative until at least 12/31/2021, the moratorium on serving notice is only effective during the pendency of the state of emergency.\n\nI could be wrong, it's late and I'm tired, but I don't think this quite as dire as you think.\n\nFrom my perspective, this is still bad, just not as bad as it could be.\n\nAlso -- *of course* this is Sen. Weiner.  He seems to really hate landowners.", "replies": [{"id": "fqsv6kh", "text": "I've met the dude a few times via the Bay Area Council.  There is a very specific kind of landlord he hates, as he is also quite developer friendly.  Mostly the ones who drive tenants out of business and care very little about driving value for the surrounding community.  SF has lost a lot of iconic restaurants and social venues in the past 5-6 years", "replies": [{"id": "fqtqpp4", "text": "I can understand wanting to preserve those cultural assets. \n\nIf that's what he's after, his solution here is way overbroad.", "replies": [{"id": "frzp5po", "text": "Nah.  Lockdowns are a government imposed burden.  We should be forcing the government to shore up the weak areas of the mortgage market anyway.", "replies": [], "depth": 4}], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fqtc6dv", "text": "Does the bill contain a provision to drastically reduce property taxes on commercial property if they suffer a huge loss of revenue?", "replies": [{"id": "fqtr372", "text": "That gave me a chuckle.", "replies": [], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "frapex6", "text": "Amazingly stupid.  What are the chances of this actually passing?\n\nAlso, why does it only exempt public companies? So a company like Panda Express that has several thousand locations can choose to terminate their lease if the landlord isn\u2019t willing to drop the rent? Holy ****.", "replies": [], "depth": 1}]