Housing
Seven Ways California’s New “Rent Cap” Law Would Affect You
“We built these ships, we dredged these canals in a San Francisco they never knew existed,” said African-American actor Jimmy Fails in the trailer of the June 2019 movie “The Last Black Man in San Francisco,” which also stars Golden Gate City native Danny Glover.
The film – with sentimental flashbacks of a bygone era – centers on the ongoing gentrification in California’s largest city and how it has sapped the blackness out of the Fillmore neighborhood in San Francisco, once a thriving African-American political and cultural hub in the Bay Area.
In 1970, about 13 percent of San Francisco’s population was Black. That was about 1 in 7 San Franciscans. Today, the city’s Black population is only about 5 percent — or 1 in every 20 residents. And the majority of the 46,000 African Americans who remain in the city of more than 884,000 people now lives in public housing.
Like San Francisco, the high cost of buying and renting homes has contributed to a homelessness crisis in every major city in California and has forced middle class residents in urban areas to relocate to distant suburbs, or smaller cities and rural towns inland. Between 2005 and 2010, for example, more than 54,000 African Americans moved out of Los Angeles to surrounding areas or to other states, mostly in the South.
“California has the fifth-largest Black population in the United States, with an estimated 2,571,208 people who identify as Black,” wrote Mark Ridley-Thomas, a member of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, in an open letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom earlier this year.
“In the moral crisis that is homelessness,” Ridley-Thomas continued, “Black Californians make up nearly 7% of the state’s general population yet are nearly 30% of the homeless population. Californians are struggling to get by. And Black Californians, facing a host of upstream factors that impact their experience, have a particularly distinct struggle.”
Responding to the high cost of living in California’s cities, Newsom and state legislators have been pushing a number of measures to remedy the crisis.
In February, Assemblymember David Chiu (D-San Francisco), along with colleagues Richard Bloom (D-Carlsbad), Rob Bonta (D-Sacramento), Timothy Grayson (D-Sacramento) and Buffy Wicks (D-Sacramento) introduced AB 1482 or the Tenant Protection Act of 2019.
The measure limits the amount landlords can hike rents within one year to 5%, plus local inflation. The Assembly voted in favor of the legislation in May and the Senate passed it in September.
Newsom says he will sign it.
“In this year’s State of the State address, I asked the Legislature to send me a strong renter protection package,” said the governor after the Senate’s yes vote in September. “Today, they sent me the strongest package in America. These anti-gouging and eviction protections will help families afford to keep a roof over their heads, and they will provide California with important new tools to combat our state’s broader housing and affordability crisis.”
Although Chiu prefers to call the legislation a “rent cap” bill instead of a rent control bill, it includes a number of provisions other than the limit on rent increases that tenants and landlords in California should know about.
Here are seven of those things:
1. In California cities that already have local rent control laws in place, AB 1482 will only apply to property that is not already covered by those measures. The only areas in the state that currently have some form of a rental cap are the City of Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Berkeley, Campbell, East Palo Alto, Fremont, Hayward, Los Gatos, Oakland, Palm Springs, San Francisco, San Jose, Thousand Oaks and unincorporated Los Angeles County.
2. The bill exempts condos and single-family homes owned by individuals from the rent cap – unless it is a duplex where the owner lives in one of the units. AB 1482 will only apply to a single-family unit if the property is owned by a corporation.
3.The bill will not apply to property constructed and put on the market within the last 15 years. You can check your county assessor’s office to find out when your building was constructed.
4. The law would not override existing local rent control laws.
5. Before evicting tenants, under AB 1482, landlords would have to show “just cause” such as failure to pay rent, conviction of a crime on the property or other lease violations.
6. For tenants who have lived in a property for more than one year, landlords would have to give that lease holder a chance to “cure” their violation.
7. If a landlord wants to renovate a unit or convert it to a condo, he or she would have to pay relocation fees for the tenant equal to one month’s rent.
Business
COMMENTARY: Your California Living Trust Could Be Next: When Evidence Isn’t Enough
A recent California appellate ruling in the case of the Laura Dean Head Living Trust serves as a sobering warning for property owners relying on estate planning. Despite Dr. Head’s express written wishes to disinherit her estranged sisters and name a longtime friend as beneficiary, the court invalidated the trust based on undue influence. This decision highlights how documented intentions and supporting testimony from legal and medical professionals may still face successful legal challenges from disinherited relatives. Read more to see how this precedent impacts California homeowners.
You put your home in a living trust. You choose who inherits. You expressly disinherit relatives. An attorney prepares the documents. You expect your wishes to survive you.
Dr. Laura Dean Head’s trust did not.
California property owners should examine Laura Dean Head Living Trust, Alameda County Superior Court, Oakland, Case No. RP20061734, and Hamlin v. Jendayi, California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, Case No. A167695.
The case delivers a sobering warning: a living trust can face a successful challenge even when its chosen beneficiary presents evidence supporting the person’s stated wishes.
Head, a San Francisco State University professor, named Zakiya Jendayi as successor trustee and primary beneficiary. They had known each other for 28 years. Seven years after Dr. Head’s death, her estranged sisters contested the trust. Jendayi alleges that they consulted various probate attorneys while forum shopping before pursuing the challenge. Judge Sandra K. Bean in Dept. 103 invalidated the trust based on undue influence.
Jendayi’s compilation, “The Truth Is in the Transcriptions,” places disputed findings beside testimony and medical records. She argues that the evidence tells a different story.
Estate planning attorney Elaine Lee testified that she reviewed the trust privately with Head, behind a closed door. Lee’s testimony, reproduced in the compilation, attributes the beneficiary choices to Head and describes her insistence that her sisters receive nothing.
Hospice social worker Jenna Noe confirmed that Head told her she wanted to leave her belongings to Jendayi. Noe also testified that Head made her own decisions in their conversations.
The court described complete dependence on Jendayi. The compilation points to paid caregivers, hospice professionals and frequent visits from friends. When the judge asked nurse Dolly Woodson whether she had witnessed Jendayi abusing Head, Woodson answered no.
Jendayi also challenges the court’s treatment of her conditional power of attorney and alleges omissions and unequal treatment of evidence.
Yet the appellate court affirmed the judgment. It found substantial evidence supporting undue influence, rejected the judicial-bias claims and deemed any deficiencies in the statement of decision harmless. The published portion held that disinherited potential intestate heirs had standing to contest the trust.
That ruling endangers Californians who have properties held in a trust. Disinheritance did not prevent this challenge, and evidence supporting Head’s intentions did not secure the outcome Jendayi sought.
For homeowners relying on a living trust, the question is urgent: how well will your documented choices withstand a contested courtroom narrative?
Read the decision at https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2024/a167695m.html
Examine the testimony. Consider what happened when a woman’s written wishes and the evidence offered to defend them were still not enough.
Sources: Hamlin v. Jendayi (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1064, opinion filed Oct. 17, 2024, modified Nov. 12, 2024; Jendayi’s supplied compilation of transcript excerpts and exhibits. Claims of error reflect Jendayi’s position.
Commentary
Oakland Probate Dispute Raises Questions About Court-Ordered Property Transfer and Missing Notice
A legal dispute over an Oakland property has intensified following a tentative ruling that favored occupant Zakiya Jendayi, who claimed she was not properly notified before a judge ordered the property transferred into an estate. After the ruling, the estate’s administrator successfully challenged the presiding judge and requested the case be returned to the judge who signed the original transfer order. The First District Court of Appeal has now intervened to review the disqualification process and recent changes to the court docket. Read more.
Opinion and documentary analysis | Part 2 of 2
A tentative ruling found that Oakland property occupant Zakiya Jendayi had not received notice before a judge ordered its transfer into an estate.
The ruling was not final. Attention shifted to the assigned judge.
The estate’s special administrator, Phillip Campbell, invoked California Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.6 to disqualify Judge Stephanie Sato. The trial court granted the challenge Sept. 9, 2026.
Five days later, Campbell requested reassignment specifically to Judge Sandra Bean, who had signed the property order Jendayi sought to overturn.
The sequence raises questions about procedural fairness.
A Challenge After an Unfavorable Ruling
Sato’s Sept. 8 tentative ruling concluded that California’s notice requirement protected Jendayi as an occupant, regardless of whether Jendayi held a valid ownership interest.
Her proposed decision would have vacated Bean’s Oct. 8, 2025, order.
Section 170.6 permits challenges under certain circumstances. Whether Campbell’s challenge was timely was disputed.
On Sept. 14, Campbell sought Bean’s reassignment, citing her familiarity with related trust litigation, judicial economy and consistency. Jendayi opposed the request the following day.
The timing invites serious public scrutiny but does not establish misconduct.
The Appellate Court Intervenes
In Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior Court (1987), a California appellate court examined the danger of allowing litigants to learn a judge’s likely decision before seeking disqualification.
The decision also recognized that changed assignments and insufficient notice can affect when a challenge is permissible.
On Sept. 17, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal stayed the order granting Campbell’s challenge and requested briefing addressing Kaiser.
That intervention did not vacate Bean’s property order, restore the invalidated trust or conclusively decide whether Campbell’s challenge was improper.
It did place the reassignment dispute under appellate review.
Questions in the Docket
Two versions of the court docket present another unresolved issue.
A printout preserved through Sept. 15 lacked reassignment entries that appeared in a later version. The later docket listed reassignment to Bean and a clerk’s notice under Sept. 9.
The difference warrants an explanation of when the entries were created, entered and made publicly accessible.
It does not establish deliberate backdating.
Accountability Beyond an Order
Judges generally enjoy immunity from damages claims arising from judicial acts, even when serious error is alleged. That protection does not make their decisions immune from review.
Appellate courts can correct legal errors; California’s Commission on Judicial Performance can investigate misconduct but cannot reverse judgments.
For Jendayi, the central concern remains practical: How much litigation must an occupant undertake to enforce a notice requirement intended to protect participation before property rights are adjudicated?
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. underscores the importance of meaningful notice and an opportunity to object.
The record establishes contested filings, a tentative ruling and appellate intervention, not anyone’s private motives.
The public deserves a transparent, documented explanation of this consequential judicial process.
A judge’s signature should resolve a lawful dispute, not silence legitimate questions about how the decision was reached.
The case is Estate of Laura Dean Head, Alameda County Superior Court case RP20066047. Records are available through the court’s eCourt Public Portal.
Business
Veterans Housing Project Proposed for South Richmond
According to the development team’s presentation, the project has an estimated total cost of nearly $158 million. The presentation outlines five phases encompassing entitlement and construction documents, community outreach, soil remediation and utility work, podium and building construction, solar technology integration, and interior buildouts.
A proposed mixed-use development at 338 Carlson Blvd. could bring hundreds of homes and support services for military veterans to South Richmond.
Led by the Richmond-based Veterans Resource Program in partnership with Eagle Environmental Construction & Development, the proposal covers an approximately 2.3-acre property the nonprofit acquired in 2018.
The proposal features a multi-building residential development with various apartment sizes, though city documents and developer materials cite conflicting totals ranging from 226 to 268 units.
The proposal also includes approximately 40,000 square feet of commercial and retail space, about 200 parking spaces, and an entrepreneurial training and job-development component intended to connect veterans with economic and workforce opportunities.
According to the development team’s presentation, the project has an estimated total cost of nearly $158 million. The presentation outlines five phases encompassing entitlement and construction documents, community outreach, soil remediation and utility work, podium and building construction, solar technology integration, and interior buildouts.
Founded in 2011, the Veterans Resource Program provides housing assistance and other services to veterans, including those experiencing homelessness or transitioning from incarceration.
The proposal aims to advance Richmond’s affordable housing goals while connecting veterans with housing and supportive services. Details of affordability and veteran eligibility remain to be clarified.
The Richmond City Council was scheduled to receive an informational presentation on the project at its Oct. 6 meeting, following a continuance from Sept. 22. The item does not seek project approval or city funding. Any future request for city financial assistance or other public resources would require separate consideration and approval.
How the Sandwich Generation Can Help Protect Aging Parents’ Finances
As Progressive Democrats Celebrate ‘Blue Tsunami,’ Oakland Counts Victories
Golden State Valkyries Become Bay Area Legends Winning WNBA Championship on Halloween Night
IN MEMORIAM: Marcia Ann Gillespie, Editor of Essence and Ms. Magazines, Dies at 82
U.S. Rep. John Garamendi Honors local ‘Women of the Year’ at Annual Awards Ceremony
Richmond Neighbors Put Pantry Power on the Map
Oakland Latino Chamber of Commerce Hosts Statewide Convention, Generating $3 Million in Economic Impact
HISTORY MADE: Keisha Lance Bottoms Becomes First Black Woman Elected Governor in American History
HISTORY MADE: Keisha Lance Bottoms Becomes First Black Woman Elected Governor in American History
Five Hospitals Said No! Who Will Help Annette Henry Recover?
Oakland NAACP, BWOPA Speak Out Against Alleged Harassment of Black Women Political Leaders
COMMENTARY: Oakland’s Black Students Have Gained Ground: We Shouldn’t Stop Now
From Backyard Grilling to Jack London Square: Jamale Carlyle’s Chicken Wing Success Story
SEIU Local 1000 and State of California Will Continue to Negotiate New Labor Contract
OPINION: We Can Restore Checks and Balances on Trump
COMMENTARY: Valarie Bachelor and Jennifer Brouhard are Excellent School Board Members and Deserve to Be Reelected
Listening as a Lifeline: A Doula’s Witness to Black Maternal Health
OUSD Receives State Review of District Finances; Outlines Progress Since January
HISTORY MADE: Keisha Lance Bottoms Becomes First Black Woman Elected Governor in American History
Zakiya Jendayi Arrested, Locked Out of Home by Sheriff’s Deputies
SEIU Local 1000 and State of California Will Continue to Negotiate New Labor Contract
Golden State Valkyries Become Bay Area Legends Winning WNBA Championship on Halloween Night
COMMENTARY: Your California Living Trust Could Be Next: When Evidence Isn’t Enough
Fate of Bay Area Public Transit Hinges on Regional Transit Measure
Oakland Post: Week of September 30 – October 6, 2026
It’s Time to Lose Weight Before the Holidays
Mayor Barbara Lee Holds Special State of the City Address in Deep East Oakland
Democrats, Community Groups Back Measure EE to Change How Oakland Is Governed
Oakland Awarded More than $14 Million in State Funding
OP-ED: Proposition 44 Would Put a Price on Trust
The Conversation With Al McFarlane 6/23/26
Media Monday 6/22/26
LIVE! ASK ALMA! — TUES. 6.23.26 7PM EST
Car Buying Secrets: 4 Hidden Checks Before You Sign!
Is This 550 HP Charger Worth YOUR Money? AutoNetwork Review
Celebrating Juneteenth – Frederick Douglass on education and resistance
LIVE! — ASK ALMA! — TUES. 6.19.26 7PM EST
Hyundai Ioniq 5 Parking, Safety, and 360 View #shorts
2025 Ioniq 5 New Wiper & Powerful Performance! #shorts
Electric SUV Range: Is 259 Miles Enough? #shorts
EV Charging: How Fast Can You Charge an Electric Vehicle? #shorts
Biometric Cooling… Messaging Seats…Come on! 2025 Infiniti QX80 Autograph 4WD
Charged Up: Witness the Magic of a Fully Electric Car! #shorts
Range Rover Sport PHEV Included…: See What’s Inside This Luxury SUV! #shorts
Invisible Hood View: Perfect Parking with X-Ray Vision! #shorts
-
Commentary2 weeks agoCOMMENTARY: Valarie Bachelor and Jennifer Brouhard are Excellent School Board Members and Deserve to Be Reelected
-
Education2 weeks agoOUSD Receives State Review of District Finances; Outlines Progress Since January
-
Black History1 week agoHISTORY MADE: Keisha Lance Bottoms Becomes First Black Woman Elected Governor in American History
-
Business2 weeks agoSEIU Local 1000 and State of California Will Continue to Negotiate New Labor Contract
-
Community1 week agoGolden State Valkyries Become Bay Area Legends Winning WNBA Championship on Halloween Night
-
Business2 weeks agoCOMMENTARY: Your California Living Trust Could Be Next: When Evidence Isn’t Enough
-
Business3 weeks agoFate of Bay Area Public Transit Hinges on Regional Transit Measure
-
Community4 weeks agoIt’s Time to Lose Weight Before the Holidays
1 Comment