California AG Bonta supports ‘justice-involved people’ for HUD-subsidized housing – California Globe

California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced Monday his support for “the need of justice-involved people to have safe, affordable housing, with the interest of housing providers in maintaining the safety of their tenants and their staff.”

Most Californians would tell AG Bonta and Gov. Gavin Newsom to “just keep them in jail,” also known as “safe, affordable housing.”

What is this %$&!?

Bonta’s office explains:

“Bonta today submitted a comment letter in support of a proposed rule by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that would reduce barriers to HUD-assisted housing for individuals who have previously been involved in criminal justice system (individuals involved in justice). ). According to HUD, nearly one-third of American adults have a criminal record. In California alone, approximately eight million people have criminal records. In today’s comment letter, Attorney General Bonta emphasizes that affordable housing is essential to the successful reentry of justice-involved individuals and the reduction of recidivism. It also urges HUD to make several changes to the proposed rule to enhance its effectiveness.

Let’s unpack this jargon.

“Reducing barriers” means that “justice-involved individuals,” whom we call criminals, may in many cases not be eligible to rent an apartment.

“HUD Assisted Housing for Persons Previously Involved in the Criminal and Justice System (Justice-Involved Persons)” refers to felons who need subsidized housing.

“Affordable housing” means subsidized or free government housing.

“Those in our communities who have had interactions with the criminal justice system” refers to recently released criminals.

Did you know that “there are more than half a million HUD-subsidized housing units in California, housing nearly a million low-income individuals and families?” »

AG Bonta wants HUD to address “the reluctance of housing providers to follow California laws that provide additional housing protections for justice-involved people,” meaning even HUD doesn’t want to be responsible for criminal tenants.

Bonta wants HUD to “expand the proposed rule to also exclude, in addition to arrest records, the use of non-conviction records; minors’ files; recordings of calls for service to law enforcement; and conviction records in which the person obtained an expungement, pardon, or other post-conviction relief in housing decisions,” which means expunging all arrest records.

And this because “Attorney General Bonta is committed to guaranteeing equal access to housing”.

Here’s the thing: In February, Bonta released updated guidance outlining cities and counties’ obligations under the recently passed Assembly Bill 1418 (AB 1418). Authored by Assemblymember Tina McKinnor (D-Inglewood), AB 1418 prohibits local governments from, among other things, enacting ordinances, regulations, and rules that impose penalties on tenants and landlords only in the event of contact with law enforcement. It is the first law in the nation to regulate crime-free housing programs.

Indeed, local jurisdictions have exercised this discretion to maintain crime-free housing policies, in some cases, for decades. Bonta asserts that “crime-free housing policies can contribute to the segregation of our communities and the exclusion of people of color from certain areas, in violation of federal and state laws. »

The essential :

Bonta says that through AB 1418, local governments are prohibited from enforcing or implementing any ordinance that threatens to impose a penalty on a tenant as a result of contact with a enforcement agency. law application.

“In particular, local governments are prohibited from adopting or enforcing crime-free housing policies that require or encourage a housing provider to engage in any action or impose a penalty on the provider. »

Bonta says local governments are also prohibited from defining any contact a tenant may have with a law enforcement agency as a “nuisance,” and describes this as “intentional discrimination.”

So now, are felons in California considered a protected class along with the other 17 protected classes?

Lawyers, please give your opinion. This doesn’t pass the smell test.

Printable, PDF and email version