A Couple’s Struggle: Cancer, Disability, and Homelessness
Bradford Berger, a 56-year-old man, and his wife, Kimberly, are facing an unimaginable crisis. Both are battling severe health issues—Bradford with a crushed spine from a workplace accident and Kimberly with a recent lymphoma diagnosis. Despite their willingness and ability to pay overdue rent, they were evicted from their San Francisco apartment, leaving them homeless. This heartbreaking situation is a direct result of a controversial California state law that allows landlords to evict tenants for nonpayment of rent, even if the tenant is capable of paying. The Bergers, who have lived in their subsidized apartment for 15 years, were thrown out by eight sheriff’s deputies on March 5, 2023, after their landlord, a nonprofit organization, initiated eviction proceedings. Their story is a stark illustration of how the legal system often fails to protect vulnerable tenants.
The Bergers rely on Bradford’s $900 monthly disability check, which is insufficient to cover their living expenses and rent. After falling behind on payments, they entered into a payment plan but again struggled to catch up by December. A city program designed to assist with back rent could have helped, but California law allows landlords to reject rental assistance funds for any reason, leaving tenants like the Bergers at risk of eviction. This loophole has become a major point of contention among tenant advocates, who argue that such laws disproportionately harm those already dealing with medical or financial hardships.
The Surge in Evictions: A Statewide Crisis
The Bergers’ situation is not unique. Since the end of pandemic-era eviction protections, California has seen a dramatic increase in eviction filings. Between February 2023 and November 2024, Los Angeles alone reported 166,463 eviction notices, the vast majority of which were for nonpayment of rent. Many of these cases involve tenants who fell behind due to unforeseen circumstances, such as medical emergencies or job loss. The Eviction Lab, a research initiative at Princeton University, estimates that approximately 3.6 million eviction cases are filed annually in the United States, with about 7.8 evictions filed for every 100 renting households. This alarming trend highlights the growing instability of housing security in America.
Delays in rental assistance programs have further exacerbated the crisis. In California, tenants who qualify for rental assistance often face waiting times of up to three months before receiving aid. This slow processing leaves little room for error, as tenants typically have only three business days to respond to an eviction notice. For those like the Bergers, who are willing to pay but temporarily unable to do so, the legal system offers little leniency. Evictions are often finalized before rental assistance can be approved, trapping tenants in a cycle of debt and displacement.
A Controversial Law: The Debate Over Tenant Protections
At the heart of the Bergers’ story is a California law that allows landlords to evict tenants for nonpayment of rent, even if the tenant is able and willing to pay. This law has sparked intense debate, with tenant advocates arguing that it fails to account for the realities of financial hardship. Jacqueline Patton, a San Francisco eviction defense attorney, notes that rental assistance programs are frequently delayed, leaving tenants vulnerable to eviction even when they have the means to catch up on payments. For tenants like the Bergers, who are dealing with medical crises and disabilities, the inability to secure timely assistance can be devastating.
In response to these issues, tenant advocates are pushing for new legislation that would require landlords to accept payments up until the point of eviction and dismiss cases where tenants have qualified for rental assistance. State Senator Aisha Wahab, who authored the proposed bill, argues that eviction proceedings should be halted immediately if a tenant can demonstrate the ability to pay. "If you are struggling and able to recoup the funds and pay what you owe, that eviction proceeding should stop immediately," she said. Such a law would not only prevent unnecessary evictions but also reduce the burden on the legal system by streamlining the process for both tenants and landlords.
The Challenges of Rental Assistance
One of the most significant obstacles facing tenants like the Bergers is the slow pace of rental assistance programs. While these programs are designed to help low-income families and individuals cover back rent, delays in processing applications have made it difficult for tenants to avoid eviction. In California, the average processing time for rental assistance can take up to three months, leaving tenants with little time to act once an eviction notice is served. For the Bergers, who were relying on a city program to cover their back rent, the delay proved catastrophic. Despite their eligibility for assistance, the landlord chose to move forward with the eviction rather than wait for the funds to be approved.
This problem is not unique to the Bergers or their landlord. Across California, landlords are increasingly opting to evict tenants rather than accept rental assistance payments. While some landlords may have valid reasons for rejecting assistance, such as concerns about the reliability of the program or difficulties in working with bureaucratic systems, tenant advocates argue that the current law gives landlords too much discretion. The result is that even tenants who are willing and able to pay their rent are being forced onto the streets, further straining already overwhelmed social services.
The Broader Debate: Balancing Landlord and Tenant Rights
The proposed legislation aimed at reforming California’s eviction laws has sparked a heated debate about the balance between tenant rights and landlord responsibilities. On one side, tenant advocates argue that the current system is inherently unfair, as it allows landlords to evict tenants who are capable of paying their rent. They point to cases like the Bergers’ as evidence that the law is in need of reform. "We have the money, here is the money, dismiss your case," said Jacqueline Patton, emphasizing the need for a more streamlined process that prioritizes payment over eviction.
On the other side, landlords and their representatives argue that the proposed legislation could create unintended consequences. Daniel Bornstein, a San Francisco landlord attorney, acknowledges that the current system is flawed but warns that removing the "line in the sand" for nonpayment of rent could lead to abuse. "There has to be a line in the sand from a public policy standpoint or there never is an end point when the debt has to be paid," he said. Bornstein and other landlord advocates argue that landlords should have the right to evict tenants who fail to pay rent, even if those tenants are eventually able to secure assistance.
Conclusion: The Need for Housing Reform
The Bergers’ story is a stark reminder of the fragility of housing security in America. As eviction rates continue to rise and rental assistance programs struggle to keep up with demand, thousands of tenants are at risk of losing their homes. The debate over California’s eviction laws highlights the need for comprehensive housing reform that balances the rights of both tenants and landlords. While the proposed legislation is a step in the right direction, it is only one part of a larger solution. Addressing the root causes of housing instability—such as rising rents, insufficient affordable housing, and delays in rental assistance—will require a coordinated effort from lawmakers, landlords, and tenant advocates.
For the Bergers and others like them, the stakes could not be higher. Homelessness is not just a housing issue; it is a public health crisis that disproportionately affects the most vulnerable members of society. By reforming eviction laws and streamlining rental assistance programs, California can take a crucial step toward ensuring that no one is forced onto the streets simply because they are struggling to pay their rent. The time to act is now.