Realities of three real estate bills
- Share via
Regarding “Bill to Limit Transfer Fees Founders,” May 13, on Senate Bill 670: The measure left the illusion of limiting the use of transfer fees, while in reality it would have undermined Civil Code Section 711, which has existed to protect Californians since the late 1800s.
The bill would have excluded owners in common-interest developments. Protecting some but not all homeowners is a travesty, which serves to undermine the protection of the general public, considering the huge majority of homeowners who live in common-interest developments.
My same objection applies to sister bills 980 and 127. The truth of the matter is that, if passed, these bills would force homeowners to hire lawyers every time a real estate transaction occurs, and they would place more responsibility on real estate agents to enforce new disclosure laws.
California is already experiencing enough litigation, especially in the homeowners association arena. These bills would just add to that, thus their wording deceitfully conveys a cloak of protection while doing the opposite.
I. HOFFMAN
Encinitas
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox twice per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
