Status


Add To My Favorites | print page

AB-985 Real property: discriminatory restrictions.(2009-2010)

Senate:
1st
Cmt
2nd
3rd
2nd
3rd
Pass
3rd
Pass
Assembly:
Int
1st
Cmt
2nd
3rd
Pass
Pass
Veto
Bill Status
AB-985
De La Torre (A)
-
Krekorian (A)
Real property: discriminatory restrictions.
03/30/09
An act to amend Sections 12956.1 and 12956.2 of, to add Section 27361.05 to, and to add Article 3.6 (commencing with Section 27310) to Chapter 6 of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of, the Government Code, relating to real property.
Assembly
09/21/09
09/10/09

Type of Measure
Inactive Bill - Vetoed
Majority Vote Required
Non-Appropriation
Fiscal Committee
State-Mandated Local Program
Non-Urgency
Non-Tax levy
Last 5 History Actions
Date Action
01/14/10 Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file.
10/26/09 Consideration of Governor's veto pending.
10/11/09 Vetoed by Governor.
09/25/09 Enrolled and to the Governor at 5 p.m.
09/12/09 Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment. (Ayes 50. Noes 27. Page 3390.)
Governor's Veto Message














To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 985 without my signature.

While the goal of this measure is a worthy one, the practical legal effect is negligible. The restrictive covenants this bill would redact from certain recorded documents are already illegal and void under existing law. Existing law already allows an owner of a property with restrictive covenants to record a "Restrictive Covenant Modification" (RCM) form in order to remove any void or unenforceable covenant, condition, or restriction and permits the county recorder to waive any fees for filing the RCM.

Secondly, it is unknown if the $2 recording fee attached to this bill to fund the redacting of restrictive covenants has any nexus to the actual cost of doing so. To make matters worse, the bill allows local municipalities to raise the recording fee, ostensibly to a “reasonably sufficient to recover the costs for performing activities related to the redaction of an unlawfully restrictive covenant”. However, without a hard cap or sunset of the fee, the fee may be raised and excess amounts used to fund services or projects only remotely related to the redaction of objectionable covenants.

For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill.

Sincerely,



Arnold Schwarzenegger