top of page
Search

California Bill Mandating Landlord-Provided Kitchen Appliances: Another Burden on Housing Providers?

  • Aaron Evans
  • Apr 2
  • 24 min read

Imagine being a California landlord and finding out that you may soon be legally required to furnish every rental unit with a working stove and refrigerator. A proposed law winding through Sacramento aims to do just that. Assembly Bill 628 (AB 628), introduced by Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, would mandate that landlords supply essential kitchen appliances in all new residential leases (BYO-fridge? New bill aims to ban LA’s refrigerator-less apartments | LAist). Proponents argue this will ensure basic living standards for tenants, but many property owners see it as yet another added burden on housing providers. In this post, we dive into the current status of the bill, its key provisions, the motivations driving it, and the reactions from stakeholders – especially landlords and property managers who might shoulder the costs.

No-Fridge Apartments and the Push for Change

California law currently requires landlords to provide certain basics – think heating, hot water, plumbing, and electricity – but not appliances like refrigerators or stoves (Bill Aims to End Fridge-Less Apartments in Los Angeles | KFI AM 640 | LA Local News). This has led to a peculiar norm in parts of California (notably Los Angeles): rental apartments being offered without a fridge in the kitchen. In fact, Los Angeles and Orange counties have some of the highest rates of “BYO-fridge” rentals in the nation (BYO-fridge? New bill aims to ban LA’s refrigerator-less apartments | LAist). Many newcomers are baffled to tour an apartment only to find an empty space where the refrigerator should be, and are told they must bring their own (Bill Aims to End Fridge-Less Apartments in Los Angeles | KFI AM 640 | LA Local News) (BYO-fridge? New bill aims to ban LA’s refrigerator-less apartments | LAist). Some renters have resorted to cooking on hot plates or scrambling to buy second-hand appliances just to make their new apartments habitable (Did your rental apartment come without a refrigerator or stove? This California bill would change that - ABC7 Los Angeles). As one frustrated tenant put it, “We were like, ‘OK, this is crazy. We have to pay for this? We have to pay for the installation?’” (Did your rental apartment come without a refrigerator or stove? This California bill would change that - ABC7 Los Angeles).

Such stories of tenants struggling without essential appliances, combined with California’s high rents, set the stage for AB 628. Lawmakers and tenant advocates argue it’s time to modernize habitability standards. “A working stove and a working refrigerator are not luxuries—they are a necessary part of modern life,” says Assemblymember McKinnor (Did your rental apartment come without a refrigerator or stove? This California bill would change that - ABC7 Los Angeles). When tenants are paying $3,000–$4,000 a month in rent (often with hefty deposits on top), basic kitchen appliances should be part of the deal, she contends (BYO-fridge? New bill aims to ban LA’s refrigerator-less apartments | LAist). In other words, if tenants are shelling out $6,000 to $8,000 just to move in, they shouldn’t also have to hunt for a fridge on Craigslist or cook on a hot plate for six months (BYO-fridge? New bill aims to ban LA’s refrigerator-less apartments | LAist) (Did your rental apartment come without a refrigerator or stove? This California bill would change that - ABC7 Los Angeles).

Summary of AB 628’s Key Provisions

AB 628 aims to update California’s Civil Code so that a rental unit without a stove or refrigerator would be considered “untenable” (uninhabitable) by law (Assembly Bill Policy Committee Analysis) (Assembly Bill Policy Committee Analysis). In practical terms, this means those appliances would become a required part of what landlords must provide in a habitable dwelling. Here’s a summary of the bill’s key requirements as currently proposed:

  • Stove and Refrigerator Required: Landlords must provide a safe, working stove and refrigerator in each rental unit. The stove must be capable of safely generating heat for cooking, and the fridge must safely store food (California Bill Would Require Landlords to Provide Working Stove and Refrigerator in New Leases - Davis Vanguard). These appliances would no longer be considered optional amenities but fundamental necessities of a rental home (Assembly Bill Policy Committee Analysis). A unit rented without them after the law takes effect would legally be deemed uninhabitable.

  • Applies to New Leases Starting 2026: The requirement would kick in for any lease signed, renewed, or extended on or after January 1, 2026 (California Bill Would Require Landlords to Provide Working Stove and Refrigerator in New Leases - Davis Vanguard). Existing tenancies might not immediately be forced to comply until renewal or amendment, but any new rental agreement from 2026 forward must include the appliances. This gives landlords a lead time to prepare, but essentially sets a firm start date when every new rental contract needs to guarantee a stove and fridge.

  • Condition of Appliances: Initially, the bill proposed that appliances provided be less than 10 years old – a clause meant to ensure they are modern and efficient. Landlord groups pushed back, warning this would force owners to toss out perfectly good appliances and create waste (BYO-fridge? New bill aims to ban LA’s refrigerator-less apartments | LAist). Lawmakers listened: the 10-year age limit was removed from the bill (BYO-fridge? New bill aims to ban LA’s refrigerator-less apartments | LAist). Now, AB 628 simply requires that the stove and fridge be in good working order. They cannot be subject to any safety recall and must function safely for their purpose (no busted fridges or sparking stoves) (BYO-fridge? New bill aims to ban LA’s refrigerator-less apartments | LAist). This change was a relief to landlords who worried about automatically replacing appliances every decade. As long as an appliance works properly and isn’t a known hazard, it would meet the requirement.

  • Tenant Opt-Out Option: Recognizing that some tenants may actually prefer to use their own appliances, the bill was amended to include an opt-out for refrigerators. If a tenant chooses to provide their own fridge, they can do so provided they notify the landlord, and the landlord then isn’t obligated to supply one for that unit (California Bill Would Require Landlords to Provide Working Stove and Refrigerator in New Leases - Davis Vanguard). Importantly, if the tenant brings their own refrigerator, the landlord isn’t responsible for maintaining that personal appliance ([PDF] AB 628 - Assembly Bill Policy Committee Analysis). This opt-out gives a bit of flexibility – for instance, a tenant who already owns a high-end refrigerator can keep using it, and the landlord is off the hook for that particular item (though a working stove would still be required, as it’s less common for tenants to furnish their own stove).

  • Exemptions for Certain Housing Types: Not every rental unit is a standard apartment with its own kitchen, so AB 628 carves out exemptions for cases where individual appliances aren’t expected or feasible. Single-room occupancy (SRO) units, residential hotels, boarding houses, or other units that share kitchen facilities are exempt (BYO-fridge? New bill aims to ban LA’s refrigerator-less apartments | LAist). The same goes for housing that provides communal kitchens – for example, some assisted living facilities or dorm-style supportive housing where meals are provided in a common area (BYO-fridge? New bill aims to ban LA’s refrigerator-less apartments | LAist). These exemptions, advocated by landlord and affordable housing groups, ensure the law doesn’t mandate stoves in places where it “would be impractical, expensive, and unsafe” to install one in every unit (Assembly Bill Policy Committee Analysis) (Assembly Bill Policy Committee Analysis). In short, if the housing type normally wouldn’t have a private kitchen for each unit, it won’t be forced to under this law.

  • Enforcement via Habitability Standards: By adding appliances to the state’s habitability standards, the bill essentially makes it an issue of tenant rights and landlord duty. If a post-2025 lease lacks the required appliances, the unit could be deemed untenantable, giving tenants legal recourse. Practically, this could mean tenants could demand a fridge/stove be provided, withhold rent if essential amenities are missing, or involve code enforcement. Landlords would need to treat appliance outages similarly to other repair issues that affect habitability.

  • Current Status: As of April 2025, AB 628 is making its way through the California Legislature. The bill cleared the Assembly Judiciary Committee in late March with a 9-1 vote in favor (California Bill Would Require Landlords to Provide Working Stove and Refrigerator in New Leases - Davis Vanguard). Amendments (like the removal of the 10-year rule and addition of exemptions) have been adopted, addressing many initial concerns raised by stakeholders. The next steps likely involve additional committee referrals (such as housing or appropriations committees) and, if it continues to advance, votes on the Assembly floor, followed by the State Senate. It is not law yet, but momentum suggests it has a strong chance of moving forward in the 2025 legislative session (California Bill Would Require Landlords to Provide Working Stove and Refrigerator in New Leases - Davis Vanguard). If ultimately passed and signed by the Governor, the provisions would take effect at the start of 2026.

Why Mandate Appliances? Motivations Behind the Proposal

What’s driving this push to require kitchen appliances in rentals? Tenant advocates and legislators have a clear rationale: they view stoves and refrigerators as essential for habitability, not optional perks. The proposal is largely a response to renter experiences in high-cost areas like Los Angeles, where the practice of excluding refrigerators from rentals has long been an odd norm (BYO-fridge? New bill aims to ban LA’s refrigerator-less apartments | LAist).

Supporters of AB 628 argue that in a modern housing market, “these appliances are not amenities... They're a necessary part of a home.” (BYO-fridge? New bill aims to ban LA’s refrigerator-less apartments | LAist) From this perspective, expecting tenants to procure and maintain their own fridge or stove is unfair – especially on top of sky-high rents. Larry Gross, a prominent tenant advocate in L.A., notes that with the rising cost of food, being able to cook at home and refrigerate groceries is essential for families to save money (BYO-fridge? New bill aims to ban LA’s refrigerator-less apartments | LAist). Without a fridge or stove provided, renters may be forced to eat out or buy costly prepared foods, adding financial strain to those already stretching to afford rent. “It's become prohibitive for many people, families and seniors on fixed incomes to eat out… Without [a fridge and stove], it places additional financial strain on renters,” Gross explains (BYO-fridge? New bill aims to ban LA’s refrigerator-less apartments | LAist).

There’s also an equity argument: California is behind other states on this issue. In most parts of the country, it’s standard (and often legally required) for rentals to come with basic appliances (BYO-fridge? New bill aims to ban LA’s refrigerator-less apartments | LAist). California’s omission of appliances from habitability requirements is seen by advocates as an outlier – a “few states still classify basic household appliances as ‘amenities’” rather than necessities (Assembly Bill Policy Committee Analysis). In a state proud of its tenant protection laws, supporters say it’s high time to catch up to what a reasonable tenant would expect a habitable home to include in the 21st century (Assembly Bill Policy Committee Analysis).

Assemblymember McKinnor’s comments also highlight a consumer expectations issue. Many renters (especially those moving from out-of-state) assume an apartment will have a refrigerator and cooking facilities. Finding out after signing a lease that they have to spend hundreds more to equip the kitchen can be a nasty surprise. McKinnor and others underscore that when tenants pay first and last month’s rent and a security deposit — often totaling many thousands of dollars — they reasonably assume the apartment is turnkey ready for living (BYO-fridge? New bill aims to ban LA’s refrigerator-less apartments | LAist). Requiring landlords to include a fridge and stove would standardize that expectation across California rentals, so tenants aren’t blind-sided or left in the lurch.

Public health and food security motivations sneak into the conversation as well. Without a refrigerator, families can’t safely store perishable food at home, which could lead to higher risk of foodborne illness or force families to shop day-to-day (often at pricier convenience stores). And without a stove, families might rely on unhealthy microwavable meals or expensive takeout. Ensuring every rental has these appliances could help renters maintain a balanced, affordable diet at home — an especially important point for low-income renters or those with children.

In summary, the motivations for AB 628, as voiced by its proponents, are about fairness, modern standards, and financial relief for tenants:

Tenant organizations, legal aid groups, and even some public health and affordable housing advocates have lined up in support of the bill. The California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation wrote in support that requiring stoves and fridges is a commonsense update: “While many landlords do include a working refrigerator and stove... a growing number do not, placing a significant financial burden on tenants seeking an affordable and safe place to live... Most people would not consider a unit to be habitable without these things and the law should reflect that.” (Assembly Bill Policy Committee Analysis) (Assembly Bill Policy Committee Analysis) In their view, AB 628 simply ensures no tenant is forced to pay extra or live in substandard conditions just to cook a meal or keep food fresh (Assembly Bill Policy Committee Analysis) (Assembly Bill Policy Committee Analysis).

Landlord and Property Manager Concerns

From the perspective of landlords and property managers, however, the mandate comes with significant financial and operational implications. Housing providers – especially “mom and pop” landlords with a few units – are raising red flags about how this will affect their businesses. Here are some of the main concerns and arguments against the appliance requirement:

  • Increased Costs for Landlords: The most immediate burden is the upfront cost of purchasing appliances for units that currently don’t include them. A decent new refrigerator can cost $800 or more, and a stove range another $500+, not including delivery and installation. For an owner of multiple units, that adds up fast. Unlike large corporate landlords, small landlords don’t always get bulk discounts or have capital reserves for sudden new expenditures. If a small rental owner has, say, 10 units that previously came without fridges, AB 628 effectively forces a multi-thousand-dollar investment in appliances before 2026. Landlords argue that these costs will ultimately be passed back to renters one way or another – either through higher rent to recoup the expense, or reduced capacity to negotiate lower rent since more amenities are provided. In a free market, amenities aren’t free; if every unit must come with appliances, landlords will factor that into the price. Critics fear the well-intended law could thus raise rents over time or at least eliminate a lower-rent niche option (units that came cheaper but with no appliances). In the case of affordable housing providers, mandated appliance upgrades could even threaten their tight operating budgets. The California Housing Consortium, which develops low-income housing, initially opposed the bill partly because such requirements “could significantly drive up the cost of maintaining affordable housing units” and put projects at risk (Assembly Bill Policy Committee Analysis). Their concern was that added costs might deter construction of new affordable units or strain funds needed for upkeep of existing ones. In response, lawmakers removed the most costly provision (the 10-year replacement rule) to avoid “unnecessary financial burdens for landlords”, especially those running affordable units (California Bill Would Require Landlords to Provide Working Stove and Refrigerator in New Leases - Davis Vanguard) (California Bill Would Require Landlords to Provide Working Stove and Refrigerator in New Leases - Davis Vanguard). Still, the ongoing cost of purchasing and eventually replacing appliances remains a real worry for housing providers.

  • Ongoing Maintenance Responsibilities: Buying appliances is not a one-and-done cost – with ownership comes maintenance and repair duties. Landlords will be responsible for keeping that stove and fridge in good working order throughout the tenancy (aside from cases where a tenant opts to use their own fridge). This means handling repair calls when a refrigerator dies or a stove malfunctions. For property managers, that’s another category of maintenance tickets to field. Fridges, in particular, can be finicky: a compressor might fail, a seal might wear out – and if it stops cooling, it’s an urgent issue (tenants can lose their groceries and be understandably upset). Landlords point out that more appliances = more things that can break = more time and money spent on repairs. This is especially challenging for small landlords who may not have a handyman on staff or a maintenance contract. They could find themselves scrambling to replace a fridge on short notice, paying premium prices for quick service. Additionally, landlords worry about the ongoing replacement cycle: even well-made appliances don’t last forever. A refrigerator might last 10-15 years, a stove perhaps similar. That means every decade or so, these appliances will need replacing, creating a recurring capital expense that must be budgeted for. Those who operate on thin margins might struggle with these periodic costs, especially if multiple appliances across different units fail around the same time (imagine a heat wave or power surge that knocks out several older fridges at once). In short, the bill effectively extends the landlord’s repair-and-maintain obligations deeper into the kitchen – it’s not just the plumbing and wiring they must worry about, but the appliances plugged into them as well.

  • Logistical and Operational Challenges: Some property managers foresee practical hurdles in implementing this mandate. Storage and turnover is one issue: what happens when a tenant who brought their own fridge moves out and the next tenant wants the landlord-provided fridge? Landlords might need to suddenly procure and deliver a refrigerator between tenancies. Do they keep spare fridges in storage just in case? That’s an added hassle, and storing large appliances is no small task (not to mention the space and cost required). There’s also the question of responsibility and tenant damage – if a tenant damages the provided appliances (through misuse or neglect), landlords will likely bear the cost to repair or replace, but proving tenant fault can be contentious. Will security deposits now need to be higher to cover appliance damage? Some landlords might consider it. Moreover, a few landlords have pointed out an upside-down irony: previously, if a tenant really wanted their own fancy fridge or specialized stove, they had freedom to arrange that with the landlord (sometimes trading a slightly lower rent for providing their own appliances). AB 628 could reduce flexibility for unique arrangements. Every unit will have to have something in place, even if a particular tenant might have preferred otherwise (unless they formally opt out and supply their own). In the grand scheme, these operational headaches might be minor, but they add friction to property management.

  • Impact on Small-Scale Housing Providers: The “mom-and-pop” landlords – those who own just one or a handful of rental homes – are likely to feel the greatest pressure. Larger apartment companies often already include appliances as standard and have maintenance staff and replacement budgets. Smaller landlords, however, may have bought older properties where providing a fridge wasn’t expected, and part of their business model was not having to outfit each unit. For these owners, AB 628’s mandate can feel like the straw that breaks the camel’s back. They’re being told to spend thousands on appliances, manage new maintenance tasks, and potentially deal with more regulatory compliance (since failure to provide now violates habitability law). Some fear this is one more regulation in an ever-growing list that makes being a landlord in California less tenable. Over the past few years, landlords have weathered eviction moratoriums, rent caps, just-cause eviction rules, and increased tenant protections. Each law may have good intentions, but cumulatively they add complexity and cost to operating rental housing. The appliance requirement is seen by some as yet another mandate that could drive the “little guys” out of the market. Anecdotally, when faced with costly retrofits or new rules, some small landlords choose to sell their properties – often to larger investors – or convert rentals into owner-occupied units or other uses. The Southern California Rental Housing Association, representing many independent landlords, initially opposed AB 628 for these reasons, warning that blanket requirements don’t consider on-the-ground realities and could “decrease the availability of affordable housing options” if housing providers decide it’s too much hassle (Assembly Bill Policy Committee Analysis). While amendments to the bill have appeased some concerns, the worry remains that forcing small landlords to absorb new costs will either push them to raise rents or quit the rental business, neither of which bodes well for the rental market long-term.

  • “Mandate Creep” and Principle of Choice: A broader philosophical gripe from the landlord perspective is the erosion of choice. Shouldn’t a landlord be able to decide whether to offer a slightly cheaper unit that doesn’t include a fridge, especially if there are tenants willing to accept that trade-off? Up until now, the market had room for that model – for better or worse, there was a segment of rentals where tenants could bring their own appliances (and often these units might rent a bit lower as a result). By outlawing all such arrangements going forward, the state is effectively eliminating a niche and dictating a one-size-fits-all approach. Some housing providers bristle at this, seeing it as government overreach into the landlord-tenant contract. They argue that the marketplace was already handling this: landlords who included appliances could attract tenants more easily, while those who didn’t might charge a touch less or target tenants who already owned appliances. If a tenant didn’t like an apartment without a fridge, they could simply rent elsewhere. In their view, a new law wasn’t necessary to “fix” this – tenant demand would eventually pressure more landlords to include appliances naturally (indeed, many already do). Now, with a mandate, even those few holdouts must comply, removing any market flexibility. Of course, proponents counter that many tenants don’t have true freedom in a tight housing market to shop around, and shouldn’t be stuck without a fridge just because of a power imbalance. But this debate touches on a familiar tension: Where is the line between reasonable regulation and overregulation? To many landlords, AB 628 is another example of Sacramento adding obligations on landlords without offering any help to pay for them – a classic unfunded mandate.

To illustrate the debate, here’s a quick comparison of arguments for and against the appliance requirement:

Arguments FOR AB 628 (Tenants’ Perspective)

Arguments AGAINST AB 628 (Landlords’ Perspective)

Ensures basic livability: No rental should lack facilities to cook or store food – it’s a fundamental aspect of habitability in modern life (Assembly Bill Policy Committee Analysis). Tenants shouldn’t live in half-functional homes.

Increases costs for providers: Landlords must spend thousands on appliances and upkeep. This could lead to higher rents or financial strain, especially on small landlords (Assembly Bill Policy Committee Analysis) (California Bill Would Require Landlords to Provide Working Stove and Refrigerator in New Leases - Davis Vanguard).

Relieves tenant burden: Renters save money by not having to buy or move appliances, easing the upfront cost of moving in (California Bill Would Require Landlords to Provide Working Stove and Refrigerator in New Leases - Davis Vanguard) (California Bill Would Require Landlords to Provide Working Stove and Refrigerator in New Leases - Davis Vanguard). This is crucial in California’s high-cost rental market.

Maintenance liability: More appliances mean more things that can break. Landlords will be on the hook for repairs/replacements (fridge died, stove not heating, etc.), adding to their workload and expenses.

Brings CA in line with other states: California is one of the few states not requiring such basics (Assembly Bill Policy Committee Analysis). Updating the law fixes an outdated oversight and sets a uniform standard renters can count on.

One-size-fits-all mandate: Removes flexibility for landlords and tenants to negotiate arrangements. Previously, a landlord might offer slightly lower rent if a tenant provided their own fridge; that choice will vanish under a blanket rule.

Promotes equity and health: Low-income tenants can store groceries and cook at home, which is healthier and cheaper than eating out ([BYO-fridge? New bill aims to ban LA’s refrigerator-less apartments

LAist](https://laist.com/news/housing-homelessness/new-bill-aims-to-ban-las-refrigerator-less-apartments#:~:text=For%20more%20typical%20L,or%20go%20without%20them%20entirely)). No tenant should have to choose between paying rent and affording a fridge.

Minimal impact on good landlords: Most landlords already provide stoves and fridges; the law targets the holdouts and evens the playing field. If you’re already providing appliances, nothing changes except now everyone must do the same (Assembly Bill Policy Committee Analysis).

Cumulative burden: Seen as another mandate in a string of regulations on housing providers (rent control, eviction laws, etc.). Landlord advocates worry about the long-term sustainability of rental businesses under ever-growing obligations.

As shown above, the crux of the issue is a classic cost-benefit question: The benefit to tenants (in convenience, savings, and habitability) versus the cost to landlords (in dollars, effort, and autonomy). Landlords aren’t arguing that fridges and stoves are bad – merely that making them compulsory for every unit and placing 100% of the responsibility on the owner is a burden that should be acknowledged. Even landlord representatives who find the premise reasonable sought to trim the rough edges of the bill. Debra Carlton of the California Apartment Association (CAA) noted that requiring brand-new appliances on a set timeline would have been wasteful and costly, a point that successfully convinced the author to drop the 10-year replacement rule (BYO-fridge? New bill aims to ban LA’s refrigerator-less apartments | LAist). The CAA also pushed for sensible exemptions (for communal kitchens in rooming houses, etc.) which were added (Bill Aims to End Fridge-Less Apartments in Los Angeles | KFI AM 640 | LA Local News). These changes suggest that landlord voices can have a moderating impact – and indeed, after the amendments, major industry groups appear more neutral on the bill. But neutrality isn’t exactly enthusiasm; at best, many property owners see AB 628 as well-intentioned but inconvenient. As one apartment association leader mused, it’s puzzling that L.A. ever normalized BYO-fridge in the first place, and certainly providing a fridge could even prevent property damage (tenants hauling heavy appliances up stairs can dent walls and floors) (BYO-fridge? New bill aims to ban LA’s refrigerator-less apartments | LAist). Yet, acknowledging that doesn’t pay for the new fridges. The bottom line for landlords: if this law passes, they will absorb new costs and duties, and they’re not thrilled about it.

Current Status and Next Steps for AB 628

As of this writing, AB 628 is progressing through the legislative process in California. The bill has passed at least one key committee hurdle with bipartisan support (9–1 vote in the Assembly Judiciary Committee) (California Bill Would Require Landlords to Provide Working Stove and Refrigerator in New Leases - Davis Vanguard). Lawmakers from both parties seem sympathetic to the idea that habitability standards should include basic appliances. With the initial opposition from affordable housing organizations addressed through amendments, there may be fewer obstacles ahead. The bill is expected to continue moving forward in the 2025 session (California Bill Would Require Landlords to Provide Working Stove and Refrigerator in New Leases - Davis Vanguard).

That said, it’s not a done deal. Legislation can evolve or stall, and landlord groups are likely to remain engaged. The next steps would typically involve review by the Assembly Appropriations Committee (to consider any fiscal impacts, although AB 628 imposes costs on private landlords rather than state budget, so fiscal impact is minimal) and then a vote by the full Assembly. If it passes the Assembly, it would go to the State Senate for committee hearings and floor votes. The earliest it would reach the Governor’s desk would be late 2025. If eventually signed into law, the lead time until January 2026 is meant to give landlords an adjustment period.

For landlords and property managers, this is a critical period to stay informed and involved. Industry associations like CAA, local apartment associations, and the Southern California Rental Housing Association will undoubtedly track the bill’s progress and may lobby for further tweaks or clarifications. Landlords who feel strongly about the issue – whether in support or opposition – should consider contacting their state legislators or voicing their perspective through public comments. As the bill stands now, it has been tempered to remove the most onerous pieces (no forced premature appliance replacement, and logical exemptions carved out). But the core mandate remains: come 2026, no more fridge-less rentals in California.

Preparing for Compliance (and Making Your Voice Heard)

From a property management standpoint, it’s time to plan ahead. Here are a few actionable steps and considerations for landlords and property managers in light of this pending mandate:

  • Budget for Appliance Expenses: If you have units that you’ve been renting without refrigerators or stoves, start crunching the numbers. What will it cost to equip each of those units with a reliable fridge and stove? Do you need to stagger purchases or secure a line of credit to cover the upgrades? Planning the capital expenditure now can prevent a last-minute budget crisis. Remember to factor in not just purchase price, but also delivery, installation, and any necessary electrical or plumbing upgrades (some older units might need outlets or gas lines checked to support new appliances).

  • Consider Phased Implementation: Even though the law hasn’t passed yet, savvy property managers might begin phasing in appliances as units turn over in 2025. If a tenant moves out this year, it could be wise to install a fridge and stove for the next tenant and slightly adjust the rent to account for the added value. This way, you’re not hit with doing all units at once in December 2025. Plus, offering appliances now could make your unit more attractive to renters in the current market (many landlords already report it’s harder to rent a place without a fridge because tenants have grown to expect one).

  • Update Lease Language: If you haven’t been including appliances, your lease agreements and marketing materials likely specify that (e.g., “appliances not included” or “tenant will provide refrigerator”). Should AB 628 pass, you’ll need to update all those templates. It’s a good practice to start reviewing your lease language regarding appliances. Also consider adding clauses about the condition of provided appliances and tenant responsibilities (for instance, requiring tenants to promptly report any appliance issues, or clarifying that if a tenant opts to use their own fridge, they must maintain it and remove it at move-out). Aligning your paperwork with the new rules will prevent confusion later.

  • Plan for Maintenance: Adding several refrigerators to your portfolio means you might want to line up reliable repair services or warranties. Look into appliance maintenance contracts or warranty extensions when purchasing new units – a repair plan could save money in the long run if (or rather, when) something breaks. At minimum, start building a relationship with a local appliance repair company or ensure your handyman is comfortable with appliance fixes. It’s also wise to document the make, model, and purchase date of each appliance per unit; keeping an inventory will help you track ages and warranties.

  • Educate and Communicate: If you’re a property manager managing on behalf of owners, make sure your property owners are aware of this impending change. No owner likes unexpected costs, so communicate early about the likelihood of this law passing and why you may need to spend on appliances. Similarly, you can prepare current tenants for the change – for example, if you have a tenant who brought their own fridge, discuss the opt-out provision and document their preference when the time comes. Proactive communication can build goodwill and prevent misunderstandings (like tenants assuming you’ll cover their personal appliance’s repairs).

  • Engage in Advocacy: This is also a key moment to get involved in the legislative process. Property owners often feel that laws are thrown at them without input, but now is an opportunity to voice your perspective. Consider writing to your state Assemblymember or State Senator to share how this mandate will affect your business. Stick to concrete impacts: will it force you to raise rents? How many appliances would you need to buy and at what cost? Lawmakers do take constituent feedback into account, especially from small business owners like rental housing providers. Additionally, joining local landlord associations or coalitions can amplify your voice. These groups often lobby on behalf of landlords and can update you on any public hearings or letter-writing campaigns. Even if the bill ultimately passes, perhaps your input could influence implementation details or future housing policy considerations.

Conclusion: Necessary Modernization or Overreach?

AB 628 represents a pivotal change in California’s rental housing landscape – one that unquestionably benefits tenants by ensuring every rental has a functioning stove and fridge, but which also places new obligations on landlords who must foot the bill. From a landlord’s perspective, this feels like the latest in a series of mandates that incrementally increase the cost and complexity of providing housing. Each individual requirement (be it installing smoke detectors, adhering to rent caps, or now, supplying appliances) may be manageable, but together they add up. The risk is that the cumulative burden discourages investment in rental properties or squeezes out the small operators who are vital to California’s housing ecosystem.

On the other hand, many landlords have long voluntarily included appliances, recognizing it as a market expectation. For those folks, AB 628 might change little except to level the playing field against any competitors who were skimping on amenities. There’s also a certain practicality to the rule: fewer mismatched expectations, fewer frantic appliance rentals or purchases on move-in day, and perhaps even a more stable landlord-tenant relationship when the basics are covered from the start.

As of now, the bill’s fate isn’t sealed. But given the strong push from tenant advocates and the reasonable compromises made to address initial opposition, California landlords should brace for this change to become reality. Rather than view it solely as a burden, some property managers are already framing it as an upgrade to their rental offering – something they can advertise and potentially justify modest rent increases for. In a competitive rental market, providing a complete home (yes, including the fridge and stove) could actually be a selling point.

Still, it’s important that policymakers remain aware of the financial strain on housing providers. If Sacramento continues to add requirements without offering support or incentives, it could paradoxically hurt the renters they aim to help by driving landlords out or pushing rents upward. Housing is a partnership between tenants and providers; a balance must be struck so that improvements in living standards don’t come at the cost of reducing the supply of homes.

For now, landlords and property managers should stay alert: keep an eye on AB 628’s progress, start planning for compliance by 2026, and make your voice heard during the legislative process. If you have concerns, articulate them – perhaps additional assistance or tax deductions for the purchase of required appliances could be a fair ask. If you support the bill’s intent, you might still suggest tweaks to make implementation smoother for owners.

In the end, everyone can agree that no family should live in a home where they can’t cook a meal or refrigerate milk for their kids. The question is how to achieve that standard without unfairly straining those who provide the housing. AB 628 draws that line by putting the onus on landlords. It’s a shift that California’s property owners are now grappling with, and it underscores a broader trend: increasing expectations that landlords take on a larger role in ensuring quality of life for renters. Whether you view that as a necessary evolution or an overreach, one thing is clear – if you’re a California landlord, it’s time to dust off your checkbook and maybe start shopping for some appliances. 🔧🏠 As always, stay informed, stay prepared, and engage with your industry community – your livelihood as a housing provider depends on it.

 
 
 

Комментарии

© 2023 Strata Property Solutions, Inc.

DRE #02235963 

Privacy Policy

  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
bottom of page