Why California SB 522 Could Stall Disaster Recovery and Shrink Rental Housing

At Authority Property Management, we’ve weathered more than our share of wildfires, floods, and emergency declarations here in Northern California. We know what it takes to help families and landlords recover — and we also know when legislation makes it harder, not easier. That’s exactly why we oppose Senate Bill 522 (SB 522).

This proposed bill could have serious consequences for property owners trying to rebuild after a disaster. While the intent might be to protect renters from sudden rent spikes, the reality is that SB 522 would discourage rebuilding entirely, leaving fewer homes for everyone and stalling recovery when communities need it most.

Let’s break it down.

What Is SB 522?

California’s Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482) already places rent caps on many properties — but it exempts new construction for 15 years, including units rebuilt after disasters like wildfires or earthquakes.

SB 522, introduced by Senator Aisha Wahab, would strip away that exemption. If passed, any rental property rebuilt or substantially renovated after a disaster would be subject to immediate rent caps, the same way older buildings are. On the surface, that sounds like tenant protection. But in practice? It could derail the rebuilding process altogether.

Why Authority Property Management Opposes SB 522

Rebuilding Costs Are Real — And High

Construction after a disaster is rarely a cosmetic refresh. It often requires full demo, debris removal, updated permits, energy code compliance, and sometimes months of red tape. That’s not cheap.

Under current law, property owners are able to charge market-rate rents for up to 15 years, allowing time to recoup some of those massive expenses. SB 522 would eliminate that path, making it nearly impossible for many landlords — especially mom-and-pop owners — to break even, let alone rebuild.

Financing Would Get Tougher Overnight

Let’s say a landlord wants to rebuild a burned-down triplex in Redding. They go to a bank or lender for financing. That lender asks, “What will your income be once it’s rebuilt?”

If the landlord can’t show a viable return because rent caps limit future revenue, chances are slim they’ll secure that loan. No financing means no rebuild.

It Hurts Tenants Too

Yes — you read that right. While the bill is marketed as pro-tenant, it may ultimately reduce housing availability, keeping displaced renters out of their communities for longer.

In places like Shasta Lake, Anderson, and other rural Northern California towns, there’s no surplus of housing to fall back on. If landlords can’t rebuild, tenants have nowhere to go. And if they do rebuild under strict rent caps, they may be forced to rent elsewhere just to stay financially solvent.

It Undermines the Recovery Process

After a major fire, earthquake, or flood, the top priority is always to get homes rebuilt fast. Local contractors, vendors, and workers rely on those projects. Property owners make insurance claims, line up resources, and move mountains to restore habitability.

SB 522 throws a wrench in that entire process. It removes incentives to reinvest in fire-affected communities and adds uncertainty for everyone involved.

How You Can Speak Out Against SB 522

If you’re a landlord, property owner, investor, or even a tenant who values rapid disaster recovery, your voice matters.