By: Alan Pentico, Executive Director of the Southern California Rental Housing Association
A horrific case in San Marcos has brought the issue of violence in rental housing into sharp focus. A couple rented a room in their home to a tenant who had a history of legal trouble that included allegations of threats and intimidation involving people he had lived with.
The Austins died after their home was set on fire earlier this year. In September 2026, the tenant was charged with murder and arson in connection with their deaths.
No screening process can predict every act of violence, and no policy could guarantee that a tragedy like this will be prevented. But cases involving serious warning signs should make us think carefully before taking tools away from the people responsible for operating safe rental communities.
That concern is timely as California policymakers debate how much information housing providers should be permitted to consider when evaluating prospective tenants.
The Southern California Rental Housing Association recently surveyed its members about threats, harassment, and violence in rental housing. Nearly 76% reported experiencing threats, harassment, intimidation, violence, or other actions by tenants that created safety concerns on a rental property, and nearly two-thirds said hostile or threatening tenant behavior has become more common over the past five years.
Those incidents aren’t confined to disagreements between landlords and tenants. Survey respondents reported that property managers, leasing staff, maintenance workers, contractors, and other residents have all been affected.
Most conversations about California’s housing policies focus on affordability, tenant protections and preventing unnecessary evictions. Those conversations matter. So does recognizing that housing providers must consider the safety of everyone who lives and works at a property.
That is why proposals to further restrict criminal background screening deserve careful scrutiny. California already limits tenant background checks by capping application fees, restricting criminal history lookbacks, and banning the use of arrest records or blanket bans. Recently, state lawmakers have sought to further limit how housing providers can use criminal background checks when screening prospective tenants with a proposal to make “criminal history” a protected characteristic.
Background checks should be used responsibly and within the law. But preventing housing providers from considering relevant information altogether can create a different set of risks.
The challenge doesn’t end once someone becomes a tenant. When someone repeatedly threatens neighbors or creates an unsafe environment, housing providers can face lengthy legal processes before removing the tenant from a community.
Three-quarters of the housing providers surveyed said legal or regulatory requirements delayed removing a tenant whose behavior created safety concerns. And 65% said that led to other tenants complaining or moving because they no longer felt safe.
Housing providers have changed how they operate in response to safety concerns, from installing cameras and alarm systems to changing office procedures. That additional expense raises costs for anyone renting a home.
California has worked hard to strengthen tenant protections. We should be equally thoughtful about preserving reasonable tools that help housing providers protect the people already living in their communities.
California shouldn’t force communities to choose between tenant protections and public safety. The San Marcos case underscores why safety and the ability to identify and respond to legitimate risks must remain part of the housing conversation.
