Measure RR would limit when Santa Monica landlords can evict tenants for unpaid rent.
What it does
Currently, a landlord may evict over any amount owed. Under RR, a tenant would have to owe more than one month’s federally estimated fair market rent before a landlord could seek eviction for nonpayment.
That threshold would be calculated each year by averaging federal rent estimates for similarly sized units across Santa Monica’s five ZIP codes. Right now those levels are:
- Studio: $2,708
- One bedroom: $3,034
- Two bedrooms: $3,782
- Three bedrooms: $4,796
Here’s how it would work for a tenant in a two-bedroom who:
- Owes $100: No eviction for unpaid rent. The landlord could still try to collect the $100.
- Owes $1,500: Still no eviction, because it’s below the $3,782 limit.
- Owes $6,000: The landlord could move forward with an eviction, just like today.
The net effect would be that someone paying very low rent could go well beyond a month in arrears before facing eviction. Someone in a luxury unit could be evicted in less than a month. The measure's text does not address that gap, and no analysis of how often it would arise has been published.
The city attorney's analysis says RR would not affect a landlord's right to collect unpaid rent by means other than eviction. The measure would apply to rent-controlled apartments and other rentals covered by the city’s eviction protections.
The core debate
The open questions about RR are practical: how many cases it would reach, and what it would change for those it does?
Its reach appears limited. About 75% of eviction lawsuits reported to the city since 2024 were for nonpayment, with a median of about $6,000 owed. That is well above one month's fair market rent, so most nonpayment cases would proceed as they do now.
The case for: Supporters call the threshold “reasonable, common-sense,” citing city records of eviction notices over debts as low as $73.87 and arguing that evictions often push tenants into homelessness.
The case against: No ballot argument or organized opposition was filed against RR. A regional landlord group criticized the limit in a letter to the City Council, saying it could let tenants fall too far behind to catch up.