Georgia CommonsComité Urban Affairs del Senado
Comité Urban Affairs del Senado, 5 de febrero de 2026
2025-2026 Regular Session · 125 CAP · 32 min
Esta es una transcripción automática del video de la Asamblea General, hecha por un modelo de reconocimiento de voz. No es un registro oficial y puede entender mal palabras, nombres y números. No se identifica a quienes hablan. El video es el registro: cada marca de tiempo enlaza al momento en que se reproduce.
El video es de la Asamblea General y se reproduce desde su canal de Vimeo. Seleccione cualquier tiempo de abajo para reproducir ese momento. Ver en el canal de Vimeo de la Asamblea General · Agenda
Resumen
Escrito por un modelo de IA (gpt-6.1-sol) a partir de la transcripción. No forma parte del registro, y el video es lo que se dijo.
El comité consideró un texto sustitutivo de SB 166 que, según su promotor, reforzaría la aplicación de las normas locales ante infracciones reiteradas en propiedades de alquiler, al tiempo que permitiría a los gobiernos locales decidir si utilizar sus disposiciones. La discusión se centró en si el registro de propiedades de alquiler debería aplicarse a todos los propietarios o solo a aquellos con al menos 10 propiedades. Una enmienda propuesta para reducir ese umbral a cinco no recibió el respaldo de un segundo miembro. El comité aprobó el texto sustitutivo sin cambios, y la presidencia describió la votación como unánime y señaló que no hubo oposición.
Proyectos de ley tratados (1)
Cada relato abarca el tramo de la reunión que indica. El número del proyecto de ley se dice en ese tramo, salvo cuando era el único proyecto en la agenda de un comité.
SB 166. Counties; ordinances for governing and policing unincorporated areas of counties; revise provisions
Desde 0:19:56 · turnos 0 a 82
El promotor presentó un texto sustitutivo de SB 166 destinado a reforzar la aplicación de las normas locales ante infracciones reiteradas de los arrendadores. El promotor dijo que la participación local sería opcional, que las multas comenzarían en $3,000 y aumentarían en caso de infracciones reiteradas, y que los asuntos abarcados incluirían vivienda, zonificación, basura, vegetación y seguridad. El promotor dijo que, en general, se excluirían los problemas con la documentación de los permisos, a menos que estos faltaran por completo. El promotor también describió disposiciones que reafirmarían la autoridad de los condados para hacer cumplir las normas y convertirían los intentos de eludir el registro mediante múltiples empresas en una infracción de la Fair Business Practices Act. El promotor propuso eliminar el texto que limitaba el registro a propietarios con al menos 10 propiedades. Un miembro del comité preguntó si ese cambio exigiría coordinación entre condados, advirtió sobre la agrupación de propiedades de distintos condados para aplicar las normas e instó a proteger a los pequeños arrendadores. El promotor reconoció que sería necesaria la coordinación, pero sostuvo que los propietarios con menos propiedades también deberían estar sujetos a las disposiciones. Un segundo miembro propuso reducir el umbral a cinco propiedades, y el promotor estuvo de acuerdo. Esa enmienda no recibió el respaldo de un segundo miembro. El comité aprobó el texto sustitutivo sin cambios mediante votación de viva voz; la presidencia describió la votación como unánime, sin votos en contra.
Transcripción
88 turnos. Seleccione un tiempo para reproducir ese momento del video.
- 0:19:50
We have on our t- agenda, um, just one piece of legislation. It is SB 166 by Senator Merritt, and we all should have in our folders a sub, LC461400S should be in your folders, and that is the bill that we are gonna be working off of. And Senator Merritt, when you're ready, you can tell me your mic number.
- 0:20:18
I was, I was gonna go up there.
- 0:20:19
Yes, go, do that.
- 0:20:32
Okay, members, thank you all for, um, joining today. I know everybody's schedule's very busy, so I thank you all for being here. So we have, uh, SB 166. This is a substitute. I did present the bill last week and wanted to make some amendments so that we can close any loopholes. But basic- basically what this bill does, it strengthens local government's ability to hold repeat actors, bad landlords accountable, um, when there's repeat v- violations. And this would increase those penalties with each violation, um, that's reported.
- 0:21:04
So what we did was add a, just a few changes. Um, we added in language, I think it was lines 16 through 22, uh, if a landlord tries to a- avoid the required rental property registration. So what I was asking for was like a rental registry. And again, I wanna reiterate that, um, this legislation is not mandated. Local governments can choose to opt in or out of this, so it's not mandated. They can choose to do it.
- 0:21:34
I would also, um, say that they can choose to hold the registration however, the registry and however they wanna hold it. But, um, lines 16 to 22 will deal with that. Uh, section, that was section one. Section two,
- 0:21:55
um, it just update the existing law on the county ordinances in unincorporated areas. It's just cleanup language. Um, the counties already have the power to enforce these health and safety rules, and this section just affirms that the authority, um, and, and ties to it to the enhanced penalties that we are proposing in this bill. Um, so that is your lines, uh, 24 through 50. Uh, section three, this is the core part of the landlord accountability section.
- 0:22:29
What this does, it, it defines what violations qualify. So if you look at lines 56, uh, through 62, it just spells out, uh, applies to zoning, housing, environmental trash, overgrown vegetation, property and safety concerns. Uh, it does not apply, uh, to permit paperwork issues unless permits are completely missing, um, from the permit process.
- 0:22:55
The, uh, lines 61 through 81, I believe that's the fine. Do I have it? Hold on. Let me make sure I got you.
- 0:23:12
Um, that i- that includes language about the fines and the repeat violation and what those fines will be. Um, y- you can see there, it starts at 3,000, it goes up from there. So that's your lines, what did I say? 69 through 81 defines those fines.
- 0:23:34
Um, what else did we change? Lines, section four. So section four, lines n- 94 through 110, we're just trying to close that loop, um, so that, uh, some of these companies are opening up different LLCs to be able to charge again, and they might have a violation, but they are the same company. So we're just, we added language to close that loop, and that was in 94 through 110 and lines 95 through 99, and that's the required rental registration.
- 0:24:09
Now, one thing I do wanna propose striking from lines 97 through 90... I'm sorry, no, that's wrong, 98 through 101, I would like for it to require any residential property to be on that registry. So I'm proposing that we strike all of that, that was proposed underlined in the sub.
- 0:24:37
That was 98 through 101.
- 0:24:41
So the, all the, unless the owner of such property owns 10 or more-
- 0:24:46
O- right
- 0:24:46
... through registration.
- 0:24:46
It was the 10 or more. I want it to apply to anybody that owns a property should be okay with, with being under a registry, I would think. But I will leave the committee to decide, do they agree? Um, I think that's it. Uh, went through 107. Okay. 110 through 107, if a landlord tries to avoid registration by spreading those properties, this is again closing, closing that loop over multiple LLCs or corporations, that is now illegal to do, and it becomes a violation of the Fair Business, uh, Practices Act.
- 0:25:26
So in a nutshell, SB 166 is just about accountability without trying to overreach or re- or without trying to put a mandate. It provides homeowners and small landlords... I'm sorry, it protects homeowners and small landlords while giving local governments real tools to deal with repeat violators who put public health and safety at a risk and try to hide behind corporate loop- loopholes. So I ask for a favorable consideration and a, and a vote, and, uh, we'll take any questions.
- 0:25:59
Uh, what number are you?
- 0:26:01
Three.
- 0:26:02
Three. Great.
- 0:26:06
Thank you, um, Senator, for bringing this legislation. I'm concerned about, um, lines 98, where you said you wanna delete, uh, that portion. Wouldn't it require some kinda coordination between the counties, uh, if you are in fact going to delete this section of the code?
- 0:26:26
Um,
- 0:26:31
yes, but I guess striking this, I'm, I'm trying... I, I don't want it to just apply to over 10. I think that's why I was wanting it struck. But it... I think all of this would require some local coordination, if that's your question. So I didn't know if you were proposing, like, changing something or just leaving that line as it is.
- 0:26:54
I would certainly... I think it makes a lot more sense to leave it, because the violators would be penalized by one county, and if you delete it, then you're basically saying, um, y- they could combine whatever properties they have in various counties to be fined in a particular county.
- 0:27:20
Got it. I... And a- again, I think what I'm just trying to clean up, I don't want it to just apply to those with 10 properties, over 10 properties. I want it to apply with anybody who has a residential property.
- 0:27:36
So it would be in event, and in any... I'm sorry, "And in no event may a local government require the registration of residential properties unless that property owner," unless, say, you have over 10 properties. I want it to be the anybody that has a property, not necessarily over 10.
- 0:27:59
That's, um, that's a pretty low bar. It's a pretty low bar.
- 0:28:06
I mean, I'm, I'm entertaining, like... I just... I, I would just think that no one would have a problem being part of the registry. If you have a legit rental property, whether it's two, because you get someone that has seven, and then, but then this would not apply to them. That's the problem.
- 0:28:23
Th- this may not apply, but the reg- the regular ordinances that would be on the books of the county would apply.
- 0:28:27
Mm-hmm.
- 0:28:28
I think this, um, language that you have is trying to strengthen the, the punishment for those that have multiple properties-
- 0:28:36
Yes
- 0:28:36
... that are repeat offenders.
- 0:28:37
Yes.
- 0:28:38
So I would recommend not trying to go after, you know, the mom and pop-
- 0:28:41
The small ones?
- 0:28:43
That's right.
- 0:28:44
Okay. All right.
- 0:28:47
Any other questions?
- 0:28:49
Any other questions, concerns?
- 0:28:53
What is the will of the committee?
- 0:29:03
Motion to pass.
- 0:29:04
Second.
- 0:29:04
Any further discussion?
- 0:29:09
So we'll deal first with the striking w- of li-... Okay.
- 0:29:16
I think we need an emotion.
- 0:29:17
We did not, we did not mo-
- 0:29:18
We didn't, we didn't have a motion
- 0:29:19
... we did not have a motion for that.
- 0:29:20
Whether to keep them or not.
- 0:29:21
So we're gonna-
- 0:29:22
Yeah.
- 0:29:22
Okay.
- 0:29:23
Mm-hmm.
- 0:29:23
If you... Yes.
- 0:29:24
Yes.
- 0:29:24
Okay. Would you like to make a motion to amend-
- 0:29:29
Or just keep it
- 0:29:30
... the sub as it's written in front of us?
- 0:29:34
How about we meet in the middle and say five?
- 0:29:40
S-
- 0:29:40
'Cause I, I do understand Senator Jones',
- 0:29:48
um...
- 0:29:48
Yeah, we can't hear you.
- 0:29:50
I do, uh, understand Senator, uh, Jones's heartburn with, you know, going after the small mom and pops, but hearing you say, like, seven, if you have seven, then I would not be caught in this. So I would say, what are your thoughts on saying five instead of 10?
- 0:30:12
Senator?
- 0:30:13
If we just amended-
- 0:30:14
Are you, are you-
- 0:30:15
... line 98 to say five?
- 0:30:17
Senator Merritt.
- 0:30:19
I wouldn't have any objection to it.
- 0:30:21
So are you making a motion to amend line 98, unless the owner of such property owns five? So we're striking 10 and changing that to five, and then leaving everything else as written through line 101.
- 0:30:36
Yes.
- 0:30:36
Okay. So we have a motion to amend line 98. Do we have a second?
- 0:30:51
Okay, so we don't have a second on that motion. So leaving it as is, we already had a motion on the floor do pass. All in... Any other f- any other discussion? Okay, motion on the floor do pass. We have a second. All in favor, say aye.
- 0:31:12
Aye.
- 0:31:12
Aye.
- 0:31:13
Aye.
- 0:31:13
I think that's unanimous. None opposed.
- 0:31:16
Mm.
- 0:31:16
Congratulations, Senator Merritt.
- 0:31:18
Thank you, members. Thank you, members. Thank you, m- uh, Vice Chairwoman.
- 0:31:23
Yes. And that concludes today's Urban Affairs meeting.
- 0:31:28
Easy peasy.
- 0:31:29
Gotta leave it at that.
- 0:31:30
Thank you.
- 0:31:31
Gotta leave it at 10:00.