LAWS

WASHINGTON — Immigration and Customs Enforcement is taking more and more steps to avoid oversight by local and state authorities of immigration detention centers amid growing complaints alleging unsanitary and unsafe conditions at the facilities.

The efforts to sidestep laws in California and elsewhere take many forms. In some instances, contracts have been changed to declare that the centers are simply not subject to certain local or state laws.

In other instances, ICE has purchased facilities owned and operated by private companies. Though the companies continue to run the centers holding thousands of detainees, federal ownership could aid their defense in the event of legal action.

George Zoley, the chief executive of GEO Group, which contracts with ICE to run detention centers in California and across the country, said as much to company shareholders this year. In an earnings call in May, he said that ownership bolsters the facilities’ protection from “unwarranted litigation” around medical care and other detention conditions.

The federal ownership strategy has become particularly crucial, he said, “as some blue states are considering more active involvement in oversight of facilities.”

Local oversight has taken on greater significance since the Trump administration hollowed out federal offices that were charged with investigating civil rights and safety issues at detention centers and began restricting visits by members of Congress. A recent analysis by the Project on Government Oversight found detention center inspections under the second Trump administration have increasingly resulted in “superior” grades.

Eunice Cho, a former American Civil Liberties Union attorney and an expert in immigration detention, called ICE’s efforts a “naked strategy” to evade local scrutiny of detention centers.

“This is a huge sea change in the way that immigration detention is expanding and hardening in the United States,” she said, adding that “this was every advocate’s nightmare scenario.”

In California, state leaders once attempted to shut down privately run detention centers and, after losing, resorted instead to proposing other oversight measures. California is home to eight ICE detention centers with a combined capacity of nearly 9,000 people.

State laws allow monitoring and investigation of the facilities by the California Department of Justice and local health authorities.

A 2021 law allows people to sue for damages when private detention center operators fail to follow the care standards laid out in their contracts. Starting in January, another law will require independent medical investigations into deaths in law enforcement custody, including in immigrant detention facilities.

Several bills are being considered by the California Legislature that would further regulate detention centers. Among them are bills that would authorize the California attorney general to bring civil action and impose fines to protect detainees’ constitutional rights and require the disclosure of public records, such as 911 calls from the facilities.

Recent attempts to limit California’s oversight actions haven’t been successful. CoreCivic turned San Diego health inspectors away from the Otay Mesa Detention Center in February, but after legal action the visit took place in June.

Another oversight battle concerns the rights of detainees who work at a facility, perhaps as a janitor, for $1 per day.

GEO Group recently settled with California regulators after a years-long fight over workplace health and safety violations. The settlement affirmed that immigrants who perform work while detained are considered employees.

Weeks earlier, ICE released new detention standards in June declaring that detainees who participate in the voluntary work program aren’t employees “and are not entitled to wages or benefits under applicable wage laws or labor regulations.”

Because the new standards will take effect as contracts are established or modified, the rules don’t yet apply to existing facilities in California, though they were implemented at a new facility in Minnesota.

An ICE spokesperson did not respond to questions but said the agency consulted with a variety of stakeholders, including facility operators, while revising its standards. The spokesperson, who did not provide their name in an emailed statement, said the agency consistently looks for ways to improve detention facilities to ensure they provide detainees the best care.

“ICE is regularly audited and inspected by external agencies to ensure that all ICE facilities comply with performance-based national detention standards,” the spokesperson wrote, adding that “ICE has higher detention standards than most U.S. prisons that hold actual U.S. citizens.”

An oversight battle involving changes to contracts is also playing out in other states.

For the last three years, GEO Group has blocked Washington health officials from inspecting the Northwest ICE Processing Center near Seattle despite 3,500 complaints from detainees about black mold, unsafe drinking water and substandard medical care.

A previous contract for the facility stated that services must comply with “federal, state and local laws and standards. Should a conflict exist between any of these standards, the most stringent shall apply.”

But in March, ICE and GEO Group established a new contract that says the opposite — that “applicable or more stringent state or local laws or regulations shall not apply.”

A federal district judge, rejecting that contract provision, ruled last month that GEO Group must let health inspectors in, writing that “GEO’s new contract cannot preempt state law, even if it purports to.” That decision is now paused under appeal.

But this week, GEO Group had a court victory in Colorado, where a federal judge prevented the state from enforcing a law that requires unannounced public health inspections of detention facilities and stiff penalties for refusal. Colorado health officials wanted to investigate a tuberculosis case at the Aurora ICE Processing Center near Denver, but have been refused entry and records.

The judge wrote that GEO Group’s contract with ICE “plausibly” requires the company to follow only state laws that existed when the contract was signed. At GEO Group’s suggestion, the judge’s order remains in effect until Oct. 15, when the contract expires.

Meanwhile, ICE appears to be trying a different route to apply the same restrictive contract language to the facilities near Seattle and Denver, among others.

Last month, the agency posted a solicitation with draft contract terms seeking 5,500 detention beds in Colorado, Florida, Pennsylvania and Washington. The locations and requirements match four existing GEO-owned facilities where operating contracts are set to expire in the coming months. During a shareholder call earlier this month, Zoley, the GEO Group CEO, indicated that the four facilities could also be sold off to the federal government while the company would continue to operate them.

The facilities would be governed by the new 2026 detention standards and include terms that mirror those from the Northwest facility’s contract, that stricter state or local laws “shall not apply.”

Zoley said ICE is contemplating buying more than 10 facilities, and that number “could continue to grow.”

GEO Group’s main competitor, CoreCivic, recently sold four detention centers to ICE — two of them in California — for a combined $2.2 billion. Spokesman Ryan Gustin said the facilities were valuated using independent appraisers and federal acquisition standards “to determine objective fair market value.”

ICE paid for them using $45 billion approved by Congress for ICE detention last year, enough for the agency to meet the administration’s goal of 100,000 detention beds. ICE is about 30,000 beds shy of meeting that goal.

Among more than 200 facilities ICE now relies on nationwide (most being local jails) are 36 privately owned detention centers. Those facilities hold the vast majority of detainees.

A Homeland Security spokesperson previously told The Times that it’s crucial for ICE to own detention centers on the West Coast so the agency can maintain the detention capacity it needs.

“Unlike in states like Florida and Oklahoma, ICE can not rely on local state and county partners for detention space in California,” the spokesperson said last month. “The state’s sanctuary politicians continue to push legislation to outlaw or make private prisons financially [unfeasible].”

GEO Group didn’t respond to a request for comment. Gustin, of CoreCivic, said its facilities operate under substantial government oversight, including “on-site government personnel, regular audits and inspections, detention-standard reviews, independent accreditation processes, and routine visits by government officials, attorneys, families and community representatives.”

How much power the federal government would be required to grant states is an open question if more facilities become federally owned, even if private companies continue to run the day-to-day operations.

Claire Trickler-McNulty, a former Homeland Security official who led efforts to reform detention standards, said federal ownership of detention facilities isn’t, on its face, a bad idea. If the goal was to own facilities that would be needed long term, she said, the agency could slowly transition to staffing those facilities with its own employees and cut out the need for private contractors.

Trickler-McNulty said federal ownership of detention centers could make state oversight “slightly more complicated.” But that doesn’t mean the centers can be operated without any review.

“I don’t think it shields the government from liability in total,” she said. “If the government owns a facility whose negligence causes harm or death in the government’s custody, I don’t think you can just buy away liability.”

Reporting from Sacramento — Gov. Jerry Brown ushered in a new era of transparency in California law enforcement on Sunday, signing two new laws that for the first time give the public access to internal police investigations and video footage of shootings by police officers and other serious incidents.

The measures begin to undo decades of laws and court decisions that had made California the nation’s most secretive state for police records.

“With Governor Brown’s signature, California is finally joining other states in granting access to the investigatory records on officer conduct that the public truly has a right to know,” said Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), the author of one of the measures, Senate Bill 1421, in a statement.

Here’s how California became the most secretive state on police misconduct »

Skinner’s bill allows the public to view investigations of officer shootings and other major uses of force, along with confirmed cases of sexual assault and lying while on duty.

The availability of these records will allow the public to press California police departments and elected officials in ways not possible before, said Peter Bibring, director of police practices at the American Civil Liberties Union of California, which was a principal supporter of both bills.

“People have seen there are systematic problems and the police aren’t being held accountable — or at least the public isn’t aware of it because it’s secret,” Bibring said. “That’s something the public is not willing to ignore.”

Legal experts also say SB 1421 could have a significant effect on the state’s justice system by allowing broader access to records that could bear on the credibility of a police witness who has a history of discipline for dishonesty or other significant misconduct.

California is the only state in which even prosecutors cannot directly obtain officer personnel files. Under the current system, prosecutors and criminal defendants must navigate a labyrinthine process in court to glean information from those files. The procedure, which requires filing a so-called Pitchess motion, often yields only the name and contact information of a complainant against an officer.

A recent Times investigation into secrecy surrounding law enforcement discipline found that past misconduct by police witnesses, whether alleged or proven, routinely is kept hidden in court as a result of California’s confidentiality laws.

The new law opens up interview transcripts, evidence and full investigatory reports to the public, prosecutors and defense attorneys alike.

“This is revolutionary,” said San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi. “It would unveil what we have been wanting for a long time.”

Lara Bazelon, a professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law, said the measure could expose officer misconduct that was long withheld from defendants and could lead to numerous convictions being dismissed.

“We are going to see a lot of skeletons falling out of the closets dating back years, if not decades. That means people who were convicted unjustly and unfairly will finally get a chance to be heard,” Bazelon said.

Contra Costa County prosecutors tossed 19 convictions in 2016 and 2017 after a police lieutenant revealed to a judge that files showing internal investigations into two officers had not been disclosed in criminal cases featuring the officers.

California’s rules prohibiting the public release of law enforcement records date back four decades. At the time, police unions and other law enforcement officials were complaining that criminal defense attorneys had flooded departments with requests for complaints against officers. Before the 1978 law was passed, the Los Angeles Police Department shredded four tons of prior complaints against officers that hadn’t resulted in a finding of wrongdoing.

In previous years, law enforcement labor groups waged aggressive campaigns to successfully shut down attempts to loosen the state’s police confidentiality laws.

Police unions opposed SB 1421 as well. Brian Marvel, the head of the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California — the state’s largest law enforcement labor organization — said he worried the new disclosure rules would put officers at risk. Earlier this year, protesters angry over the killing of Stephon Clark, an unarmed black man in Sacramento, gathered at the wedding of a police officer after identifying him as one of the officers who shot Clark, and Marvel said releasing more information about officers could lead to more confrontations that could turn violent.

“There would be a greater potential for officers and their families being harmed by having all of their information being put out publicly,” Marvel said.

Labor officials had used similar arguments in the past to defeat transparency proposals. But Marvel said their position wasn’t as effective this year because public opinion has shifted against officers, pressuring lawmakers to act differently. Legislators and civil rights activists similarly have cited the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement and increased scrutiny on police killings of civilians as reasons why SB 1421 passed when prior attempts at changing the transparency laws failed.

Brown signed the original 1978 police confidentiality law during his first term in office. He did not issue a statement after signing the bill, and a spokesman declined to comment on the decision.

Besides the open records law, Brown signed a second measure, Assembly Bill 748, requiring departments statewide to release body-worn camera and other video and audio recordings of officer shootings and serious uses of force within 45 days unless doing so would interfere with an ongoing investigation.

This law, modeled after a new LAPD policy on releasing body-camera video, makes California’s rules for releasing footage some of the most transparent in the country, according to research by Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

The body-camera law also breaks a long stalemate in the Legislature over setting statewide rules on releasing the police recordings. Multiple proposals in recent years either to make the videos public or limit access had failed before AB 748.

“Public access to body camera footage is necessary to boost confidence and rebuild trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve,” said Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), the bill’s author, in a statement.

The new transparency laws could spur more efforts to increase public access to policing records in the state. Marvel, the police union leader, said he’d like to release body-camera footage of day-to-day interactions officers have with community members, such as typical traffic stops, so that the public has a better sense of what regular policing is like.

“If the only thing we’re releasing is negative contacts with people, then that becomes the narrative,” Marvel said.

The new open records law takes effect Jan. 1. The body-camera law won’t be implemented until July 1 to give police departments more time to update their policies on disclosure.

Coverage of California politics »

liam.dillon@latimes.com

@dillonliam

maya.lau@latimes.com

@mayalau

UPDATES:

5:45 p.m: This article was updated with comments from the bills’ authors and additional information about the governor’s decision.

This article was originally published at 5:25 p.m.

MANY children may be asking if they can take their squishy toys on flights this summer, however, there are some rules to be aware of.

The toys have become a viral sensation, but they may not be allowed through security gates at certain airports.

Children may not be able to bring their favourite squishy dumpling toys on flights as they may get flagged by security.

This is because the toys, available in a variety of colours, contain gel inside.

UK airports have restrictions on the quantity of liquid, gels, and pastes that can be checked in through hand luggage, often limited to a 100ml volume.

However, a number of airports have developed new CT scanners that allow liquids up to two litres to be accepted through security.

PACK IT IN

High street suitcases now on sale from Dunelm to Argos – from £12

TAKING OFF

Major budget airline reveals plans to launch more cheap flights to top US cities

These airports currently include Belfast International, Belfast City, Birmingham, Bristol, Edinburgh, Gatwick and Heathrow.

A host of major airports, such as Luton, Stansted and Manchester still require the removal of 100ml liquids, gels and pastes from bags, and therefore would be more reluctant with squishy toys.

To see whether these dumplings would be accepted, the Department for Transport told the BBC: “No matter how adorable your squishy dumpling is, airport security rules still apply.”

The department advised passengers to check the liquid allowance at the departure airport, noting that “the safest place is in your hold luggage,” for any squishy toys.

Manchester Airport, which only allows 100ml of liquid, told the BBC that “all but very small squishy toys should be placed in the hold baggage”, with only toys with under 100ml liquid accepted through security.

But larger toys may not have the exact measurement listed on the item, meaning it’s better to bring them in hand luggage so security can estimate the size.

Gatwick Airport, which allows up to two litres in hand luggage, said they normally accept squishy dumpling toys, but the toys will be required to go through security screening.

As with anything that goes through airport security, it is important to remember if the item fails checks, it will not be allowed on the plane.

For California businesses, 2020 will be a year of reckoning.

Sweeping new laws curbing longtime employment practices take effect, aimed at reducing economic inequality and giving workers more power in their jobs.

Under one, companies could be forced to reclassify hundreds of thousands of independent contractors as employees with broad labor law protections. Under another, bosses could no longer force workers into closed-door arbitration proceedings, a tactic which protects businesses from costly lawsuits.

The new laws are about “job quality — what it means to work in a just workplace,” said California Labor Secretary Julie Su. “California leads the way on labor standards and we’re not going to let employers do end runs around those standards. We want to support businesses who look at their role in a holistic and humane sense.”

Many new measures, she added, are “not big splashy things, but day-to-day things.” She cited a law giving working mothers a place to express breast milk besides a bathroom. And a law making it easier for firefighters and other first responders to gain workers’ compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder.

Other new statutes ban discrimination based on hairstyle, such as Afros, braids, cornrows and dreadlocks; grant organ donors additional guaranteed leave; and extend whistleblower protection to patient rights advocates at county mental health centers.

The California Chamber of Commerce, a leading voice for business, picked its fights. It did not list Assembly Bill 5, the independent contractor bill, on its annual “job killer” list, preferring to help negotiate for a slew of professionals, such as doctors and real estate agents, to gain exemptions.

“We felt it was important to participate in the compromise,” said Chamber President and Chief Executive Allan Zaremberg. “This is a work in progress, and it will continue to be.”

But the chamber, along with the National Retail Federation and other business groups, filed suit against Assembly Bill 51, the first-in-the-nation law preventing companies from making workers sign arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. And it helped defeat other bills favored by the Legislature’s labor-friendly majority, including one extending unemployment benefits to striking workers and another curbing the University of California’s ability to hire temporary workers.

“A lot of employers feel the rules are complex and tough to deal with,” Zaremberg said. “Our job is to make sure laws are reasonable and fair … and they can afford to stay in business. From that perspective, it has been a successful year.”

Here are a few of the changes coming to California workplaces in 2020:

Minimum wages

On Jan. 1, the statewide minimum wage steps up to $13 an hour for employers with more than 26 employees, and to $12 an hour for those with 26 or fewer employees. The increases are mandated by a 2016 law that gradually raises the floor to $15 an hour for nearly all workers by 2023.

Several local jurisdictions have higher minimums including the city and county of Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Malibu and Pasadena, all of which will raise them on July 1 to $14.25 an hour for small employers and $15 an hour for large employers.

“People talk about prosperity and GDP growth, but that’s not enough,” Su said. “One in 3 California workers makes less than $15 an hour. That is not how we want to build an economy.”

Some 2.6 million Californians will be due a raise in January under the statewide floor, according to a UC Berkeley study. California will have the nation’s second-highest minimum next year after Washington state’s $13.50.

Meanwhile, several large businesses have already raised their floors to $15 an hour or more, including Costco, Spectrum, Amazon and Disneyland Resort.

Independent contractors

In April 2018, the California Supreme Court dropped a bomb on a vast swath of companies, from Uber and Lyft to yoga studios and hair salons, which have built their businesses on independent contractors. To classify workers as contractors rather than employees subject to minimum wage and overtime laws, companies would have to satisfy a strict three-pronged test.

Under the “ABC test,” a business may only contract with independent contractors who satisfy all three of these conditions: a) they are free from control and direction of the hiring entity; b) they perform work outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and c) they are customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as that of the work involved.

The court decision set off a scramble in the Legislature. Backed by labor unions that see an opportunity to organize newly empowered employees, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) authored AB 5 to codify the decision, expanding it to areas such as workers’ compensation and unemployment and disability insurance.

Even under a previous, looser standard, state officials estimated misclassification was costing California some $7 billion a year in payroll taxes. Companies also avoid paying federal Social Security and Medicare taxes for contractors.

“Structural reform was necessary because more and more companies want to reduce their obligations,” Gonzalez said. “We’re playing whack-a-mole trying to protect workers while companies try to get more profit for shareholders.”

A lobbying frenzy led to exemptions for some professions in which workers have more negotiating power or autonomy than in low-wage jobs. Among them: lawyers, accountants, architects, dentists, insurance brokers and engineers.

But the Legislature declined to exempt app-based ride-hailing or food delivery companies, whose workers complain they often earn less than minimum wage and are subject to arbitrary dismissals. Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Postmates and Instacart, arguing that they are technology companies, not transportation employers like taxi businesses, set aside $110 million to mount a ballot initiative exempting them from the law.

Supporters of AB 5, a California law requiring companies to reclassify many independent contractors as employees, rally in August in Sacramento.

(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

Trucking associations, freelance writers and photographers filed suits to avoid the new law’s strictures.

“AB 5 fundamentally disrupts the right of Californians to have independent working relationships with their clients or employers,” said Sen. Mike Morrell (R-Rancho Cucamonga). By favoring some industries over others, he added, “Sacramento Democrats embrace a slide towards socialism.”

Gonzalez said she is open to changes in the bill next year, including an exemption for musicians — but not for app-based ride-hailing and delivery giants. “We will continue to clarify this law, but rest assured, it won’t be repealed,” she added.

Arbitration

Former Gov. Jerry Brown twice vetoed bills to curb the exploding practice of mandatory arbitration, which allows companies to make employees resolve disputes in a private, closed-door session rather than in public court proceedings.

Brown argued that a U.S. Supreme Court decision allows the practice. And businesses contend that in conflicts over wages, discrimination, disability, harassment and other issues, arbitration saves them, and workers, the needless expense of class-action lawsuits.

But in the last year, allegations of sexual harassment and assaults by serial perpetrators, many of whom were protected by arbitration agreements, fueled public outrage, as in the cases of Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein and CBS Chief Executive Leslie Moonves. At Google, 20,000 workers staged a global walkout demanding an end to forced arbitration. Other tech workers, including at Los Angeles’ Riot Games, followed suit.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a new version of the law, which avoids invalidating existing agreements. “AB 51 just prohibits firing or threatening employees who refuse to sign,” said UC Berkeley law professor Catherine Fisk. “Forced arbitration is clearly used as a device to prevent workers from bringing claims. So it allows companies to violate the law.”

But Zaremberg argues: ”Our employment laws are more complex than those in the rest of the country. People make honest mistakes every day trying to comply with them. With arbitration, they can be resolved through an expedited process.”

An estimated 67% of California workplaces had mandatory arbitration policies in 2018, higher than the national average, and the number may have grown this year as attorneys advised companies to get ahead of the new law.

A new activist strategy this year — filing thousands of individual arbitration claims against Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Postmates — hit companies with millions of dollars in processing fees. Companies used to dealing with employee grievances one by one refused to pay. A new law, Senate Bill 707, imposes stiff penalties on businesses that stall payments, and allows workers to then take their grievances to court.

#MeToo

#MeToo scandals lent impetus to other measures besides the arbitration statute.

Under current law, workers have a year to file complaints of discrimination, harassment and retaliation in court. AB 9 extends the deadline to three years. Brown had vetoed the bill in 2018, saying claims should be filed “while memories and evidence are fresh.” Victim advocates contend a year is often insufficient for workers to come to terms with what happened to them and seek counsel.

Often companies will require a worker who gains a financial settlement for harassment or discrimination to quit his or her job. Assembly Bill 749 prohibits “no re-hire” clauses affecting the “aggrieved employee.”

Assembly Bill 547 requires training for janitors to be conducted by their peers. “We’ve seen reports of rape on the night shift,” Su said. “This law means immigrant women with lived experience will make the training real. So companies can’t just pay lip service to training, letting people go through the motions and check a box.”

Child-care workers

Home-based child-care workers are not covered by federal labor law. Now, some 40,000 private family day-care providers, paid by California to service more than 360,000 low-income children, will gain the right to bargain collectively with the state under Assembly Bill 378.

The new law sets the stage for California’s largest union election since 1997, when home-care workers were granted the right to bargain over wages and working conditions. Child-care workers, who are largely Latino and African American, earn close to minimum wage — pushing many out of the industry. The new law will lead to “creating quality jobs, not poverty jobs,” said Assemblywoman Monique Limón (D-Santa Barbara), the bill’s author.

Corporate diversity

Senate Bill 826, enacted last year, requires publicly traded companies headquartered in California to have at least one woman on their boards of directors by January 2020. By the end of 2021, boards with five directors must include two women, and boards with six or more directors need to include three women.

Noncompliant companies could be fined as much as $100,000.

Several European countries have similar laws. But California’s is the first U.S. board diversity mandate. When the law passed, 188 of 650 affected California companies had all-male boards, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission compiled by Clemson University scholars.

Two conservative groups, the Pacific Legal Foundation and Judicial Watch, have filed lawsuits to overturn the statute, but businesses have largely complied. According to Clemson finance professor Daniel Greene, just 32 companies had failed to add any female directors as of Dec. 26.

July 17 (UPI) — Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, voted to dissolve on Friday after pushing through controversial legislation favorable to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s supporters.

The Knesset is expected to be in recess until the Oct. 27 election in which Netanyahu is seeking re-election.

Analysts told CNN most of the legislation passed in the government’s closing days was meant to appease Netanyahu’s far-right and ultra-Orthodox — or Haredi — allies, thus ensuring his success in October’s election.

The motion to disband parliament was tacked on to a financing bill that increases public funding for political parties during elections, The Times of Israel reported. Opposition leader Avigdor Liberman said the legislation was an abuse of taxpayer money, calling it a “contemptible attempt to tie the end of the session to increasing funding.”

The Knesset voted 62-0 in favor.

Political analyst Nadav Eyal said Netanyahu is trying to show his ultra-Orthodox allies that he’s the only leader who will support their issues.

“Netanyahu is fighting for his political survival, and the Haredi parties are essential to it,” Eyal wrote.

If he stays in power until the October election, Netanyahu will be the first Israeli prime minister to complete a full term in office since 1988.

Among the legislation pushed through in the final days of the 25th Knesset were laws reducing the powers of the attorney general, easing actions against Haredi draft dodgers and increasing government oversight of media companies.

Mérida, July 14, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly preliminarily approved two laws granting expanded benefits to landlords and the private real estate sector as part of authorities’ post-earthquake reconstruction plans.

The Tuesday session was held at Simón Bolívar Park in La Carlota, Caracas, after the legislative palace suffered damage from the June 24 double tremor.

The Venezuelan legislature voted in favor of a Law for the Special Regime of Housing Property Leasing and a partial reform of the Law Against Real Estate Fraud. Both projects will now be subject to consultations and revisions before being put to a second and final vote.

“Our main task with this reform is to stimulate the housing rental market,” National Assembly Vice President Pedro Infante stated. “We have to strengthen the legal certainty for property owners and also protect tenants. It’s a legal balance.”

Infante added that officials estimate that there are around 200,000 homes that could enter the rental market but that parliament has to “untie the knots that are holding this market back.”

The existing legislation governing housing rentals was enacted by former President Hugo Chávez in 2011 and it is highly protective of tenants. Grassroots movements participated directly in several housing laws.

In a recent press conference, National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez called the current law “regressive” and argued that parliament needed to make property owners feel “more secure in renting their properties.” Real estate chambers have long lobbied for reforms to housing laws.

The preliminarily approved bill expands conditions for landlords to evict their tenants, including two months of unpaid rent, deterioration of the property, or unauthorized subletting. It additionally establishes that disputes are to be resolved via mediation or municipal courts. Tenant movements have recently denounced a growing trend of landlords bringing “invasion” charges against tenants as a way to evict them, with the complicity of public prosecutors.

The partial reform of the law against real estate fraud, likewise approved during Tuesday’s session, loosens conditions for the sale of housing properties yet to be built or under construction while also reducing collateral requirements for developers.

“The reform seeks to guarantee better conditions, legal security, and financing capacity so that the private sector initiates an aggressive, accelerated process of housing construction,” Infante explained, adding that it “removes rigid price schemes,” allowing real estate developers to factor “variations in the costs of materials in supplies” into house prices.

Under the updated law, house sale and pre-sale contracts no longer need to be individually approved by government housing authorities. Instead, the governing body will publish a set of general rules. According to the reform text, banks that finance real estate projects will no longer be liable for their non-completion, with legislators arguing that the measure will boost credit options.

Deputy Alejandra Rodríguez, from opposition party Un Nuevo Tiempo, endorsed the preliminary housing reforms for seeking a “balance between the right to housing, the protection of private property, legal security, and the promotion of responsible investment.”

Venezuelan authorities have prioritized finding housing solutions with over 20,000 people forced into temporary shelters after losing their homes in the June 24 double earthquake, most of them in coastal La Guaira State. The latest official figures placed the death toll at 4,734, with nearly 17,000 injured.

Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez has launched the “Venezuela Renace” program to conduct inspections and repair works in affected buildings, as well as revitalize the construction sector to generate new housing complexes in a short time frame. She likewise called on public and private banks to expand mortgage programs, vowing that the government would subsidize them up to 80 percent.

On Monday, Rodríguez met with representatives from business chambers, including construction and real estate, and reiterated calls for the private sector to participate in the post-earthquake reconstruction. 

“Every person who lost their home should have hope of being under a new roof in the short term,” she stated.

Rodríguez announced that the government is working on construction plans in La Guaira alongside the Venezuelan Construction Chamber and the Venezuelan Real Estate Chamber. Authorities are conducting soil studies and identifying potential land plots. She recalled that the export of construction materials is presently banned.

The acting president assured those present that Venezuela remains on a path of economic growth and that household consumption had risen by 33 percent in June.

Rodríguez reiterated calls for the removal of economic sanctions against the country and ongoing efforts to secure the release of frozen Venezuelan assets, including gold reserves held by the Bank of England.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.