A tough decision is looming for the deeply divided Los Angeles City Council as it grapples with eviction protections for nannies, gardeners and other service workers impacted by January’s wildfires.

The issue has sparked fierce debate, highlighting deeper divisions – not just between renters and landlords, but among councilmembers themselves. While some argue the protections are essential for workers living paycheck to paycheck, others warn of unintended consequences for landlords and the city’s broader housing policies.

But a decision still has to be made — and it’s a tough one.

After weeks of back-and-forth and a split vote that nearly derailed the effort, the council once again delayed its decision, voting 11-0 on Tuesday, Feb. 18, to push the matter to March. 4.  It was the fourth time the proposal had come before the Council without a final resolution.

Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, who introduced the legislation last month with Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martinez, requested the delay, saying she heard opponents’ concerns and believes the extra time will help find a solution.

Hernandez also said several labor unions have told her workers have lost income as a result of the January wildfires.

“Overall, 7,000 union members have been impacted by the fires per the labor community … as well as over 1,000 union members have lost their homes because of the fires,” she added.

At the heart of the debate is a broader question: how far should the city go in protecting tenants facing financial hardship. It’s a debate that has persisted since the pandemic-era eviction moratorium reshaped housing policy in Los Angeles.

The original proposal aimed to halt evictions and freeze rent increases for tenants experiencing financial or medical hardship due to the recent wildfires, with protections lasting through January 2026.

However, following pushback from some councilmembers and landlords – some of whom called the measure “an overreach of policy” — the proposal underwent significant revisions.

Under the revised proposal, approved by the Housing and Homeless Committee on Feb. 5, tenants who can prove lost income due to the fires would still be protected from eviction for nonpayment of rent and most no-fault evictions.

But key provisions were scaled back: the rent increase freeze and the medical hardship clause were removed.

To address concerns from small landlords, additional amendments propose defining “mom and pop landlords” based on tax filings and creating a rental assistance program to support property owners struggling with nonpayment.

Still, the proposal has sparked both support and pushback. Tenant advocates argue that without these protections, vulnerable renters could be forced from their homes through no fault of their own. Opponents, including some councilmembers, warn of unintended consequences for landlords and broader housing policies.

At its core, the debate centers on whether Los Angeles should extend protections similar to those enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The city’s eviction moratorium, first implemented in 2020 to prevent mass displacement, became one of the longest-lasting in the country. Supporters of the wildfire-related protections say the situation is similar: tenants who lose income due to a disaster shouldn’t risk losing their homes.

“Every month, we have about 800 evictions in our district, on any given month in the last few years,” Soto-Martinez said in a previous interview. “And we know that when natural disasters happen, eviction filings go up, evictions, oftentimes double, and so that means there’s a potential of up to 15,000 evictions being filed citywide every month if we don’t do anything regarding this disaster.”

Yvonne Figueroa, lead organizer at LA Voice, a multiethnic, multi-faith organization, said in a statement Wednesday, Feb. 19, that an eviction moratorium is essential to ensure a just recovery from the wildfires, and prevents renters who lost wages or jobs due to the fires from falling further into crisis.

“Los Angeles already had a housing deficit and is now struggling to meet the needs of all these people who are now looking for housing,” Figueroa said. “Corporate landlords may try to take advantage of this need by evicting existing tenants on the pretext of renovations and re-renting the unit at a higher rate.”

But critics argue that continuing emergency-style protections long after the pandemic has set a precedent that erodes property owners’ rights and creates financial burdens for small landlords. The division was clear in the Council’s 6-5 vote on Friday, Feb. 14.

Councilmember John Lee said he could not support the proposal because of the “unintended consequences.” He argued such policies would ultimately worsen the city’s housing crisis.

“Everyone keeps saying, ‘this is not a moratorium on evictions,’’ Lee said. “This is, though, a moratorium on building more housing here in the city. It’s a moratorium on investing in the city, on having the resources to provide the city with the core services that we provide.”

Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, who recognized the proposal was very close to something he could support but not quite there, had concerns about the verification process — questioning how exactly a tenant could show economic distress related to the wildfires.

“I’m very uncomfortable with the attestation and sort of this generic proof, I think that needs to be much more clearly delineated,” he said. “So, there’s a number of things on here that get very close, but I’m not there yet in terms of the way this ultimately comes down.”

Los Angeles County took similar actions to protect tenants economically impacted by the wildfires. On Tuesday night, Feb. 18, after much debate surrounding the measure, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved a six-month rent moratorium for renters and workers impacted by the fires.

Under the approved motion authored by Third District Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, tenants who qualify could stay in their apartment, motel, hotel room or house for up to six months without making rent payments.