Portland, OR Landlords -- Please Take Note

[Paul Munly]

I'm on a Portland, OR real estate broker's email list (I was thinking about buying in Portland a few months ago) and received what appears to be a pretty alarming change the city council is trying to pass this Thursday (February 2, 2017). I've pasted some of the email below and am curious how you would deal with a change of this sort, if it's passed.

Copied/Pasted email below:

[Account Closed]

@Steve Moody the relocation subsidy would still apply for notices given before today.  So if you gave a non-renewal of lease notice ("no-cause eviction") in December, the tenant is still eligible to receive the subsidy.  

For any notices given before the ordinance was passed (a few hours ago), landlords have 30 days from now to either:

• Pay the fee
• Rescind the notice
• Amend the notice (e.g. increase rent to 9% instead of to 10%) 

The fee does not apply to week-to-week tenancies, but it DOES apply in cases where a lease is simply not renewed.  

In the case of a 10+% rent increase, the tenant has 14 days after a new notice is given (from today going forward) to inform the landlord, in writing, that they are moving.  I believe they also have 14 days starting today even if the notice was previously given.  If the tenant notifies the landlord within the 14 days, the landlord will be required to pay the relocation fee.  

Based on what I read, it sounds like if the tenant notifies the landlord AFTER 14 days, the landlord would not be required to pay the fee.  

The ordinance was amended today to exempt owners of a single rental unit (e.g. ADU in the back yard), and another amendment pushed the fee payout date to 45 days after the notice was given. This would help to address Steve's concerns about tenants not paying the last 3 months' rent. Says Chloe Eudaly.

The ordinance is tied to the "Housing State of Emergency," which is up for renewal/reelection this October.  But this ordinance is not the end.  Eudaly clearly wants rent control and will push for it as strongly as she possibly can.  She will do this by pulling on heartstrings and making it impossible for the other commissioners to oppose her.  Once you have a tenant crying at the mic because her kid has to move schools etc., it's over.  

While I wholeheartedly agree that low-income tenants need protection, it's not the job of private landlords to provide a move-out subsidy.  That's my issue with the ordinance.  The burden should be shared by ALL members of our community--just as for food stamps--rather than scapegoating a small minority of individual housing providers.  

If you want to subject yourself to the entire 6 hour session and hear the testimony and decisions, you can find the February 2nd video here: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/video/player/.  My testimony is at 4:50:00.  @Mike Nuss gave testimony towards the beginning.  The reps from MFNW, whom Eudaly asked to speak to "represent the other side" before the public testimony, were abysmal IMHO.  

Speaking of my opinion, many landlords did not present themselves that well today.  Everyone's time was cut, yes, but there was a lot of talk about using no-cause evictions because they're easier and faster than for-cause evictions for bad tenants and don't go on the tenants' records. Some talked about how expensive it is to be a landlord, etc.  Neither of these arguments carry any weight in this context when you compare it to what certain tenants have had to endure.  The only type of appeal that would work is an equally disturbing emotional one, and landlords just don't have comparable stories to the ones we heard in advance of the public testimony.  The other type of appeal that might have worked is if we could demonstrate that the ordinance is structurally invalid, in violation of some greater rule or law, the local version of unconstitutional.  But in the end, it would have been a PR nightmare for any commissioner or the mayor to vote against the ordinance after hearing some of the terrible stories that some tenants told.