• filter:
  • Text Only
  • Search this Topic »
Voting History
rated:
Thanks to a Portland housing policy introduced by housing advocate and new Commissioner Chloe Eudaly and passed unanimously by the City Council on Thursday, that company will now have to pay the tenants it evicts without cause.The rule requires landlords to pay $2,900 to $4,500 to tenants who they evict without cause or who have to move as a result of a rent increase of 10 percent or more in one year.

Economists say the tight housing supply in Portland is the primary driver of huge rent increases, and they caution that increasing costs for landlords will lead to fewer rental units coming on the market. 

It is not clear what "eviction without cause" is.  But i guess 9.99% increases will be popular 

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/02/portland_la... 
Those renting studios would receive $2,900, one-bedroom renters would get $3,300 and those renting a unit with three or more bedrooms would receive $4,500.
Seems kind of high for moving costs if staying in same city?

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/01/landlords_w... 
 

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
Thats not for YOU to say. The free market determines what the current rent is, irrespective of what it was the previous ... (more)

rufflesinc (Feb. 27, 2017 @ 2:20p) |

You are correct that rents probably won't increase a full $400 /mo because some tenants will move naturally, the rules m... (more)

MrJoeyJoeJoe (Feb. 27, 2017 @ 7:20p) |

There appear to be some key details that are as-yet unknown.  I haven't been able to find the actual text of the law or ... (more)

MrJoeyJoeJoe (Feb. 27, 2017 @ 7:28p) |

Ordinance : http://efiles.portlandoregon.gov/Record/10623593

A Landlord may terminate a Rental Agreement without a cause specified in the Act
only by
delivering a written notice of termination (the "Termination Notice") to the
Tenant of (a) not less than 90 days before the termination date designated in that
notice as calculated under the Act; or (b) the time period designated in the Rental
Agreement, whichever is longer. Not less than 45 days prior to the termination date
provided in the Termination Notice, a Landlord shall pay to the Tenant, as
relocation assistance, a payment ("Relocation Assistance") in the amount that
follows: $2,900 for a studio or single room occupancy ("SRO") Dwelling Unit,
$3,300 for a one-bedroom Dwelling Unit, $4,200 for a two-bedroom Dwelling Unit
and $4,500 for a three-bedroom or larger Dwelling Unit. The+his requirement§. of
this Subsection does not apply to Rental Agreements for week-to-week tenanciesi
or to Landlord who rents out or leases out only one Dwelling Unit in the City of
Portland, or to a Landlord who temporarily rents out the Landlord's principal
residence during the Landlord's absence of not more than 3 years, or to Tenants
that occupy the same Dwelling Unit as the Landlord. For purposes of the exception
provided in this Subsection, "Dwelling Unit" is defined by PCC 33.910, and not by
ORS 90.100. For purposes of this Subsection, a Landlord that declines to renew or
replace an expiring fixed-term lease on substantially the same terms except for the
amount of Rent or Associated Housing Costs terminates the Rental Agreement and
is subject to the provisions of this Subsection.

...

The provisions of this Section 30.01 .085 concerning Relocation Assistance shall be
in effect for the duration of the Housing Emergency declared by Council on October
7, 2015 by Ordinance 187371 and extended for a period of 1 year to October 6,
2017
by Ordinance 187973, and shall apply to all notices of termination and to all
notices of increases of a Tenant's Rent or Associated Housing Costs pending as of
the effective date of those provisions, subject to the following provisions:

FAQ:  https://www.portlandoregon.gov/eudaly/article/627469
 
Staff Summary
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

rated:
Yet another good reason not to invest in Portland RE.

rated:
Porltand landlord here. Yes. They did this. They're also talking rent control but thats currently illegal in OR by state law. However the state legislature might change that too.

Our market has been crazy in Portland for 2-3 years. Rents and property values are going up 10%+ a year and rental vacancies are 2% or worse, with lots of demand. More people moving here than we've got housing or new construction and lots of NIMBY regulation. So the popular answer is to take it out on landlords. Plus theres a couple popular local horror stories of big bad out of state landlords jacking rent up 100% on poor single mothers. Add in high homeless problem and the narrative is that greedy landlords are causing homelessness.

The law is specific to Portland city limits and exempts people who only own 1 property in Portland. I'm in that category, our other properties are not in city limits.

Eviction without cause means you terminate the lease and don't renew it. You have to give the tenant notice. Its not an eviction in the sense of getting the court to kick them out (assuming the tenant leaves willingly). You would might do a no cause eviction if you sell the building, want to remodel it extensively, or simply prefer to have a different tenant.

It has become a problem in Portland because some investors buy buildings then kick everyone out with no cause evictions in order to fancy up the property so they can jack rents even further. Then the people kicked out get to go find a place to live in our under supplied market. We have like a 2% vacancy rate and I have to turn away applicants by he dozen when I have vacancies.

Yes the $2-4k fee is excessive.

You can still raise rent as much as you want, but IF the tenant declines and wants to move out they get a $2-4k windfall. I think if tenants figure that out many will decline any 10%+ rent hikes. So it may result in an effective rate increase cap.

Personally I don't think this regulation amounts too all that much. Its easy enough to avoid no cause evictions. But it does suck if you wanted to sell a place or renovate and you have to fork over 2-4k to pay the tenant to leave.

rated:
So landlords will have to pay a penalty for failing to renew a lease? And they believe that this will encourage landlords to provide housing at a more reasonable cost? Funny. I'd immediately sell every rental if I had properties in that market. Let the people making these laws buy all of the housing and rent it below market rate and lose their money on it but not mine.

rated:
I'm confused as to when this penalty would even apply? It doesnt force a landlord to renew a lease, and I cant imagine kicking someone out due to an expired lease would be considered "without cause".  It'd seem that the penalty would only be applicable if the landlord was stupid enough to offer to let their tenant stay with a rent increase over 10%.

There does look like there's an ooportunity to game this rule though - if your lease is expiring and you plan to move, tell the landlord you are willing to pay more to stay - baiting him into giving you a lease renewal with an increase more than 10%, at which point you move out anyways and collect $$$. 

rated:
cajundavid said:   So landlords will have to pay a penalty for failing to renew a lease? And they believe that this will encourage landlords to provide housing at a more reasonable cost? Funny. I'd immediately sell every rental if I had properties in that market. Let the people making these laws buy all of the housing and rent it below market rate and lose their money on it but not mine.
 
Simply failing to renew a lease isn't a no cause eviction.  You have to terminate the tenancy.    

I don't know if they really think this will actually help the housing market or if their goal is just to help tenants displaced by no cause evictions.     They view no cause evictions as unfair and too much of a burden on tenants.   

9.9% rent hikes aren't bad.  I can live with that.

To avoid no cause evictions I will just rely on for cause evictions.   THat means I evict someone for violating my lease.    To make that easier I can add a crapload of rules to the lease.  

Landlords won't sell off in mass due to this, our market is as much about appreciation speculation now as cash flow.   

But yeah, I agree... this doesn't help landlords and doesn't improve the housing market.

 

rated:
Glitch99 said:   I'm confused as to when this penalty would even apply? It doesnt force a landlord to renew a lease, and I cant imagine kicking someone out due to an expired lease would be considered "without cause".  It'd seem that the penalty would only be applicable if the landlord was stupid enough to offer to let their tenant stay with a rent increase over 10%.

There does look like there's an ooportunity to game this rule though - if your lease is expiring and you plan to move, tell the landlord you are willing to pay more to stay - baiting him into giving you a lease renewal with an increase more than 10%, at which point you move out anyways and collect $$$. 

  

No cause eviction is when you terminate the tenancy without cause.

Not renewing a lease alone isn't no cause eviction.  You can just have a tenancy in month to month terms.   A lease isn't even legally required in the first place and you can have a month to month or verbal agreement. 

When a lease isn't in effect and you send the tenant a notice that you're terminating the agreement then thats a no cause eviction.

So for example right now one of my tenants is 6 months into a 12 month lease.  I can't terminate that agreement now since they still have 6 months.  If they break the lease I can evict them for cause.   If the lease ends and I chose not to renew it then it just goes to month to month.   That won't trigger the law.   Its not a no cause eviction.    But if the lease ends and I send them a 30 day notice that the tenancy is ending and they have to leave then that is a no cause eviction and the law is triggered.   

Normally either the tenant or the landlord can end the agreement with 30 days notice outside of lease terms.



 

rated:
No cause here means that the tenant didn't violate the agreement.

Kicking them out after a lease expires is a 'no cause eviction'.

rated:
Portlandia, where young people go to retire...

rated:
needhelpplease said:   Portlandia, where young people go to retire...
  


This is the commissioner who championed this stuff and got elected for it :

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/11/how_chloe_e... 

Its as if the feminist bookstore owner from the show is running the city.

 

rated:
It is unfortunate that tenants have to pay moving costs when moving out. I guess.

rated:
Another Portland Landlord here. I am a teacher with two rentals in the Portland city limits.

However, I'm not going to increase anyone's rent more than ten percent a year and I'm not going to give a no cause eviction.

Like jerosen said, the market has been crazy lately. I'm not going to sell because it's a long term investment. I definitely understand the spirit of the regulation because it's really hard to find affordable housing. When I first moved back home to Portland after grad school I found a cheap apartment in a bad neighborhood (who cares? I didn't have kids at the time and I grew up in Portland's Felony Flats so I felt safe and comfortable... just annoyed by colorful neighbors) for 450 dollars a month. This was in 2001. Now rents are two to three times that. It would be really hard for two people making minimum wage to be able to pay rent in our city and even the young teachers can't afford housing. Our homeless situation is bad.

It's not hard to avoid these fines and I want to support affordable housing.

rated:
jerosen said:   
needhelpplease said:   Portlandia, where young people go to retire...
This is the commissioner who championed this stuff and got elected for it :

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/11/how_chloe_e... 

Its as if the feminist bookstore owner from the show is running the city.

  She beat Steve Novick. It's been nearly 10 years since he ran for U.S. Senate with these ads:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2UesvrH-cs




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFX1TCK_PS8



rated:
jerosen said:   No cause here means that the tenant didn't violate the agreement.

Kicking them out after a lease expires is a 'no cause eviction'.

  Isnt one term of the agreement that they'll vacate the property once the lease term has concluded?

rated:
We don't help ourselves out at all with the urban growth boundaries out in the suburbs either. That keeps prices outside of Portland higher(not as high as Portland but still higher) and allows the Portland to get even worse before people start looking outside of Portland and commuting in.

rated:
esteinbrenner said:   We don't help ourselves out at all with the urban growth boundaries out in the suburbs either. That keeps prices outside of Portland higher(not as high as Portland but still higher) and allows the Portland to get even worse before people start looking outside of Portland and commuting in.


That's not really the problem. 1/3 of Hillsboro is undeveloped land.

The rent is relatively cheap in Hillsboro or Gresham but moving to the burbs never seems to be mentioned as an option. Apparently everyone has a right to live in Portland city limits and get affordable rent.

rated:
God forbid the commissioners wanting to keep Portland from becoming another gentrified city indistinguishable from any other.

rated:
Glitch99 said:   
jerosen said:   No cause here means that the tenant didn't violate the agreement.

Kicking them out after a lease expires is a 'no cause eviction'.

  Isnt one term of the agreement that they'll vacate the property once the lease term has concluded?

  Most leases end by defaulting to month-to-month rent (either at the same price, or a rate given in the lease).  Never seen one that required tenant to vacate automatically.

For large rental agencies that don't want to have too many month to month tenants, the standard practice is to make renting monthly more expensive than signing a new lease.

rated:
I doubt most tenants furniture is worth paying to move or to store

rated:
Mithrin said:   Glitch99 said:   
jerosen said:   No cause here means that the tenant didn't violate the agreement.

Kicking them out after a lease expires is a 'no cause eviction'.

  Isnt one term of the agreement that they'll vacate the property once the lease term has concluded?

  Most leases end by defaulting to month-to-month rent (either at the same price, or a rate given in the lease).  

Mine does. M2m is a death sentence here as the winter months are much harder to rent and at about $100 lower

rated:
Mithrin said:   
Glitch99 said:   
jerosen said:   No cause here means that the tenant didn't violate the agreement.

Kicking them out after a lease expires is a 'no cause eviction'.

  Isnt one term of the agreement that they'll vacate the property once the lease term has concluded?

  Most leases end by defaulting to month-to-month rent (either at the same price, or a rate given in the lease).  Never seen one that required tenant to vacate automatically.

For large rental agencies that don't want to have too many month to month tenants, the standard practice is to make renting monthly more expensive than signing a new lease.

  I've also never seen a lease that guarantees that month to month continues indefinitely.  30 or 60 days notice and the lease concludes, which is also part of "the agreement".  

This whole thing seems premised on a concept that once you rent someone a home, they're entitled to live there forever.

rated:
Glitch99 said:   
This whole thing seems premised on a concept that once you rent someone a home, they're entitled to live there forever.

Seems like a good idea to require leases to have a big disclaimer in 72pt point informing tenants that once lease expires, they have no legal right to live there and the landlord can then charge whatever rent they want or not renew at all

Rent control doesn't help tenants so much as advantage existing tenants over new tenants

rated:
Life must be good in Portland

rated:
tightpapa said:   Life must be good in Portland
  too many people moving there

rated:
Glitch99 said:   
This whole thing seems premised on a concept that once you rent someone a home, they're entitled to live there forever.


Yes.

Or they get a windfall payment out of the landlord pocket.

rated:
rufflesinc said:   Glitch99 said:   
This whole thing seems premised on a concept that once you rent someone a home, they're entitled to live there forever.

Seems like a good idea to require leases to have a big disclaimer in 72pt point informing tenants that once lease expires, they have no legal right to live there and the landlord can then charge whatever rent they want or not renew at all

Rent control doesn't help tenants so much as advantage existing tenants over new tenants


That lease statement would be irrelevant to the law in question.

rated:
jerosen said:   
rufflesinc said:   
Glitch99 said:   
This whole thing seems premised on a concept that once you rent someone a home, they're entitled to live there forever.

Seems like a good idea to require leases to have a big disclaimer in 72pt point informing tenants that once lease expires, they have no legal right to live there and the landlord can then charge whatever rent they want or not renew at all

Rent control doesn't help tenants so much as advantage existing tenants over new tenants


That lease statement would be irrelevant to the law in question.

  its on point

rated:
jerosen said:   
rufflesinc said:   
Glitch99 said:   
This whole thing seems premised on a concept that once you rent someone a home, they're entitled to live there forever.

Seems like a good idea to require leases to have a big disclaimer in 72pt point informing tenants that once lease expires, they have no legal right to live there and the landlord can then charge whatever rent they want or not renew at all

Rent control doesn't help tenants so much as advantage existing tenants over new tenants


That lease statement would be irrelevant to the law in question.

  If someone refuses to leave after their lease expires, wouldnt a subsequent eviction be "for cause" since it's merely enforcing a violation of the lease terms?  Or is this law stating that all leases are permanent regardless of any stated end date, and it's solely up to the tenant to decide if/when to leave? 

If you were to let a friend crash in your spare bedroom for a couple weeks, the only way you'd be able to make him leave is by paying him $3,000?  Asking him to leave would only be enforcing the agreement when he moved in, but apparently would be considered a "no-cause eviction", and any "rent" increase above the initial "free" would exceed 10%...

rated:
There are only two options. Evict with cause or pay up. The lease can't get you around the law or contradict the law.

rated:
jerosen said:    Evict with cause or pay up.
  So staying over after the lease expires isn't "cause"?

rated:
Sf has had this for decades.

rated:
jerosen said:   
Glitch99 said:   
This whole thing seems premised on a concept that once you rent someone a home, they're entitled to live there forever.


Yes.

Or they get a windfall payment out of the landlord pocket.

  
No, a thousand times. Portland is largely considered a destination city. There is lots of $$$ coming into the city from more affluent parts of the country. This is nothing more than an effort to prevent additional homelessness, which is already a huge problem for the city. 

If the greedy landlord cannot make a reasonable profit at 10% increase YoY then they don't belong and are not welcome in progressive Oregon anyway.

rated:
SummerSoFar said:   
Portland is largely considered a destination city. .

I've heard of a destination wedding but I've not heard of a destination city

rated:
SummerSoFar said:   
jerosen said:   
Glitch99 said:   
This whole thing seems premised on a concept that once you rent someone a home, they're entitled to live there forever.


Yes.

Or they get a windfall payment out of the landlord pocket.

  
No, a thousand times. Portland is largely considered a destination city. There is lots of $$$ coming into the city from more affluent parts of the country. This is nothing more than an effort to prevent additional homelessness, which is already a huge problem for the city. 

If the greedy landlord cannot make a reasonable profit at 10% increase YoY then they don't belong and are not welcome in progressive Oregon anyway.

  
What you said doesn't contradict what we said.

I understand the goal of the law is to try and slow down / halt negative impacts to tenants.      I don't see any landlords here (or any I know) saying they need more than 10%.

But the ordinance still does give tenants the effective legal right to stay in a rental as long as they want OR get a huge unwarranted windfall out of the landlords pocket.   Which is what we said.

I don't have a real problem with the law, but then I'm exempted.    I do think the $2-4k is excessive and that figure came out of a smug commissioners rear.

The impact of no cause evictions on homelessness is debatable.   For that matter I think Portlands homelessness "problem" is debatable.    If you roll out the red carpet to the homeless you'll see a problem and thats whats happened in Portland.   No I don't think that Portland is a magnet but I do think that making things hospitable makes it visible.   In other cities they push the homeless out of sight.

Vilifying landlords as greedy really doesn't help matters.   
 

rated:
jerosen said:   
  I don't see any landlords here (or any I know) saying they need more than 10%.

  Doesn't matter what LL need or want. All that matters is what the market commands. #freemarket #capitalism #freedomofcontract

Moreover by saying that you in effect say that the rent in year n has bearing on rent in year n+1

rated:
SummerSoFar said:   
jerosen said:   
Glitch99 said:   
This whole thing seems premised on a concept that once you rent someone a home, they're entitled to live there forever.


Yes.

Or they get a windfall payment out of the landlord pocket.

  
No, a thousand times. Portland is largely considered a destination city. There is lots of $$$ coming into the city from more affluent parts of the country. This is nothing more than an effort to prevent additional homelessness, which is already a huge problem for the city. 

If the greedy landlord cannot make a reasonable profit at 10% increase YoY then they don't belong and are not welcome in progressive Oregon anyway.

  You forgot to explain how it's not what jerosen and myself said... 

When housing supply exceeds demand, I'm guessing no one would ever consider a law requiring a tenant pay the landlord to be able to move out, to cover his cost of finding a replacement tenant... 

And as a footnote, when you are getting $1,000/month in rent and the identical house next you yours is getting $2,000/month rent, it isnt being greedy to increase your own rent to $2,000 as well.  The only greediness (or, "progressiveness") involved is the tenant thinking they're entitled to keep their killer deal at someone else's expense. 

rated:
Glitch99 said:   
And as a footnote, when you are getting $1,000/month in rent and the identical house next you yours is getting $2,000/month rent, it isnt being greedy to increase your own rent to $2,000 as well.  The only greediness (or, "progressiveness") involved is the tenant thinking they're entitled to keep their killer deal at someone else's expense. 

Second foot note: the latter tenant is subsidizing the former

rated:
rufflesinc said:   
SummerSoFar said:   
Portland is largely considered a destination city. .

I've heard of a destination wedding but I've not heard of a destination city

  
Portland is a destination city because people come here just to come here.   

Usually people move somewhere because of a specific reason like a job, or family or a job or.. a job.     

(some) People come to Portland just to come to Portland.  No job in hand.  No housing lined up.   Just move to Portland so you can live in Portland.   The city is the reason.

But then its still cheaper than most of California.   And most  Californians usually last a year or two until they realize they actually do really prefer sun to near constant rain.
 

rated:
Glitch99 said:   And as a footnote, when you are getting $1,000/month in rent and the identical house next you yours is getting $2,000/month rent, it isnt being greedy to increase your own rent to $2,000 as well.  The only greediness (or, "progressiveness") involved is the tenant thinking they're entitled to keep their killer deal at someone else's expense. 
  
Yeah and the actual problems that have been cited are situations where landlords raise the rent ~100%. 

In the two most publicized instances of this the landlord is a new owner who bought a property with tons of deferred maintenance and rents that haven't been increased for several years.     The new landlords then give everyone no cause eviction notices and plan to renovate (necessarily) and raise rents.   

This situation only happens when the previous landlords doesn't raise rent for several years (and usually defers major maintenance too.. i.e. runs a slum).     For those several years the tenants get super cheap below market rent.   They weren't complaining 6 months ago when their rent was unnaturally below market at $600 but they rant like a crime is committed when it goes up to $1200.   Yet 1200 is what everyone in the market is paying because thats what rent costs now.    

If the landlords had been raising rent all along then the situation wouldn't have happened at all and the tenants wouldn't have gotten several years of cheap rent.

Moral of the story for landlords :   Keep raising your rent along with the market.    Your generosity in keeping rent hikes low is unappreciated, ignored and quickly forgotten.   Worse its punished by city ordinance since your so greedy.

Skipping 20 Messages...
rated:
Glitch99 said:   
jerosen said:   
rufflesinc said:   
Glitch99 said:   
This whole thing seems premised on a concept that once you rent someone a home, they're entitled to live there forever.

Seems like a good idea to require leases to have a big disclaimer in 72pt point informing tenants that once lease expires, they have no legal right to live there and the landlord can then charge whatever rent they want or not renew at all

Rent control doesn't help tenants so much as advantage existing tenants over new tenants


That lease statement would be irrelevant to the law in question.

  If someone refuses to leave after their lease expires, wouldnt a subsequent eviction be "for cause" since it's merely enforcing a violation of the lease terms?  Or is this law stating that all leases are permanent regardless of any stated end date, and it's solely up to the tenant to decide if/when to leave? 

If you were to let a friend crash in your spare bedroom for a couple weeks, the only way you'd be able to make him leave is by paying him $3,000?  Asking him to leave would only be enforcing the agreement when he moved in, but apparently would be considered a "no-cause eviction", and any "rent" increase above the initial "free" would exceed 10%...


There appear to be some key details that are as-yet unknown.  I haven't been able to find the actual text of the law or regulations (not that I looked very hard), but cities can approach the same concept very differently.  

Seattle has a just cause eviction law, which I believe only applies to month-to-month tenancies.  If you rent without an agreement, rent as month-to-month from the beginning or let a fixed-lease term roll over into a month-to-month tenancy, then the just cause law applies (including some types of relocation assistance payments like the one in Portland). Accordingly, it is valid to evict the tenant if he/she doesn't leave after the fixed term of the lease expires, which is why landlords really work to avoid slipping over to a month-to-month tenancy.  I have no idea if Portland took this approach or a more stringent approach.  
 

  • Quick Reply:  Have something quick to contribute? Just reply below and you're done! hide Quick Reply
     
    Click here for full-featured reply.


Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2017