City Council Just Closed a Loophole in Portland's New Renter Protection Law—But Questions Remain

Comments

1
So a tenant gets to keep thousands of the landlord's dollars for six months, and *then* still gets to decide whether to vacate or not, leaving the landlord with the additional expense of repairing, advertising, and showing a unit hanging over their head the entire time?

And I don't see any provision as to what recourse a landlord has if a tenant doesn't pay the money back, other than that the tenant will "be in violation of this section." So the landlord has to hand over thousands of dollars, and then what, hire an expensive attorney to go after the tenant if the tenant fails to pay the money back? What if the tenant goes off and spends it and doesn't have any money left? What the hell kind of landlord is going to take the risk of renting to anyone who doesn't have a six-figure income at this point? And what kind of landlord isn't going to require a security deposit big enough to cover the cost of the tenant potentially not paying back a relocation fee?

Tenant advocates are just going to make things even more prohibitively expensive for lower income would-be renters with these shitty changes to an already shitty law. Everyone would be better off if Margot Black got hit by a bus tomorrow.