A New Report Suggests More than 24,000 Rental Units Aren't Subject to Portland's Strongest Tenant Protections

Mayor Ted Wheeler Isn't Sure a Change Is Called For

Comments

1
oh brother where to start with that "report". Piece of qualitative and quantitative statistical analysis crap might be an accurate assessment. And no wonder Wheeler put the kabosh on it. 24,000 units? No statistical variance error was put into that "Methodology" to determine rates of inaccuracy in the data set at +/- percentage. No other data was used to crosscheck. The data itself tells us little about important related findings including but not limited to: what are the rent levels of those units compared to market rates? What are the income levels of tenants? what have been the rental increases in those units, historically? What is the turnover rate of these units? How many are vacant? What are the owners' incomes, how many are owned by low income owners, limited income elderly or disabled? How many units are being rented to low income relatives? How many of the homes are owned by persons of color, given wealth creation, gentrification, and racial economic equity is a huge problem in Portland for POC. Now take these variables and compare them to non-exempt units. And then we really need to look at what has occurred to non-exempt units since the ordinance took place: how many people have been given no cause evictions and relo fee? What were their income levels? Where did they end up and how much are they now paying? How many units have received for cause evictions in the past 12 months, are fir cause evictions, especially court evictions increasing, decreasing, staying the same? Etc etc etc

Even some, gosh even any, even something at least could give a data driven, rational housing planning best practice approach to provide an accurate picture, and better (or some) argument, for expanding the relo ordinance.

Instead we have what is known in planning as a hollow "and so what" report. It's weak, it tells us little, it makes no solid argument but can be used just as well to make a strong against argument: expanding the relo ordinance would cause small, local landlords to sell to flippers, tear down developers, and higher income home buyers taking valuable existing rental housing off the rental market, especially needed family sized homes and disrupting communities of color further as they can't find affordable replacement reveal housing in the same area.

Really, truly, that report is so bad it would fail the housing 101 policy class at PSU.

And Wheeler saw right through it and rightfully (with his degrees in economics and public policy, and MBA) called stats & policy report BS. That report tells us absolutely nothing we need to know to make good policy decisions.

Gong! Try again PTU and aeudsly's dumbo "policy expert"'Jamey Duhsmel. You morons failed and blew a great opportunity to help renters. Yet again.
2
Mom and pop would be me. I rent out my home In order to keep my home. Divorce and unemployment means I wouldn't be able to pay the mortgage without help right now. I rent a one-bedroom apartment in the meantime. It's weird that if you rent a property it somehow makes you "rich". My renters make more than I do.
3
Well sone data is better than none, but yeah that data really doesn't make any kind of data driven argument to expand the relo ordinance. As pointed out there's been no data driven analysis to show the relo ordinance is even helping renters and affordability overall, or if it's harming renters and affordability more.

I too curious as to how many African Americans own these properties, what the rent levels are already, and who is in these units. If adding a relo ordinance to these homes and it causes even 1000, or 100 low income African American households to be displaced because the owners decide to sell due to having additional regulations & costs imposed on them by the city, that would be a big policy problem indeed.

Eudaly and Co should have implemented data gathering at the start of the relo ordinance last year by doing door and mail surveys and tracking renters and rental units the best they could rather than relying on a pretty but shallow & useless report done by some citizen who works not in housing or urban planning but in tech, who doesn't even seem to understand housing data analysis or public policy.
Eudaly has a dedicated policy "expert" person on staff and they've had a year to get some good data, they really blew an opportunity here.
4
I moved out of state for a year about 9 years ago. I kept my house because I knew there was a strong chance that I would be coming back and rented it below market rent to some friends because they knew that if I returned they would have to move. I would have just left it vacant had the rules prevented me from moving back in when I returned. At the absolute least the rules around rental units should allow a person who is moving out of town for a short period of time to sign a lease with someone for only that period and to move back into their home after that without penalty. It may not be a huge slice of the market but it would be stupid in this time of a housing emergency to discourage homeowners from renting their homes out if a job or need for training require them to move for a period of 1-2 years.
5
My last tenant is a mid-level Nike exec, made about $400k/yr. I certainly don't make that, and he certainly didn't need the relo payment, even though I would have owed him one if I wanted to move my mother into the property.

Also, why is PTU even at the table anymore? Hasn't Dirk or anyone here been paying attention to the massive racism problem their key leadership has? It isn't enough that Margot Black "resigned" (she's still calling the shots behind the scenes with her equally racist husband Sammy Black). Nobody should listen to their bullshit claims, or implement their bullshit policies. The current relo ordinance is bad enough.

Wheeler is well within his rights, and absolutely correct, to demand a hell of a lot more data before ramming through any additional policies on this front.
6
Also, Jamey Duhamel is no "policy expert," she's a moron and a fraud. Her own bio states that she moved her family to Portland to "take advantages of the services," i.e., to mooch off of Portland taxpayers, and then was "surprised" about the high cost of housing, as if she hadn't done any fucking research whatsoever. She also lies on her bio about her years of experience, if you check her LinkedIn, graduation date, and prior positions relative to her claims about how much experience she has. So a big, lying, no-nothing grifter. It's almost like Chloe Eudaly hired a clone of herself. No wonder the state of housing hasn't gotten any better, with all of three brain cells running the policy side of the Eudaly commissioner seat.
7
Do we even know if the relocation ordinance is working, or is it making it harder and more unaffordable for renters overall? This report nor any report, and no journalism has ever answered that big important question.

One common theme with Eudaly and PTU seems to be making policy decisions based on wishful thinking, anecdote and emotion. No wonder Wheeler gave them all the adult no-no.

Pretty sure Eudaly & PTU don't want actual solid data and analysis though because it may very well not tell them what they want to hear nor fit their agenda.
8
@Mary I am curious if what the ordinance isn't really doing is causing a lot more people to use for cause evictions to get people out. You are supposed to give someone the 4500 before they move, but there is no guarantee they will get out, you might hand over the 4500 dollars and then still have to go through an eviction process and be unable to recover your money. I can't see many landlords being excited about that so in cases where there was cause for an eviction in the past I think a lot of people would have gotten 60 day notices to move, but now they will get notices of eviction with shorter timelines, having to go to court, and the possibility of ending up with an eviction on their record. Overall I am not sure this is a better solution for anyone.
9
@econoline - some simple research by our buddy Dirk would clear up the for-cause eviction thing. Just do a records request and figure out if the number of for-cause evictions has increased following passage of the ordinance. Or Eudaly or PTU could have provided us this info. The fact that they aren't is...pretty telling, I would say.

There's already another Merc article where Eudaly basically admits that the passage of the ordinance has resulted in a swath of 9.99% rent increases that would not otherwise have happened because landlords feared even more draconian measures coming down the pipeline, a reaction that is a surprise to literally nobody with more than five brain cells to work with.
10
@housingmuddle i'm curious why the mayor has had a year to oppose this provision but has offered no data of his own, eh? I mean, he's head of Housing bureau after all.

@mary hi hi. Are you a renter? It's hell out here

@flaviosuave you'll be happy to know the current policy allows an exemption for landlords moving family members back into a residence such as your mother.

@DJT the ordinance wasn't written for folks like you, right? This was to stem the no-cause evictions taking place by predatory Landlords who merely wanted poor tenants out to make room for more monied tenants.

@econonline- hi hi, perhaps you are unaware of sabbatical or fix term leases? ORS 90 allows for leases of a fixed term that do not no rollover to month-to-month with both parties agreeing to those terms.