Rep. Alissa Keny-Guyer (D-Portland) at a Thursday Human Services and Housing Committee hearing announced a trio of strategies she’ll introduce in a housing relief bill during the 2016 legislative session.
Keny-Guyer’s bill would require landlords to pay relocation costs equal to one month’s rent for tenants served with no-cause eviction notices, prohibit no-cause evictions within six months of a tenant’s request for maintenance or repairs, and keep landlords from raising a tenant’s rent until after one year of occupancy.
These increased protections in Keny-Guyer’s proposal, if passed, will beef up another proposal she’s working on with House Speaker Tina Kotek (D-Portland) to require landlords to give tenants 90-days notice prior to a rent increase for long-term tenants.
Kotek is also working on getting Oregon’s general assistance program reinstated and securing $10 million in one-time funding for emergency housing and shelters.
Keny-Guyer says she would like to abolish no-cause evictions entirely, but doesn’t think she’d be successful in getting that proposal through the legislature during the 36-day 2016 session.
Additionally, Portland Senator Michael Dembrow at a Wednesday hearing introduced a draft bill that would lift Oregon’s statewide ban against requiring developers to include a certain number of affordable units in new for-sale and rental developments, known as inclusionary zoning (IZ). Keny-Guyer’s bill also proposes to lift the ban on mandatory IZ.
Legislators at both committee hearings expressed concern about what they agreed is a statewide housing crisis, citing places like Hood River,
So… was there more?
So if I just ask for something to be repaired every six months, they couldn’t ever no-cause evict me?
…and you’re back to lying about ‘no cause evictions.’
Graham and Reymont – my thoughts exactly.
She “doesn’t think she’d be successful” in banning no-cause evictions entirely, but her bill would de facto ban then anyway since, as commenters above pointed out, all a tenant would have to do to avoid them is to request a repair every 5 or so months.
And if nothing actually needed to be repaired, well, the tenant can just take a hammer to it and – problem solved! Landlord gets their property damaged and can’t kick the tenant out without a relocation fee.
This is not the way to go about solving the housing crisis.
Does anyone even know what kind of drivel Reymont is on about this time? I’m not even clear on who he’s addressing or what his point is.
Reymont’s point, I believe, is that the term “no-cause eviction” is misleading, as an eviction in most people’s eyes is when a tenant is kicked out mid-lease. Here, they are talking about a landlord choosing not to renew at a lease’s end…be it a year lease or a month to month lease.
Sorry about the dumbass question, but if a landlord decides they want to sell the property they’re renting that would presumably result in a ‘no-cause eviction’ for the current tenant. Is Keny-Guyer seriously suggesting that a landlord should get stuck with a property until the tenant decides to leave? I’m all for giving a renter a decent amount of advance notice, but that seems a bit extreme… so I’m probably missing something.
Delayed rent increases will probably be larger rent increases. More difficult evictions will probably lead to more Airbnb-offered and vacant properties. I feel for renters, but be aware that every action taken by government also can have unintended consequences.
Sok – I think the aim is to just give renters more of a heads up and monetary assistance at lease end, if the landlord chooses not to renew the lease (what they misleadingly refer to a no cause eviction here). So if they wanted to sell their property, they would choose not to renew at the end of the lease and be subject to the new rules. The bit on the lease being automatically extended for 6 months (unless the renter wants to move sooner that is) if there is a “maintenance complaint” is the truly ridiculous part of this. One would think that the final bill would contain more fine print That would make this aspect more reasonable than it appears here.
Why not just confiscate the property. These are ridiculous proposals
@JTR – Thanks, that was the bit I was missing: lease end vs. a mid-lease eviction (or notice to vacate or what-have-you).
And yes, the maintenance complaint part needs to be rethought.
I’ve been applying for jobs outside of Portland and was considering renting out my house if I move. Proposals like these will ensure that I will not rent my house, and instead will either let it sit vacant until I sell or go the Airbnb route. These proposals provide a strong disincentive to property owners, whether or not they help renters. This place is so fucking stupid it blows my mind.
I wrote Rep. Keny-Guyer about this and heard back from her assistant. Since I didn’t ask about verbatim copying of the reply I’ll paraphrase:
————–
The current bill contains a 90-day notice to vacate but does not seek to do away with no-cause evictions. {Sok: which we knew, but anyhow.} The main concern is with month-to-month arrangements, not yearly leases.
Although not currently being considered, the future of no-cause evictions might be modelled after Seattle’s laws. They have a “just cause” eviction law that contains 18 reasons that provide justification for a landlord to evict a tenant. If the landlord had sold {Sok: past tense? Hm.} the property to a buyer who plans to reside in the property, the seller can require the tenant to vacate the property.
————–
The example makes me think of the house that was sold based on a lovely letter from the buyers about raising their family in the home, only to have the buyers turn the place into an AirBnB rental. Presumably it’s the buyer’s problem if they renege on the plan to live in the new place.
Sounds like some creative ways to incentive higher rent prices.