Hall Monitor: Renter Beware

Comments

1

"After that, she says, the focus will be on new rules that give the city and tenants a 90-day notice before a rental property is put on the market—and the first chance to purchase the property."

A blatantly unconstitutional taking that will be challenged in the courts and just cost us taxpayers more money because of Eudaly's utterly uneducated stupidity.

2

“Eudaly is in the midst of getting city council to pass a new tenant screening process”.

Maybe someday the Merc will just stop copy and pasting PR from Eudaly and do some actual Journalism. She doesn’t even have support from rest of Council, which the Merc should have asked other Council members about. She has also not taken this to City attorneys / Office of Budget ahd Finance and the Housing Bureau to weigh in in the legality of it and the feasibility of this working financially and administratively for the city, which the Merc should have investigated and reported. And she still hasn’t gotten that office of landlord & tenant affairs off the ground or that landlord registry thing she promised 18 months ago up & going. So how exactly does she plan to get Council to approve this? And has she provided any outline for legal structure for enforcement, budget, administrative structure including costs and staffing needed, revenue source, required public outreach, risk assessment? Nope.

Eudaly often toots a big horn of hot air gonnas, (Airbnb enforcement, City Owned Bank, “City Disobedience” over rent control, ICE shut down, tiny home on wheels zone & code changes, etc etc), but in reality since taking office pretty much everything she’s said she’s gonna do for legal policy changes for renters has stalled, sunk, fallen flat or pfftd out like a fart: the Relo Ordinance is the exception ahd that’s only because Ted Wheeler brokered that deal with other Council members for her and his staff fixed Eudaly’s sloppy draft policy ordinances so it could be vetted legally and adopted by Council.

Also, if you’d bother to read this badly written policy, you’d see it’s really quite unenforceable in practice anyway and will only serve to add additional expenses onto tenants seeking housing since it’s an enterprise expense to landlords that will get passed along to tenants and also continue to force cheaper mom & pops out of the business to sell to big out state apartment investment corps.

3

Healy M S, you nailed pretty much everything about not only Chloe Eudaly's complete incompetence and utter failure as a legislator (although thank god, considering her policy proposals are universally awful across the board), but also the slavish, uncritical fawning over Eudaly that is a hallmark of the Mercury's "journalism," (and WWeek too, for that matter - Rachel Monahan basically transcribes Margot Black press releases for many of her columns).

I get that being a journalist is tough, and with the exception of that one bro dude at the WWeek pretty much every local journalist is a renter, so they have a very strong personal bias towards what they think will help their own financial situation, but that's no excuse for the abysmal quality of reporting these folks do over housing issues and the policy proposals and performance of our elected officials.

4

Just going to point out here that all the same internet lawyers who asserted, incorrectly, that the courts would throw out the renter relocation policy are now asserting just as strenuously that a simple notice requirement constitutes an unconstitutional "taking."

And just like the last time, they'll hide for a couple of weeks when their crappo legal analyses falls flat again.

5

The new owner offered tenants $5200 each, which is $1000 more than the city requires and much more than, "a few thousand dollars."

Also, according to PortlandMaps, housing issues have been reported since 2009... long before the new owner bought the place. Why no faux outrage all this time from the Portland Mercury?

6

“It’s like planting a seed,” says Brassfield, “for a tree you won’t sit under.”

The only seed Brassfield and her Chloe/PTU friends are planting is that of acrimony. And they are too arrogant and ignorant to realize that they are not doing themselves or future renters any favors.

Landlords, aka the OWNERS of the private property, can't be forced to provide public housing or social services - no matter what Chloe and her silly staff tell you.

Relo ordinance = landlords are forced to raise the rent to cover it. Complicated socio economic analysis to process an application = landlords are forced to raise the rent to cover legal counsel. If all of this risk and annoyance doesn't pencil out = landlord sells. And if it remains a rental, the new owner, given the new acrimonious environment Chloe and friends have created, isn't likely to be as nice as the one you just drove out of the market.

And as far as tenants having an option to purchase, why wouldn't they? On the open market, anyone can make an offer. Is Chloe actually suggesting the City would determine the sale price? hahahah. That would most certainly be an unconstitutional taking (h/t Euphonius).

7

Euphonius, that lawsuit is still currently under appeal, so it's absolutely not true that the outcome has been decided. The number of times you have been stupid and wrong in these comments is like the grains of sand on a beach, nearly infinite.