Search

Answer:  In a word “Yes”. Today, the rule of thumb should be that subject to certain exceptions (listed below), you should not summarily reject applicants solely because of prior convictions.  I have written and spoken on this issue during 2016. 

On April 4, 2016, the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) issued its “Office of General Counsel Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real Estate-Related Transactions” (hereinafter, the “Memo”). The full text of the 10-page Memo can be found here. Not surprisingly, it follows the June 25, 2015 ruling by the U. S. Supreme Court, in the Texas Dept. of Housing vs. Inclusive Communities case, which upheld the much-debated concept of “disparate impact” under the Fair Housing Act, as amended (the “Act”). 

Disparate impact holds that certain practices in employment, housing, etc., may be considered discriminatory under the Act, if they have a disproportionately "adverse impact" on certain members of a protected class, i.e. those falling into the following groups: Race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin.[1]  The simplest explanation of how disparate impact works is by the following example from the Memo:

Today, a landlord may be found to have discriminated against a prospective tenant, not because of an intentional discriminatory act, such as rejecting him or her based upon race or religion, but unintentionally, because the landlord relied upon a perfectly legal basis, except that it had a disproportionately adverse impact on members of a protected class.  Proof of the “disproportional impact” is usually based upon some statistical correlation showing that a certain class of protected persons are negatively impacted more than others. In other words, unintentional discrimination can now be a violation of the Act.

The purpose of the Memo was to issue guidance, mostly by way of examples and prior case law, in how the use of criminal history during the tenant-screening process, may, or may not, trigger a disparate impact result.

Although, ironically, the Memo on deals with cases of disparate impact affecting members of “protect classes”.[2]  However, for purposes of this discussion, it is well to apply these guidelines across the board, regardless of protected class. Otherwise, there is the possibility, perhaps remote, that a landlord could be accused of reverse discrimination, for applying one set of criteria to members of protected class, and another set to members outside the class. Crazy huh?

Summary of Thoughts and Suggestions.  Here are some tips based upon information from the Memo:

1. Beware of testers calling over the phone and asking if you will rent to persons with a criminal background. Be careful about answering these blind calls with a “yes” or “no”. Make sure callers understand that no rental decisions are made in advance of reviewing all relevant background information, including a criminal background report. Encourage the caller to either come to the office and pick up the necessary paperwork, or if they prefer, send it to them at their provided address.

1. Ultimately, landlords should plan on making adjustments in their rules and application process.  

1. Do not have a rule or policy that treats an arrest, with no conviction, the same as a conviction. If you currently have such a rule, it should not be enforced.

1. Do not have a blanket guideline providing, for example, that conviction for any crime is an automatic denial.

1. Be sure that all rules and policies concerning criminal records are uniformly enforced – no exceptions.  However, note No. 7 below. You should avoid a policy saying that all persons with a felony are automatically disqualified. There is a world of difference between an ex-felon who served time for embezzlement ten years ago and has been a contributing member of society ever since vs. an ex-felon who served time for aggravated battery, and has been in and out of jail for similar violent crimes over the past five years.

1. If possible, evaluate all other rental history, such as prior tenancies, employment, credit, income and affordability, before even going to the results of a criminal background check. If the prospective tenant does not pass one or more of these other criteria, then the rejection can be based on that, rather than a criminal background report, thus avoiding the disparate impact issue entirely.

1. In evaluating an applicant’s criminal history, do not use a “one size fits all” approach. There are several gradations of severity. Additional issues need to be addressed before making a decision to reject a prospective tenant based upon criminal history. For example:

1. How long ago was the conviction? (A single conviction over 6-7 years old, in most cases, should probably not be used as the basis for a denial, excluding registered sex offenders, or those convicted of violent crimes).

1. What has the person been doing since their release?

1. Has the person been convicted once, or on multiple occasions?

1. What was the nature and severity of the crime?

1. Note that according to the Memo, a refusal to rent to an applicant who has a conviction for one or more drug crimes involving the manufacture or distribution (not mere possession) of a federally defined controlled substance is permissible and not subject to a disparate impact claim. In other words, a landlord or manager may legally base the refusal to rent based upon a conviction for manufacture or distribution, since it is not a violation of the Act, based upon disparate impact.[3]

So this is one of those exceptions in which you may automatically decline an applicant. Others are, in my opinion, those convicted of sex crimes and pedophilia, regardless of how far in the past. Also, crimes of violence, e.g. murder, rape, aggravated assault, etc. The analysis is fairly straightforward: If the applicant’s prior conviction is one that, if he or she became a resident, it could foreseeably result in danger to the health, safety and well-being of other park residents, or their guests and invitees, a rejection, without the above analysis is in order. Some Fair Housing advocates may disagree, but my opinion is based upon a choice of evils, i.e. choosing between a threatened Fair Housing violation, balanced against the risk of a resident or their guests or invitees being injured or killed, because  you ignored their violent criminal history, and permitted them entry to the park 

Conclusion. So, based upon the facts you described above, this applicant had a conviction of two non-violent crimes (presumably occurring at the same time, resulting in companion charges).  They were eight years ago. Accordingly, it is important to find out what the applicant had been doing since being released from jail.

Lastly, as pointed out above, I suggest that you reserve the criminal background analysis for applicants who have already passed all of the park’s other screening criteria.  In other words, if you don’t have to use criminal background as a basis for rejection – i.e. there are other valid criteria for rejection – you do not have to rely upon the applicant’s criminal background for a rejection.

Please review MHCO Form 1A. It includes the criminal background analysis discussed above.

[1] Note, the State of Oregon and some of its local jurisdictions have additional classes, including sexual orientation. See, http://www.fhco.org/discrimination-in-oregon/protected-classes .

[2] The seven protected classes under the Federal Fair Housing Act are: Race; Color; Religion; Sex; National Origin; Disability (added in 1988); Familial Status (having children under 18 in a household, including pregnant women) (added in 1988). There may be additional protected classes added by state and local laws.

[3] Per the Memo: “Section 807(b)(4) of the Fair Housing Act provides that the Act does not prohibit ‘conduct against a person because such person has been convicted … of the illegal manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802).’”

Answer. ORS 90.322(1)(f) says the landlord must give '_at least 24 hours actual notice of the intent of the landlord to enter and the landlord or landlord's agent may enter only at reasonable times... ." (Italics mine.)

The statute does not say the landlord has to give the exact date and the exact time. It has been judicially construed in Oregon that a notice such as yours is sufficient, since it exceeds the 24 minimum requirement. See, Resources Northwest, Inc. v. William Rau, 173 Or. App. 500 (2001).

This is just for access to the space - not the home - so I don't seen anything unreasonable about access in this fashion. It's not disruptive. Of course, even with a proper notice, a tenant can deny access if the requested time is unreasonable. (See, ORS 90.322(1)(e)(ii)).

I had this occur at a park several years ago, and the tenants ended up staying on the higher base rent which was not reduced as it was for those who permitted access for the submetering. The noon-cooperative tenants soon saw the error of their ways, as their neighbors had lower rent and were able to control their water bills by reduced use.

Tenants should know that ORS 90.322(7) provides that: "If the tenant refuses to allow lawful access, the landlord may obtain injunctive relief to compel access or may terminate the rental agreement under ORS 90.392 (Termination of rental agreement by landlord for cause) and take possession as provided in ORS 105.105 (Entry to be lawful and peaceable only) . In addition, the landlord may recover actual damages." (Italics mine.)

I suspect a landlord denied access would suffer financial damage if their submetering schedule was interrupted, so the tenants could be looking at damage claims by denying access. There would also be a right of attorney fees under ORS 90.255.

Situation: An Idaho landlord adopted a strict policy banning visitors from parking in spots reserved for tenants. In November 2016, two service providers, one black the other white, visited a tenant at the community. Upon returning to their vehicles, they discovered that the black service provider’s car had been booted while the white service provider’s car had not—even though they had both parked in similarly marked spaces.  

You Make the Call: Did the fair housing group have a valid claim for racial discrimination?

Answer: Yes

Ruling: The Idaho federal court had no problem in relying on this incident as evidence in refusing to dismiss a case alleging a pattern of discrimination over a six-year period. There was also evidence of an earlier incident where the landlord booted the car of a Black visitor who briefly parked in a tenant’s space. When she asked about having the boot removed, the landlord’s parking enforcement agent indicated that he had been “specifically instructed to show no leniency toward the African residents in enforcing the parking rules” [Intermountain Fair Hous. Council, Inc. v. Tomlinson & Assocs., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57012].

Takeaway: It’s not enough that parking and other community rules apply to everybody. You also must ensure that those rules are enforced in a consistent and even-handed manner, regardless of the violator’s race, sex, etc.

1. Make sure that the rental agreement really applies to your situation.  The MHCO rental agreement comes in two flavors: (a) The month-to-month (or “periodic”) rental agreement, and (b) the lease (or fixed term) agreement.  The difference is that the month-to-month agreement runs for the number of days in the current month.  In the absence of termination by landlord or tenant, the periodic tenancy just “rolls over” month to month.  Regardless of which agreement is used, landlords renting or leasing spaces to residents in mobile home parks may not terminate them without cause.  However, a lease for at least two years carries a distinct advantage in that the park documents, i.e. the lease agreement and the park rules, may be automatically updated at the end of each lease term.  While there are certain limitations on the landlord’s right to impose new park documents on the resident, it is clearly much easier to do under a lease than a monthly rental agreement.[2]  Also, landlords using a fixed terms lease agreement must expressly incorporate any rent increase provisions into the written agreement.  The rent increase statute, ORS 90.600, applies only to periodic (e.g. month-to-month) tenancies and not fixed term tenancies.  If the home located upon the space is a recreational vehicle rather than a manufactured home, landlords should not use the standard mobile home space rental agreement.  The reason is that the mobile home park section of the landlord-tenant law does not apply to recreational vehicles.[3]  When renting space for a recreational vehicle, landlords should use an appropriate MHCO RV rental form.

1. Make sure that the rental agreement is signed by all adult tenants who will occupy the space.  This not only financially obligates them under the agreement, but it makes it easier to enforce violations against rules offenders.  Do not permit occupancy of a home until the rental agreement has been fully signed by everyone.  Trying to get signatures after-the-fact can be difficult, if not impossible.

1. Make sure that the Statement of Policy, Rules, and Rental Agreement are given to the resident and properly receipted for.  Occasionally, residents deny receiving one or more of these documents.  However, the signed receipt by the resident is legal evidence of delivery of these documents.  ORS 90.510(9) provides that a signed receipt is a defense to a claim against the landlord for the failure to deliver these documents.

1. Similarly, landlords should make sure that the rights they summarize in the Statement of Policy accurately reflect their rental agreement and rules.  When using the MHCO forms this is not a problem.  It could be, however, when different forms from different sources are used, and the Statement of Policy provides that the resident has (or does not have) certain rights that are inconsistent with the terms found in the rental agreement or rules. The Statement of Policy is not intended to be a binding legal document - it is supposed to merely summarize the resident’s rights and duties that are found in the rental agreement or rules.

1. Landlords should be sure to fully understand their rights and responsibilities given under their rental agreement form.  Not knowing your rights can result in not enforcing violations, which can lead to a waiver of those rights.[4]

1. One of the more important provisions of the rental agreement form is the one which prohibits assignment, subletting or transfer of possession of the agreement or space without the landlord’s prior written consent.  Landlords should make sure that when a resident vacates, leaving a guest or visitor at the space, immediate action is taken to either terminate the tenancy or require that the occupant promptly apply for tenancy by filling out all required documentation.  Do not accept rent from the occupant, the ex-tenant, or on the occupant’s behalf, until the issue has been thoroughly resolved.

1. Be aware that the fire insurance provision in the MHCO form does not apply unless it is specifically checked:  It requires that the resident must maintain a homeowner's policy of insurance that includes coverage for fire in an amount sufficient to replace the home, and permits the landlord to request a current copy of the policy.

1. Similarly, landlords should be sure to have the resident initial those portions of the rental agreement which require them to do so.  There are several such places found in the sections dealing with (a) sale of the home and (b) the resident’s legal obligations under the tenancy.  When these sections are not properly initialed, there remains an argument that it is not binding.  Although such an argument would not likely carry the day, it can be avoided entirely by simply making sure that when the agreement is signed, all internal provisions are properly completed, checked and initialed where appropriate.

1. The landlord’s rights upon a resident’s resale are very important and need to be fully understood by both parties.  One such section of the resale portion of the rental agreement provides that in the event the resident (or their predecessors) has/have made any improvements or alterations to the interior or exterior of the home which did not conform to all applicable local, state and federal building codes or ordinances in existence at the time the work was performed, the landlord has the right to require, as a condition of consent to the sale, that such improvement or alteration be brought up to all applicable local, state and federal building and construction standards in existence at the time of the sale.  When homes have been substantially remodeled, especially where electrical or plumbing systems are involved, this provision may be useful for the landlord to enforce in order to make sure that the proper building codes are followed.

1. Disputes are an inevitable part of being a landlord.  MHCO believes that assigning fault is less important that securing a workable resolution.  Landlords should be aware that Oregon law requires them to have an informal dispute resolution process in their rental agreement.[5]   The MHCO form provides that in the event of any dispute regarding the interpretation or enforcement of the rental agreement or the rules and regulations, either party shall have the right to have the matter handled through the alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) process set forth in the attached MHCO Addendum, which is incorporated into the agreement.  If a resident request some form of informal dispute resolution, landlords should promptly respond in doing so.

[1] ORS 90.245 Provides prohibits the following provisions in a rental agreement: (a) Agreement to waive or forgo rights or remedies under the landlord-tenant law; (b) Agreements authorizing any person to confess judgment on a claim arising out of the rental agreement; or (c) Agreements relieving or limiting a landlord’s liability arising as a result of his or her willful misconduct or negligence or agreements requiring the tenant to indemnify the landlord for that liability or any costs connected therewith.  Any provision prohibited in ORS 90.245 is unenforceable. If a landlord deliberately uses a rental agreement containing provisions known by the landlord to be prohibited and attempts to enforce such provisions, the tenant may recover, in addition to the actual damages, an amount up to three months’ rent.

ORS 90.135 provides that “(1)f the court, as a matter of law, finds (a) A rental agreement or any provision thereof was unconscionable when made, the court may refuse to enforce the agreement, enforce the remainder of the agreement without the unconscionable provision, or limit the application of any unconscionable provision to avoid an unconscionable result****”

[2] See, ORS 90.540, 90.545, and 90.610(3) – (8).

[3] See, ORS 90.505 and 90.100(23).

[4] See, ORS 90.415.

[5] ORS 90.610(2).

Question: A resident living alone passed away. It took some time for the estate to get underway because they had to search for heirs. An heir was located and was appointed as Administrator to act on behalf of the estate. Shortly after the resident’s passing, we began requesting that a Storage Agreement be signed but the estate was hesitant to do so until the Administrator was appointed. After the appointment the Administrator was initially cooperative, but unexpectedly changed his mind and is now threatening to bring all of the past due rent current, and then, out of spite, tear the home down while still on the space. Presumably, after doing so, we would expect the Administrator to cease all further space rental payments. How should we handle this?

Answer: This sounds like an episode from a Jerry Springer reality show! Your question doesn’t make it clear whether the estate was formally filed for probate in court, in which case this “Administrator” would be subject to court supervision and would have to have a bond. I’m suspecting that is not the case – but if it is, you may want to secure legal counsel to notify the court of what’s happening and perhaps get him removed.

Assuming that the person is just a designee for the un-probated estate (I will call him the “representative”), I would suggest that you look to ORS 90.675(20), which applies when a resident living alone passes away. Subsection (20) is summarized below, but should not be used as a substitute for reading ORS 90.675 (linked here) in its entirety:

• This subsection (20) applies the same duties as those of a resident who abandoned the property.

• It also applies to any personal representative named in a will or appointed by a court, or any person designated in writing by the decedent to be contacted by the landlord in the event of the tenant’s death;

• The 45-day abandonment notice required in ORS 90.675(3) (go to above link) is to be sent by first class mail to this representative at the premises, and also personally delivered or sent by first class mail to them if actually known to the landlord.

• If the representative responds by actual notice to a landlord within the 45-day period provided in the letter and so requests, the landlord shall enter into a written storage agreement with the representative or person providing that the personal property may not be sold or disposed of by the landlord for up to 90 days or until conclusion of any probate proceedings, whichever is later.

• Note: Entering into the storage agreement includes the duty to pay a “storage fee” which can be no higher than the space rent. This duty is not triggered until the 45-day letter is sent. Presumably you will use a good storage agreement that requires, among other things, compliance with all applicable park rules and state, federal and local laws and ordinances, including a duty to maintain the space. On- site destruction of the home is NOT maintaining the space. Depending upon the home’s age, on site destruction could be a violation of certain environmental laws, due to potentially hazardous material used in construction. In fact, since there is a risk that the representative will not comply with the storage agreement – based on his threat of destruction - you may want to consider – only upon the advice of your attorney – to restrict his unsupervised access to the home. Destruction of the home would not only take it off the tax rolls in violation of Oregon property tax law, but it would prevent you, as the landlord, from selling the home upon failure of the representative to meet his obligations. Remember, in addition to the tax collector, you have a vested interest in seeing the home sold for recoupment any sums due (arguably including attorney fees) incurred during the abandonment process.

• Since the abandonment law requires that the landlord has a duty of safe keeping pending completion of the abandonment process, it is my belief that this entitles the landlord to secure the home (e.g. with a new lock) so that heirs and others cannot enter and remove personal property.

• A storage agreement entitles the representative to store the personal property on the space during the term of the agreement, but does not entitle anyone to occupy the personal property.

• If such an agreement is entered into, the landlord may not enter a similar agreement with a lienholder (if any) until the agreement with the representative ends.

• If the representative requests that a landlord enter into a storage agreement and there is a lienholder, also, you should review subsections (19)(c) to (e) and (g)(C) of ORS 90.675, which describes the rights and responsibilities of a lienholder with regard to the storage agreement.

• During the term of the Storage Agreement, the representative has the right to remove or sell the property, including a sale to a purchaser or a transfer to an heir who wishes to leave the property on the space and become a tenant. However, this prospective tenant is subject to the same statutory requirement, including landlord qualification and approval, as found in ORS 90.680 (linked here). The landlord also may condition approval for occupancy upon payment of all unpaid storage charges and maintenance costs.

• If the representative violates the storage agreement, the landlord may terminate it by giving at least 30 days’ written notice to them stating facts sufficient to notify them of the reason for the termination. Unless the representative or person corrects the violation within the notice period, the Storage Agreement terminates as provided and the landlord may sell or dispose of the property without further notice to the representative.

• Upon the failure of a representative to enter into a storage agreement or upon termination of an agreement, unless the parties otherwise agree or the representative has sold or removed the home, the landlord may sell or dispose of it pursuant to sale provisions of ORS 90.675 without further notice to the representative.

So, in summary, the abandonment statute – which is quite lengthy and somewhat difficult to follow – applies in this case, and with proper guidance, you should be able to successfully deal with the representative.

Answer: The Department of Revenue (“DOR”) is treated like any other lienholder. It is critical that before the 45-day letter is sent, the park check with the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services (“DCBS”) to determine if there are any lienholders on title. We understand that DOR is now showing up on the DCBS records. Remember, if they show up on the record and you fail to give them notice, they could come back against the park for failing to notify them. If they show up on the DCBS records, they should be copied on the 45-day letter, and given all of the same rights as other lienholders, e.g. entering into a one year storage agreement, paying the storage fees, selling the home, etc. Currently, it is our understanding the DOR does not sign and returned storage agreements. If there is a purchase money lien on the property, it will be superior to the DOR and then it [the DOR] will only get payment if there is any equity from the sale. Since the property is worth more than $8,000, if there is no sale, it would go to auction. As a lienholder, the DOR is behind the park, in terms of payment of cost, and then the county tax collector [which presumably is current – thanks to the DOR]. Next, as a lienholder, the DOR would receive some payment. If there are any further proceeds, they would go to the tenant, and if the tenant cannot be located, then to the county fund. If the landlord follows these procedures, there is no remaining liability to the DOR for and of the taxes paid under the program.

That is the question on the minds of most MHCO members we speak to. As you have likely noticed, the costs of water, sewer, and other utilities has increased exponentially in the last few years for both commercial and residential properties alike. The addition of unrelated or undefined fees, such as street maintenance, base charges, and additional services, has become commonplace. Combine that with careless usage of water by tenants and you have a perfect storm for losing revenue. Since we cannot directly control these increasing costs or the careless usage, it is nearly impossible to try and keep up by using rent increases alone.

Our recommendation is to focus on what you can control: who is directly paying for the utility expense. According to the Alliance for Water Efficiency (http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org), the average submetered customer uses up to 20% less than a customer on a master metered system. In our professional experience, we have seen decreases of up to 40%. It is really no surprise that when you transfer the responsibility to the tenant, they instantly become more aware of the leaks and conservation behaviors that they had been ignoring previously. It is just human nature that if something doesn'tcost you anything, you are less likely to be conscientious.

In order to place this responsibility on the tenant and get control of your utility expenses, you need to convert your park to the "Submeter Billing Method" outlined in the Oregon statutes. This can be a daunting task to take on alone, so it is important that you use someone who is an expert. We have spent the last few years immersed in research and have designed Jet Utilities' Submeter Conversion Program around the laws specific to Oregon. We have consulted the best minds in the business, including many Coalition board members, as well as independent council. We can confidently call ourselves experts in not only regulations and project management, but also in the actual installation of the system. Jet has its own licensed journeyman plumbers who are dedicated to the installation of submeters at mobile home parks. We have the knowledge and experience to handle a park of any size, with any type of plumbing material, anywhere in Oregon, Washington, or California.

We are confident that submetering is the right thing to do for your manufactured home community. The largest obstacle that many owners face after realizing their need to submeter is finding a way to fund the project. Until recently, your choices have been very limited: use your own capital or try and secure financing on your own. Neither of those is very attractive or very easy to do given the current economic state. Jet Utilities' Submeter Conversion Program offers owners and managers a turn key solution including the funding for the equipment and installation. There are no loans to qualify for, no up-front capital, and no cost to you. How can we do this, you ask? It is simple. We already have the funding for these projects. We simply install an Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) System and utility grade water meters at each space, and then bill you a flat monthly fee that Oregon law allows you to pass directly through to the tenants.

There are some very important laws and regulations that go into the preparation of this as well as the requirement for a Unilateral Amendment to the Rental Agreement which is now available to MHCO members in the "Forms" section of the MHCO website. (MHCO Form 14 - Unilateral Amendment to Rental Agreement for Sub-Metering). This is the first step in preparing for Submeter Conversion.

For more information and a quote for your park, please visit our website www.jetutilities.com or call 1-844-JET-UTIL (844-538-8845) and ask for Erik.

Answer: You've already recognized that it really is a matter of personal preference and how each type of tenancy fits into your park's business model. There is certainly an advantage to having long-term tenants so that you have less turnover and you develop a good reputation as an option for residents who plan on staying awhile.

However, month-to-month tenants can only be evicted without cause on 30 days' written notice during the first year of the tenancy, and on 60 days' notice after the first year of tenancy. (But see special note below for Portland and Milwaukie landlords.) Additionally, state law now prohibits rent increases on monthly RV tenants during the first year of the tenancy and requires 90 days' written notice to raise the rent after the first year.

Conversely, week-to-week tenancies make it easier to evaluate a tenant in the short-term to ensure that he or she will work out in the long run. Weekly tenants can be evicted for no cause on 10 days' written notice and rent can be increased on 7 days' written notice. These are significant advantages when evaluating tenants as possible long-term residents.

The primary disadvantage in creating weekly tenants is the administrative burden. To create a week-to-week tenancy in Oregon, it must have all of the following characteristics: (1) occupancy charged on a weekly basis and payable no less frequently than every seven days; (2) a written rental agreement that defines the landlord's and the tenant's rights and responsibilities under Oregon law, and (3) no fees or security deposits, although the landlord may require the payment of an applicant screening charge.

In your situation, it might make sense to put new tenants on weekly agreements at least initially. If they seem to be working out, you can then offer them a new, monthly agreement later. MHCO Form 80 [Recreational Vehicle Space Rental Agreement] can be used for either weekly or monthly tenants. Just be sure to properly fill out the form and do not charge weekly tenants a security deposit or other fees (or you risk automatically making them monthly tenants right away).

Special Note Regarding RV Parks in Portland and Milwaukie: These two cities have enacted local ordinances that override state law and require a minimum of 90 days' written notice for no-cause evictions from the very beginning of a month-to-month tenancy. Landlords in these cities might want to seriously consider the week-to-week tenancy option for RV tenants since weekly tenancies are specifically exempt from this regulation in both cities.

But the proposal hasn’t received broad support in the Oregon Senate. It’s unclear that Gov. Kate Brown would call a special session to address the matter this month if lawmakers can’t agree on a plan. It’s also uncertain whether the governor would issue an executive order to extend the eviction moratorium into next year if a special session isn’t called.

“I want to see support, frankly, from Democrats and Republicans for the work that needs to be done,” Brown said during a press conference Friday, adding that she hoped to make a decision on whether to call a special session in the next few days. Her office didn’t respond to inquiries about potentially extending the moratorium.

Tenant advocates worry that thousands of Oregon renters could face eviction at the start of the New Year if lawmakers don’t act before the moratorium expires.

Data compiled by Multifamily NW, a rental industry group whose members include landlords and property managers, shows that between 12% and 15% of renters in Oregon have been unable to keep up with their rental payments during the pandemic. A survey conducted by Portland State University researchers found the situation to be considerably worse with 36% of 460 Oregon tenants surveyed reporting they owed back rent.

“Time is running out,” said Alison McIntosh, a spokesman for Neighborhood Partnerships, which runs the Oregon Housing Alliance. “With the eviction moratorium set to expire on Dec. 31, we know that renters across the state will be facing evictions very quickly, both in the middle of the worst spike in COVID cases that we’ve seen so far and the middle of winter. That is really concerning to us. We need the legislature to act to solve this problem.”

Brown extended the residential eviction ban through an executive order in September and it is possible that she could take a similar step if lawmakers don’t come to the consensus needed to warrant a special session. But the federal government’s eviction moratorium expires at the end of the year, and some observers believe that might undercut the legal standing of a new order from Brown.

Rep. Julie Fahey, D-Eugene, the chair of the work group who developed the House proposal, said a legislative solution would be better than an executive order because Oregon could pair the moratorium with financial help for landlords.

“I can’t think of a more compelling reason to come into session than to keep people housed during the pandemic,” Fahey said. “We think at least 20,000 Oregonians will be at risk of facing homelessness come Jan. 1 if we let the eviction moratorium expire without further action. There’s a real sense of urgency to take action to address this looming eviction crisis.”

Under the House proposal, renters who can show that they’ve experienced financial hardships since the start of the pandemic could not be evicted for missing rental payments through June 30, but would have to pay back any accumulated rent on July 1. The Legislature would also set aside $100 million in general fund money to go to existing rental assistance programs and a new landlord assistance fund. Landlords would be required to forgive 20% of past-due rent to access the assistance.

Still, lawmakers acknowledge that $100 million wouldn’t be close to meeting the needs of tenants and landlords. The Portland Housing Bureau estimated that Portland renters alone had missed over $120 million in rental payments by the end of September.

Deborah Imse, executive director for Multifamily NW, expressed concerns last month about the viability of the proposal if there wasn’t adequate funding to address the needs of landlords who would be asked to forgo rent for another six months.

In a letter to Brown earlier this month, Multifamily NW called on the state to allocate adequate rental assistance to make up for the losses of housing providers, create a short-term loan program for tenants who can’t pay rent and implement other relief measures for property owners, including property tax relief.

Multifamily NW is also supporting the passage of a separate proposal floated by Sen. Betsy Johnson, D-Scappoose, which would offer tax credits over a five-year period to landlords who forgive past-due rent. Landlords would be allowed to sell credits to other Oregon taxpayers.

“Rather than implementing additional confusing rules that further strain the relationship between housing providers and renters, Oregon should focus efforts on identifying budget resources to make rental assistance available,” said Michael Havlik, deputy executive director for Multifamily NW. “We think a combination of policies that improve emergency rental assistance programs coupled with tax relief measures is the right approach to resolving the state’s moratorium on evictions for nonpayment of rent.”

While Johnson’s proposal does not address the eviction moratorium, she said that landlords wouldn’t have an incentive to evict tenants with her proposal on the table because they would lose out on the opportunity to receive the tax credits.

“The landlord gets something in exchange for having provided services to the tenant without cost during the duration of the state of emergency,” Johnson said. “The tenant gets debt relief and peace of mind knowing there’s no obligation to pay back thousands of dollars of back rent or suffer having their credit destroyed or bankruptcy. Finally, the state is able to accomplish that by use of future as opposed to current revenues.”

Ron Garcia is president-elect of the Rental Housing Alliance, which represents smaller landlords. He said he is concerned Johnson’s proposed tax credits would benefit larger corporations and property management companies while doing little to help smaller landlords struggling now.

Fahey said her work group considered including tax credits in their proposal, but they felt that the credits would put a strain on the state budget down the road if they weren’t capped and they believed they could do more to help smaller landlords by getting them direct financial assistance now.

She said that Johnson’s proposal deserved consideration in the regular session, but that the state needs to address the expiring eviction ban before the end of the year.

Sen. Jeff Golden, D-Ashland, who owns several small rental properties, said it is imperative that legislators act to help both small and large landlords who have forgone rent for up to nine months and said he would consider both proposals on the table. But he also said he could only support a bill that also addressed the expiring eviction moratorium.

“I’m hoping everybody can envision the possible disaster if the moratorium isn’t extended and we can come together to find some way to get there,” Golden said.

Senate Democrats discussed options for renters during a caucus meeting Monday afternoon. Those discussions remained ongoing Tuesday morning. Still, the possibility of Brown calling a mid-month special session remained in doubt.

Shemia Fagan, D-Portland, who will be sworn in as Oregon’s next Secretary of State in January, said she delayed her resignation from the Senate in order to be available for a possible special session. She said Oregonians deserved to hear legislators debate the proposals publicly in a special session this month since any gap in the eviction moratorium and a separate foreclosure moratorium could have severe consequences for Oregon renters and homeowners.

“Oregonians facing eviction, foreclosures and possible homelessness deserve public leaders who will make a decision regarding housing during a global public health crisis,” Fagan said. “Those decisions should be made in public. People can vote how they want to vote, but Oregonians deserve a special session and a Senate caucus that will take a bill to the floor and have the courage in their convictions to vote yes or no on the Senate floor.”

Answer: The basic rule is that a landlord is required to provide an RV park that is "kept in every part safe for normal and reasonably foreseeable uses." Practically speaking, this means that if you know about a particular danger or threat of danger, as a landlord you must take reasonable steps to reduce or eliminate that danger.

The real question of course is what are the "reasonable steps" to take? At the basic level, you should make sure that you have adequate lighting that is well-maintained to illuminate the park streets at night (i.e., replace those burned out bulbs). Your resident manager should also conduct several walk-throughs throughout the day, preferably in the early morning and evening hours to note any problems. If you have a perimeter fence around your park, make sure that it is kept in good repair and that entrance gates are working and secure.

Part of the obligation to keep your park safe is to also promptly enforce all park rules with written warnings and/or eviction notices if necessary. A good example would be an unauthorized occupant staying with one of your tenants who you have reason to suspect is involved in park thefts. Even if you don't have solid proof of the thefts, you can rely on the fact that the person is not an authorized tenant and evict on that basis alone. You should also immediately evict any particular tenant who is causing trouble. (Hint: Consider a simple no-cause eviction notice.)

If you've done all these things and are still having problems, do you have to hire a security guard? Probably not, but it all depends on the circumstances. The test is what is reasonable to eliminate or reduce the danger. In some cases, that might mean installing security cameras if it would reduce thefts and it is financially reasonable (and in this day and age, security cameras are relatively inexpensive and easy to install). In other cases, it might be reasonable to install a perimeter fence to keep out pedestrians cutting through the park (and helping themselves to tenants' personal property).

In the end, you will be held to the standard of providing a reasonably safe park for your tenants. If you know about a particular danger or potential danger, take immediate steps to reduce that danger. While you can't eliminate every threat, you can reduce your risk of liability by addressing foreseeable threats.