Search

As a community manager, you will normally be charged with accepting or rejecting prospective residents. This is one of the most important functions that you will perform as a manager of a manufactured home community. Done properly and effectively, the rental application and screening process will minimize potential problems in landlord - resident relations. If the process is done incorrectly the seeds of future problems will be sown. Every prospective resident should be given sufficient information to make an informed decision about living in a manufactured home community.

When an individual stops by the manufactured home community office inquiring on the possibility of becoming a resident, always give them an application packet. Anyone who is interested in applying should be given the application packet - inconsistency in giving out application packets could lead to cause of action by the resident selling the home in the community or a fair housing violation.

The application packet is your opportunity to sell the prospective resident on your community. Include in the application packet an application and "Minimum Criteria Standards", optional information may include what homes are available in the community, a community newsletter, information on the history of the community, the advantages of living in a manufactured home community etc. You may also want to include at this time a copy of the rental/lease agreement, rules and regulations, rent history, and statement of policy. Remember, you want to sell the prospective resident on your community, but you also want them to make a well informed decision.

Providing a prospective resident's with extensive information regarding your manufactured home community allows the applicant to evaluate for themselves if they qualify. Including what your expectations are in order to qualify and expectations and requirements to maintain residency in the community allows the prospective resident to self qualify.

Rental Application Process

The overall rental application process should include:

1. Review application to make sure it has been completely filled out.
2. Check to make sure that the applicant has included social security number, driver license information etc.
3. Provide the applicant with a copy of the Statement of Policy (keep a signed copy or receipt for your file), the rent history of the space, Rental Agreement/Lease, Park Rules & Regulations, RV Storage Agreement and Pet Agreement (if applicable), and a Flood Plain Notice. None of these documents should be signed by the community owner or manager until the application process is complete and the prospective resident is accepted.
4. Collect application fee.
5. Provide prospective resident with application fee receipt.
6. Conduct credit, rental and criminal check.
7. Attach copies of credit, rental and criminal check to application
8. If credit, rental and criminal checks are acceptable contact prospective resident.
9. If they are denied and they are purchasing an existing home in the park, send them an application denial form. Also, send a copy to the resident selling the home and one for the tenant's file.

Under current Oregon law you will have not more than 7 days to accept or reject a prospective resident. The 7 days begins on the day of receipt of a complete and accurate written application. The landlord and the prospective resident may agree to a longer time period for the landlord to evaluate the prospective resident's application to address any failure to meet the landlord's screening or admission criteria.

If the existing resident fails to give the required 10 day notice in writing prior to the sale of the home, the landlord may extend the written application process by 10 days. (ORS 90.680)

An application is not complete until the prospective purchaser pays any required applicant screening charge and provides the landlord with all information and documentation required pursuant to ORS 90.510 including any financial data and references. 

The Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) went into effect on March 12, 1989.  That Act amended Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin in the sale, rental, or financing of residential housing.  The FHAA added two additional protected classes; (1) persons with disabilities and (2) families with children.  Children include persons under the age of 18 years.

Virtually all forms of “familial discrimination” became illegal under the FHAA, such as the refusal to rent to tenants because they had children; imposing different terms or conditions of rental depending upon whether they had children; discouraging persons from living in a manufactured housing community if they had children, etc.

The FHAA created certain exemptions, or “safe harbors,” from the prohibition against familial discrimination.  The primary one, embraced by many manufactured housing communities, was the 55+ age exemption.  On May 3, 1999, the Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA) became effective.  HOPA substantially relaxed the earlier highly restrictive – and unworkable - requirements initially established by the FHAA for housing providers to qualify for the 55+ exemption.   Under the FHAA and HOPA, a housing provider may now, without fear of violating the law, legitimately refuse to rent or sell to persons with families, if the provider properly qualifies under the 55+ exemption.

Currently, in order to qualify for the 55+ exemption under the FFHA and HOPA, a community must:

1. Be intended and operated for persons age 55 or over.  This intent can be met by such things as (1) The manner in which the community is described to prospective residents; (2) Advertising designed to attract prospective residents; (3) Lease or rental provisions; (4) The written rules and regulations; (5) Consistent application of the rules, regulations and procedures; (6) Actual practices; and (7) Publicly posting statements describing the facility as a 55+ community.   The age verification procedures must be updated every two years.  This means maintaining a complete file on each space, including with the tenant application updated information, circulated every two years, confirming the names and ages of all persons who are currently residing in the home.
2. Have at least one person who is 55 years of age or older living in at least 80% of its occupied units. This 80/20 rule is critical.  Generally, communities strive to be over 80%, since falling below 80% means immediate disqualification.  Does this mean that the 20% margin must be reserved for families with children?  The answer is “No.”  In fact, a 55+ community may to strive for 100% occupancy by persons age 55 or over.  Does it mean that community management must accept otherwise qualified age 55+ applicants when the second or subsequent person occupant is 18 years of age or older?  Again, the answer is “No.”  If desired, the community may increase the age requirement for the second or subsequent occupant to 25 years, 30 years, or even 55+ years.   Similarly, the community can make the 55+ requirement “more restrictive” e.g. by either saying EVERYONE has to be 55+ or that the minimum age must be OVER 55+.  The only limitation by the federal government is that the age requirement can’t be LESS restrictive, e.g. under 55, or less than 80% occupied. However, it is important for park owners and managers to make sure that all such age/occupancy requirements be properly reflected in the community’s rules and statement of policy – and be consistently applied. 
3. Publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate an intent to be operated as a 55+ community. This requirement is fairly self-explanatory.  The community must make sure that in all that it does, from its advertising, rules, rental agreements, and all other policies, always hold itself out in writing as a 55+ facility. 
4. Comply with HUD age verification of occupancy procedures to substantiate compliance with the requirement that 80% of the facility be intended to be occupied by at least one person age 55 or over. The law provides that the following documents are considered reliable for such verification: (1) Driver’s license; (2) Birth certificate; (3) Passport; (4) Immigration card; (5) Military identification; (6) Any other state, local, national, or international official documents containing a birth date of comparable reliability or; (7) A certification in a lease, application, affidavit, or other document signed by an adult member of the household asserting that at least one person in the unit is 55 years of age or older. 

When the FHAA was first enacted, it imposed an additional requirement mandating that all 55+ communities must have “significant facilities and services” meeting the needs of older persons.  This requirement quickly became a stumbling block for otherwise qualified housing providers from ever obtaining the exemption.  HOPA deleted that requirement, and imposed a transition period for facilities to attempt to meet the 80% requirement.  The period began on the effective date of the law, May 3, 1999, and ended one year later.  During that transition period, HOPA permitted communities that otherwise qualified – without the “significant facilities and services” requirement – to reserve space for 55+ applicants.  This meant that during the one year period, communities could legally decline to rent or sell to families without violating the FHAA.  However, communities that tried but failed during the one year transition, were then expected to commence renting and selling to families.

However, one major question still exists:  What about communities that, for whatever reason, did not qualify for 55+ status?  This would include those that tried but failed; those that never tried because they wanted to be a family facility; or those that were unaware of the HOPA transition period in the first place.  What if today, a community already has qualified under the 80% rule, but still holds itself out as a family facility?  Assuming that it does not discriminate in any respect against the existing families, nor against all those who have applied for occupancy, may it “convert” to a 55+ community, by holding itself out as such, and otherwise meet the HOPA requirements?  This is an open – but inviting  - question.  It would seem that if the community could meet the HOPA requirements in all respects (not because it discriminated in getting there, but simply by attrition of family occupants and the influx of more 55+ residents), it should be permitted to do so.  The process would be fairly simple:  Implement a rules change, combined with new published policies and age verification procedures, which confirm the 55+ status. 

One caveat:  Even though the Oregon landlord-tenant law does permit rules changes to implement material modifications in the parties’ bargain, there is a risk of possible argument by families in the community, complaining that they are now limited in the pool of available buyers for their homes.  However, it would seem that this risk could be remedied, by “grandfathering” those family residents in, thereby permitting them to sell their homes to other families.  This assumes, of course, that by doing so, the community would not jeopardize its 80%-20% ratio.  Before proceeding down this path, park owners are urged to contact their own legal counsel familiar with the FFHA and HOPA for advice and direction.

The above article is a discussion of the federal Fair Housing law governing 55+ communities.  The contents are not intended to constitute legal advice, and should not be relied upon by the reader as such.  All legal questions regarding this complicated and important law should be directed to legal counsel familiar with the area.

© Copyright 2006.  Phillip C. Querin.  No portion may be reproduced without the express written consent of the author.

By:

Brad Kraus, Attorney at Law, Warren Allen LLP

850 NE 122nd Avenue, Portland, OR 97230

Phone: (503) 255-8795     Fax: (503) 255-8836

E-mail: kraus@warrenallen.com

The 2019 legislative session brought several tough changes for Landlords. From rent control to the (near) complete obliteration of no cause rights, these new laws brought challenges for Landlords and decisions related to their property. The new laws also present new causes of action and/or defenses for tenants, often with punitive consequences for landlords who make the slightest misstep. While SB 608 received much of the attention of the past session, not much attention has been paid to HB 2530, scheduled to take affect on January 1, 2020. This new law provides further defenses for tenants related to Notices of Termination under the ORLTA and eviction actions.  

HB 2530 amends ORS 105.113, one of the statutes related to eviction actions. It also adds to the ORLTA, although it is unclear on where it will be placed in Chapter 90. The important piece of HB 2530 is that it will require Landlords to include with any Notice of Termination certain information related to veteran’s assistance. The relevant portions of the new bill state:

(1)Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, a person who sends or serves a document listed in subsection (2) of this section shall include the following information with the document:

(a) A statement that if the recipient is a veteran of the armed forces, assistance may be available from a county veterans’ service officer or community action agency; and

(b)(A) Contact information for a service officer appointed under ORS 408.410 for the county in which the recipient lives and contact information for a community action agency that serves the area where the recipient lives; or

(B) A statement that contact information for a local county veterans’ service officer and community action agency may be obtained by calling a 2-1-1 information service.

(2) This section applies to the following documents:

(a) A notice of termination of tenancy under any provision of ORS chapter 90;

(b) A summons in an action under ORS 105.110 for forcible entry or detainer; . . . 

While the above information may not seem like much, it does present new defenses for tenants in any FED action. Oregon case law is clear that proper notice is a prerequisite to maintaining a FED action. Should any landlord fail to include the information described in Section (1)(a)-(b), they run the risk of a defective notice defense by the tenant in any FED trial. 

HB 2530 also requires that the same information be included in any summons prepared for the FED action. The failure to include that information presents the same pitfalls for Landlords, and any such failure may be met with a motion to dismiss for insufficient summons by a knowledgeable tenants’ attorney. Accordingly, if landlords prepare their own summons (or have a process server do so), it is important that they vet those documents for compliance with HB 2530.

The new law is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2020. While Landlords may have some notices which will expire and terminate tenancies prior to the effective date, vetting and updating your forms now will remove all doubt and/or defenses related to HB 2530, should you need to file an FED on those documents afterthe first of the year. 

Answer: Interestingly, the current submetering statutes do not have a protocol dealing solely with passing through utilities for common area, separately from that for spaces. In other words, at the time of submetering the spaces, you could do it using the prorate method you describe, in which case it would be preceded by a 180-day notice. See, ORS 90.537. It provides:

A landlord that converts to a submeter billing method under this section from the rent billing method described in ORS 90.532 (Billing methods for utility or service charges) (1)(b)(C)(i) may unilaterally, and at the same time as the conversion to submeters, convert the billing for common areas to the pro rata billing method described in ORS 90.532 (1)(b)(C)(ii) (Billing methods for utility or service charges) by including the change in the notice required by subsection (1) of this section.

However, the balance of this subsection provides that "(i)f the landlord continues to use the rent billing method for common areas, the landlord may offset against the rent reduction [that was a part of the pass-through conversion] an amount that reflects the cost of serving the common areas."

If your utility or service provider cannot provide an accurate cost for the service to the common areas, this subsection allow you to "...assume the cost of serving the common areas to be 20 percent of the total cost billed. However, this offset is not available if you choose to bill for the common areas using the pro rata method.

Your question raises the issue whether you may now convert the common area costs from the base rent to submetering. Here are your choices as I see them, keeping in mind you should vet this issue with your own lawyer:

• Convert to submetering solely for the common area, following the same protocol as you did at the time of converting the spaces. However, this will require you to know with some certainty the actual cost of sewer and water to the common areas. However, this approach is not expressly described in the statutes.
• Forego submetering - as you have done - and check with your utility provider to see if you can obtain an accurate cost for the common area service, and follow the same rent reduction and notice protocol under ORS 90.537, as if you were converting to submeters. If so, you could use the prorate apportionment as you propose. This would also require a "unilateral amendment" of the rental agreements. The only legal objection to this would be that it was not at the same time you converted the spaces to submetering.
• If your provider cannot provide an accurate cost, you could make the 20% offset assumption against the rent reduction taken when you first converted to submetering the spaces. You would follow the same unilateral amendment, and 180-day notice as the alternative above. I acknowledge that this offset is subject to distortion, since the 20% is against a rent reduction in the past. There may be an equitable way to arrive at a figure, but it would likely require some consensus of the residents.

Caveat: All of these protocols are based upon following ORS 90.537(5) as if they were occurring at the time of submetering the spaces. Since the statute does not expressly address common area conversion separate from the process when converting to submeters for the space, there is always the argument that it simply is not permitted. That is why I think you will need tenant buy-in. Or you could do it through a rule change, which would likely be safer than a "unilateral amendment". Again, be sure to address this with your own legal counsel. The above discussion should not be treated as legal advice.

Virtually all forms of “familial discrimination” became illegal under the FHAA, such as the refusal to rent to tenants because they had children; imposing different terms or conditions of rental depending upon whether they had children; discouraging persons from living in a manufactured housing community if they had children, etc.

The FHAA created certain exemptions, or “safe harbors,” from the prohibition against familial discrimination.  The primary one, embraced by many manufactured housing communities, was the 55+ age exemption.  On May 3, 1999, the Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA) became effective.  HOPA substantially relaxed the earlier highly restrictive – and unworkable - requirements initially established by the FHAA for housing providers to qualify for the 55+ exemption.   Under the FHAA and HOPA, a housing provider may now, without fear of violating the law, legitimately refuse to rent or sell to persons with families, if the provider properly qualifies under the 55+ exemption.

Currently, in order to qualify for the 55+ exemption under the FFHA and HOPA, a community must:

1. Be intended and operated for persons age 55 or over.  This intent can be met by such things as (1) The manner in which the community is described to prospective residents; (2) Advertising designed to attract prospective residents; (3) Lease or rental provisions; (4) The written rules and regulations; (5) Consistent application of the rules, regulations and procedures; (6) Actual practices; and (7) Publicly posting statements describing the facility as a 55+ community.   The age verification procedures must be updated every two years.  This means maintaining a complete file on each space, including with the tenant application updated information, circulated every two years, confirming the names and ages of all persons who are currently residing in the home.

2.  Have at least one person who is 55 years of age or older living in at least 80% of its occupied units. This 80/20 rule is critical.   Generally, communities strive to be over 80%, since falling below 80% means immediate disqualification.  Does this mean that the 20% margin must be reserved for families with children?  The answer is “No.”  In fact, a 55+ community may to strive for 100% occupancy

by persons age 55 or over.  Does it mean that community management must accept otherwise qualified age 55+ applicants when the second or subsequent person occupant is 18 years of age or older?  Again, the answer is “No.”  If desired, the community may increase the age requirement for the second or subsequent occupant to 25 years, 30 years, or even 55+ years.   Similarly, the community can make the 55+ requirement “more restrictive” e.g. by either saying EVERYONE has to be 55+ or that the minimum age must be OVER 55+.  The only limitation by the federal government is that the age requirement can’t be LESS restrictive, e.g. under 55, or less than 80% occupied. However, it is important for park owners and managers to make sure that all such age/occupancy requirements be properly reflected in the community’s rules and statement of policy – and be consistently applied. 

3. Publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate an intent to be operated as a 55+ community.This requirement is fairly self-explanatory.  The community must make sure that in all that it does, from its advertising, rules, rental agreements, and all other policies, always hold itself out in writing as a 55+ facility. 

4.            Comply with HUD age verification of occupancy procedures to substantiate compliance with the requirement that 80% of the facility be intended to be occupied by at least one person age 55 or over. The law provides that the following documents are considered reliable for such verification: (1) Driver’s license; (2) Birth certificate; (3) Passport; (4) Immigration card; (5) Military identification; (6) Any other state, local, national, or international official documents containing a birth date of comparable reliability or; (7) A certification in a lease, application, affidavit, or other document signed by an adult member of the household asserting that at least one person in the unit is 55 years of age or older. 

When the FHAA was first enacted, it imposed an additional requirement mandating that all 55+ communities must have “significant facilities and services” meeting the needs of older persons.  This requirement quickly became a stumbling block for otherwise qualified housing providers from ever obtaining the exemption.  HOPA deleted that requirement, and imposed a transition period for facilities to attempt to meet the 80% requirement.  The period began on the effective date of the law, May 3, 1999, and ended one year later.  During that transition period, HOPA permitted communities that otherwise qualified – without the “significant facilities and services” requirement – to reserve space for 55+ applicants.  This meant that during the one year period, communities could legally decline to rent or sell to families without violating the FHAA.  However, communities that tried but failed during the one year transition, were then expected to commence renting and selling to families.

However, one major question still exists:  What about communities that, for whatever reason, did not qualify for 55+ status?  This would include those that tried but failed; those that never tried because they wanted to be a family facility; or those that were unaware of the HOPA transition period in the first place.  What if today, a community already has qualified under the 80% rule, but still holds itself out as a family facility?  Assuming that it does not discriminate in any respect against the existing families, nor against all those who have applied for occupancy, may it “convert” to a 55+ community, by holding itself out as such, and otherwise meet the HOPA requirements?  This is an open – but inviting  - question.  It would seem that if the community could meet the HOPA requirements in all respects (not because it discriminated in getting there, but simply by attrition of family occupants and the influx of more 55+ residents), it should be permitted to do so.  The process would be fairly simple:  Implement a rules change, combined with new published policies and age verification procedures, which confirm the 55+ status. 

One caveat:  Even though the Oregon landlord-tenant law does permit rules changes to implement material modifications in the parties’ bargain, there is a risk of possible argument by families in the community, complaining that they are now limited in the pool of available buyers for their homes.  However, it would seem that this risk could be remedied, by “grandfathering” those family residents in, thereby permitting them to sell their homes to other families.  This assumes, of course, that by doing so, the community would not jeopardize its 80%-20% ratio.  Before proceeding down this path, park owners are urged to contact their own legal counsel familiar with the FFHA and HOPA for advice and direction.

Editor's Note:  The 2018 Oregon Primary Election on last Tuesday was brutal for Oregon community owners and landlords and business owners.   It was a dismal election night for some of Oregon's strongest opponents of rent control.  In some cases the primary election winners - staunch rent control advocates - will face NO opposition in the November General Election.  The loss of Senator Rod Monroe (Senate District 24) will have a profound impact in the 2019 Oregon Legislative Session.  Senator Monroe was the one vote stopping rent control in the Senate in the 2017 Oregon Legislative Session.  MHCO will be monitoring and engaged in the upcoming General Election  - but with Tuesday's election results the 2019 Oregon Legislative Session may consist of super majority Democrats in both chambers and a definite leftward tilt that will make rent control and other anti-landlord and anti-business all that more challenging to defeat.  The following article from "The Oregonian" sums up the key legislative races in Oregon.  

The following article is from "Oregonian", "OregonLive" - Posted May 15, 2018 at 09:59 PM | Updated May 16, 2018 at 12:04 PM

Oregon's liberal Democrats notched key wins Tuesday in legislative primaries that focused on such hot-button issues as housing affordability and the state's public pension crisis.

With the Legislature likely to consider proposals on tax increases, public pension reform and greenhouse gas emissions next year, the constituencies that support and oppose those plans - businesses, public employee unions and environmentalists - poured money into certain primary contests.

The vote also set the stage in a couple of swing districts that are likely to be intensely contested in November's general election, as Democrats attempt to win a supermajority and Republicans do their best to block them. Democrats need to pick up just one seat in the House and Senate to achieve the three-fifths supermajority necessary to pass bills raising revenue without Republican support.

Tuesday's primaries included 16 seats up for grabs in the Senate, with five Democrats running unopposed. All 60 seats were up in the House, with seven Republicans and 24 Democrats running unopposed.

SENATE DISTRICT 24

This East Portland district was one of the most closely watched and high-spending races in the May primary, with civil rights attorney Shemia Fagan handing a decisive defeat to five-term Democratic incumbent Rod Monroe. Fagan won 62 percent to Monroe's 25 percent. Kayse Jama, a 43-year-old Somali immigrant and community organizer collected 13 percent of the vote.

Monroe, 75, a five-term senator, was vulnerable because the race centered on housing. The owner of a 51-unit apartment complex in East Portland, Monroe alienated tenant advocates and fellow Democrats last year when he opposed a bill that would have restricted evictions and allowed some rent controls.

Monroe spent heavily to defend his seat, raising nearly $385,000 -- much of it from the real estate industry -- and spent most of it. A group largely funded by the real estate industry also raised more than $360,000 and spent much of it on polling in support of Monroe and advertising against Fagan. 

That wasn't enough to fend off Fagan, who moved into Monroe's Senate district last year. The Happy Valley resident has raised $310,000, with big contributions from the state's public employee unions and the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association. The recently formed political action committee A Progressive Voice for Oregon also paid for advertising against Monroe, although the committee funded mostly by trial lawyers and public employee unions did not disclose the purpose of most of its $66,000 in reported spending.  

Fagan made affordable housing her top priority and said she would put an end to no-cause evictions and allow cities to enact rent controls.

SENATE DISTRICT 11

Senate President Peter Courtney, a Salem Democrat, faced his first primary challenger in 20 years. Though Courtney handily beat Joyce Judy -- 65 percent to 35 percent -- the race put the state's longest-serving current lawmaker and most-tenured Senate president in the position of defending his record against attacks by Judy and other more liberal Democrats.

SENATE DISTRICT 3

This is poised to be a pivotal race in the general election, potentially giving Democrats the additional position needed to achieve a supermajority in the Senate. It opened up after Republican Sen. Alan DeBoer decided not to seek reelection.

Democrats had four candidates: community services nonprofit employee Kevin Stine, television producer Jeff Golden, behavioral health administrator Athena Goldberg and physician Julian Bell. Golden had a decisive lead Tuesday evening, with 52 percent of the vote. Athena Goldberg trailed with 36 percent.

On the Republican side, technology company founder and CEO Jessica Gomez claimed victory with 54 percent of the vote, over certified public accountant Curt Ankerberg's 46 percent. Gomez also worked as one of DeBoer's legislative aides.

HOUSE DISTRICT 32

This Democratic primary was likely the most-watched House race among political insiders. It pitted Tim Josi, a full-time Tillamook County Commissioner backed by outgoing Rep. Deborah Boone, against two rivals running to the left of Josi. Child welfare worker Tiffiny Mitchell, who moved to Oregon from Utah about three years ago, led with 39 percent Tuesday night and Josi had 31 percent. John Orr, who splits his time between part-time jobs as a municipal court judge and biomass energy contractor, followed with 30 percent.

A central issue in the race was whether public employees should begin contributing to the public pension fund. Orr and Mitchell said the state should not require public employees to contribute. Josi said the state should consider requiring employees to put money into the fund, but said he remains undecided on the issue.

HOUSE DISTRICT 20

Selma Pierce, a retired dentist from Salem, was recruited by House leadership to challenge the potentially vulnerable Democratic incumbent, Paul Evans. She easily bested her opponent in the Republican primary, garnering 61 percent of ballots versus Kevin Chambers' 39 percent.

Pierce, the wife of former gubernatorial candidate Bud Pierce, is a longtime volunteer in the Salem area and says she'll prioritize improving graduation rates and vocational education; providing more robust services to those suffering mental health issues; and private sector affordable housing solutions.

This is a swing district some consider to be the closest in the state. Democrats have only a 3.6 percentage point registration margin and Evans, an Air Force veteran and Western Oregon University professor, eked out a victory by less than 2,000 votes in 2016.

HOUSE DISTRICT 52

Democrats have long set their sights on this district, and the departure of former Rep. Mark Johnson last year to take a short-lived job leading a business group put the seat in play.

On the Republican side, Rep. Jeffrey Helfrich -- who was selected by county commissioners to serve the remainder of Johnson's term -- was the clear winner with 98 percent of the vote.

Democrats fielded educator and environmental activist Aurora del Val, who fought the Nestle water bottling proposal, and academic adviser Anna Williams. Del Val withdrew from the race earlier this year but was still on the ballot. Williams held a large lead with 77 percent over del Val's 22 percent.

HOUSE DISTRICT 26

Gun control was a central issue in this Republican primary. Incumbent Rich Vial garnered 70 percent of the vote, easily beating challenger Daniel Laschober. Laschober entered the race after Vial and two other House Republicans joined Democrats to pass a lawbroadening an existing ban on people owning guns because of domestic violence or stalking convictions. Vial is a lawyer and Laschober is a software and finance consultant.

Answer.While Oregon permits the medical use of marijuana, the Federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. _ 801, et seq., says just the opposite; i.e. that it is illegal to manufacture, distribute, and possess marijuana, even when state law authorizes it. Furthermore, federal law supersedesstate law where there is a direct conflict between them. So, the bottom line is that since you have a "No-Marijuana" policy, you do not need to make a "reasonable accommodation";[1]anyuse of marijuana, medical or otherwise, is illegal under federal law, regardless of Oregon law.

In 2013, Attorney General Holder statedthat, subject to certain exceptions,[2]there will be no effort by the U.S. Department of Justice to seek out and charge violators of the Controlled Substances Act in those states where the medical or recreational use of marijuana are legal - as in Oregon.

And in the 2010 case of Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, the Oregon Supreme Court held that employers donothave a legal duty to allow employees to use medical marijuana on the job. This case addressed many unanswered questions on the use of medical marijuana in Oregon, both from an employment and housing perspective. Interestingly, today, a website search on the Oregon Fair Housing Council's websitefor any information or discussion about landlords making "reasonable accommodations" for medical marijuana users, reveals not a single word. That was not the case a few years ago. It appears that in Oregon, the Council is, for now, conceding the issue, and adopting the Fed's handoff policy.

However, in a January 4, 2018 memo, Attorney General Sessions was far less forgiving about marijuana use. While before it was more "don't ask, don't tell", today that is not the case. The memo stated, in part:

In deciding which marijuana activities to prosecute under these laws with the Department's finite resources,prosecutors should follow the well-established principles that govern all federal prosecutions.Attorney General Benjamin Civilettioriginally set forth these principles in 1980, and they have been refined overtime, as reflected in chapter 9-27.000 ofthe U.S. Attorneys' Manual. These principles require federalprosecutors deciding which cases to prosecuteto weigh all relevant considerations, includingfederal law enforcement priorities set by the Attorney General,the seriousness of the crime, the deterrent effect of criminal prosecution,and the cumulative impactof particular crimes on the community.

This means that today, in Oregon, landlords have it within their control, with little fear of a fair housing/reasonable accommodation claims, to enact rules and regulations prohibiting the on-premises use of recreational or medical marijuana. (However, enacting such a policy today should not be applied retroactively to existing tenants holding legal medical marijuana cards.)

So if you accept this applicant as a tenant, he or she must adhere to your policyor risk eviction. You do not want to grant him an exception, as that precedent will dilute the future enforcement of your policy.[3]

[1]The Americans with Disabilities Act or "ADA"states: "An individual with a disability is defined by the ADA as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment. The ADA does not specifically name all of the impairments that are covered." The Fair Housing Act follows this definition as well.

[2]The exceptions are: Distribution of marijuana to minors; Directing revenue from marijuana sales to gangs and cartels; Diverting marijuana from states where it is legal to other states where there are no laws allowing for marijuana use; Using legal sales as cover for trafficking operations; Using violence and or firearms in marijuana cultivation and distribution; Driving under the influence of marijuana; Growing marijuana on public lands; Possessing marijuana or using on federal property. (See link here.)

[3]Note, however, President Trump has recently stated he would probably support a federal law deferring to the states. (See link here.)

1. Inadequate response time to a resident's questions.

In an era when customer relations is the new icon of successful marketing it only makes sense to get back to a resident's question or action-item in a timely manner. What is timely? Within 48 hours, at least tell the customer that you are checking on the matter and will have an answer soon. That's better than taking a week with no answer, or worse, forgetting about it.

1. Poor resident relations & communications.

Like timely responses, overall customer communications is important. That includes such basic things as listening. Periodically walk the park just to talk with residents and see how they are doing. Does anyone need special help? Keep a note pad and pen in your pocket. Seek input. Better yet, issue report cards at least twice per year to see how they grade you. Help them coordinate social activities. Host spontaneous events like an ice cream social at the clubhouse. Ice cream is an inexpensive alternative to customers grumbling about invisible management and owners. But it all boils down to something quite simple: treat them like you want to be treated.

1. Lax rules & regulations enforcement.

Irregular enforcement of rules and regulations or poorly written rules can only lead to confusion and trouble. Make sure maintenance violations are quickly handled with the proper notice. But be fair, friendly and firm. If your rules seem to prompt lots of confusion and questions, get someone outside the park to read the rules with an eye to clarity and possible changes.

1. Poor park maintenance.

The visual appeal of your park is essential to both residents and non-residents who drive by your park. Always maintain its "curb appeal." Regularly check for light outages, broken fencing, faded paint and common-area cleanliness. Neglected streets are especially annoying to residents. Of special importance is your entrance. It should look sharp, upscale

and inviting. Invest in flowering plants to add seasonal color. A well-kept park makes necessary rent adjustments easier to accept.

1. Inadequate training of on-site managers.

If your park manager is not familiar with mobile home park residency laws, unintentional violations could result. Staff should be updated on the latest changes. don't assume they know. Training for on-site managers is mandatory. Bring them up-to-date with the latest aspects of insurance, OSHA and health safety issues, worker's compensation laws, Fair Housing and especially Mobilehome Park Landlord/Tenant Laws.

1. Poor marketing.

Like any business, you have to keep an eye on your local competition while you're keeping your park filled. But marketing is more than park fill and advertising. Marketing includes everything from market surveys to community and government relations, from promotions and incentives to get new residents, to good relations with current residents. Good marketing means keeping a close eye on the target audience you want and how you will sell and service them.

7. Mishandling delinquent rents.

Delinquent rents need quick action. Monitor them closely. Mishandling a notice can lead to delays/problems. Listen to a problem to decide if it's permanent/temporary. If it's permanent, act decisively. If temporary, you may want to set up a written payment plan if possible.

8. Getting the wrong insurance package.

Keeping costs down is important in any business, but so is risk management. That means insurance. The key is to look beyond the basic, generic policy and to seek property and general liability insurance with umbrella coverage. You want to insure your park for its actual insurable replacement value. Check the rating of the insurance carriers you are considering. Shop and compare rates/ratings.

1. Inadequate safety & accident prevention programs.

Insurance is not enough. Prevention is just as important. It's all about having a park safe for residents, their visitors and the park staff who serve them. Potholes in roads are unsafe. A child's cheerful bike ride could suddenly be ended by an unseen driver because bushes were not trimmed. Walkways must be well-lighted and free of cracks. Pools must be free of bacterial growth. Workers need equipment and training to avoid body movements that can injure them. Money spent on repairs, signage, equipment, and training is cheap compared to thousands in legal bills, insurance rate increases and time wasted.

1. Insufficient awareness of economic changes.

Like any business you have to cover costs and make a profit. In order to maximize your investment, keep abreast of changing local conditions around your park. An ill-informed decision could make your park unattractive to potential homeowners. For example, if a local plant closes or unemployment suddenly jumps, that's not a good time to raise rents. Even in healthy times, periodic small rent adjustments make more sense than one big increase that finds residents unprepared and prone to action. Subscribe to local newspapers. It's all about staying in touch and informed to make good decisions.

Note: This article orignially was published in MHCO's Community Update