Search

Most Oregon rent increases capped at 9.9% in 2020

 

By Elliot Njus | The Oregonian/OregonLive

 

Rent increases will be capped at 9.9% through 2020, the first full year Oregon’s new rent control law will be in effect, state economists announced Wednesday.

 

The Oregon Legislature this year passed Senate Bill 608, which imposed the nation’s first statewide rent control policy. The law caps rent increases at 7% plus the rate of inflation for the urban West. For 2019, that number came to 10.3%. 

 

Not all rentals are subject to the policy. The rent cap doesn’t apply to buildings that are less than 15 years old — an attempt to avoid a damper on housing construction — nor to government-subsidized rents. Landlords may raise rent without any cap if tenants leave of their own accord. 

Typical rents across Oregon are rising at a far slower rate than what’s allowed under the cap. 

But lawmakers who supported the policy said it would avert the biggest rent hikes that functioned as de facto evictions. Such increases, in which rents sometimes doubled or more, grabbed headlines in recent years, frequently after apartment buildings were sold to a new owner. 

The new law also requires most landlords to cite a cause, such as failure to pay rent or other lease violation, when evicting renters after the first year of tenancy.

Some “landlord-based” for-cause evictions are allowed, including the landlord moving in or a major renovation. In those cases, landlords are required to provide 90 days’ notice and pay one month’s rent to the tenant, though landlords with four or fewer units would be exempt from the payment.

-- Elliot Njus

Mark Busch Q&A: We don't Want Marijuana In Our RV Park

Mark L. Busch

Answer: Your park is private property and you may legally prohibit the use of all marijuana based on federal law, which still makes marijuana illegal. In addition, Oregon's new marijuana law (Measure 91) specifically includes a provision prohibiting its application to any state or federal law pertaining to landlord-tenant matters.

This means that because marijuana production or use is illegal under federal law, landlords may continue to prohibit it on rented premises. The Oregon Supreme Court has held that since marijuana remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act, that Act preempts Oregon's Medical Marijuana Act with regard to both employment practices and housing discrimination claims under state law.

The same reasoning would apply to Measure 91 - marijuana is illegal under federal law. Therefore, tenants would not have any cause of action for "discrimination" claims under state law, nor under federal law (since landlords do not have to "reasonably accommodate" illegal activity under the Fair Housing Act). Unless federal law changes, Oregon's Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) will also undoubtedly adhere to its position that it will not investigate any housing claims of discrimination pertaining to the use of marijuana.

As a practical matter, you may therefore implement and enforce a park rule that prohibits growing, producing or using marijuana anywhere on park property. You should also include this prohibition in your rental agreements.

There are several caveats to mention:

  1. Consult with a knowledgeable attorney if you are implementing a new rule to ensure that you follow the proper legal steps to make it enforceable.

  1. Do not deny a tenancy application solely because the applicant has a medical marijuana card (which could lead to a discrimination claim). However, even with a medical marijuana card, you can still prohibit the use of marijuana in the park by anyone, including the applicant.

  1. It is still possible that an aggressive tenant with an aggressive attorney could sue the park for discrimination (i.e., anyone can sue anyone), but their case would not likely succeed based on current law.

As always, talk to an attorney concerning your specific park issues.

What You Should Know About Fair Housing Testing

Fair Housing Testing - a tool used by enforcement officials and private fair housing organizations to ferret out unlawful housing discrimination. 

Fair housing testing involves paired testers—individuals with similar credentials but of different protected classes—who may contact your community by email, phone, your website, or by a site visit to check for differences in how they’re treated based on their race, national origin, or any other characteristics protected under federal, state, or local law.

Should you be worried that you could be targeted for fair housing testing? Not if you’re prepared—by ensuring your policies comply with fair housing law, treating all prospects fairly and consistently, thoroughly training your employees, and monitoring compliance on your own. Since it’s unlikely that you’ll know when an email, phone call, or a visit from a prospect is really from a fair housing tester, your best bet is to treat everyone contacting your community as if he or she is a fair housing tester.

In this issue, we’ll explain how fair housing testing works—and suggest seven rules to avoid problems if your community is ever subjected to fair housing testing. Then, you can take the Coach’s Quiz to see how much you’ve learned.

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits discrimination in housing because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or disability. In addition, many state and local fair housing laws ban discrimination based on source of income, sexual orientation and gender identity, and other characteristics.

HUD and the Justice Department are the federal agencies charged with enforcing the FHA; in states and local governments with fair housing laws substantially equivalent to the FHA, officials in those jurisdictions handle federal as well as state and local discrimination complaints. The law also allows individuals and private advocacy organizations to file a HUD complaint or file a lawsuit directly in federal court.

HUD continues to provide millions in funding to support a wide range of fair housing enforcement, education, and outreach activities. Earlier this year, HUD awarded $16.5 million to support dozens of fair housing organizations working to confront violations of fair housing law. These new grants are on top of the $23 million awarded by HUD to existing fair housing organizations last winter. Among other things, these grants allow the groups to provide fair housing enforcement through testing in the rental and sales markets, to file fair housing complaints to HUD, and to conduct investigations.

“HUD’s efforts to fight housing discrimination are force multiplied by local fair housing organizations across the country,” HUD Secretary Ben Carson said in a statement. “These grants allow our partners to carry out the important work of rooting out unfair policies and practices and enforcing our nation’s fair housing laws.”

Meanwhile, the Justice Department has its own fair housing testing program to identify and challenge cases involving a pattern or practice of housing discrimination. According to the department, the vast majority of lawsuits filed based on testing evidence involve allegations that individuals misrepresented the availability of rental units or offered different terms and conditions based on race, national origin, disability, or family status.

Fair housing testing may be triggered by a variety of circumstances. In complaint-based testing, it’s used to verify whether an individual who claims a particular community discriminated against him based on his race or other characteristic, has a legitimate complaint. If the results of testing support the individual’s claim, then the evidence gathered may be used in court or enforcement proceedings.

Example: In August 2019, the Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana (FHCCI) announced a settlement of a complaint alleging that a real estate management company’s occupancy policy at properties in Indiana and Illinois discriminated against families with children.

According to the complaint, it all started with a phone call by an Illinois woman looking for a two-bedroom unit at one of the company’s properties. Allegedly, a leasing agent told her that two-bedroom units were available, but upon learning that that she would be living there with her spouse and three children, the leasing agent allegedly said that a family of five couldn’t live in a two-bedroom unit and refused to even schedule an appointment for a viewing.

The woman contacted HOPE Fair Housing Center, a private fair housing organization, which launched an investigation into the community’s policies. A tester posed as a married woman seeking a two-bedroom apartment for her family of two adults and three children. Allegedly, an employee told her that the community couldn’t rent a two-bedroom unit to more than four people because of “fair housing laws.” That lead to a broader investigation involving fair housing testing at four other properties managed by the company in Illinois, allegedly yielding similar results.

During the course of its investigation, HOPE contacted the FHCCI to similarly investigate company’s properties in Indiana. Allegedly, FHCCI’s testing indicated that the company enforced the same two-person-per-bedroom policy in Indiana as the woman and HOPE encountered in Illinois.

The advocacy groups filed a HUD complaint, accusing the company of systemic discrimination against families with children by enforcing an occupancy policy of no more than two people per bedroom in each apartment, regardless of the unit’s square footage or whether that unit has a den, office, loft, or other feature that could provide an additional bedroom or living area for a child. HUD didn’t make a determination as to the validity of the allegations.

The company denied any wrongdoing but agreed to settle the case. Under the settlement, the company agreed to pay $60,000 in costs and damages, to change their occupancy policy so that the policy is no more restrictive than the applicable local occupancy code, and to train their employees and agents on fair housing laws and responsibilities, along with other terms to ensure compliance with fair housing laws.

Sometimes, testing isn’t triggered by a complaint, but conducted as part of a larger fair housing investigation. Testing may be initiated by a fair housing organization on its own or at the behest of federal, state, or local enforcement officials to check whether discriminatory policies or practices are a problem at one or more communities within a geographical area.

Example: In August 2019, a Virginia community agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Virginia, and Housing Opportunities Made Equal of Virginia, Inc. (HOME), alleging that its criminal background screening policy discriminated against people on the basis of race.

The case dates back to 2017 when HOME conducted a series of tests to assess the types and severity of the barriers individuals with criminal histories face when seeking housing in Virginia. As part of this effort, the complaint alleged that HOME investigated the criminal records policy maintained at the community, including by reviewing application materials and conducting testing. 

According to the complaint, HOME conducted a series of tests, including phone calls and site visits involving HOME workers who posed as a potential tenant with a felony conviction applying for housing at the community. In each instance, an agent allegedly told the tester that because of the felony conviction, the tester’s application would automatically be rejected. 

Under the settlement, the community agreed to change its criminal record screening policy. The revised policy considers only specific categories of offenses, excludes misdemeanor convictions, and doesn’t treat people differently based on whether the applicant is on probation or parole. The policy also ensures individualized consideration for every applicant, allowing a prospect to share information as part of the application review process, including the facts or circumstances surrounding his criminal conduct, proof of rehabilitation efforts, and evidence of a good tenant or employment history before or after the conviction or conduct.

Also, as part of the settlement, the community agreed to train employees in fair housing and make a $15,000 donation to HOME to continue HOME’s systemic work to uncover and address housing discrimination. The community also will pay damages and attorney’s fees related to the matter.

7 RULES FOR BEING PREPARED FOR FAIR HOUSING TESTERS

Rule #1: Treat Everyone as a Possible Fair Housing Tester

On any given day, you’re likely to have many interactions with prospects, including phone calls, email inquiries, Internet communications, or visits to your community. They may be inquiries about advertised vacancies or the availability of certain types of units at the community.

Our fair housing experts warn that you may never know when one of these encounters is part of a fair housing test. That’s because enforcement agencies and fair housing organizations generally exercise caution in selecting and training fair housing testers.

In any given geographical area, local fair housing organizations may maintain a pool of trained fair housing testers, who are called upon infrequently to preserve their anonymity. In general, they’re volunteers who may receive a stipend for their time and travel. Because of the potential that they may be a party or witness in any resulting litigation, they’re likely to be screened for criminal history and any conflicts of interest. In fact, HUD enforcement officials go to great pains to safeguard the confidentiality of a tester’s identity. 

So even if you have an inkling that a particular prospect is a tester—because of the type of questions being asked, the way he carries himself, or the timing of similar contacts—you really can’t be sure if a given encounter is part of a fair housing test. Testers posing as prospects may call or email your office or visit the property to check for differences in treatment based on race, national origin, disability, familial status—or other characteristics protected under state or local laws.

So why take chances? Your best bet is to treat everyone contacting or visiting your community as if he or she were part of a fair housing test. Keep personal biases out of the leasing office and treat all prospects with professional courtesy, starting with the initial contact—whether online, in an email, on the phone, or during visits to your property.

Rule #2: Incorporate Fair Housing into Your Community’s SOP

Make compliance with fair housing an integral part of your community’s standard operating procedures. No doubt, you have numerous policies, practices, and procedures governing the marketing, leasing, maintenance, and other critical operations within your community. Many are based on business decisions, while others reflect legal requirements, such as landlord-tenant laws, health and safety codes, and other regulatory obligations.

Incorporating fair housing requirements serves both—it’s not only a legal requirement, but it’s a good business decision. Making your community available to any prospect who meets objective criteria to rent meets your legal obligations under fair housing laws. And by distinguishing your reputation as an equal housing provider, you’ll decrease the risk of being targeted for fair housing testing based on suspicions about discriminatory policies or practices.

Maintain a formal written fair housing policy, affirmatively stating that your community does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, or familial status. Be sure to include any characteristics protected under state and local laws, such as sexual orientation, marital status, or source of income. Review your policies periodically, and revise them as necessary, to reflect changing rules or trends likely to be the subject of fair housing testing. Include your fair housing policy in your rental applications and leasing agreements, and post it in your office, alongside the fair housing poster required under HUD regulations. 

Coach’s Tip: HUD’s fair housing poster affirms that your community does business in accordance with the federal fair housing law. The poster is available on HUD’s website at https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/FAIR_HOUSING_POSTER_ENG.PDF.

Rule #3: Watch What You Say in Your Advertising

Pay particular attention to your advertising and marketing policies to avoid triggering a fair housing investigation. Fair housing law bans discriminatory statements, including advertising, whether online or in other forms of media, so you should make sure your website, ads, brochures, and other media—whether in print or online—reflect your fair housing policy.

Fair housing organizations are actively monitoring online advertising for discriminatory statements, so you should avoid questionable phrases or buzzwords that suggest a preference for or against prospective renters based on characteristics protected under federal, state, or local law. For example, you shouldn’t use words or phrases that express a preference against members of protected groups—such as “no kids”—or a preference for others—such as “perfect for singles.” Federal fair housing law prohibits housing providers from denying or limiting housing to families with children under age 18, including refusing to negotiate, making discriminatory statements, and publishing discriminatory advertisements based on familial status.

Example: In August 2019, HUD charged the owners and manager of a Colorado condo community with refusing to rent to persons under 35 years of age in violation of the FHA, which prohibits discrimination based on familial status. According to HUD’s charge, the condo management team allegedly refused to rent a unit to a fair housing tester who claimed to have a 4-year-old child.

The case came to HUD’s attention when the Denver Metro Fair Housing Center filed a complaint alleging that the owners of the condominium complex discriminated against families with children when they posted ads in a local newspaper. HUD’s charge alleges that the ads described the complex as a “private, restricted adult … community” where renters must be 35 years or older. The charge further alleges that the condominium management team refused to rent a unit to a fair housing tester who claimed to have a 4-year-old child. The charge will be heard by a U.S. administrative law judge unless any party elects for the case to be heard in federal court.

Example: In April 2019, the owner of a Maine rental property and its rental agent agreed to pay $18,000 to settle allegations that they denied housing to families with children. The case came to HUD’s attention when Pine Tree Legal Assistance, Inc., filed a complaint accusing the owner and rental agent of discrimination based on familial status by refusing to negotiate with fair housing testers posing as families with children, posting discriminatory advertisements indicating that children weren’t allowed, and making discriminatory statements to fair housing testers.

“It’s hard enough for families to find places to live that meet their needs without being denied suitable housing because they have children,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. “HUD is committed to working to ensure that housing providers comply with their Fair Housing Act obligation to treat all applicants the same, including families with children.”

Rule #4: Ensure Consistency in the Leasing Office

Focusing attention on the initial stages of the leasing process may also help you pass muster if your community is ever the subject of fair housing testing. At communities across the country, fair housing enforcement officials and advocacy groups are dispatching testers to check for differences in the way prospects are treated—in phone calls, emails, and site visits—based on protected class. Of course, differences don’t always mean discrimination, but it’s easy to jump to the conclusion that they do. That’s why it’s so important to avoid even the appearance of discriminatory intent in the way that prospects are treated.

Testing is often focused on differences in the information provided to prospects about the availability of units, so it’s important to ensure that leasing agents have accurate, up-to-date information about vacancies. The FHA makes it unlawful to discriminate against applicants for housing because of their race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or disability, including by providing different and false information about terms, conditions, and availability of rental properties.

Example: HUD recently approved a settlement between Housing Rights Center (HRC), a fair housing advocacy organization in Los Angeles, and a Virginia-based real estate investment trust company to resolve allegations that the company’s rental practices discriminated against applicants based on their race.

The case came to HUD’s attention when HRC filed a complaint alleging that the company, which operates numerous properties in the Los Angeles area, repeatedly provided more information about available units to white HRC fair housing testers who posed as prospective tenants than to black HRC testers. The company denied the allegations of racial discrimination but agreed to settle the case.

Under the settlement, the company agreed to pay $20,000 to the fair housing organization. In addition, its management and leasing staff who work with tenants at the subject property will attend fair housing training.

“Denying a rental application because of someone’s race not only robs them of a place to call home, it is also unlawful,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. “Hopefully today’s settlement will convince other housing providers of the importance of meeting their obligation to comply with the nation’s fair housing laws.”

Similarly, be sure to give prospects the same information about the terms and conditions of tenancy, such as screening criteria, rental terms, security deposits and fees, and any other relevant information. Quoting more stringent lease terms or higher rental payments to prospects based on a protected characteristic is a violation of fair housing law.

Testers also may be looking for signs of unlawful steering—that is, guiding, directing, or discouraging prospects from living in your community or certain parts of the community based on a protected characteristic. For example, it’s a violation of fair housing law to tell Hispanic prospects that they would not be happy living in your community—or showing them only units in undesirable locations.

Example: In July 2019, HUD approved a $10,000 settlement between a California fair housing group and the agents and mortgage company for a California townhome community to resolve allegations of discrimination against African-American home seekers.

The case came to HUD’s attention when the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County (FHCRC) filed a complaint alleging that fair housing tests it conducted showed that real estate agents treated testers posing as African-American home seekers less favorably than testers posing as white home seekers. Specifically, FHCRC alleged that its tests showed that African-American testers were told that there were no homes available when there were and were required to meet tougher prequalification requirements than white testers. The community and its agents denied having engaged in any discriminatory behavior.

“A person’s race should never be a factor in determining whether they have the opportunity to obtain the housing of their choice,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. “Today’s settlement represents HUD’s ongoing commitment to ensuring that individuals in positions to affect access to housing meet their obligation to comply with the Fair Housing Act.”

Rule #5: Provide Fair Housing Training to All Employees

All your employees, from your leasing staff to service workers in your maintenance, housekeeping, and landscaping operations, should receive periodic fair housing training. Although most testing efforts are addressed to your leasing office, interactions with any employee who interacts with the public could lead to a discrimination complaint, which in turn could trigger a fair housing test.

The training should cover the fundamentals of fair housing, including who is protected under federal law as well as any applicable state and local laws. It should also explain your community’s policies and what employees can and can’t do under fair housing law. Reinforce the importance of keeping personal biases out of the workplace and treating everyone at the community with courtesy and professionalism. Make sure employees understand the chain of command so they know where to go for help or to report any fair housing concerns or observations.

Managers should monitor how the leasing staff, particularly new employees, interacts with prospects on the phone, in site visits, and in Internet communications. Consider an open-door policy for management staff, so managers can hear what’s going on in the office—and encourage them to periodically sit in on phone calls or meetings with prospects and to tag along on tours.

Managers should reinforce good habits in employees, so good management means checking up from time to time on sales presentations, tours, applications, and so on, to see what staff members are doing. And it’s a good idea to have all employees sign an acknowledgement saying that they agree to abide by fair housing laws and that they understand that they may be monitored and recorded for training and compliance purposes.

Coach’s Tip: Our experts warn that you shouldn’t allow new hires to interact with the public without at least a basic understanding of fair housing law. Otherwise, they may inadvertently make well-intentioned, but inappropriate comments when answering the phone or meeting prospects. For example, an inexperienced employee could be overly curious about the nature of a prospect’s disability or cultural differences reflected in the prospect’s accent or appearance—just the type of conduct that could draw the attention of fair housing testers. For more information, see the Coach’s September 2019 lesson, “Fair Housing Boot Camp: Basic Training for New Hires.”

Rule #6: Shop Your Property

Shopping yourself—either by internal means or by hiring an outside shopping service—is one of the best ways to ensure that you won’t be caught off-guard from the results of a fair housing test. It’s an effective tool to monitor whether your employees are complying with fair housing laws and to identify any weaknesses—either in an employee’s performance or in the effectiveness of your training program.

You can do it informally, by asking people you know to pose as rental prospects, but many communities hire outside shopping services to contact the leasing office to monitor sales and marketing as well as fair housing issues.

Whatever means you use, it’s important to follow up to determine the root cause of any deficiencies detected during the shop. There could be a number of reasons why a leasing consultant may respond inappropriately to a shopper’s question. If it’s because the employee truly acted improperly, you should respond with disciplinary action. If the employee simply misunderstood fair housing requirements, you’ll know that the employee needs additional training.

Alternatively, the results of a shopping test may reveal a larger problem, for example, that your policy or training on a particular issue is unclear or incorrect. If that’s the case, you’ll have an opportunity to rectify the problem on your own—rather than having to address it after the fact if it surfaces for the first time during a fair housing test.

Rule #7: Keep Good Records

Good record keeping is important so you can respond accurately to complaints if, despite your best efforts, fair housing testing raises questions about seemingly discriminatory behavior. Retain records of all contacts, even if they don’t result in the rental of a unit or follow-up on initial inquiries. Keep copies of phone logs, guest cards, unit availability records, application forms and supporting documents, screening results, and any other document related to the application process.

It’s also important to keep good records to document when and how your community keeps track of available units. There’s a risk of a discrimination claim any time a prospect is told that there are no units available within a community. And it’s hard to defend against such claims if it turns out that the information was faulty, or if a prospect is turned away on the same day as another prospect was told that a unit was available. To ensure accurate, consistent responses to inquiries about available units, establish a process to document when units become available, and make sure everyone on your staff has up-to-date information.

Coach’s Tip: Keep your written records for as long as possible, so you can use them to defend yourself if you’re sued. Fair housing complainants have up to two years after the discrimination occurs to file in federal court or up to one year to file with HUD. And some prospects or testers may have up to six years to file a civil rights lawsuit. So it’s a good idea to check with your attorney before discarding old records.

  • Fair Housing Act: 42 USC §3601 et seq.

 

Portland City Council Extend Renter Protection and 'Housing Emergency' Policies

MHCO.ORG Note:  Pressure continues to build to provide more renter rights and legalize some form of rent control or rent justification.  Portland City Council's action this afternoon is yet another precursor of more to come in the Oregon Legislature.  Stay tuned - this issue is not going away anytime soon.

* * * * * *

 

By Jessica Floum

 

The Oregonian/OregonLive

 

 

Exceptions to Portland land use rules, protections for city renters facing eviction or big rent hikes, and political pressure to devote taxpayer and donor money to affordable housing will continue for the foreseeable future, following a unanimous Portland City Council vote Wednesday.

All those measures are intended to curb Portland's critical shortage of affordable housing and spike in homelessness.

The council voted Wednesday to extend for a second time its a declared "housing emergency." It also voted to extend a renter protection policy adopted in February by six months to give city officials time to implement a permanent renter's rights policy.

Instituted in 2015, the emergency declaration has encouraged spending on housing, allowed for flexibility in where city and county officials can open shelters and fast-tracked building permits for affordable housing projects. The council extended the declaration by 18 months and charged the Portland Housing Bureau and the city and county's Joint Office on Homeless Services to develop criteria for when the city should lift the temporary rules.

Commissioners hope to implement permanent rules in the city's zoning codes by then. They might include permanent zoning exemptions that allow for homeless camps such as Right 2 Dream Too or emergency homeless shelters in the winter.

"There's more we need to do to stabilize the systems that impact housing and homelessness in our community," Mayor Ted Wheeler said. "This is an emergency that requires action now."

Led by former housing advocate and city Commissioner Chloe Eudaly early this year, the council adopted a tenant protection rule that requires landlords to pay $2,900 to $4,500 in relocation costs to renters whom they evict without cause or who must move as the result of a rent increase of 10 percent or more.

The council extended that policy, set to expire Friday, by six months. Wheeler, the housing commissioner, pledged to bring a permanent renter protection rule back to the council on December 6.

Dozens of renters urged the council Wednesday to take the rule further.

They shared experiences of landlords finding ways around the rule such as increasing rents by 9.97 percent instead of 10 percent and requiring renters to pay for utilities that the landlord previously covered.

They advocated for closing an exemption for "mom and pop" landlords who only rent one unit. The impact on the renters is harmful, regardless of who the landlord is, they said.

Many of the most vulnerable tenants rent from smaller landlords because they can't access "mainstream" rental opportunities due to criminal histories or other "troubled records," said Katrina Holland, executive director of renter advocacy group Community Alliance of Tenants.

Rental Application Process

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.

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. 

Overview of Rental Application Procedures

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. 

55 & Older Communities - A Review

Phil Querin

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.

New Laws, New Defenses for Tenants – Staying Ahead of the Curve

 

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. 

Medical Marijuana and Landlord Rights

Question: Our community is seeing an increase in the use of "medical"marijuana. Although those using it say they have "cards"permitting them to grow limited amounts, often this limited personal use appears to turn into more than that. We are noticing increasing late night traffic at some users' homes, and believe they are expanding their grow operations in order to sell the marijuana to unauthorized users. What can be done about this? It is quite disruptive to the rest of our community.Answer: A good discussion and summary of Oregon's medical marijuana law is found at the following link: http://public.health.oregon.gov/DiseasesConditions/ChronicDisease/medic… The Oregon statutes are located at this link: http://public.health.oregon.gov/DiseasesConditions/ChronicDisease/Medic… are the Oregon administrative rules:http://public.health.oregon.gov/DiseasesConditions/ChronicDisease/Medic… As you can no doubt see, these laws and rules are focused primarily on legal marijuana use, rather than illegal use. Although Oregon's landlord-tenant law has a statute giving a landlord the right to issue a 24-hour notice to residents engaged in the manufacture, delivery or possession of controlled substances, it does not include "The medical use of marijuana in compliance with ORS 475.300 to 475.346. -"In order to evict the offending resident(s), the difficulty is trying to prove that the resident is actually manufacturing, deliverying, or possessing marijuana in violation of the law. This is particularly tough since the landlord cannot gain access to the interior of the home or the backyard. (If the backyard is concealed by a high fence, I would probably not advise a landlord to take pictures or view the area by using a ladder or other similar means. Leave that for the police.All in all, I have three suggestions: (a) Go the police and see if you can enlist their help in stopping this activity; (b) Find out how to start a neighborhood watch program that will discourage persons driving in to buy drugs; (c) Carefully and patiently begin tracking neighbor complaints of late night activity that causes a disturbance to the other neighbors. Begin by first contacting the offending resident by phone or a personal visit, politely asking that the activity cease. If it continues, write a letter (not a termination notice). If it continues, then issue a 30-day termination notice for violation of ORS 90.740(3)(i), which requires that tenants "Behave, and require persons on the premises with the consent of the tenant to behave, in a manner that does not disturb the peaceful enjoyment of the premises by neighbors." Once this notice is given, if the conduct stops within the 30 days, you may re-issue a second notice with a 20-day non-curable termination if it re-occurs with 6 months following issuance of the first 30-day curable notice. I prefer this approach, since the landlord is not required to "prove"that the resident was actually engaging in the manufacture, delivery or possession of marijuana. All you need to do is establish the circumstances giving rise to the disruption and that it is interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the other residents. The judge or jury will be able to "connect the dots."

Phil Querin Q&A: Common Area Pass-Throughs

Phil Querin

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.