Bend council OKs longer renter termination notice

Landlord-tenant relationships – and the laws that govern them – can be tricky, sticky, complicated and downright messy in practice.

So perhaps it’s no wonder that it took more than two hours for the partially lame-duck Bend City Council to wade into the issue Wednesday night and eventually agree to a rules change that they hope will ease the burden on some renters to quickly find a new place in a tough market – and not make things worse, as several landlords and property managers warned.

Councilors voted 5-2 to require another month’s notice from landlords to tenants for so-called “no-cause” terminations of month-to-month residential rents. Given two options, they chose one that doesn’t change the current 30-day notice requirement in the first year of such rentals, but extends the notice requirement after that from the current 60 days to 90 days.

Departing Mayor Jim Clinton (who decided not to seek re-election) joined departing Councilor Doug Knight (who was ousted by voters in November) and colleagues Nathan Boddie, (re-elected) Sally Russell and Barb Campbell in approving the move.

They agreed with no-voters Victor Chudowsky (also stepping off the council voluntarily) and Casey Roats that it won’t do anything to solve the affordable housing crunch – only bring a bit more “balance” and “social justice” to the landlord-tenant equation, in Clinton’s words.

During an early-evening work session, Associate City Attorney Ian Leitheiser advised that it’s a “complex area of law,” but one also tackled recently by the cities of Portland and Milwaukie, who each instead adopted a flat 90-day notice requirement, regardless of the length of occupancy. Until and unless lawmakers change things, other avenues to deal with the housing issue, such as rent control, are not legal in Oregon, he noted. And the rules don’t apply to leases.

Chudowsky frequently voiced his views that there was a third option – to leave things as is, as two city advisory committees had suggested. He cited a lack of concrete evidence the change would have any positive benefit.

As they had at another work session last month, property managers and others warned the change might exacerbate the renters’ dilemmas, leading to more “for-cause” evictions – which could be a black mark in a background check – or lead to higher security deposits, or even fewer rentals available, as landlords decide the government red tape isn’t worth it and sell their homes instead.

That’s the view expressed in blunt, direct fashion by rental owner Duane Oakes, who said it took five sets of tenants to find good ones.

“You pass the ordinance – I sell my house,” Oakes told councilors. “I’m tired of getting stepped on.” Instead, he suggested a better way to add to affordable housing would be to ban short-term vacation rentals. “That’s much better than trying to regulate me on when I can kick someone out.”

Several speakers also noted that the tenant-notice issue is a high priority for legislative leaders at the next session of the Legislature, which begins in Salem in only a month or so.

Russell said at one point, “I want us to keep our eye on the larger ball. The real issue is we’re constrained in our housing” supply, which is why the vacancy rate is tiny.

Not all landlords were against the move. Jack Rinn, a Realtor and owner of a property management firm, said he didn’t believe the change will hurt landlords, as many claimed. He also noted the city did some “pioneering law” when it required a one-year notice for no-cause evictions from mobile homes.

“Despite this requirement, the sun rose in the morning, life goes on,” Rinn said. “Never be afraid of doing what’s right.” (Though he added he’d “never support” any move toward rent controls.)

Still, most on the property owner/manager side of things agreed with Terry Turner, a Bend-area resident who is state president of the Oregon Rental Housing Association, which represents landlords, property owners and property managers. She said landlords will move to more evictions for cause, to keep things from dragging out.

“When tenants are served a with-cause notice, they’re going to lose that 60 days they already get in Oregon law,” she said.

“It’s Salem’s job to make new law – it’s not Bend’s,” she said. “Let Salem do their job.”

She and others said what’s needed is more education, for both tenants and property owners, about the rights and rules involved.

Arleigh Santoro of the Central Oregon Rental Owners Association added to the potential list of unintended consequences, such as pushing low-income tenants out of Bend, meaning they’d have to travel further to work.

Elizabeth Oshel, a staff attorney with Legal Aid Services in Bend, noted that people given no-cause termination of rental agreements have no recourse – they must move – while an eviction with cause at least affords them due process and the opportunity to contest in a court proceeding.

“This is an issue of health, safety and economic security for tenants,” she said, noting in response to Roats the various other termination of eviction notices, such as 72-hour notice for non-payment of rent and 10-day notice for violating a pet agreement.

Chudowsky read a letter from Realtor Katleen Leppert, who said the proposal “solves nothing,” since it doesn’t affect the 30-day notice a property owner can give if they are selling the house – and the council can’t change those rules.

There was talk of a sunset clause in a set number of years, or when the vacancy rate returns to 3 or 4 percent. But those amendments died for lack of a second, and in the end, at Chudowsky’s last council meeting (which later brought kind words and reminiscences), he lost the argument.

Roats agreed with those who believe it’s a state issue, not one to be decided city by city, though he added, “I don’t doubt anybody’s (good) intentions at all.”

Clinton said, “We’ve heard convincing, compelling arguments on both sides.” But he also tweaked Roats, saying “conservative folks want local control – unless it’s something you don’t want, then you want state control.”

“Fair point,” Roats replied. ‘We all pick and choose a bit. … I believe it’s better for the state to have a policy across the board.”

Chudowsky earlier complained the council was moving too fast to adopt something it only decided in a straw vote an hour or two earlier, without public notice or “any data on whether it will work.” But when he referred to himself as an “astonished observer” of the proceedings, that brought a last poke from Knight: “You’re still on the council – you’re still part of this. You’re not above it all.”

Chudowsky held his ground, as usual, saying the notice change is counter-productive, “affecting a major industry at a time when we should be making it easier to be a landlord, easier to develop rental properties.”

Clinton himself was astonished to learn that about 45 percent of Bend’s housing stock is rentals, mostly single-family homes.

“I find it shocking – that’s higher than I thought,” he said. “I don’t know how you can have a stable community with such a high percentage of renters.” And he said he’d found in California that when an area approaches 50 percent renters, “the town goes to hell.”

Whether Bend goes there – or already is there – is a matter of perspective, of course. But five members of a decided city council on a frigid December night decided an imperfect attempt at improving the situation for some renters beats waiting for Salem – or the next council – to do anything about it.

A second reading and formal vote is set for the last council meeting of the year, on Dec. 21. Chudowsky apparently will be gone, but that still leaves a majority of four supporters to make it official.