Question: In reviewing the new form 2A, the Retail Installment Contract, does it act as the security agreement on the home, or is there something else that must be filed? Where is the security agreement filed?

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.

Question: When can a manager refuse payment by check? If the name on the check does not match the resident's name can (or should) the check be refused? Should there be a park rule to back this up? If the manager refuses payment because of the name on the check and asks for a money order or cash, does that have to be in the rules? All of this stems from the concern of unauthorized residents becoming tenants simply because a manager accepts a check for space rent when they are not an approved tenant.

Question: Most of the tenants in our RV park are good folks and good tenants. However, inevitably there are always a few "bad apples" who make everyone miserable. What are the laws on "no cause" evictions?

Last month, HUD announced that the owners and managers of two California apartment complexes has agreed to pay $72,000 to resolve allegations of discrimination against a female resident with disabilities who requires an assistance animal.

The case came to HUD's attention when a Northern California fair housing group filed a complaint alleging that the owner and its agents discriminated against a resident who has a medical condition and requires a service dog. Allegedly, the animal alerts the resident when she is experiencing physiological changes and helps to ameliorate many of her disability-related symptoms.

The fair housing group also claimed the resident, who had lived at the property for more than 15 years, was subjected to discriminatory statements and retaliation due to the presence of her assistance animal, including false accusations that the animal was disruptive, that it bit maintenance workers, and that it was not a service animal under California law. The complaint claimed that the resident's Housing Assistance Program voucher was ultimately cancelled, forcing her to find housing elsewhere.

HUD reported that its subsequent investigation corroborated the resident's need for the dog and discovered written discriminatory statements made by the property managers. HUD found no evidence indicating that the animal was disruptive or had bitten anyone.

The settlement requires the owners and managers to pay $31,000 to the resident and to pay $41,000 to the fair housing group. Among other things, the owners also agreed to develop and implement a reasonable accommodation and reasonable modification policy consistent with fair housing law.

Landlords are required to provide a reasonable accommodation for individuals who require assistance animals

Question. In certain Oregon counties, dogs are required to be licensed and vaccinated, etc.
Are we allowed to enforce these same requirements/restrictions in our park with the residents?