Earlier this week the 2015 Oregon Legislative Session adjourned.    This session was notable for two reasons - the first for passing MHCO's long awaited changes eliminating past due taxes on abandoned homes and the second for the tenacity of rent control to raise it's head in floor debates, a legislative work group proposal and amendments. 

The increase in the cost of housing  particularly in many of Oregon's urban areas manifested itself in a drive to bring forward rent control in various forms.  This will not be the last we hear of rent control as we head into 2016.  Considering that in many cases MHCO was able to defeat rent control by just one vote in committee raises concerns as we set our sights on the February 2016 Oregon Legislative Session and especially the 2017 Oregon Legislative Session if elections continue to go as badly as they have for the business community over the past four years. 

In the end, MHCO is thrilled with what we were able to accomplish in the 2015 Legislative Session - one of the best pieces of pro-landlord legislation in the last decade, but we have serious reservations where the Legislature is headed on issues that are of great concern to landlords and business owners. 

MHCO will be providing extensive information on the new tax rules for abandoned homes later this year at the MHCO Annual Conference as well as information on other issues in the 2015 Landlord Tenant Coalition Bill that passed in this Legislative Session.  The new laws do not go into effect until January 1, 2016.  New forms will be necessary - MHCO will have those available to members on-line later this year as well.

Finally, here is a summary of some of the legislation that MHCO worked to defeat this session.  Other than the Coalition Bill (HB 3016) there were no other bills that MHCO supported - that in itself is a sad commentary on this legislative session considering the thousands of bills introduced.

MHCO Legislative Summary - MHCO Defeated Proposed Legislation

HB 2564 - (Inclusionary Zoning) Permits local governments to impose conditions on approved permits that effectively establish sales price for up to 30 percent of residential development or limit purchase to class or group of purchasers in exchange for one or more developer incentives.

This bill was the source of a lot of angst this session - with rent control advocates mentioning the need for rent control during the House Floor debate on this bill.  In the Senate rent control advocate drafted a rent control amendment (dash 5) - amendment defeated by just one vote in committee.

HB 2573 - Authorizes residential tenant to install on premises and use electric vehicle charging station for personal, noncommercial use.  Likely to be re-visited in Feb 2016.

HB 3494 - Prohibits landlord from requiring applicant or tenant to declaw or devocalize animal otherwise allowed on premises or to advertise in manner that discourages application from potential applicant with otherwise allowed animal that has not been declawed or devocalized.  Fine up to $1,000.

HB 3076A - Requires Oregon Health Authority to analyze ground water contaminant data and provide education in problem areas.  Would have increased reporting requirements for manufactured home communities operating wells.  Likely to be re-visited in Feb 2016.

HB 3081 - Directs Department of Consumer and Business Services to adopt by rule standards to address conflicts of interest of manufactured structure dealers that are also residential landlords.

HB 3129 - Authorizes tenant to whom real estate has been leased by landlord to install and use electric vehicle charging station for personal, noncommercial use.

SB 592 - Repeals law that prevents local governments from imposing conditions on approved permits that effectively establish sales price for residential development or limit purchase to class or group of purchasers. 

This bill became the vehicle for a proposed Legislative Work Group on Manufactured Housing.  This amendment was defeated in committee by one vote. 

Q: What happens after I give them the financial information?

A: The tenants committee must (1) form a corporate entity that is legally capable of purchasing property or associate with a nonprofit corporation or housing authority that is legally capable of purchasing real property or that is advising the tenants about purchasing the park in which the tenants reside; and (2) submit a written offer to purchase the park, in the form of a proposed purchase and sale agreement, and either a copy of the articles of incorporation of the newly formed entity .

Just imagine, roaming the Western United States in your RV, not a care in the world, cheap living, and finally, settling in a MHP in Beautiful Oregon! A dream come true for a lot of senior citizens. Filling vacant spaces can be the most important improvement made to any Mobile Home Park and because there is a growing trend for people, especially seniors, to live in RV's full time, park owners are filling spaces with "Permanent RV" tenants. This certainly will fill spaces quickly and with minimal cost to the park. Additionally, living in an RV is one of the most affordable ways to live and many of the RV's are larger than a studio apartment. Apparently, the new trend in apartment building is studio apartments with as little as 200 square feet! Therefore, filling spaces with "Permanent RV's" seems to be a win-win situation, but there are some long term fallbacks that should be considered.

Question. Our park has Ash trees on most of the spaces, planted by the owners when the spaces were first occupied. Most of the trees are between thirty and forty years old.

We routinely maintain the above-ground parts of the trees. We prune and repair the trees as needed, and occasionally remove trees when necessary. In some cases the roots have damaged walkways or street curbs, creating potential trip hazards. When that happens we hire contractors to remove the damaged concrete and the intruding roots, and replace the concrete. The park absorbs these costs.

My question has to do with other types of root damage. We recently repaired damaged walkways and curbs at several spaces. In addition to the damage we repaired, two residents complained of additional damage.

In one case it appears that a root was lifting a pier block under the deck, causing the deck to rise at one corner. I had the contractor cut the root while they were repairing the walkway, which should stop the root from growing, and the deck from lifting. The resident has now demanded that I remove the root and re-level the deck. This looks like a pretty big job that could easily snowball.

In another case the homeowner has noticed that the floor of the home is out of level. It appears that a root is lifting one or more of the supports under the home. I expect her to ask me to pay for getting the home re-leveled.

As the park owner, what is my responsibility for damage such as this to the manufactured home structure caused by tree roots? These trees are all greater than 8 inches DBH. It seems to me that if root intrusion issues are brought into the mix, any tree over 8 inches DBH would automatically be a hazard tree. Is that really how we should be interpreting the law?

In early June, following my article titled "Home Fire in the Community" (Phil Querin Q&A: Home Burns Down in Community - What next? - Published June 4, 2015) I received an email from John Van Landingham with a 'gentle reminder' that "...you might want to add that, if a governmental agency posts the burned-out home as constituting a health hazard, the abandoned property timelines can be shortened. ORS 90.675 (21)." John was -- as usual -- absolutely correct. John and I were both involved in the creation of the abandonment law fifteen years ago (has it really been that long?), so I have no excuse in forgetting this important provision. Mea Culpa! Below is an amplification of my earlier post.