The 2018 Midterm Elections are over and the results are worse than expected.  

In the Oregon House Democrats pick up three seats defeating Republican Representatives Vial (Wilsonville), Parrish (West Linn) (who spoke at conference) and Helfrich (east Multnomah County and Hood River) giving the Democrats a 38 to 22 vote to control of the chamber - well over super majority and close to historic highs for party control.

In the Senate Republicans lost a southern Oregon seat held by an outgoing Republican.  Ballots are still being counted but it looks like the Democrats will control the Senate 18-12 and a super majority as well.    This is a swing of two  votes for rent control in the Senate given the loss of Senator Rod Monroe in the May 2018 Democratic Primary.  In 2017 we defeated rent control by one vote in the Senate.

 Governor Kate Brown (Democrat) won over Knute Buehler.

In Portland Jo Ann Hardesty won a seat (Position 3) on the Portland City Council.  She replaces a moderate on the Council and has very extreme views.  This will be a problem for us as over the next two years as her EXTREME views trickle down to Salem.  Her election pushes Portland even further left - as if that is even possible!

In short - a devastating night in Oregon for business and landlords.

MHCO will continue to monitor election results and legislative proposals as we move into the 2019 Oregon Legislative Session.  Make no mistake - we have lost pro landlord legislators in every election since 2010 - in essence we have cut through the fat, muscle and bone and after last night we are now on to cremation.  This election and the resulting super majority in both chambers with a Democratic Governor will have a profound impact on Oregon business and landlords. 

ORS 90.510(4) provides:

Every landlord who rents a space for a manufactured dwelling or floating home shall provide a written rental agreement, except as provided by ORS 90.710 (Causes of action)(2)(d). The agreement must be signed by the landlord and tenant and may not be unilaterally amended by one of the parties to the contract except by:

1. Mutual agreement of the parties;

1. Actions taken pursuant to ORS 90.530 (Pets in facilities), 90.533 (Conversion of billing method for garbage collection and disposal), 90.537 (Conversion of billing method for utility or service charges), 90.543 (Utility or service charge billing for large manufactured dwelling parks) (3), 90.600 (Increases in rent), 90.725 (Landlord or agent access to rented space) (3)(f) and (7) or 90.727 (Maintenance of trees in rented spaces); or

1. Those provisions required by changes in statute or ordinance. (Emphasis added.)

In a recent Oregon Court of Appeals case, the full impact of these "unilateral" amendment provisions became the subject of scrutiny that (unless appealed and overturned by the Oregon Supreme Court) should serve as a cautionary warning for park owners and managers.

By:  Dale Strom, Second Generation Oregon Community Owner and MHCO Board Member

This is the third of a multiple part series on a private owner of a Manufactured Home Community willingly attempting to sell that Community to an Association of tenants within that Community. Riverbend MHP is a 39 space community located within the city limits of Clatskanie, OR. In the first part of this series, the motivation of the owner is revealed on why he wanted to work with CASA of Oregon exclusively rather than offering this Community for sale to all interested private parties. In the second part, the owner met with the Deputy Director and the Real Estate and Cooperative Development Manager for CASA of Oregon. The framing, presentation and negotiation of the Agreement to Purchase" was discussed.

In this third part

Question: A resident died last month in our community, leaving three adult daughters. Two of the daughters have been issued "No Trespassing" notices from management because of past bad behavior. One of the daughters barred from the community is the executor of the will. The manager has changed the locks on the home. The three daughters have demanded entry to remove items and provided our manager with the will. The daughters do not get along. What can our manager do? Set specific times for them to enter and remove items? The daughters are angry at our manager and each other - accusing the manager of removing items from the home as well as blaming each other. Last night they surrounded our manager and verbally abused her. What are the manager's rights? Does she have to let them on the property? Does she need to record everything that is removed from the home? How does she handle the two daughters who have been trespassed from the community?

Ask anyone who works on a Senior Living Community how they like their job and I can almost guarantee that they will tell you they have a love-hate relationship with it. Most employees will tell you that they love working with seniors; that they are a nice group of people, and they have a bond with them that they have never experienced while working on a multi-family community. They will also tell you of the heartaches and troubles of a senior community; and this is not just the obvious complications of dealing with an aging resident population. You will hear about the vast disparity between "the new senior" and "the elderly", the trends seniors are setting, the financial issues many seniors are facing, the troubling issue of increasing mental illness in seniors, and the demands seniors are making on staff. How does all this affect not only the senior market, but how will it affect the market at large? How do we stay on top of trends, and how do we assist the employees in this highly specialized market segment?