Question: I have made an ongoing accommodation to a tenant that he can pay his rent on the 11th of the month. Because of a pension from the employer he retired from, funds are deposited to his bank on the 10th of every month. Earlier this month, we accepted his personal check and that check bounced. That is the 3rd time in the past 13 months that his rent checks have been returned to me. This tenant is otherwise a good resident, but the frustration has brought me to ask the following questions:

• Have I created a problem for myself by agreeing to rent being due on the 11th of the month instead of the 1st of the month?
• Is there an MHCO form that can address this problem?
• Can I charge this tenant a late fee for bounced checks along with the NSF fee (This is not addressed in my park rules and regulations but is addressed in the MHCO rental agreement 5A)?
• Can I insist that this tenant pay his monthly rent by Certified Check or Money Order?

On September 26, 2018, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) introduced S. 3503, the American Housing and Economic Mobility Act, which seeks to help bring down costs for renters and buyers and level the playing field so working families everywhere can find a decent place to live at a decent price."" The bill would invest $445 billion in several existing programs including the National Housing Trust Fund

The objective of most mobile home and recreational vehicle park owners is to earn money. However, certain things, when not done diligently, can cost park owners and operators money. Title issues may not seem like a "sexy" issue or concern, but title problems can impact park operations. While parks are not in the business of "monitoring" title, there are at least three scenarios as outlined below that can impede the park's business if neglected. First, it is important to follow through on the transferring of title of a mobile home sold by a resident or third party to the mobile home park or vice versa. Similarly, the park needs to ensure that title is properly perfected in any sales within the park from an existing resident to a new resident. Finally, with respect to recreational vehicles specifically, it can be actual to obtain title paperwork before allowing such a recreational vehicle to remain in the park for an extended period of time.

Question: What can the landlord do when water is obviously leaking from one of the resident's homes? And what if the leak is less obvious, e.g. from under the home?

Over the years many MHCO members have asked for a generic set of rules and regulations.  Attached is a copy of a generic set for your review.  Please be advised that any changes to  existing rules will require following a process outlined in statute (ORS 90.610) for residents currently living in your community.  MHCO has developed FORM 60 to use when changing your rules and regulations.  Your community rules are for you to develop and implement.  Hopefully this set of generic rules and regulations will give you some ideas for where your rules fall short.  Remember - all rules and regulations need to be implemented consistently and thoroughly.

By:  The Oregonian Editorial Board

Printed 9-16-18

Portland's elected officials are doing their part to promote the $652.8 million regional housing bond going to voters this November. They have contributed to  the campaign, offered their heartfelt support in public meetings and signed on as official endorsers for the bond.

But if they really want to help get and keep families housed, they should focus on how their own policies stand in the way. Because regardless of the bond's success or failure, the duration and severity of this housing crisis hinge on whether leaders encourage the market as a whole to add more housing or quash it.

Unfortunately, a sweeping proposal being developed by Portland City Commissioner Chloe Eudaly falls squarely in the latter category.

Eudaly announced months ago that her office was looking at the process with which landlords screen potential tenants. The intent, policy director Jamey Duhamel told The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board, is to ensure fair rental practices while helping needy renters, whose monthly income, criminal background, or credit history would typically turn off potential landlords.

The motivation seems understandable. The method, however, leaves much to be desired. Eudaly's eight-page proposal as currently drafted is heavy-handed, overly complicated and forces so much financial and legal risk onto landlords that many may opt to leave the rental business altogether. And the bigger question remains: How do these policies make housing any more affordable?

Among the many concerns in the latest version released: landlords aren't allowed to require that applicants show a monthly income of more than twice the monthly rent, even though three times monthly rent is more typical as assurance that a tenant can afford the payments. 

Landlords must go through an extensive and confusing matrix of questions in evaluating whether an applicant's criminal history merits a denial. And landlords must issue a written explanation to tenants who are denied after being vetted. The "notice of denial" must detail the reasons for turning down the applicant and establish that they are "highly and substantially more probably to be true than not that the applicant as a tenant will adversely affect the substantial, legitimate, non-discriminatory interest of the landlord."

It's not just a daunting set of poorly-written requirements. It's also an invitation to rejected applicants to sue.

Duhamel said Eudaly's office is focusing on how to "fine-tune" the proposal, which is tentatively scheduled to go before the City Council next month, to ease the administrative burden. But the flaws in the policy aren't going to be fixed by fine-tuning. The problems are baked into the fundamental assumptions underlying the policy.

For example, the screening proposal seems to assert that the city - not landlords - should get to decide how much financial risk landlords should bear. Citizens have not and should not hand over that kind of authority to city commissioners who believe their policy choices trump an individual's financial autonomy.

It also fails to consider that there are many landlords and affordable-housing groups that already accept tenants with criminal histories or credit problems. They do so not by following a rigid list of criteria but after considering the mix of tenants or other location-specific issues that make a tenant more suitable in one building than another.

And it neglects to address the underlying reason that people are struggling to find affordable places to live - a lack of housing on every income level caused by years of underbuilding. Instead, such onerous mandates on landlords - with limited ways to protect against the risk - could prompt some to drastically raise rent when units become vacant or take the property out of the rental market entirely.

Duhamel said that, in her opinion, only a handful of landlords would likely get out of the business altogether, dismissing "what if" concerns as "fearmongering." But she acknowledges the city has no data on how a previous policy - mandatory relocation assistance to tenants whose leases are not renewed - may have affected the rental market.

Others, who admittedly represent the landlord viewpoint, say it has definitely led to the loss of many rentals. Since the beginning of the year, 30 landlords who used the Garcia Group property management firm decided to sell their properties, owner Ron Garcia told The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board. That's a tenth of the ownership portfolio, he said, and many of the properties were condos or single-family homes that likely went to buyers seeking to occupy, rather than rent, the property.

The region's housing crisis is real with thousands of homeless people living on the street and many more on the brink as wages don't keep pace with rent. But landlords' screening policies aren't the reason Portland is in a housing crisis. Leaders should focus on the true culprit - the need for more housing at all income levels - and make sure they don't unwittingly become an accomplice.

-Helen Jung for The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board

The first key to successful park operations is perhaps self-evident: human resources. In simple terms, successful park operations depend on the people that your customers (park residents) interact with on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. Taking the time to recruit personnel who are personable and help your operations run smoothly and efficiently is time-consuming. Effective and consistent recruiting take place both internally and externally. The watchword from industry experts is to "be slow to hire and fast to fire". That means take your time in interviewing and do background checks to be sure you have the person who will both enjoy the job and do the job properly. Mistakes in hiring are costly. Training takes time and money. If you've made a mistake, admit it and quickly terminate the relationship before it gets worse.