Question: We issued a 30-60 day notice to a tenant to paint their home. Every tenant was sent a letter along with the notice requiring them to get prior approval for the paint color. This tenant did not get prior approval and painted his house a color that is too bright.

We have reached out to him several times requesting he come and discuss this with us and he has not responded. Extensions were given to August 31, 2018 for everyone who received a notice to paint, due to the extreme heat we had this summer. Some tenants have requested additional time and we have written agreements with them giving an additional 30 days until Sept 30, 2018.

We are making a final request to the uncooperative tenant to come to the office and talk with us. My question is would we be able to proceed under the 30-60 day disrepair notice, or do we start a new 30 day notice? He did paint like we asked him, but it was not a color approved by management.

Question: An existing resident who has been a good tenant in the past has currently had a life change that has resulted in multiple family members visiting daily, every week. Many of the visiting relatives appear to be associated with bad actors, e.g. drug dealers, etc., although much is hearsay. The visiting relatives are not living in the house. What steps can I take to get the unwanted guests off the property once and for all?

Question: A former resident who was a major problem while living here, voluntarily left the community and removed his home. However, he continues to visit the community and neighbors. This person has been seen on his old space (currently vacant and not in his possession) and also visiting existing tenants' spaces. Can I trespass this person from the community? If so, what grounds do I need to trespass someone?

By Gordon R. Friedman - The Oregonian/OregonLive

Published 8-20-18

The Portland City Council will soon consider an ordinance to cap what landlords can charge for security deposits and limit how they may use renters' credit and criminal conviction history to deny them tenancy.

"Screening criteria and security deposit reform" will be the subject of an upcoming council agenda item, Commissioner Chloe Eudaly wrote in an August 14 post to her Facebook page. The ordinance is scheduled for a hearing September 20, said Eudaly spokeswoman Margaux Weeke.

It is exactly the kind of move that Oregon landlords feared when they banded together to try to raise $2 million to fight those and other restrictions they say will undermine their businesses.

Policymakers in other cities have also explored regulating security deposits, citing mounting pressures on renters who struggle to save up cash for move-in fees. New York City's comptroller in July introduced a deposit-limiting measure. The Seattle City Council adopted a similar ordinance in December 2016, and landlords filed a lawsuit to challenge it.

In Portland, landlords may currently charge what they like as a security deposit, and there are few regulations over how deposits must be returned after a tenant vacates. That would change under Eudaly's ordinance. In the Facebook post, Eudaly described one an effect of the ordinance as "limit security deposit requirements."

The ordinance would also change how landlords may use information about potential tenants. Property owners typically perform criminal records and credit history checks on rental applicants. Some renter advocates have described the background checks as offering landlords a pretense for discriminating against those with criminal pasts or poor credit.

Eudaly said in her Facebook post that changing how landlords may use information about rental applicants to deny them tenancy is in part intended to "reduce barriers to housing" and "prevent discrimination."

According to a draft of the ordinance provided by Eudaly's office, she has considered establishing a system that requires landlords to approve tenants on a first-come, first-served basis, though a minimum credit score would still be allowed.

To deny applicants, landlords would be required to rank applicants on their credit history, criminal convictions and housing record and give them a chance to provide favorable information.  

The draft ordinance includes a list of crimes that are not to be judged by landlords as meaning a tenant convicted of them would likely harm the property or cause the premises to be unsafe, if the applicant was sentenced at least three years prior or released from prison one year prior. The list includes felony assault and battery, felony burglary or breaking-and-entering, stalking and misdemeanor domestic violence, dealing or manufacturing illegal drugs, and non-forcible sex offenses, among others.

In my many years as a rental housing professional, I have discovered that there are two camps with differing philosophies regarding continuing industry training. The first camp seeks out training with the belief that it is valuable and beneficial; not only for the employee, but the organization as well. The second camp believes that training is a waste of time and resources and avoids it.

Unfortunately, the second camp seems to be in the majority. While most Directors, Vice Presidents, and Regional Managers fall into the first group, they often work for a member of the second group.

Costs vs. Benefits of Training

Training costs are directly measurable. For example, sending an employee through an association sponsored training program will incur tuition costs, possible travel, and time away from their site. Let's not forget the employee's wages while attending the course. And, perhaps overtime or additional work load burdens for the other employees. Having a trainer come to your organization will also incur costs. The speaker will have a fee as well as material costs. Bringing everyone together will cost mileage dollars and refreshments. Not to mention closing the offices down for a few hours and the possibility of missing that cherished rental/sales opportunity.

There is no question that training can be expensive. But with proper planning and budgeting, the cost can be reduced. The real question to ask is "What is the cost of liability if the team is NOT receiving training?"

The benefits of training are easily measureable. For example, I have numerous clients tell me that leases increased the same afternoon as a morning leasing session, or the closing ratios improve dramatically. Customer complaints decrease after training, and employees tend to be more cautious about Fair Housing once they have proper understanding of the laws and guidelines. The right training can increase an employee's motivation and enthusiasm. Continued, regular training will increase productivity, team morale, self-confidence, sense of importance, and communication skills amongst your team. Training should be viewed as a reward for continued employee loyalty. If training is marketed correctly as an investment in the employees, your team will be excited to attend and see this as an additional benefit to them.