Question: A landlord served a resident a 30 day notice (MHCO Form 43) for driving their motorcycle through the park and creating a lot of noise that disturbed the other residents. The landlord served the resident (who was driving the motorcycle) with a 30 notice for violation of the rules. Now that same resident is driving even louder through the park to spite the landlord. What can the landlord do? Can he evict sooner, since the same violation has occurred before the 30 notice expired? How do you handle a violation within this 30 day period? I understand that after 30 days you can give a 20 day notice (MHCO Form 44) that is non curable if substantially the same violation occurs again within 6 months.
Question: A landlord served a resident a 30 day notice (MHCO Form 43) for driving their motorcycle through the park and creating a lot of noise that disturbed the other residents. The landlord served the resident (who was driving the motorcycle) with a 30 notice for violation of the rules. Now that same resident is driving even louder through the park to spite the landlord. What can the landlord do? Can he evict sooner, since the same violation has occurred before the 30 notice expired? How do you handle a violation within this 30 day period? I understand that after 30 days you can give a 20 day notice (MHCO Form 44) that is non curable if substantially the same violation occurs again within 6 months.
Question No. 1. Our community recently had a rule that permitted street parking from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM). The rule was changed and now prohibits any street parking at any time. The reason for the new rule was due to the narrowness of the streets which prevented emergency vehicles clear access. The rule change passed with no objections. Since the adoption of the new rule we have had a handful of residents and their guests who refuse to follow the new policy and a few residents who have hinted that they need a reasonable accommodation.
The first reasonable accommodation request is from a resident who says it "inconvenient" for herself and her caretaker(s) to shuffle cars in the driveway. The driveway accommodates two vehicles. The resident has one car and the caretakers and they must park end-to-end. Since the caretakers alternate shifts, there are only two vehicles in the driveway at the same time.
One caretakers seems to abide by the rules but the other will not. The caretaker who refuses to follow the rule says she is handicapped and has a handicap parking permit. She says we must allow her to park on the street. Are we required to provide on-street parking spot for a nonresident, handicapped or not? If there are two spots available in the resident's driveway can they refuse to park in the driveway just because they don't want to move vehicles and say that's a reasonable accommodation?
Question No. 2. The other potential request for an accommodation is from a resident who only has room for one vehicle in her driveway because she installed a handicap ramp that took away her second parking spot. The resident parks in the driveway and the caretaker parks on the street in front of the house because it is more "convenient" than using the guest parking which is a little walk away.
If this resident requests a reasonable accommodation for her caretaker or herself to park on the street do we have to designate another street parking spot?
It seems like both these requests are for the benefit of the caretakers not the residents. Do we have to accommodate the non-resident caretakers, handicapped or not, because it's requested?
Question No. 1. Our community recently had a rule that permitted street parking from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM). The rule was changed and now prohibits any street parking at any time. The reason for the new rule was due to the narrowness of the streets which prevented emergency vehicles clear access. The rule change passed with no objections. Since the adoption of the new rule we have had a handful of residents and their guests who refuse to follow the new policy and a few residents who have hinted that they need a reasonable accommodation.
The first reasonable accommodation request is from a resident who says it "inconvenient" for herself and her caretaker(s) to shuffle cars in the driveway. The driveway accommodates two vehicles. The resident has one car and the caretakers and they must park end-to-end. Since the caretakers alternate shifts, there are only two vehicles in the driveway at the same time.
One caretakers seems to abide by the rules but the other will not. The caretaker who refuses to follow the rule says she is handicapped and has a handicap parking permit. She says we must allow her to park on the street. Are we required to provide on-street parking spot for a nonresident, handicapped or not? If there are two spots available in the resident's driveway can they refuse to park in the driveway just because they don't want to move vehicles and say that's a reasonable accommodation?
Question No. 2. The other potential request for an accommodation is from a resident who only has room for one vehicle in her driveway because she installed a handicap ramp that took away her second parking spot. The resident parks in the driveway and the caretaker parks on the street in front of the house because it is more "convenient" than using the guest parking which is a little walk away.
If this resident requests a reasonable accommodation for her caretaker or herself to park on the street do we have to designate another street parking spot?
It seems like both these requests are for the benefit of the caretakers not the residents. Do we have to accommodate the non-resident caretakers, handicapped or not, because it's requested?
Today the Oregon Legislature convened for a 'short' legislative session - lasting 35 days until the first week in March.
Legislators have strict limits on the amount of bills they can introduce this year (2 in the House and 1 in the Senate), so we don't expect a lot of proposed hostile legislation. What this means though, is that the bills that are introduced have less competition for attention and have fewer hurdles to passage.
For the first time in over five years the legislature has not submitted a rent control bill and the number of hostile landlord/rental property bills is minimal. The war on landlords seems to have taken a pause. The political reality is that the same political dynamics are in place that existed at the end of the full legislative session in July 2017. Depending on the outcome of the primary elections in May 2018 and the general election in November 2018 we could and most likely will face a significant rent control fight in 2019 and a pile of anti landlord legislation.
There are two bills that MHCO is watching during this short legislative session:
HB 4006: Requires Housing and Community Services Department to annually provide to each city and county data showing percentage of individuals resident in city or county who are severely rent burdened. Requires city or county in which at least 25 percent of population is severely rent burdened to hold public meeting to discuss issue and submit plan to department to reduce rent burdens for severely rent burdened individuals in city or county.
Observation: MHCO Opposes. The legislature has for a long time wanted better data on rent. As many of you know MHCO has been collecting rent data on a voluntary basis from MHCO members for a number of years. This data was very helpful in defeating rent control proposals in the 2017 Legislative Session. We have attempted to broaden that database to include non-members with little success. MHCO's concern has always been that the legislature will bend whatever data they collect to justify rent control. As we have stated in testimony before the Oregon House Committee Housing in March 2017 - if the data shows there is little problem with rent and rent increases you (the Oregon Legislature) will say "see no problem if we do rent control because most properties are under the rent increase limits"; if the data shows there is a problem then the legislature will say "ha - this proves there is a problem". MHCO opposes the state accumulating this information which will be used to justify whatever course of action the legislature chooses." The state collection of rent data adds yet another paperwork drill to an already over regulated industry.
HB 4085: Requires court to award attorney fees
Criminal background checks - always a popular issue. Of course you can use them to screen prospective applicants, right? You may be surprised.
The use of criminal background checks in the residential housing rental and lease application process has recently become a hot button issue. Back on April 4, 2016, the U.S. Department of Housing And Urban Development's ("HUD") General Counsel issued a 10-page memorandum on "Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real Estate-Related Transactions" ("Guidance").
Criminal background checks - always a popular issue. Of course you can use them to screen prospective applicants, right? You may be surprised.
The use of criminal background checks in the residential housing rental and lease application process has recently become a hot button issue. Back on April 4, 2016, the U.S. Department of Housing And Urban Development's ("HUD") General Counsel issued a 10-page memorandum on "Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real Estate-Related Transactions" ("Guidance").