Search

Spurred by the death of George Floyd, protests across the country have rekindled attention on the Black Lives Matter movement and racial inequities involving policing practices and the criminal justice system. Against the backdrop of the coronavirus crisis, the movement has also drawn attention to broader issues of systemic racism in healthcare, employment, and housing.

The fight against racial discrimination and segregation was one of the main reasons that the federal Fair Housing Act was passed more than 50 years ago. When the landmark legislation was passed in 1968, Congress declared that ensuring fair housing throughout the United States was a national policy of the “highest priority.” The goal of the new law was to replace racially segregated neighborhoods with “truly integrated and balanced living patterns.” 

In the years that have passed since then, the number of complaints of race discrimination, which once held the top spot, have steadily decreased. In the meantime, the number of disability discrimination complaints have steadily increased, now accounting for more than half of all formal fair housing complaints.  

Some see the decreasing number of race discrimination complaints as a sign of progress to achieve equal housing opportunities regardless of race. But others say the country still has far to go to eliminate racial discrimination in housing. Though it’s rare to hear reports of blatantly racist practices, fair housing advocates believe racial discrimination has simply gone underground, replaced by more subtle forms of discrimination that are more difficult to detect.

Example: A June 2020 study by a research team from Suffolk University Law School found that Greater Boston landlords and agents discriminate against Black renters and those with Section 8 housing vouchers, illegally shutting out qualified renters. 

According to researchers, the study revealed that housing providers, mostly real estate brokers, showed Black testers about half the number of apartments they showed to white testers. They told white testers that more units were available, showed them more units, offered them more incentives to rent, and made more positive comments about the units.

Overall, the study showed that Black testers faced discrimination in 71 percent of the tests (for example: not being able to make an appointment, not being offered an application, not being offered financial incentives, like a free parking space or rental discount, that were offered to white testers). When agents dealt with Black testers, the incidence of “ghosting”—cutting off communication—was much higher. White testers continued to hear back from agents 92 percent of the time. Black testers heard back only 62 percent of the time.

The testing also uncovered high levels of discrimination against people with Section 8 housing vouchers, regardless of race. Ninety percent of the testers who indicated they were using a voucher faced discriminatory behavior from a rental agent (such as cutting off communication with the tester, not offering a rental application, not setting up an appointment to visit properties).

“The COVID-19 crisis and killing of George Floyd and so many other unarmed Black people has shone a bright light on the negative effects of the structural racism that has always existed in our country. This is a problem right here in our own community,” said Law Professor William Berman, director of Suffolk Law’s testing program.

Whatever your views in this volatile political climate, it’s essential to remember that multifamily housing communities and other housing providers have a duty to comply with longstanding fair housing laws banning discrimination based on race and color.

In this lesson, we’ll review fair housing requirements and offer six rules to help you fulfill your obligation to prevent race discrimination at your community. Then you can take the Coach’s Quiz to see how much you’ve learned.

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) forbids housing discrimination because of race or color, national origin, religion, gender, disability, and familial status (having children under age 18). The law applies to rental, sales, lending, and other housing transactions.

With respect to rental housing, the FHA declares certain practices to be unlawful when based on race and color-and any other protected characteristic. Among the prohibited practices are:

• Making housing unavailable by excluding or otherwise denying housing;
• Imposing different terms, conditions, or privileges for rental, such as higher rental payments or fees, more stringent screening criteria, or different housing services;
• Making discriminatory statements, including advertising;
• Misrepresenting the availability of rental units;
• Threatening, harassing, or retaliating against anyone for exercising their rights under fair housing law.

Tip: Anyone who experiences discrimination because of race or color may pursue a fair housing claim—whether or not she’s a member of a minority group. Early court cases established that white residents may make claims of racial discrimination based on a denial of their right to associate with African Americans. Allegations of fair housing violations have been brought by interracial couples and the parents of biracial children, as well as white residents who were subjected to discrimination because of the race of their family members, friends, or guests.

SIX RULES TO FOLLOW FOR PREVENTING RACE DISCRIMINATION

Rule #1: Keep Race Out of the Leasing Process

Don’t allow race to play any part in decisions about who may live in your community. Under the FHA, it’s unlawful to deny housing or treat people differently based on their race or color. Discriminatory conduct can be overt or subtle—it’s just as unlawful to blatantly refuse to rent to African-American prospects as it is to treat them differently than whites by misrepresenting availability, quoting higher rent requirements, or applying more stringent screening criteria.

Example: In June 2020, HUD announced that it approved a $35,000 settlement resolving claims of racial discrimination at a multifamily community on Long Island, N.Y. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the employees treated white testers posing as prospective residents who were inquiring about apartments more favorably than Black testers posing as prospective residents.

A fair housing organization filed the HUD complaint after several African Americans reported that they believed they were denied the opportunity to rent apartments at the community because of their race. As a result, the organization conducted fair housing testing using white and Black testers who posed as prospective renters. According to the complaint, the organization’s investigation showed that white testers received more favorable treatment, including being told about the upcoming availability of units, while Black testers were told that there was a long waiting list and that no units were available. The owners denied the allegations but agreed to settle the complaint.

“The color of a person’s skin shouldn’t determine whether they have the opportunity to obtain a place to live,” Anna María Farías, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said. “That type of discriminatory treatment is unacceptable, and today’s settlement reaffirms HUD’s commitment to taking appropriate action when housing providers violate the law.”

Example: In March 2020, the Fair Housing Justice Center (FHJC) announced a $300,000 settlement to resolve a fair housing case against the owners, broker, and building superintendent of a 48-unit community in a predominantly white neighborhood in Brooklyn. The lawsuit, filed by the FHJC and five African-American testers, alleged that the community racially discriminated against African-American prospects in violation of federal, state, and local fair housing laws. According to the FHJC, its investigation found that African-American and white testers were treated very differently based on race. The FHJC alleged that for years, white testers were repeatedly shown available apartments at the building while no African-American testers ever saw an apartment. The defendants denied liability but agreed to the settlement.

FHJC Executive Director Fred Freiburg,  “African-American renters and home buyers continue to face persistent and pervasive racial discrimination in housing fifty-two years after the passage of the federal Fair Housing Act. Over the next few years, the FHJC will focus more of its investigative and enforcement resources on ferreting out racially discriminatory housing practices throughout the New York City region.”

Example: In December 2019, the South Suburban Housing Center (SSHC), a regional fair housing agency serving the south metropolitan Chicago area, announced that it filed a lawsuit accusing the owners and managing broker of a community in the metropolitan Chicago area of race discrimination. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendants refused to make appointments to show available apartments to African-American prospects and misrepresented the availability of housing to an African-American prospects.

According to SSHC, its fair housing investigation showed that white prospects responding to the community’s online apartment availability ads were able to call and schedule appointments, see the available apartment, and were encouraged to submit applications. When equally qualified African-American prospects responded to the online ads, SSHC said, they were not able to obtain the address of the unit, confirm or set up times to view, and in one instance were falsely told the unit was no longer available.

“Defendants’ actions in not allowing qualified African-American renters to literally get inside the door to apply for their advertised apartment, is the dramatic evidence that compelled SSHC to file this complaint,” SSHC Executive Director John Petruszak said.

Answer:  It’s easy to get confused. There is a lot to remember.  Generally all of the answers are contained in ORS 90.630[Termination by landlord; causes; notice; cure; repeated nonpayment of rent].[1]Here is a short summary:

· The landlord may terminate a rental agreement that is a month-to-month or fixed term tenancy in a manufactured housing community by giving not less than 30 days’ noticein writing before the date designated in the notice for termination if the tenant:

• Violates a law or ordinance related to the tenant’s conduct as a tenant, including but not limited to a material noncompliance with ORS 90.740[Tenant Obligations];
• Violates a rule or rental agreement provision;
• Is determined to be a predatory sex offender under ORS 181.585 to 181.587; or
• Fails to pay a (i) a late charge pursuant to ORS 90.260; (ii) A fee pursuant to ORS 90.302; or (iii) a utility or service charge pursuant to ORS 90.534or 90.536.

· The tenant may avoid termination of the tenancy by correcting the violation within the 30-day period specified in notice of violation. However, if substantially the same act or omission recurs within six months after the date of the notice, the landlord may terminate the tenancy upon at least 20 days’ written noticespecifying the violation and the date of termination of the tenancy.  In such cases, the tenant does nothave a right to correct the violation – and the notice must so state. 

· Oregon’s “three strikes” law only applies to cases in which the tenant is issued three 72-hour [or 144-hour] notices within a 12-month period.  [Caveat: All three notices must have been validly prepared and delivered or served. – PCQ]The “three strikes” law is found at ORS 90.630(8)-(10).As noted above, multiple violations of the same or similar rule within six months can result in the landlord’s issuance of a non-curable 20-day notice to the tenant.

The FHA bars unequal treatment in the application process, for example, by using different rental procedures or screening criteria—such as income standards, application requirements, application fees, credit analysis, rental approval procedures, or other requirements—because of race or other protected characteristic, according to HUD regulations.

Whatever your policy on criminal background screening, for example, be sure that you apply it consistently—without regard to race and color, or other protected characteristics. Applying it only to applicants who are members of racial or ethnic minorities, but not to white applicants, could lead to fair housing trouble.

Example: In August 2019, the owners and managers of a Tennessee community agreed to pay $42,500 to resolve allegations of race discrimination by denying the application of an African-American applicant because of his criminal record, despite contemporaneously approving the rental applications of two white people with disqualifying felony convictions. The community denied the allegations but agreed to settle the case [U.S. v. Dyersburg Apartments, LTD., Tennessee, August 2019].

Example: In June 2020, HUD announced that it reached a $200,000 settlement with a public housing authority in Alabama after a HUD compliance review identified racial discrimination in the housing authority’s rental policies, waiting lists, and transfer requests with regard to its senior residents. HUD reported that its review showed that the housing authority discriminated against elderly Black applicants who applied for housing at more desirable properties by repeatedly skipping over them on the wait list even though they were next to receive a unit. Allegedly, Black applicants were also steered to less desirable units at one of the housing authority’s racially and ethnically concentrated properties. The housing authority denied the allegations but agreed to settle the case.

Example: In May 2020, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the owners and managers of multifamily housing communities in Georgia, alleging that they violated federal fair housing law by intentionally discriminating on the basis of race against African-American applicants for housing.

The lawsuit alleged that from at least 2012 to 2018, the defendants steered African-American housing applicants who were elderly or had a disability away from a predominantly white housing complex to a predominantly African-American housing complex, which was inferior in appearance, location, and amenities to the predominantly white community. Both complexes were located in the same city in Georgia. The complaint also alleged that the defendants subjected African-American residents who are elderly or have a disability to less favorable rental terms, conditions, and privileges as compared to similarly situated white residents, and denied African-American applicants more desirable units at the predominantly white community. The complaint contains allegations of unlawful conduct, which must be proven in federal court.

“Congress enacted the Fair Housing Act in 1968 to protect Americans from the racially motivated violence and discrimination that has stained our nation’s history. More than five decades later, our nation regrettably continues to suffer the scourge of racial bias,” Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband of the Civil Rights Division said in a statement. “The Department of Justice will continue to fight to protect the rights of all Americans to rent and own their homes without regard to their race.”

DEEP DIVE:

What Is Steering?

According to HUD regulations, unlawful steering includes:

• Discouraging prospects from renting a unit because of a protected characteristic of the prospect or the people living in the community;
• Exaggerating drawbacks or failing to inform any person about desirable features of a unit or the community because of a protected characteristic;
• Telling the prospect that he wouldn’t be comfortable or compatible with existing residents of the community because of a protected characteristic; or
• Assigning applicants to a particular section of a community or floor of a building because of a protected characteristic.

Covid19, along with the social unrest this spring has taught us that emergencies can and will happen.  We need to be prepared for the matter of “when”, not “if”.  This virus and the riots have forced organizations to look inward and consider the safety and well-being of our employees and customers.   There has never been a better time to evaluate your resources, memorialize your “Lessons Learned”, and create an EAP (Emergency Action Plan). A little planning will go a long way in dealing with our current situation and will be valuable when (not if) we are presented with another emergency.  As leaders, we are expected to facilitate and execute these plans, as well as conducting a critical assessment to determine if we are ready for whatever may happen next.

Our role in residential property management requires us to have a responsible and sensible approach to keeping our staff and residents safe during critical times.  As I lay out the basics of an EAP and Disaster Plan, keep in mind that this plan is only as good as the training and accountability of each team member.  

Emergency Action Plans can be a simple written plan. EAP’s consist of:

1.   Lists of emergencies that can happen and how to approach them: fire, bomb threat, hazmat spill, earthquakes, medical emergency, flood, weather related issues (tsunami, wind, hurricane, etc.). 

2. Evacuation routes, location of fire extinguishers, location of first aid kits, wheelchairs, flashlights, and alarm systems. (should be inspected regularly) 

3. A written guide of who to call in case of an emergency including Managers, Maintenance Personnel, Regional/District Managers, and ownership. These numbers must be continually updated with employee turnover and chain of command established. 

4. Evacuation locations with a system to be used to ensure that everyone on the property is accounted for. 

5. Locations (addresses) of any disabled person who will need evacuation assistance.

6. Maps and locations of utility shut offs along with “how to” and the location of any special tools that may be necessary. (perhaps stored with the EAP)

EAP’s should be distributed to each employee as well as located in offices and workshops.  Each employee should receive training on the EAP during new hire orientation and sign that they have received the information. 

Disaster Plans:

This is a comprehensive plan intended to provide preplanned response to those unexpected or disastrous events such as:

Hurricane, Earthquake, Flooding, Terrorist Attacks, Active Shooter, Civil Unrest

Disaster Plans are prepared by the company with input from security companies, insurance providers, and risk management. This plan will focus on the immediate short-term needs of employees, residents, and the public. Maintaining communication, access, identifying the injured, and providing medical attention are key components to this chapter of the plan. Consideration should be made for long-term needs, food, shelter, and transportation.  Additional emphasis will be on the protection of the property and environment as well as the restoration of business to normal. 

It is necessary to evaluate potential hazards and assess potential harm to 1.) people 2.) environment, and 3.) property.

Identify the resources you will need for:

People- food, clothing, shelter, sanitation (water and toilets)

Property- protection from fire, flood, and further damage

Environment- identify controls needed to protect from further damage or release

Include instruction on how to establish your chain of command, establish your communication systems, implement medical services, and shutting down existing systems. Complete instructions on how to evacuate, locate auxiliary power, implement support systems, and how to perform post responsive activities (turning systems/utilities back on)

The most important component to any EAP or Disaster Plan is that you must train your employees and management team if you want a smooth disaster response.  Conducting drills will prevent panic and confusion during disasters and employees will know and understand their roles. 

If you feel like you have been ambushed by the events of 2020, you are not alone.  No EAP could have prepared us for the confusion and anxiety that we have experienced this year. We are all facing extraordinary circumstances where real world solutions are necessary in a workspace facilitated by Zoom.  Each of us has had to pivot our personal and professional plans, goals, objectives, and not to mention our budgets (do not get me started on rent deferrals!). As leaders, our teams are looking to us to respond and react appropriately with empathy and compassion. And we need to do this while taking care of ourselves and our own families.

I found a great reference by Navy SEAL leadership expert LT. Janson Redman.  He writes about how to thrive under a “life ambush”, anything that leaves physical, mental, emotional, or even financial scars.  It can be the loss of a job, divorce, illness, or even a pandemic. LT. Redman says it is time to REACT!

R         Recognize your reality.

E          Evaluate your assets and position.

A         Assess your options and outcomes

C          Choose a direction and communicate it

T          Take action

I, for one, am trying to take this approach with each new obstacle that comes my way this year.  Adapting to change is imperative and long-term thinking is vital if you are going to survive the short-term challenges.  Executing and implementing an EAP and a Disaster Plan is a great first step in REACTing.

The vast majority of fair housing cases are for intentional discrimination (or what’s known as “disparate treatment”—that is, purposely treating people differently because of their race, color, or other protected characteristics. But you could face a fair housing claim even when there’s no intent to discriminate: In what’s known as “disparate impact” claims, communities may be held liable for policies or practices that appear to be neutral, but have an unjustified discriminatory effect on minorities or others protected under fair housing law.

Example: In November 2019, the owners and operators of a 900-unit New York apartment complex agreed to pay $1.1 million to settle a race discrimination case alleging that the community enforced a policy prohibiting anyone with a criminal record from living there. The complaint alleged that the policy unlawfully discriminated because it disproportionately barred African Americans and Latinos from housing without considering each potential resident’s individual history and circumstances. The community denied the allegations but agreed to settle the case.

Example: In August 2019, a Virginia community agreed to settle allegations that its criminal background screening policy discriminated against people on the basis of race. The complaint was based on the results of a fair housing testing conducted by advocacy groups to assess the barriers individuals with criminal histories face when seeking housing. Allegedly, the testing showed that testers posing as prospects were told that their applications would be automatically rejected because of their felony convictions. The community denied the allegations but agreed to the settlementrequiring payment of damages and attorney’s fees.

DEEP DIVE:

HUD Guidance on Criminal Background Checks

In 2016, HUD issued guidance on how federal fair housing law applies to the use of criminal records in both conventional and government-assisted housing communities. HUD cited statistics showing that African Americans and Hispanics are arrested, convicted, and incarcerated at disproportionately higher rates than whites with respect to their share of the general population. The guidelines don’t prevent communities from screening applicants based on their criminal history, but you could face a fair housing complaint if your criminal screening policy, without justification, has a disparate impact—or discriminatory effect—on minority applicants.

If you haven’t updated your policy for a while, there are some steps you should take ASAP to reduce the risk of fair housing trouble. If, for example, your policy still considers arrest records in criminal background screenings, you should make some changes immediately. HUD’s new guidelines flatly say that excluding someone based on arrest records is likely to have a discriminatory effect based on race and national origin.

Check whether your policy still lists “all felonies” or long-ago felonies as reasons not to rent to someone. If so, you may be headed for trouble because the guidelines call into question the lawfulness of excluding people based on criminal convictions without considering what the conviction was for or how long ago it occurred.

Taking it a step further, check whether your policy allows applicants to explain the background of a felony conviction. The HUD guidelines say that communities should offer applicants with criminal records an opportunity to explain the circumstances and what’s happened since then—something akin to the “interactive” process for disability-related reasonable accommodation requests.

Fair housing law bans not only sexual harassment, but also harassment based on race or color, and other protected characteristics. As a general rule, community owners may be liable for illegal harassment by managers or employees, when they knew or should have known about it but failed to do enough to stop it. Moreover, the FHA makes it unlawful to intimidate, threaten, or interfere with anyone exercising his fair housing rights.

Take all necessary steps to prevent—and address—discrimination or harassment at the community. You don’t have only your employees or staff members to worry about—you could face liability for tenant-on-tenant harassment under certain circumstances. Under HUD regulations, communities may be liable under the FHA for failing to take prompt action to correct and end a discriminatory housing practice by a third party, where the community knew or should have known of the discriminatory conduct and had the power to correct it. The power to take prompt action to correct and end a discriminatory housing practice by a third party depends upon the extent of your control or any other legal responsibility you may have with respect to the third party’s conduct.

Example: In November 2019, HUD announced that it reached a $80,000 settlement to resolve allegations that the owners and manager of a Georgia community ignored complaints by African-American residents of repeated racial harassment by white neighbors.

Three African-American residents filed the HUD complaint, alleging that the community refused to investigate and address their claims that their white neighbors subjected them to racial harassment and verbal and physical assaults, including attacks by dogs. The community denied the allegations but agreed to the settlement requiring payment of $20,000 to each of the three residents and to create a $20,000 fund to compensate other residents who may have been subjected to racial harassment.

“No one should ever have to face threats or be subjected to physical violence in the place they call home because of their race,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. “The agreement we’re announcing today is a reminder to housing providers everywhere that HUD is committed to ensuring that they meet their obligation to comply with the nation’s fair housing laws.”

UPDATE:

Tenant-on-Tenant Harassment

In the January 2020 lesson, Fair Housing Coach highlighted an appeals court ruling that a New York community could face liability under the FHA for failure to stop an alleged campaign of racial harassment against an African-American resident by his neighbor. In recent action, the appeals court agreed to a rehearing in the case; oral arguments are scheduled for September 2020.

In his complaint, the resident alleged that his next-door neighbor engaged in a months-long campaign of racial harassment, abuse, and threats against him. According to the resident, he contacted police and notified management about the neighbor’s abuse at least three times, but management failed to intervene. Ultimately, the neighbor was arrested and pleaded guilty to aggravated harassment.

The resident sued, accusing the community of violating fair housing law by failing to take action to address a racially hostile housing environment created by his neighbor. A district court ruled against the resident and dismissed the case.

After a series of proceedings, a panel of the appeals court reversed, ruling that the resident could pursue his claims against the community for intentional discrimination under the FHA by failing to do anything to stop the neighbor from subjecting him to a racially hostile housing environment [Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., New York, December 2019].

The resident owned a single-family home in a community governed by a homeowners association (HOA). Under the community’s rules, any construction to community properties, such as installation of a fence, must be preapproved by the HOA.

The resident’s property line backed up to the shore of a lake. His backyard was split in half by a jogging path. With the HOA’s approval, the resident fenced off the front half of his backyard, next to his house. At that time, the jogging path and unfenced area of his yard by the lake were used only by other community residents. In recent years, however, he said that the general public began using the path and the unfenced portion of his yard to sit, nap, picnic, fish, feed birds, exercise, and relieve their dogs.

In 2019, the resident asked the HOA for permission to install a new three-sided fence around the back portion of his yard between the path and the lake. The HOA denied the request, and the resident sued the HOA; the case was still pending in state court.

In the meantime, the resident was diagnosed with cancer and began chemotherapy treatments, causing his immune system to become compromised. According to the resident, his doctor told him that direct sunlight was therapeutic to his physical and psychological recovery from cancer, but only the unfenced portion of his yard next to the lake got direct sunlight.

In April 2020, the resident asked the HOA for a reasonable accommodation to allow him to install the second fence due to his disability of having an impaired immune system. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the resident said his doctor now believed that it was too risky for him, due to his compromised immune system and his susceptibility to the virus, to be around people who were not part of his household. For this reason, the resident said that he and the doctor agreed that it wasn’t safe for him to use the unfenced portion of his yard. The HOA denied his request.

The resident sued, claiming that the HOA violated fair housing law by denying his reasonable accommodation request. He asked for an emergency court order allowing him to install the fence.

The court denied his request. Because the resident failed to show that he had a disability, the court said that he was unlikely to win at trial on his disability discrimination claim, so he wasn’t entitled to the emergency order to allow him to install the second fence.

Under fair housing law, an individual has a disability if he has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity. The resident claimed that he suffered from a physical impairment due to his compromised immune system, which limited his major life activity of being “in close proximity to persons unknown to him.” But the resident couldn’t point to any cases—and the court found none—supporting his claim that staying away from strangers was a major life activity. Instead, the court said that this activity was outside the range of major life activities—those central to daily life such as walking, seeing, and breathing [Eastwood v. Willow Bend Lake Homeowners Association, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108389, June 2020].

Answer:  In pre-COVID times, my first inquiry would be whether the tenant has been in the park for less than one year. If so, a 30-day no-cause eviction notice would be the best option, except that no-cause notices cannot be issued until October 1, 2020(as per the eviction moratorium imposed by Oregon House Bill 4213).  If the tenant is within the first year of his tenancy, and he is still in the park on October 1^st, you could consider this option then.

For now, you might be able to issue a 24-hour eviction notice IF any of the tenant’s actions were “outrageous in the extreme.”  By statute, this means that the tenant committed an act(s) in the park or in the immediate vicinity of the park that a reasonable person in the community would consider to be so offensive as to warrant termination of the tenancy within 24 hours, considering the seriousness of the act or the risk to others.

Since you mention that children were verbally abused, and that the tenant violated a restraining order related to that verbal abuse, there might be grounds for a 24-hour eviction notice. However, be aware that because this is an extreme eviction remedy, judges will require some kind of action that essentially “shocks the conscience.”  Swearing at children as they ride their bikes past his space would not meet this test, but cornering children in the park’s playground to berate them might.  You should consult an attorney with the actual facts before issuing a 24-hour eviction notice.

The remaining and most likely option is a 30/14-day, for-cause eviction notice.  This type of notice can be issued for material violations of the rental agreement or ORS 90.325.  Both the tenant’s rental agreement (MHCO Form 80) and ORS 90.325 (1)(g) require tenants to behave in a manner that will not disturb the peaceful enjoyment of the premises by neighbors.

The 30/14-day notice would describe the tenant’s violations (i.e. “yelling and swearing at children as they ride their bikes in the park”), followed by describing how the tenant must correct the violations (i.e., “do not yell and swear at children in the park or otherwise disturb their peaceful enjoyment of the premises”).  If the tenant corrects his violations within 14 days (plus three days added for mailing the notice), then the tenancy continues.  If not, then the tenancy terminates at the end of the 30-day notice period and you could file an eviction case in court.  If he corrects the violations, but then substantially engages in the same conduct again within 6 months from the date of the notice, you could evict him with a 10-day eviction notice that he would not have the opportunity to correct.

Since there are several possible eviction options depending on the exact facts, you should consult an attorney for advice on the best option to pursue.

Answer: As to whether you or the resident is responsible for the condition of the ground upon which the home sits, it depends on whether the infestation existed at the time of commencement of the tenancy. If “yes,” the it’s your responsibility to abate; if “no” then it’s the tenant’s responsibility.  Here is a summary of the applicable statute.  I have highlighted that portion of the law which applies to your issue:

ORS 90.730 [Landlord duty to maintain rented space, vacant spaces and common areas in habitable condition.] provides in relevant part:

• A landlord who rents a space for a manufactured dwelling shall at all times during the tenancy maintain the rented space, vacant spaces in the facility and the facility common areas in a habitable condition.
• The landlord does not have a duty to maintain a dwelling or home.
• A landlord’s habitability duty includes only the following:
  • A sewage disposal system and a connection to the space approved under applicable law at the time of installation and maintained in good working order to the extent that the sewage disposal system can be controlled by the landlord;
  • If required by applicable law, a drainage system reasonably capable of disposing of storm water, ground water and subsurface water, approved under applicable law at the time of installation and maintained in good working order;
  • A water supply and a connection to the space approved under applicable law at the time of installation and maintained so as to provide safe drinking water and to be in good working order to the extent that the water supply system can be controlled by the landlord;
  • An electrical supply and a connection to the space approved under applicable law at the time of installation and maintained in good working order to the extent that the electrical supply system can be controlled by the landlord;
  • At the time of commencement of the rental agreement, buildings, grounds and appurtenances that are kept in every part safe for normal and reasonably foreseeable uses, clean, sanitary and free from all accumulations of debris, filth, rubbish, garbage, rodents and vermin;
  • Except as otherwise provided by local ordinance or by written agreement between the landlord and the tenant, an adequate number of appropriate receptacles for garbage and rubbish in clean condition and good repair at the time of commencement of the rental agreement, and for which the landlord shall provide and maintain appropriate serviceable receptacles thereafter and arrange for their removal; and
  • Completion of any landlord-provided space improvements, including but not limited to installation of carports, garages, driveways and sidewalks, approved under applicable law at the time of installation.
•  A rented space is considered unhabitable if the landlord does not maintain a hazard tree as required by ORS 90.727. 
• A vacant space in a facility is considered unhabitable if the space substantially lacks safety from the hazards of fire or injury.
• A facility common area is considered unhabitable if it substantially lacks:
  •  Buildings, grounds and appurtenances that are kept in every part safe for normal and reasonably foreseeable uses, clean, sanitary and free from all accumulations of debris, filth, rubbish, garbage, rodents and vermin;
  • Safety from the hazards of fire;
  • Trees, shrubbery and grass maintained in a safe manner; and 
  • If supplied or required to be supplied by the landlord to a common area, a water supply system, sewage disposal system or system for disposing of storm water, ground water and subsurface water approved under applicable law at the time of installation and maintained in good working order to the extent that the system can be controlled by the landlord.
•  Note that the landlord and tenant may agree in writing that the tenant is to perform specified repairs, maintenance tasks and minor remodeling only if:
  • The agreement of the parties is entered into in good faith and not for the purpose of evading the obligations of the landlord;
  • The agreement does not diminish the obligations of the landlord to other tenants on the premises; and 
  • The terms and conditions of the agreement are clearly and fairly disclosed and adequate consideration for the agreement is specifically stated.[1]

The term “vermin” is defined as:  “Small insects and animals (such as fleas or mice) that are sometimes harmful to plants or other animals and that are difficult to get rid of.” [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vermin] That’s a pretty broad definition, and I’m going to assume that “vermin” include ants.  So the question is, was this condition one that existed at the commencement of the tenancy?  If the resident had been at the space for years and never complained until now, I suspect they [or their exterminator] would have a tough time establishing when the problem first occurred.  As you know, pests come and go; they could be seasonal, weather related, food related, hygiene related, etc.

Chances are that if one resident has ants, others may as well.  Had the resident come to you beforehiring the exterminator, I would have suggested that you find out how widespread the problem was, and if it was prevalent throughout the community [or a specific area within the community]perhaps work out some cost-sharing arrangement along with a periodic maintenance schedule to eradicate the problem. That was not done here.   

However, good community relations suggests that you find out the breadth of the problem, and if it affects several residents, discuss a solution with all of them that works for your pocketbook, and the residents’ budget. Whether you pay for the exterminator for one resident, might set a bad precedent, since it could encourage others to do the same.  That’s why you want to find out the scope of the problem.