2019.10.08 WS Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

17 imposition of unaffordable rent increases)47. Low income tenants are eligible for a relocation assistance payment of $2000,48 shared equally by the landlord and the city.49 Portland, Oregon provides that landlords must provide all tenants with 90 days notice, either of intent to evict without good cause or if the landlord seeks to increase rent by more than 5% in one year 50. In addition, as a temporary measure in response to the housing crisis, Portland enacted a requirement of the payment of relocation benefits of between $2900 and $4500 for any evictions without cause or rent increases of over 10% in a year 51. Legal Issues In some cases these measures have created questions about the extent of the cities’ legal authority to enact these policies. Several lawsuits in Oregon have helped somewhat to clarify these legal questions. Landlords challenged the 90 day delay on rent increases over 5% on the grounds that it was preempted by the state law limits on rent control. This is relevant here because Minnesota has similar limitation on local rent control measures.52 In the Oregon case, the city argued that the rent control statute bars limits on the amount of rent charged but not the notice period for rent increases. This case was mooted out, however, by a change in state law, so the issue was not decided. In another case arising out of Portland, the landlord argued that imposing relocation obligations in the case of no cause evictions or certain rent increases effectively amounted to rent control barred by state law. The Court of Appeals rejected that argument, holding that a local law is only preempted to the extent it cannot operate concurrently with state law. In this case, an owner could easily pay locally required payments and still comply with the lesser requirements of state law. The Court also rejected two other arguments of the landlord, holding that the relocation requirement did not amount to an unconstitutional impairment of contract, and that the City had the authority under its local powers to create a private right of action in state court for tenants to enforce the ordinance. 53 This last issue is particularly important for enforcement of these types of measures. A local government should have provisions to enforce any of its ordinances, of course, but there are good reasons to also empower tenants to enforce when their rights have been violated— particularly where cities enforcement is hampered or where cities are unaware of violations or where city enforcement can’t fully restore tenants’ rights and benefits. Broadly speaking, courts across the country are divided into three groups when it comes to the question of whether local governments can create private rights of action in state courts. One group of states permits this, 47 SEATTLE, WASH., MUNICIPAL CODE § 22.210.120. Section 22.210.136 prohibits rent increases for the purpose of avoiding the application of Chapter 22.210. 48 The amount of the payment increases annually. As of April 7, 2018, the amount is $3,848. CITY OF SEATTLE DEP’T OF CONSTR. & INSPECTIONS, DIRECTOR’S RULE 11-2018 (2018), http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/codes/dr/DR2018-11.pdf. 49 SEATTLE, WASH., MUNICIPAL CODE § 22.210.130. 50 PORTLAND, OR., CITY CODE & CHARTER § 30.01.085(B)-(C). 51 PORTLAND, OR., CITY CODE & CHARTER § 30.01.085(B)-(C). The temporary measure was made permanent in March 2018. Portland, OR., Ordinance 188849 (Mar. 7, 2018), https://www.portlandoregon.gov/phb/article/676253. 52 MINN. STAT. § 471.9996. 53 For a more detailed analysis of the Portland court rulings, contact www.hjcmn.org.