Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

governing landlord-tenant relations. He anticipated that if the proposed standards were adopted, rents in Eugene would be increased. Mr. Suess said that all the stories he heard from the renters' coalition regarded student housing or students' private homes. He said someone had mentioned broken windows as an example of neglect, but he did not understand how a landlord could be responsible for broken windows. That sounded like a tenant problem. He said that landlords' representatives met with the representatives of the coalition and asked to be made aware of worst habitability problems, but no one followed up. Now he was confused as to whether there was a problem in Eugene or the scope of the problem. Mr. Suess questioned whether another government program was needed to oversee rental housing, pointing out that many agencies existed to address the issues that had been brought up in testimony. Building Code violations could be addressed by the Building Official, and Fire Code violations by the Fire Marshal. He had surveyed some of his Eugene tenants, who also questioned what the problem was. Mr. Suess wanted to ensure that if an ordinance was adopted, all rental properties, including apartment complexes and single-family homes, were covered. Ron Kruetz, 5447 Wales Drive, said he was a landlord and opposed standards set only for rental housing. As a contractor, he had to abide by all building codes and standards. He believed the standards under consideration were duplicative of other standards in existing law. Noting that the City's Permit and Information Center was open for only four hours a day because it had to be fee-supported and could collect no money from the General Fund, he asked how the program would be funded. He noted that Eugene had one citation for an unsafe rental unit in 2004 and two fines for habitability issues in Corvallis; he questioned whether that level of activity justified a new program. He suggested that more education about what actually was in place was needed. He was strongly opposed to the program. Paula Roberts, PO Box 1022, Eugene, said she was a long-time renter, rendered homeless once for a short period of time during a dispute with a landlord. She was opposed to the City's standards because the State standards had protected her adequately. The City standards did not supplement the State program but did supplement the City's General Fund. Its limited standards in comparison to State law would not protect tenants or provide recovery for tenants in the event of harassment from landlords, wrongful evictions, vermin infestations, appliance failures, etc. In regard to the issue of avoiding high court fees, under Oregon Revised Statute 190, when a tenant has made good faith request for repairs, that tenant may withhold rent until mediation occurred. She believed that if a tenant could pay rent, that tenant could pay a small court filing fee, and pointed out all filing fees were reimbursed from the loser of claim. She asked the council to compare existing law and Eugene's proposal before making a decision. Sonny Taylor, PO Box 1022, Eugene, said as a renter he had both good and bad experiences and resolved his rental disputes using State law. He believed the proposed housing standards would not serve those they were intended to protect. The proposed ordinance did not supplement State law, failed to offer new protections, and duplicated enforcement of a narrow set of laws already in place. Rather than make restitution to tenants, landlords would make restitution to the City. The ordinance would establish a rental tax to be paid by property owners, who would pass it on to renters in the form of excessive fees. Mr. Taylor believed that renters who attempted to use the code without aggressively pursuing action could put themselves at risk of eviction because they did not file appropriate paperwork. Those who complain about serious habitability issues without taking advantage of State law may find themselves homeless if the City declares their residence uninhabitable. Mr. Taylor criticized the lack of a defined appeals process, the fact the ordinance was largely defined by administrative rules, and the fact on-campus housing was exempt. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 6 Regular Meeting