Short-term rental tax deals are causing cities and states to lose millions of dollars in tax revenue from “voluntary collection agreements” with short-term rental platforms such as Airbnb, according to a release.
Most short-term rental revenue is simply a diversion of lodging stays from traditional lodging sources, which generally collect and pay lodging taxes through a more transparent and documented tax collection process, according to a report, authored by Dan Bucks, former director of the Montana Revenue Department and previous executive director of the Multistate Tax Commission.
“Airbnb is frequently depicted as a boon for travelers looking for lower-cost or nontraditional accommodations, and for homeowners looking to expand their income stream. But in many local markets, the arrival and expansion of Airbnb is raising questions about its potential negative impacts on local housing costs, quality of life in residential neighborhoods, employment quality in the hospitality industry, and local governments’ ability to enforce municipal codes and collect appropriate taxes,” Josh Bivens writes in a Economic Policy Institute article.
Short-term rental tax deals cause tax losses at all levels of government
“Companies such as Airbnb regularly take credit for producing certain amounts of revenue for states and localities, with numbers that often run into millions of dollars,” Bucks said, in a release from the American Hotel and Lodging Association (AHLA).
“The problem is that they are taking credit for a revenue stream that is, at best, uncertain, illusory and unreliable. Short-term rental platforms are actually responsible for significant, unacceptable losses of revenue at all levels of government,” Bucks said.
“Airbnb and other short-term rental companies have been pressuring state and local governments into these sweetheart tax deals for years, under the guise of innovation and disruption,” said Chip Rogers, president and CEO of AHLA.
Short-term rentals taxed as residential rather than commercial like hotels
The report says that the growth in short-term rentals costs states and cities in property tax revenues. That’s because short-term rentals are primarily residential homes, which are typically taxed at a lower rate than commercial properties such as hotels.
“The amount of property tax revenue foregone or lost in these circumstances will vary, but could be substantial depending on the number of lodging rentals and the degree of differential taxation for commercial and residential properties,” Bucks said. “Given that property taxes are the largest source of revenue for state and local governments, the fiscal impact could, in some jurisdictions, rival or exceed the related lodging tax revenues.”
The report on short-term rental tax deals is the latest evidence that state and local governments should cease current voluntary tax agreements with companies such as Airbnb, according to the release. Earlier this year, Bucks called on government leaders to reject short-term rental platforms’ future pursuit of voluntary collection agreements (VCAs) and look to the U.S. Supreme Court’s South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. decision as a pathway to cancel current VCA agreements and bring Airbnb up to code with current industry tax standards and regulations.
Short-term rental companies should not be exempt from regulations
“Airbnb and other short-term rental companies have been pressuring state and local governments into these sweetheart tax deals for years, under the guise of innovation and disruption,” said Chip Rogers, president and CEO of AHLA, in the release.
“The fact is, these companies are engaging in shady business practices while asking for special treatment. They shouldn’t be exempt from existing tax laws and regulations that govern all other accommodations businesses.”
“AHLA urges state and local government leaders to terminate Airbnb’s voluntary tax deals and instead institute a tax policy that will collect taxes from Airbnb and its operators and ensure an even playing field and transparency. In San Francisco, home of Airbnb’s corporate headquarters, the company agreed to pay back taxes and collect city taxes from its hosts. AHLA urges other states and localities to follow suit,” Rogers said.
“These so-called ‘voluntary’ tax agreements are hurting our communities by skirting the tax regulations that fund our education systems, public safety needs and infrastructure improvements.
“Our government leaders across the country must hold companies like Airbnb to the same standards as all other law-abiding, tax-paying businesses in the industry,” Rogers said in the release.
People with disabilities are involved in the majority of housing discrimination complaints, so the Grace Hill training tip of the week goes back to some basics on assistance animals.
As a landlord or property manager, it is important to handle assistance animal accommodation requests properly
According to The Case for Fair Housing: 2017 Fair Housing Trends Report by the National Fair Housing Alliance, nearly 55% of all reported housing discrimination complaints in 2016 involved discrimination against people with disabilities.
This statistic is a reminder of how important it is to handle accommodation requests properly. Let’s review some of the basics.
Under the FHA and Section 504, individuals with a disability may be entitled to an assistance animal as a reasonable accommodation in housing that places restrictions on or prohibits animals.
Remember, assistance animals include service animals, companion animals, and emotional support animals. They can be dogs, cats, birds, rabbits, or other types of animals.
Examples of reasonable accommodation requests related to assistance animals
Requesting to have an assistance animal in a community or building that doesn’t allow pets
Requesting to have a 70 -pound dog in a community doesn’t allow dogs over 50 pounds
Requesting to have a pit bull in a community where pit bulls are a restricted breed
3 Criteria That Must Be Met In Regards To Assistance Animals
Always review and verify the three criteria that must be met for a person to be protected by the FHA and Section 504 in regard to assistance animals:
The person must have a disability
The animal must serve a function directly relates to the person’s disability
The request to have the animal must be reasonable.
Keep in mind that the FHA and Section 504 do not protect individuals who do not have disabilities, and they do not protect situations in which individuals train animals for use by other people.
This means, for example, that you would not be required to grant an exception to a no pet policy for a resident who does not have a disability but has a dog that keeps people company at a nearby nursing home on weekends.
Understanding these basic principles of reasonable accommodations for assistance animals under the FHA and Section 504 will help you comply with the law, and will also ensure that everyone feels welcome in your community.
Ellen Clark is the Director of Assessment at Grace Hill. Her work has spanned the entire learner lifecycle, from elementary school through professional education. She spent over 10 years working with K12 Inc.’s network of online charter schools – measuring learning, developing learning improvement plans using evidence-based strategies, and conducting learning studies. Later, at Kaplan Inc., she worked in the vocational education and job training divisions, improving online, blended and face-to-face training programs, and working directly with business leadership and trainers to improve learner outcomes and job performance. Ellen lives and works in Maryland, where she was born and raised.
About Grace Hill
For nearly two decades, Grace Hill has been developing best-in-class online training courseware and administration solely for the Property Management Industry, designed to help people, teams and companies improve performance and reduce risk.
Landlords who refused to allow a single mother with a daughter who needs an assistance cat to rent a townhome has been charged with housing discrimination, according to a release.
The woman had already signed a lease and explained to the landlords that her oldest daughter, who has mental disabilities, needed the assistance cat – which was recommended by her daughter’s therapist – to live in the townhome in Minnesota.
“For individuals with mental disabilities, assistance animals provide the support they need to perform life’s daily tasks,” said Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, in the release. She said the action “demonstrates HUD’s ongoing commitment to taking appropriate action when housing providers fail to meet their obligations to comply with the Fair Housing Act.”
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) said the case came to their attention when the mother of three minor children filed a complaint alleging that the owners of the townhouse refused to rent her the home for which she had signed a lease agreement because she asked them to permit her oldest daughter’s assistance animal to live in the home.
HUD’s charge states her “daughter’s disabilities substantially limit her daughter’s major life activities, including, but not limited to, sleeping, taking care of herself and her surroundings, focusing, and engaging in social interactions. Due to those limitations, complainant’s daughter is disabled, as defined under the Fair Housing Act.”
No pets, no exceptions
The landlords’ lease stated, “Residents are not allowed to have pets of any kind on the premises. There are no exceptions to this rule.” Elsewhere in the lease it had a provision that warned, “NO PETS ALLOWED.”
HUD’s charge alleges that the owners refused to allow the assistance animal in the home, even though the woman provided documentation from her daughter’s therapist attesting to the need for the assistance cat and how it addressed the girl’s condition.
The woman then wrote a letter to the landlords and requested a reasonable accommodation to this no-pet policy. The reasonable accommodation requested was for permission to permit her daughter to reside with her assistance animal at the property.
The letter from the therapist stated that the daughter suffered from major depressive disorder for several years and “is on http://www.papsociety.org/prednisone/ medication for this disorder. She has also regularly attended therapy and a therapy skills training group. In the group, participants are encouraged to find coping strategies that are not self-destructive and one of the coping strategies is petting and being with her cat. The cat is a companion animal that has assisted in dealing with her depression. I would be in favor of (the daughter) being allowed to have this animal in her new living environment if at all possible.”
The landlords provided a letter back saying, “We are so very sorry and sympathetic to hear of your family situation. And we understand how difficult these situations can be. We have, and have had, some very similar situations. Unfortunately, we have a strict NO-pet policy. This is clearly stated on the application. So, if we let you have a pet, then everyone else will want one. Do you see how this will go?”
The landlords denied the reasonable accommodation request.
Assistance animals are not pets
HUD has said in the past that service and assistance animals are not pets.
Concurrently with the denial of the reasonable-accommodation request, the owners terminated the lease agreement before the family could move in. HUD’s charge further alleges that the woman informed the owners of their responsibilities under the Fair Housing Act and its protections for individuals with disabilities and asked that they reconsider her request. The owners refused to do so, and the family was forced to find other housing.
The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing providers from denying or limiting housing to people with disabilities, or from refusing to make reasonable accommodations in policies or practices for people with disabilities.
This includes not allowing people with disabilities (impairments that substantially limit major life activities) to have assistance animals that perform work or tasks, or that provide disability-related emotional support. In addition, the act prohibits housing providers from retaliating against people who exercise their fair housing rights, such as filing a complaint with HUD.
Here are 5 rental maintenance tasks for you rental properties that can save you money and prevent long-term problems and more costly repairs.
By Holly Welles
As a landlord or property manager, you already have a lot on your plate. Dealing with tenants’ issues when they arise takes up a lot of time. The thought of adding more to your to-do list could certainly be daunting.
However, you should consider making rental maintenance a priority if you want to relieve yourself of some of your unpredictable house-related duties, as well as the financial strain that such incidences can cause. Here are 5 rental maintenance tasks to steer your property clear of long-term issues that will waste your time and money.
No. 1 – Rental Maintenance Task: Pest control
No tenant wants to live in a home that has become infested by cockroaches, ants, rodents or any other pest. It may sound overzealous, but you should have an exterminator come to your rental property monthly or quarterly to keep such intruders at bay. This rule applies regardless of whether there’s already a pest problem. Preventive maintenance is likely to prevent an infestation in the future.
To that end, you should make sure your pest-control plan is thorough enough to cover all the properties in your portfolio. For instance, if you own more than one unit, then you should have every property inspected and treated on a regular basis. All the effort to do this will be worth it, too — monthly maintenance checks will be less expensive than having your apartment sit empty because no one wants to live in a pest-infested space.
Pest control s one of the 5 maintenance tasks most important for your rental properties.
No. 2 – Clean the gutters
Another must-do rental maintenance task for property owners has to do with the building’s exterior. Over time, leaves and other debris can pile up in the rain gutters. These build-ups and blockages can cause rainwater to overflow and leak into the home through the roof.
Your property-maintenance checklist needs to include gutter cleanings. In most cases this is a once-a-year job, but houses that sit beneath trees with lots of debris might need more frequent emptying. To that end, you can easily get rid of gutter clutter yourself. Don a pair of gloves and manually remove any debris that’s clogging the drain. Once you’re finished, flush the gutters to make sure they’re in working order.
Of course, you don’t have to do this job yourself if you don’t have the time or energy. Plenty of companies offer this service at an affordable price. Whichever option you choose, though, make sure the gutters are cleaned at a regular clip.
No. 3 – Service the air-conditioner
On a scorching hot day, there’s nothing better than cranking up the air-conditioning. However, if something goes wrong, this important appliance could stop working. Replacing it will cost a pretty penny, too.
That’s why air-conditioning maintenance should be on your list of rental property must-dos. A regular tune-up will uncover any condensation, which can potentially cause the unit to flood and risk filling your property with water.
Dirt and debris can weaken the system and its output, and without regular cleanings and checks, an air-conditioning unit might lose some of its energy efficiency. This might cause you to spend more on utilities for your rental. Make sure you hire someone to come out for a checkup each year just before it’s time to turn the A/C on.
No. 4 Check the plumbing
Your rental property’s plumbing may not have visible problems, but clogging and leaking can have long-term, expensive consequences. A simple dripping faucet can rack up your bills over time. Meanwhile, a serious pipe blockage may require a larger-scale repair job than you’d like.
Between tenants, a thorough plumbing check and cleaning will do wonders for longevity. But many plumbing issues pop up and worsen while a unit is occupied. Keep an open line of communication with your tenant and let them know that you’re happy to fix any minor plumbing problems they come across. Otherwise, tenants may decide not to bother you with leaks or drips they perceive as hiccups.
You can also consider adding specific lease clauses to address simple maintenance tasks your tenants should carry out. For example, request that tenants flush the kitchen drain with hot water and detergent each month and clean hair from the shower drain. Putting these tasks in writing helps you and your tenant maintain a livable space.
Many plumbing issues pop up and worsen while a unit is occupied. Keep an open line of communication with your tenant and let them know that you’re happy to fix any minor plumbing problems they come across.
No. 5 – Monitor the furnace
Heating is crucial, especially for properties in cool climates. The last thing you want to deal with in the winter is a sudden, expensive breakdown. Not only will your tenants be miserable, but you’ll have to manage the costs and scheduling for an emergency repair.
While it’s pricier than ignoring the problem, getting your furnace serviced or your oil tank lines cleaned each year can prevent such emergencies from taking place. Plus, these checkups will extend the life of your furnace by years, letting you put off a costly replacement for much longer.
5 rental maintenance tasks for long-term success
Landlords and property managers have lots to do already, but routine maintenance should go on the list, too. These five tasks will keep your place in great shape for longer.
In turn, this will save you money and time, since you won’t have to worry about repairs and replacements as often — and you can thank regular maintenance for that.
Salt Lake City rents have increased for the third straight month and have increased 0.7% over the past month, and have increased slightly by 1.7% in comparison to the same time last year, according to a report from Apartment List for June.
Currently, median rents in Salt Lake City stand at $880 for a one-bedroom apartment and $1,090 for a two-bedroom.
This is the third straight month that the city has seen rent increases after a decline in March. Salt Lake City’s year-over-year rent growth leads the state average of 1.5%, as well as the national average of 1.6%.
Salt Lake City rents more affordable than many large cities nationwide
As rents have increased slightly in Salt Lake, a few large cities nationwide have also seen rents grow modestly. Salt Lake City is still more affordable than most large cities across the country.
Salt Lake City’s median two-bedroom rent of $1,090 is below the national average of $1,190. Nationwide, rents have grown by 1.6% over the past year compared to the 1.7% increase in Salt Lake.
While Salt Lake rents rose slightly over the past year, many cities nationwide also saw increases, including Phoenix (+3.8%), Dallas (+1.9%), and Atlanta (+1.8%).
Renters will find more reasonable prices in Salt Lake than most large cities. For example, San Francisco has a median 2BR rent of $3,100, which is more than two-and-a-half times the price in Salt Lake City.
Please find below a case study when considering purchasing NNN properties versus alternative options such as DSTs.*
Is a NNN Property the way to go for my 1031 exchange?
Are you considering to purchase and manage a (NNN) Net Lease Property on your own?
Are you prepared for the potential active management?NNN properties are only passive if everything goes well. What happens if they do not?
If a NNN Property goes dark (tenant moves out) or bankrupt, are you ready to search for a new tenant, negotiate a new lease, negotiate with tenants and lenders, pay lawyers, manage leasing agents, higher contractors to renovate, etc. We have had clients 1031 exchanging out of their NNN properties because their NNN broker communicated half truths about NNN being a turn key option. NNN’s are great, until they’re not. Investors are exchanging out of NNN nightmare situations that a NNN broker didn’t walk them through the potential downfalls of NNN properties all too often…
Are you willing to take a multi-million dollar company to court?
We have seen large companies bully their way out of a lease agreement because the landlords/building owners are too small to afford a costly litigation. Therefore the owner has been left with tens of thousands of dollars in maintenance costs or unpaid/reduced rent. Not only does this negatively impact your potential cash flow, it also impacts the overall value of the building and your family’s financial security. Many NNN investor clients that we worked with that were told by their NNN broker they were buying a “safe” property have found themselves with properties valued at significantly lower values and lesser returns. Although corporate tenants can do this to anyone… This is more difficult for these companies to do when the landlord is represented by a real estate equity firm with hundreds of millions or billions of dollars of real estate under management which is why the DST may be a fit for investors afraid of these scenarios.
Are you prepared to do your own comprehensive due diligence required to purchase a NNN property that is such a large component of your wealth?
On all our DST properties, we conduct/review lease audits, environmental reports, insurance audits, building inspections, economic/demographic surveys, and we send someone to conduct onsite inspections. This can be a very costly and a time consuming process that many NNN buyers don’t have the time or experience to do themselves. Has your broker done that for you or are you prepared to do this on your own?
Do you feel comfortable with all your eggs in a single NNN basket
Putting a large component of one’s wealth into a single NNN asset is simply not wise. Why would one invest in a single NNN property, when you can get access to the similar type of NNN properties but in a diversified strategy whereby you don’t have all of your eggs in one basket? **
One of the greatest questions 1031 clients ask themselves, “what kind of legacy will I leave my family when I am gone?”
Are your wife or heirs able to take on any of the above situations if you are not around to manage these issues?Selling a property years into the lease can result in pennies on the dollar, especially if there are issues and they will be left to negotiate lease terms with a large fortune 500 company. Many NNN investor clients that we worked with choose DST investments since the sponsor company will be handling these items and not their wife/heirs who may not have the real estate experience to properly asset manage a NNN property.
*These examples are the experiences of a few of our clients and may not represent the experiences of others. Past performance does not guarantee or indicate the likelihood of future results.
**Diversification does not guarantee profits or protect against losses.
Using (DST) properties as opposed to NNN properties for your exchange:
Diversification – Don’t put all your eggs into one basket!
You can often close on a DST in 2-3 days – helps to potentially reduce 1031 exchange
closing risk.
Non-recourse financing with DSTs as opposed to partial and full recourse with NNN
properties.
Back up – Use a DST as a backup ID in case your NNN deal falls apart.
DST as a home for leftover funds to cover your exchange and avoid boot.
Professional asset and property management in place.
Access to Quality Real Estate
Often times, 1031 investors are selling a property that comprises a substantial amount of their net worth. DST 1031 properties provide access to real estate that is often otherwise outside of an individual investor’s price point. With the typical minimum investment of $100,000, investors are still able to purchase an ownership interest in large $20 million-plus apartment communities, $5 million-plus pharmacies or $15 million grocery stores, for example. This allows investors access to a level of real estate that they just would not have been able to exchange into before.
That being said, we also have had many clients with very large 1031 exchanges opt to invest in multiple DST 1031 properties/offerings because they did not want to place “all their eggs into one basket” by purchasing one single, large NNN investment property.
For a list of current DST offerings available at Kay Properties please visit www.kpi1031.com or call 1.855.466.5927.
About Kay Properties and Investments, LLC:
Kay Properties and Investments, LLC is a national Delaware Statutory Trust (DST) investment firm with offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, New York City and Washington DC. Kay Properties team members collectively have over 114 years of real estate experience, are licensed in all 50 states, and have participated in over $9 Billion of DST real estate. Our clients have the ability to participate in private, exclusively available, DST properties as well as those presented to the wider DST marketplace; with the exception of those that fail our due-diligence process. To learn more about Kay Properties please visit: www.kpi1031.com
This material does not constitute an offer to sell nor a solicitation of an offer to buy any security. Such offers can be made only by the confidential Private Placement Memorandum (the “Memorandum”). Please read the entire Memorandum paying special attention to the risk section prior investing. This email contains information that has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable. However, Kay Properties and Investments, LLC, WealthForge Securities, LLC and their representatives do not guarantee the accuracy and validity of the information herein. Investors should perform their own investigations before considering any investment. IRC Section 1031, IRC Section 1033 and IRC Section 721 are complex tax codes therefore you should consult your tax or legal professional for details regarding your situation. This material is not intended as tax or legal advice.
There are material risks associated with investing in real estate, Delaware Statutory Trust (DST) properties and real estate securities including illiquidity, tenant vacancies, general market conditions and competition, lack of operating history, interest rate risks, the risk of new supply coming to market and softening rental rates, general risks of owning/operating commercial and multifamily properties, short term leases associated with multi-family properties, financing risks, potential adverse tax consequences, general economic risks, development risks and long hold periods. There is a risk of loss of the entire investment principal. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Potential cash flow, potential returns and potential appreciation are not guaranteed. For an investor to qualify for any type of investment, there are both financial requirements and suitability requirements that must match specific objectives, goals and risk tolerances.
Securities offered through WealthForge Securities, LLC. Member FINRA/SIPC. Kay Properties and Investments, LLC and WealthForge Securities, LLC are separate entities. This email, including attachments, may include non-public, proprietary, confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient or an authorized agent of an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of the information contained in or transmitted with this e-mail is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and permanently delete this e-mail, its attachments, and any copies of it immediately. You should not retain, copy or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part of the contents to any other person. For your protection, please do not transmit orders or instructions by email or include account numbers, social security numbers, credit card numbers, passwords, or other personal information.
The Portland City Council has approved a controversial tenant screening ordinance by a vote of 3-1, with one council member and former landlord dissenting from the group saying the ordinance will drive up housing costs for both renters and landlords.
The approval of the controversial ordinance led by Commissioner Chloe Eudaly and supported by tenants’ rights groups, would restrict the way landlords may screen tenants before they sign a lease, with the aim of addressing discrimination and requiring more consideration for people who have criminal records. It also places “first-in-time” rules for landlords to accept applications. It is scheduled to take effect next year.
Each council member spoke about why they supported or did not support the tenant screening ordinance except Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty, who did not attend the session.
While Eudaly thanked those who had worked on the ordinance, Commissioner Amanda Fritz, a former landlord herself, said the ordinance would only make it more difficult for all concerned and voted no.
“When I moved to the United States, I lived in a Salvation Army, single-room occupancy residence for two months before subletting an attic room in an apartment close to the hospital where I trained. I lived below the poverty level for seven years, moving apartments four times. I’ve also been a landlord who rented out our first house in Portland,” she said, after her family grew too large, but “now my parents-in-law are retiring to it.
“So I have lived and have experience on both sides of this issue.”
Controversial waiting period provision
“There are elements in the fair housing policy that are great, such as improving the process for people experiencing disabilities and making sure that application fees are returned,” Fritz said. “ I can’t support the screening criteria as a whole. One of the fundamental flaws of the ordinance is the 72-hour waiting period followed by first-come- first-served,” she said. The 72-hour element could actually increase bias instead of helping, she said, because those with means would be able to take advantage of it.
Tenant screening ordinance may lead to more problems in rental housing
“Many people can no longer afford rent in Portland. This policy not only doesn’t solve for this problem, it may exacerbate it,” Fritz said.
Amanda Fritz said, “ I can’t support the screening criteria as a whole. “
“One way is through loss of rental housing stock. Landlords are not just threatening to sell their rental properties because of this policy; they already have. I’ve heard from them. They’ve told me – they told us all – in emails. I’ve heard this directly from landlords as well as from Realtors who cited the fair housing policy as a reason that an increasing number of landlords are coming to them to put their rentals on the market.
“Many of the single-family homes and duplexes will be purchased by new owner occupants losing units from the rental market. I’ve heard testimony from a developer who has put affordable housing projects on hold here in Portland and is planning instead to develop in Clackamas county.
“Here’s what another one said: ‘We have delayed starting three projects, one for 39 micro units, all inclusionary, and another one for 48 low-income situations and a third one on northeast 102nd … potentially bigger than the first two. We have asked for no subsidies, but Portland’s deciders are making it too difficult for developers, owners, and managers. The word in investor meetings is that other cities are more attractive for investing. I think that’s really sad because I think what we need as well as a fair housing and rental policies is more supply.’ “
Small landlords will leave and corporate landlords will take over
“Another way the new rules will drive up housing costs is by more of the small owners who currently own 60 percent of Portland’s rental units changing from managing their own units to hiring property management companies and lawyers,” Fritz said.
“Already over the past four years, over $6 billion in multifamily housing in Portland has been purchased by large corporations. Owners with a small number of units know their tenants by name and develop relationships with them. Multistate corporations maximize profits for their investors,” she said of the impact of the tenant screening ordinance.
Criminal background checks are an issue
“Perhaps the most troubling in this policy is the lack of an exception for people convicted of violent crimes, even rape and murder. In the low-barrier screening process, on the day of release from prison from a seven- or more year sentence, every landlord in Portland would be required to accept that application,” Fritz said.
Rents will go up, pricing out many people
“I expect that those landlords who do choose to keep their rental properties will increase rents significantly on vacant units, pricing out those very people we are trying to help with our actions. What this means is … communities of color and low-income renters will not be better off,” Fritz said.
She said unlike testimony given to the council by some, landlords are not “bad actors sitting on bags of money.”
She said the council is passing an ordinance that is “burdensome and costly to catch a few problematic owners. I believe there are proven methods that we should have focused on, such as increased education and training for both landlord and tenants and increased enforcement of existing fair housing laws.
“I know that the Portland Housing Bureau is up to the task to lead the implementation and I want to acknowledge the amount of work that still lies ahead in developing the administrative rules, education and ongoing monitoring of policy impacts. The Housing Bureau will need more staff to implement this policy,” Fritz said.
Commissioner Nick Fish, who voted in favor of the ordinance, offered an amendment setting up periodic assessment of the results of this program, to monitor access, to monitor administrative burdens and costs and the impact on the housing market, if any. Also to make any adjustments to the policy as necessary.
Eudaly read a statement from Hardesty saying, “I appreciate the concerns many small and midsize landlords have. Having to change how you’ve conducted business for years can be a challenge. I also recognize that many landlords do not discriminate in their business practices, but the fact remains that many do and many Portlanders are impacted by these practices on a regular basis.
“These ordinances will provide protection from these discriminatory practices. I’m happy that the city will be working to educate landlords on the new requirements and I’m thankful for all the input I have received from residents, landlords, and community groups on this important subject,” Hardesty said in the statement read by Eudaly.
“Considering it took us two years to get to this point, I think I deserve a little extra air time,” Eudaly said.
Chloe Eudaly said the new Portland fair-access policy is a significant effort toward helping the housing crisis.
“We are experiencing a national housing crisis driven by our federal government’s divestment in affordable housing, by state and local governments who have failed to meet the growing need for affordable housing or to adequately regulate their rental markets to protect tenants, (and) by Wall Street, who is not only responsible for a housing crash, but has been snapping up thousands upon thousands of multifamily and single-family residences in our region while showing rampant disregard for the health, wellbeing, and very lives of the people who reside in them,” Eudaly said.
Landlord lobby wants to extract every penny from renters
“And finally by multiple industries, not the least of which is the landlord lobby, with a vested financial interest in extracting every penny from renters with no regard for the impact on their renters, our communities, or our local economy,” Eudaly said.
She said the new Portland fair-access policy is a significant effort toward helping the housing crisis.
“It’s no secret that Portland has a long history of overtly racist housing laws, the effects of which still shape our city today. What we fail to acknowledge more readily is that many of our current laws continue to uphold discriminatory practices,” Eudaly said.
“While the language may be less explicit now, the effect is just as clear. We continue to see communities of color and especially black residents pushed to the margins of our city and beyond at an alarming rate. The heart of the fair-access and renting policies is about addressing the criteria that continued to be used as a proxy for race, which includes criminal records, income requirements, and credit scores, which leads to discrimination and disparate outcomes.
“We would have never come to these policy solutions if we did not consider the unique experiences, needs and barriers faced by black renters in Portland. The policies before us today would not have been as strong if they were not developed in partnership with our community allies.
“I’m proud of the policy our office helped create with the community and I’m excited to see how it changes the way tenants access housing over time. We know it will take time for tenants to understand and for the industry to adjust. We know some fine-tuning will be necessary, but we also know that research and data have laid a solid foundation for the decisions we made,” Eudaly said.
Mayor says the tenant screening ordinance policy is rooted in important values
“I want to be very clear that there’s no question in my mind that these policies are rooted in important values and they’re based on real issues that exist in this community,” said Mayor Ted Wheeler.
“In particular, there is still far too much discrimination in access to rental units for people of color, for people of lower income and for people who experience disability in our community. That is not to say that all landlords are bad actors.
“I personally believe the vast majority of landlords are playing by the rules. They’re already playing by many of the rules that are established in these policies. We heard what I thought was very valuable testimony from them. We also heard heart-rending testimony from people about the very real need for change in this community,” Wheeler said.
Much work still ahead on the policy
“The work is most certainly not done with the passage of these ordinances. We can’t ignore that. The reality is that we have much work to do in the months ahead. We have to align our values with sound policy and measurable deliverables that are associated with these policies,” Wheeler said.
“As housing commissioner, it’s of particular importance to me that we’d be able to measure who is being helped by these policies and to what degree. Much of the actual implementation of this policy is going to be left to rule-making by the Portland Housing Bureau and the housing commissioner,” Wheeler said.
A Colorado housing authority accused of violating the federal rights of tenants with disabilities by charging a fee for emotional support animals has settled a lawsuit for nearly $1 million.
The lawsuit was recently settled between the Meeker Housing Authority and 22-year-old A.J. White for $1 million, according to reports.
The suit was originally filed in U.S. District Court on behalf of White over allegations he was discriminated against for owning emotional support animals.
According to the suit, White suffers from depression, anxiety, and ADHD, and his two cats were his emotional support animals meant to help him through his mental illnesses https://neurofitnessfoundation.org/xanax-alprazolam/.
Colorado District Court Judge William J. Martinez ruled in February that the creation of a $300 fee and the denial of requests for an exception by the tenants with disabilities violated federal law preventing discrimination against people with disabilities. Other claims were set to be decided by a jury in early May until the parties began settlement talks, according to the Denver Post.
Under the agreement, the plaintiffs will receive $950,000 from the Meeker Housing Authority. They previously settled with the town of Meeker for $50,000, attorneys said.
Are You Confused By Requests For Service, Emotional Support And Assistance Animals?
Grace Hill has provided some excellent training for landlords and property managers in this area.
Housing that receives federal financial assistance from HUD must also comply with Section 504. Like the FHA, Section 504 prohibits discrimination based on disability and requires housing providers to make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities.
Whereas the FHA and Section 504 prohibit discrimination in housing, the ADA prohibits discrimination based on disability in all areas of public life, including schools, transportation, and all public and private places that are open to the public. The ADA requires you to let service dogs accompany their owners in any area of the community that is open to the public, such as the leasing office.
An assistance animal may be any type of animal and is not required to have specific training.
The FHA and Section 504 use “assistance animal” as a broad term to describe any animal that works, provides assistance, or performs tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability or provides emotional support that alleviates one or more symptoms or effects of a person’s disability.
Under the FHA and Section 504, service animals, emotional support animals, and companion animals are all considered assistance animals. An assistance animal may be any type of animal and is not required to have specific training.
The ADA uses the term “service animal” and defines it specifically as a dog that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. Emotional support animals, companion animals and animals other than dogs (and sometimes miniature horses) are not considered service animals under the ADA.
You cannot deny a reasonable accommodation request because an animal does not meet the ADA definition of a service animal. Under the FHA and Section 504, reasonable accommodations must be granted for assistance animals, which include service animals, emotional support animals, and companion animals.
Residents making accommodation requests are not required to use specific terminology
If an animal works, assists, or performs tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability or provides emotional support that alleviates one or more symptoms or effects of a person’s disability, it doesn’t matter what term someone uses, it is an assistance animal under the FHA and Section 504.
Think of assistance animals as working animals, not pets
Thinking of assistance animals as working animals, not pets, can prevent confusion. Under the FHA and Section 504, assistance animals may be cats, dogs, birds, turtles, rabbits, hamsters, fish, or nearly any other type of animal. It is not the type of animal that matters, but rather the function the animal serves.
“This stuff is complicated – and serious. You’ll find that The Multifamily Property Manager’s Guide to Handling Assistance Animals answers a lot of your questions about assistance animals, including how to tackle conversations with other residents. But when in doubt, ask your supervisor or legal counsel,” Grace Hill writes in the blog post.
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis has signed HB19-1328, a new bed bug law which requires a tenant to promptly notify the landlord via written or electronic notice when the tenant knows or reasonably suspects that the tenant’s dwelling unit contains bed bugs.
Not more than 96 hours after receiving notice, a landlord in most circumstances must hire a pest management professional to inspect and treat the dwelling unit and any contiguous dwelling units for bed bugs. Except as otherwise provided, a landlord is responsible for all costs associated with mitigating bed bugs.
The provisions in the measure are:
A tenant who gives a landlord electronic notice of a condition must now send such notice only to the email address, telephone number, or electronic portal specified by the landlord in the rental agreement for communications. In the absence of such a provision in the rental agreement, the tenant shall communicate with the landlord in a manner that the landlord has previously used to communicate with the tenant. The tenant shall retain sufficient proof of the delivery of the electronic notice.
Not more than 96 hours after receiving notice of the presence or possible presence of bed bugs, a landlord (a) must inspect or obtain an inspection by a qualified inspector of the dwelling unit, and (b) may enter the unit or any contiguous unit for the purpose of conducting the inspection.
If the inspection of a dwelling unit confirms the presence of bed bugs, the landlord is also then under obligation to perform an inspection of all contiguous dwelling units as promptly as is reasonably practical.
Except as otherwise provided, a landlord is responsible for all costs associated with inspection for, and treatment of, the presence of bed bugs.
If a landlord, qualified inspector, or pest control agent must enter a dwelling unit for the purpose of conducting an inspection for, or treating the presence of, bed bugs, the landlord shall provide the tenant reasonable written or electronic notice of such fact before the landlord, qualified inspector, or pest control agent attempts to enter the dwelling unit. A tenant who receives the notice shall not unreasonably deny the landlord, qualified inspector, or pest control agent access to the dwelling unit.
A tenant shall comply with reasonable measures to permit the inspection for, and treatment of, the presence of bed bugs, and the tenant is responsible for all costs associated with preparing the tenant’s dwelling unit for inspection and treatment. A tenant who knowingly and unreasonably fails to comply with inspection and treatment requirements is liable for the cost of subsequent bed-bug treatments of the dwelling unit and contiguous units if the need for the treatments arises from the tenant’s noncompliance.
If any furniture, clothing, equipment, or personal property belonging to a tenant is found to contain bed bugs, the qualified inspector shall advise the tenant that the furniture, clothing, equipment, or personal property should not be removed from the dwelling unit until a pest-control agent determines that a bed-bug treatment has been completed. The tenant shall not dispose of personal property that was determined to contain bed bugs in any common area where such disposal may risk the infestation of other dwelling units.
The U.S. Department of Justice has filed suit against the owner and manager of rental properties in the San Diego area who is alleged to have been sexually harassing female tenants and trading sex for rent discounts, according to a release.
The Justice Department lawsuit alleges that Larry Nelson, owner and manager of residential housing in Spring Valley, California, violated the Fair Housing Act by subjecting female tenants of his properties to sexual harassment and retaliation.
Trading sex for rent discounts
The seven-page complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in San Diego, accuses property owner Larry Nelson of entering the homes of his female tenants without reason and in several cases offering to reduce or forgive rent in exchange for sex, according to the Los Angeles Times.
The lawsuit alleges that Nelson engaged in sexual harassment of and retaliation against female tenants from at least 2005 to the present, by, among other things, engaging in unwelcome sexual touching, offering to reduce monthly rental payments in exchange for sex, making unwelcome sexual comments and advances, making intrusive and unannounced visits to female tenants’ homes to further his sexual advances, and evicting or threatening to evict female tenants who objected or refused his sexual advances.
“The Fair Housing Act prohibits sexual harassment and retaliation in housing,” said Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband in the release.
“Any landlord who sexually harasses his tenants or retaliates against them for refusing sexual advances, destroys their housing security and risks families’ ability to keep a roof over their heads. Anyone who engages in this kind of disgusting and illegal conduct should be on notice: The Department of Justice will be coming for you.”
Prosecutors said Nelson controlled every aspect of the rental process, from accepting applications and determining who could rent the units to setting the rental amount and collecting monthly payments.
“Let this be a wake-up call for abusive landlords,” U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer said in the release. “Holding a key to someone’s property is not a license to exploit them for sex. The Department of Justice is going to make sure a tenant’s home is a place of safety, not suffering,” Brewer said.
In October 2017, the Department of Justice launched an initiative to combat sexual harassment in housing. In April 2018, the department announced the nationwide rollout of the initiative, including three major components: an outreach toolkit to leverage the department’s nationwide network of U.S. attorney’s offices, a public awareness campaign, including the release of a national public service announcement, and a new joint task force with HUD to combat sexual harassment in housing. Since launching the initiative, the Department of Justice has filed 10 lawsuits alleging a pattern or practice of sexual harassment in housing.
The California lawsuit seeks monetary damages to compensate the victims, a civil penalty to vindicate the public interest, and a court order barring future discrimination and harassment. The complaint contains allegations of unlawful conduct; the allegations must be proven in federal court.
The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability and familial status. More information about the Civil Rights Division and the laws it enforces is available at http://www.justice.gov/crt. Individuals who believe that they may have been victims of sexual harassment or other types of housing discrimination at rental dwellings owned or managed by Larry Nelson, or who have other information that may be relevant to this case, can contact the Housing Discrimination Tip Line, at 1-800-896-7743, and select mailbox 9991 to leave a message.
