News

<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   4   5   ...   Next >  Last >> 
  • Thursday, February 15, 2018 1:27 PM | Anonymous

    Please enjoy this months copy of the INSIDER Bulletin. We've changed it from a newsletter to a bulletin...

    February 2018 INSIDER Bulletin.pdf

  • Monday, February 12, 2018 3:26 PM | Anonymous

    HB 4085-1  Requires court to award attorney fees, costs and necessary disbursements to tenant prevailing in action arising under rental agreement or landlord-tenant law.

    There will be a hearing on this bill on 02-15-2018 at 8 AM.

    Link to bill https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2018R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB4085/Introduced

    link to notice:

    https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2018R1/Downloads/CommitteeAgenda/HHS/2018-02-15-08-00?guid=64bdd334-535e-58d5-e054-02082091f14b


    Cliff Conner-Coash

    C & C Rentals

    SOROA Mentor

  • Friday, February 09, 2018 12:53 PM | Anonymous

    Assistance Animals

    (i.e., service, aid, companion and therapy animals)

    Housing providers, including landlords and home owner associations, have the right to prohibit pets. Housing providers also must provide a reasonable accommodation to their policies in order to permit an animal recommended for a disability. Under fair housing law, such animals are regarded as tools to aid individuals with disabilities, similar to wheelchairs.

      • The animal may be a trained service animal or may be a companion or therapy animal recommended for a mental or emotional disability. The law in housing is different from the law in public accommodations (restaurant, stores, etc.,) where only trained service animals are permitted.
      • Animals may be recommended for a variety of conditions, including:
    • Sight
    • Hearing
    • Balance
    • Fetching things
    • Managing blood sugar levels
    • Seizures
    • Migraines
    • Anxiety
    • Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
    • Depression
    • Lowering blood pressure
    • Regulating heart rates
    • Autism
    • Attention Deficit Disorder

    The landlord has the right to ensure that the animal is necessary for the disability and may require a written verification from the medical or mental health provider treating the individual.

    Landlords may require licensing and vaccinations for assistance animals if that is what is required by local law for domestic animals.

    Landlords may not apply size, weight, or breed restrictions to an assistance animal. The only exception would be if the particular animal has a history of problem behavior. Likewise, insurance companies with weight and/or breed restrictions need to provide accommodations for assistance animals.

    Dogs are the most common assistance animals, but other animals may be recommended as well.

    It is possible that a resident will request an accommodation for more than one animal. In this case, the landlord can request verification that each animal is performing a different function.

    Landlords can charge a deposit for pets, but not for assistance animals.

    Landlords may ask residents with an assistance animal to sign an assistance animal agreement. The agreement would typically say that the resident is responsible for the animal's care and waste pickup and that the animal must not disturb other residents or damage property.

    HUD Guidance on Assistance Animals (PDF)

    Detailed information for medical and other care providers is available here:

    Reasonable Accommodation Verification Explanation (PDF)

    If you still have fair housing questions, call our hotline at (503) 223-8197 Ext. 2 or (800) 424-3247 Ext. 2 or email us.

    http://fhco.org/index.php/discrimination-in-oregon/protected-classes/disability/assistance-animals

  • Wednesday, January 24, 2018 1:08 PM | Anonymous

    SNYP LAUNCHES FEBRUARY “PREVENT A LITTER” CAMPAIGN AS SPRING BREEDING SEASON BEGINS

    SNYP is offering special discount spay/neuter certificates during their February “Prevent A Litter” campaign. The timing of this program is targeted to help reduce the vast number of unwanted litters born during the massive spring breeding season.

    The discounted prices are $25 for a cat spay or neuter, and $75 for a dog spay or neuter up to 60 pounds.  An additional $10 fee is paid at the time of surgery for dogs over 60 pounds and up to 85 pounds.

    The special discount certificates are on sale during February and can be purchased at South Medford, Central Point, White City, and Ashland Grange Co-op stores and Medford Mini Pet Mart on Stewart.  The special certificates are redeemable at the participating veterinary offices listed on the back of each certificate.

     Visit www.spayneuter.org for details

     


  • Tuesday, January 23, 2018 11:34 AM | Anonymous

    LARRC Classes:

    Here is an online LARRC class that one of our property managers took for $8.00.  It satisfies the requirement for property managers.  https://www.geewhizce.com/Dsp/ReDsp_nstep1-new.cfm?state=TX&frstatecrs=1&ppc.

     There are other classes at www.geewhizce.com

    As an FYI onlineed.com offers the LARRC class for free.

  • Thursday, January 18, 2018 12:19 PM | Anonymous

    COMMENTARY

    Rent Control Raises Housing Costs

    Charles Hughes

    JANUARY 15, 2018 

    REGULATION

    Rent control policies have come back in vogue for some cities grappling with higher housing rents and people worried they will not be able to live in growing, prospering cities. Perhaps no city in the country encapsulates the concerns about housing affordability and availability more clearly than San Francisco, where the median rent for a one-bedroom apartment is more than $3,000. A new paper analyzes the effects of rent control expansion in the city and finds that it reduced rental housing supply, causing a city wide-rent increase. 

    People are understandably worried about the cost of living, of which rent is often a major share.  They are concerned that they will be unable to afford to live in dynamic, thriving cities. However, rent control cannot make affordable housing available. In many cases, rent control policies lead to outcomes that are diametrically opposed to their intended results.

    In their new National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, Stanford University researchers Rebecca Diamond, Tim McQuade, and Franklin Qian analyzed variations in the assignment of rent control due to the effects of a 1994 San Francisco ballot initiative. Multifamily housing built prior to 1980 was subject to the initiative’s rent control protections, while multifamily housing built after that was not.

    Using panel data with address-level migration decisions and housing characteristics for almost all adults living in the city during the period, the authors used renters in small multifamily housing built after the 1980 cutoff as the control group, and the corresponding group in units built before the cutoff as the treatment group.

    Unsurprisingly, the beneficiaries of rent control, tenants already in those affected units, were between 10 to 20 percent more likely to remain in their 1994 address relative to the control group. The economic benefit to people living in these rent-controlled apartments averaged between $2,300 and $6,600 per person per year.

    At the same time, evidence suggests that landlords had an incentive to remove tenants, particularly in areas where overall rents appreciated the most. Landlords could do this by offering tenants monetary compensation or by moving into the property themselves. Under the provisions of California’s Ellis Act, landlords could also evict tenants if they were planning to remove the property from the rental market, by converting them to condos, for example. Rent-controlled buildings were almost 10 percent more likely to convert to a condo or Tenancy in Common than those in the control group.

    Overall, affected landlords reduced their supply of available rental housing by 15 percent, and the number of renters living in affected buildings fell by 20 percent. These changes led to a city-wide rent increase of 5 percent. The higher rents have a present discounted cost of almost $3 billion for tenants, with 42 percent borne by future residents.

    While some incumbents benefited from the rent control policy, future San Francisco residents had to bear much of the costs, and rent control reduced housing supply and increased rent in the longer term. The authors suggest that the substitution away from housing subject to rent control, and towards owner-occupied housing or new construction, “likely fueled the gentrification of San Francisco,” and that rent control policies have increased income inequality in the city overall.

    Paul Krugman, not one generally opposed to the policies pursued by supporters of the Democratic Party, wrote back in 2000 in the New York Times that “the analysis of rent control is among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and -- among economists, anyway -- one of the least controversial.”

    The consensus is nothing new, as a 1992 poll from the American Economic Association found 93 percent of respondents agreed with the statement “a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing.” More recently, a question from the IGM Forum from the Booth School of Business asked economists whether rent control policies have had a positive effect on the amount and quality of broadly affordable housing: 81 percent disagreed, while only 2 percent agreed.

    Unfortunately, the long-standing consensus among economists, these most recent findings, and previous studies revealing the ineffectiveness of rent control policies have done little to quell the appetite for them throughout the country.

    As the authors point out, state lawmakers in Illinois, Oregon, and California are considering the repeal of laws that limit the extent to which cities can institute rent control policies. In smaller cities such as Glendale, California and Portland, Main referenda that would increase the scope of rent control policies have been put on the ballot.

    Policymakers in cities facing higher housing and rental costs are searching not for potential solutions, but for populist measures that will get them reelected. As the most recent study finds in the case of San Francisco, rent control policies can impose significant costs on future residents by reducing the supply of rental housing and increasing rents. Politicians considering the creation or expansion of rent control policies should look elsewhere for answers. 

    Charles Hughes is a policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute. Follow him on Twitter @CharlesHHughes

  • Friday, January 12, 2018 1:22 PM | Anonymous

    Correction:

    Sen. Alan DeBoer is speaking at our SOROA (Medford-Ashland-Grants Pass) March 20th education (dinner) meeting.  He is a Landlord himself and was aligned with landlords to vote (for) against last year’s HB 2004 if it came to the Senate floor.  However, the bill died in committee as the count by the bill’s promoters was not sufficient to pass the bill on the full Senate floor.  Mark Nichols heard on the radio that Sen. DeBoer is also promoting having a sales tax. Ask him about why he thinks we need a sales tax.  He is making his mind up if he is going to run again when his term ends.  He advocates for landlord’s positions.   We need his vote in the Oregon Senate for landlord issues.  We have been asked to encourage him to run again. 

     

    Sen. DeBoer has some new committee assignments:  the Senate Health Care Committee, as well as the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Services. This is in addition to his membership of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on General Government, the full Ways and Means Committee and the Joint Information Management and Technology Committee. Senate Health Care Committee, as well as the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Services.
  • Friday, January 05, 2018 3:30 PM | Anonymous
  • Wednesday, December 27, 2017 11:31 AM | Anonymous


    December 26th, 2017

    Dear SOROA,

    The fight is going to continue. As landlords and property managers, we must unite and support the efforts of the Oregon Rental Housing Association Key PAC.

    The Oregon Rental Housing Key PAC is dedicated to help elect those who will help us fight for the rights of rental property owners.

    The website was launched a year ago and the response has been great! The website makes it easy to donate online. If you haven’t yet taken advantage of the Oregon State tax credit of $50 per person* or $100 per couple*, you still have time. Remember this is a dollar for dollar credit against your Oregon state taxes and means that instead of it going to Salem for them to spend, you can choose where your money goes.

    If you’ve already donated, thank you! If you haven't please consider making your contribution now, we anticipate a fierce fight to preserve our rights as landlords.

    Check out the website and donate today!


    Click Here to Make Your Online Donation NOW!



    ... or you can send a check to:


    Oregon Rental Housing Key PAC
    89286 Cranberry Lane
    Bandon, Oregon 97411




    * You can claim an Oregon tax credit for contributions to political action committees. It is a tax credit, not a deduction. The credit is up to $100* for joint filers or $50* for individuals. Contributions must be dated no later than December 31st, this year to receive the credit on this year's Oregon tax return. Some restrictions may apply. Please consult a tax professional.

    Oregon Rental Housing Association
    1462 Commercial Street N.E. Salem, Oregon 97301
    www.oregonrentalhousing.com

  • Wednesday, December 13, 2017 12:31 PM | Anonymous

    What is owner occupied multifamily investing?

    Simply put, owner occupied multifamily investing real estate is when an investor resides in one part of the property while renting out the other units.

    Many new investors in this owner occupied multifamily investing area start out with duplexes, triplexes or fourplexes.

    However this is not for everyone as it puts the investor in the position of being a hands-on property manager with the tenants and dealing with all the property management issues such as tenant screening, repairs and even evictions.

    Here is a set of pros and cons from fortunebuilders.com that sets out some of the basics of learning the owner occupied multifamily investing business:

    • It can pay for itself
    • Easier to finance
    • Learning property management first hand
    • Tenant screening becomes very important as they are your neighbors now
    • First step toward larger properties and your multifamily investing career

    However there are downsides:

    • Tenants complain
    • Renters may not want to live in same building with landlord
    • Avoid becoming friends with your tenants
    • Tenants are your neighbors and you may not like them
    • Conflicts can occur

    READ MORE: http://rentalhousingjournal.com/articles/2017/12/09/how-get-started-owner-occupied-multifamily-investing?utm_source=Master%2BInvestor%2FOwner%2FProp%2BMngr%2FSocial&utm_campaign=53efb41983-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_12_13&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1df36dfca7-53efb41983-113714285

<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   4   5   ...   Next >  Last >> 
Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software