Posted: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 12:00 am
Our readers have been letting us know that our recent articles about disputes between landlords and tenants are long overdue. The comments pretty much run to the same things: The city code relating to rental issues is too lax and has no teeth.
However, the same could be said for state laws. We're talking about housing that falls outside the jurisdiction of Oregon's 18 public housing authorities, which are home to 20,000 people and ultimately are administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
We're talking about substandard housing that is under no one's watchful eye. Government officials tolerate it because, frankly, it's the only housing that some people can afford.
And we need to be frank about some other uncomfortable facts: Although the tenants we've featured in recent articles about such rental disputes are people caught in unfortunate circumstances, others are people who have criminal records and would not be accepted by most reputable landlords.
Which brings us to the topic of what such landlords are asking of tenants. In one recent example, a landlord demanded to know not only the name, Social Security number, employment record and references of a prospective tenant but also all of the applicant's actual credit card, checking and savings account numbers.
The city's housing authority said it's perfectly legal for the landlord to ask for such information, although a prospective tenant need not provide it. Of course, that means no rental agreement, either. Although we can understand and support a landlord demanding proof of employment and enough information to conduct a credit check on a tenant, no rental agreement should hinge on who is willing to turn over enough private information to put the tenant at risk of becoming the victim of identity theft (or just plain old-fashioned theft, for that matter). That's not a right included with the rent.
But it's been a long time since either the city or the state updated and clarified gray areas of dispute between landlords and tenants. And we're talking about a vast misty moor of gray here, despite the fact that renter/landlord legal rights in Oregon are spelled out online.
The Oregon State Bar, to name just one source of such information, has an excellent, easy-to-understand primer on landlord and tenant rights at www.osbar.org/public/
legalinfo/1246.htm.
Its basic legal information includes that landlords are obligated to keep their rental property safe. Renters have to pay the rent on time and are responsible for damages they cause above normal wear and tear. Landlords can't keep deposits unless they can prove damage or the tenant didn't leave the property as it was found.
Of course, there's plenty of trickery each way and, as several recent entries to our Crime Watch column indicate, sometimes these disputes lead to violence. Other times, tenants who aren't entirely up on their rights - or comfortable with involving law enforcement in their problems - simply accept abuse, and the next tenant is treated to more of the same.
The city code does go after landlords on a complaint basis, but there is no real penalty for the landlord who fixes substandard rentals only after the city gets involved.
Landlords might counter that although the law enables a landlord to give only 24 hours' notice to tenants who have damaged property, that is a lot of time for an angry tenant to get even - with little actual chance for the landlord to fully recover money lost to property damage.
We will continue to investigate and report on this matter. But we also encourage officials at the local and state level to get ahead of the problem now. One thing that has been made clear to us in recent weeks: This is a simmering issue between renters and landlords. (Of course, it always has been.) But it's been too long since light and air have been allowed to freshen this perennial debate.