[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6326750,"mediaKeyId","2323731-a543829b310c40f83c54322190c2aff3","parentId",2323731,"title","Good Neighbor Act proposal prompts split testimony over tenant protections and eviction ease","audioSeconds",769,"startMs",4741000,"endMs",5510000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2323731-a543829b310c40f83c54322190c2aff3&start=4741&end=5510","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2323731-a543829b310c40f83c54322190c2aff3/thumbnail_4741000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6326750/Oregon/Good-Neighbor-Act-proposal-prompts-split-testimony-over-tenant-protections-and-eviction-ease","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6326750-2ddb5b805908c3c6d093e99e0dabf9ec/orig.mp4?Expires=1771072351&Signature=XXmBe8W3CYxJVmIF4NmiZ17aW-LRV118BB83ts7HXaId~2Is8cahBpi4N0dxvqeG2UlssFGy6Hq9N5YWFS4FqT-Xq3fkDxhUnoXlG12p3s7s6NpGmD3JmlUKwMk7Vgycphytmv0oOudnigjlg1-B7j-fWjUIP9xMSYUZSDPPIsRwsUrv69wmLNqmlZXDuZS3xXKO-Fz65ZX2Zk8ywtsHxUYbMB~6cMqxVYshLs72tDDOZzG3dEWSI9IiaYsT1e89RHR74MAS12K6eodLOrQw~NWlyar9~pveUr~ZG35EyPSGERKhuoXrQ~sbfOskKryBlJZ4pzMiCGJMUn-l75Rtng__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Oregon State Legislature","date","2025-02-17T00:00:00Z","article","Representative Kevin Mannix and co‑sponsors presented House Bill 2,305 (dubbed by sponsors as the “Good Neighbor Act”) to the House Committee on Housing and Homelessness on Feb. 17. The bill would allow landlords to terminate a tenancy with at least 30 days’ written notice if a tenant has repeatedly violated a lease or failed to pay rent on time, with proponents describing it as a tool to remove chronic disruptive tenants.

Mannix said the measure aims to help neighbors live without ongoing disruption: \"This bill is designed to empower landlords to deal with really bad tenants,\" he said, describing situations such as repeated late‑night parties, property damage or alleged stalking. Supporters including Jason Miller (Oregon Rental Housing Association) said chronic rule‑breakers impose significant costs on neighbors, property managers and owners, and that the bill would allow a faster remedy where repeated warnings have failed.

Opponents raised equity and civil‑rights concerns. Steven Crawford of the Fair Housing Council of Oregon testified in opposition, citing research that serial eviction notices are more commonly issued to Black, Latino and female‑headed households and warning that disabled tenants and households experiencing financial instability would be disproportionately affected. April Aster of Portland State University Student Legal Services and other legal advocates said the bill’s removal of cure rights and a three‑strike framework could result in avoidable homelessness and worsen long‑term housing barriers.

Advocates for tenants described real harms of eviction: Adrianna Grant (Eugene Tenant Alliance) said eviction can follow a person for years and make rehousing difficult; April Aster recounted a student whose cosigner died and who avoided eviction only because of existing cure rights.

Supporters argued the bill would not remove process: Miller said tenants typically receive multiple notices and opportunities to cure and that this bill would apply to tenants who repeatedly violate a lease despite warnings. Opponents urged the committee to consider the bill's disparate impacts and to refine or reject the measure to avoid removing tenants’ ability to cure or otherwise address underlying causes of behavior.

The committee continued the public hearing on HB 2,305 to a subsequent meeting (scheduled for Feb. 19) in order to receive additional testimony and written comments; no vote was taken on Feb. 17.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Committee On Housing and Homelessness 02/17/2025","oneSentenceSummary","House Bill 2,305, presented Feb. 17 as the \"Good Neighbor Act,\" would let landlords give 30‑day termination notices after repeated material lease violations; supporters said it removes chronic disruptive tenants, while civil‑rights and tenant advocates warned it risks disproportionate harm to vulnerable renters.","taxTitle","Housing and Homelessness, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Oregon","taxId",18023,"location","Oregon","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6326760,"Committee hears bill to ban landlord applicant screening fees; advocates cite barriers, landlords warn of costs",2251,1577000,3828000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2323731-a543829b310c40f83c54322190c2aff3&start=1577&end=3828","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2323731-a543829b310c40f83c54322190c2aff3/thumbnail_1577000.jpg","/articles/6326760/Oregon/Committee-hears-bill-to-ban-landlord-applicant-screening-fees-advocates-cite-barriers-landlords-warn-of-costs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6326760-2c6af2ab792930f74f9f9955a1ef071e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771072351&Signature=P9pxi6tz1M2Sb2Y4h4CT4zYF1meZIqzOAlYWjcZxWEI~9GU89RTEVgWmOW054e8b3xZDIlQqQNtPhQisEVULknGiEK-aXENC7y3CvUVVt~Q1LhDBJ7ytfow1XHYpjxHUnprF2Htziif2HMKW~MXlDn4ivDGvTHKWYN8g1QcgNwyxtkgsl9hTrfCEsUFn3DFesCW7-yh5NXWuMrdvpqInXkeBn7DyaxxH8JeTUuLGEQQG4YGV4D2q1kLUQVOG8mBbDXEydMtLJVCuCIARlTCahroSr9uBJzxaS4NmLvT46J595z2H3FEEPQ7YpsMBweFHrpDnDsPRemr~bD2wtR3PIQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 2,967, which would prohibit landlords from requiring applicant screening charges or purchase of a specific screening product, drew extended testimony on Feb. 17 before the House Committee on Housing and Homelessness.

Sponsor Rep. Mark Gamba said the bill responds to a common experience in a low‑vacancy market: applicants often pay multiple screening fees when seeking housing and do not always receive refunds or copies of screening reports. “If someone must apply to at least eight apartments, that can add up very, very quickly,” Gamba said.

Supporters included tenant groups and housing advocates. Adrianna Grant and Timothy Morris described paying hundreds of dollars in application fees during searches; Grant said she had spent nearly $500 in fees and that tracking refunds was infeasible while meeting basic needs. Kevin Cronin of Housing Oregon and Ariel Nelson of the National Consumer Law Center argued the fees disproportionately burden low‑income renters and applicants of color and cited national estimates of substantial aggregate cost.

Opposition testimony came from Multifamily Northwest, the Oregon Rental Housing Association and screening vendors. Zach Lindahl (Multifamily Northwest) and Jason Miller (OR Rental Housing Association) said eliminating fees would shift screening costs to housing providers, potentially increasing rents and creating an influx of frivolous applications that slow placements. Amy Bertrand, who identified herself as a representative of a Portland screening company, provided cost estimates for various background and credit checks and said true screening costs can exceed modest caps.

Legal and policy witnesses described alternatives explored by a legislative work group, including transferable or universal applications and time‑limited screening results. John Van Laningham (Oregon Law Center) said the group considered options but found them complex or fiscally infeasible; he noted that the bill does not ban screening but bans screening charges and that some landlords already treat screening as a cost of doing business.

Committee members asked about last session’s changes requiring prompt refund of screening charges (amending ORS timelines) and whether education or enforcement could address nonrefunded fees; witnesses said small claims remedies exist but are not practical for many applicants. Affordable housing providers and some nonprofits said they generally do not charge screening fees and sometimes use vouchers or program funds to cover upfront costs for assisted households.

The committee closed the public hearing on HB 2,967 after hearing a broad array of written and oral testimony and accepted written comments for the record; no vote was taken on Feb. 17.","House Bill 2,967, which would ban applicant screening fees for rental applications, drew competing testimony Feb. 17 in the House Committee on Housing and Homelessness, with tenant advocates saying fees block access to housing and landlord groups warning of added costs.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6326764,"House committee hears bill to require written holding‑deposit agreements, penalties for breaches",1646,79000,1725000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2323731-a543829b310c40f83c54322190c2aff3&start=79&end=1725","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2323731-a543829b310c40f83c54322190c2aff3/thumbnail_79000.jpg","/articles/6326764/Oregon/House-committee-hears-bill-to-require-written-holdingdeposit-agreements-penalties-for-breaches","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6326764-175acb4cc4bdcc4e9fa4b8da2f2cc6cc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771072351&Signature=eebr44lGfp1lcxuXCDMm29fKAs-KkPKiEgr2EQtSnrSP73q6nGr0W5qHPauOyAZSq2irUrDjAipzdmGurnkcD70OMWYttVaOfAK-nz7Fig8YIyRTUlwIutWk-2ZaESyNWQtaWOuzADiReSIheCMdaKosDwamtBR7lnA7n6MqoedmNGnxez9ABZh~V81XuHwpuRk5iS3-DGcsDpZh2sddztLK2FDpbqHMaTaC224K3Z84sEWguHv5GYGXFY4kjWXMeSA0SXN9mCqprbZ5wcN5nj0bizwkkKhTkbY2tXQbZfEUNfHYaLNI-Cb704AMejN04ejL86kb7CRVfQttIECiwg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","State Rep. Anessa Hartman introduced House Bill 3,521 on Feb. 17 before the House Committee on Housing and Homelessness, saying the measure would require written holding‑deposit agreements and authorize a penalty equal to the deposit if a landlord fails to meet that agreement.

Hartman said the bill grew from tenant reports that landlords kept holding deposits even when rental units were unsafe or rented to someone else. “Tenants should not have to choose between signing a lease for an unsafe home, or losing a significant amount of money,” Hartman said.

The bill would require that hold‑deposit agreements be in writing before a landlord receives a deposit and would require return of the deposit plus a penalty equal to the deposit amount if the landlord breaches the agreement. Hartman and proponents said the change aims to make hold deposits a tool to reserve units, not a method of coercion.

Supporters included Kim McCarty of Community Alliance of Tenants and Cameron Harrington of Oregon Housing Alliance. McCarty said tenants routinely lose hundreds to thousands of dollars when landlords refuse to return deposits and that the bill offers \"a practical proposal that gives tenants some ability to hold landlords accountable for their agreements.\" Harrington called it “common sense legislation” in a tight rental market.

Opponents, including Jason Miller, legislative director for the Oregon Rental Housing Association, and Jonathan Claley of Multifamily Northwest, said the bill’s proposed penalty could unfairly punish housing providers for delays outside their control. Miller gave an example of a new complex delayed six months because the power company required specific meters that were out of stock, and said refunds — not additional statutory penalties — are often how reasonable providers handle such problems. Tia Politi, president of the Oregon Rental Housing Association, asked for a “for‑cause” carve‑out to avoid penalizing landlords for events beyond their control.

John Van Laningham of Oregon Law Center noted existing statutory protections and said the bill’s increased penalty is intended to offset practical barriers tenants face pursuing small claims. Committee staff confirmed the bill, as drafted, would require return of the deposit plus an additional penalty equal to the deposit regardless of whether the deposit was returned promptly.

Committee members and stakeholders discussed potential amendments to limit the penalty or create specified exceptions (for example, medical emergencies or other verified, out‑of‑control events). The committee closed the public hearing on HB 3,521 after receiving testimony and indicated the author and staff would explore workable amendments.

No formal vote was taken at the Feb. 17 hearing; the bill remains at the public‑hearing stage.

The committee timed public testimony and limited subsequent public speakers to two minutes; members said they would seek language that balances accountability for landlords and protections for tenants.","State Rep. Anessa Hartman introduced House Bill 3,521 on Feb. 17 before the House Committee on Housing and Homelessness, saying the measure would require written holding‑deposit agreements and authorize a penalty equal to the deposit if a landlord fails to meet that agreement.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6326755,"Bill would let tenants accept new housing and give 30‑day notice after landlord issues 90‑day termination",741,3939000,4680000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2323731-a543829b310c40f83c54322190c2aff3&start=3939&end=4680","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2323731-a543829b310c40f83c54322190c2aff3/thumbnail_3939000.jpg","/articles/6326755/Oregon/Bill-would-let-tenants-accept-new-housing-and-give-30day-notice-after-landlord-issues-90day-termination","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6326755-10450a1211807e10288674176d1c3e6a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771072351&Signature=eBL-gIvbEK55qbx6i2jiJsbqSogDyv1fQuk2cvhBi~yr2HmA-bWnPnAEK8XDbWGubHkvATzND7sRvNtD7DvtWCB-WrjfWdJDKbm0vXRzkalmheJK9hQhTV9J9AfKax42MC6ExB0Y6jv2wkXOZB707OKtEeVjp9Cg6nZ-cYpWoN4J6LxHHKPLh8rLQcFlHR-o~5ocKk~ICkWcKMfV20INWlHa5NIsPr2VJs1o-Hc30p~mJIF8~yr6GdXriMH60irAQ~2C7HhTY9PXkKSiNVe4w0JYZe~yqvGBXNiyGa0lXmZT20bQAlc91W0hzo4apYDlZeHgfyrbPGW858ZPUAhwCQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Tana Sanchez introduced House Bill 2,134 during the Feb. 17 meeting of the House Committee on Housing and Homelessness, saying the measure would allow a tenant who has been given a landlord‑initiated 90‑day termination to provide their own written 30‑day termination and vacate on that 30‑day date.

Sanchez said the bill seeks to prevent tenants from being forced to pay two rents when a landlord gives a 90‑day notice but the tenant finds replacement housing sooner. \"To force someone to pay twice the rent, I think, is unconscionable,\" Sanchez said.

Supporters included John Pugsley, a single parent who described losing an ideal rental because he could not afford paying two months of rent, and tenant advocates including the Community Alliance of Tenants and Oregon Law Center, which said the change would improve housing stability for tenants who are not at fault.

Opponents included Multifamily Northwest, which warned that allowing early termination after a landlord‑initiated notice could undermine fixed‑term leases, increase turnover and raise operating costs. Jonathan Claley said fixed‑term leases provide predictability for both tenants and housing providers and that the bill might discourage landlords from offering fixed‑term options.

Supporters and legal advocates said the bill applies only when the landlord initiates a 90‑day termination for reasons other than tenant fault and is intended to protect compliant tenants who must relocate through no fault of their own. Sybil Hebb of the Oregon Law Center said the bill “is designed to only apply…when a landlord is making the choice to use a 90‑day notice of termination based on the landlord's decision about how they want to use their property differently.”

Committee members asked whether the proposed change would amount to a lease‑break option and how landlords would recoup re‑letting costs; proponents said the change is narrower — it applies only to landlord‑initiated terminations and preserves rent due for the 30‑day notice period the tenant gives.

The committee closed the public hearing on HB 2,134 after receiving both supportive and critical testimony; no vote was taken on Feb. 17.","House Bill 2,134 would allow tenants in fixed‑term tenancies who are served a 90‑day termination by a landlord to give their own 30‑day written notice and vacate earlier; supporters said it prevents double rent burdens and makes relocation feasible, while property groups warned it would undermine fixed‑term lease certainty.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Good Neighbor Act proposal prompts split testimony over tenant protections and eviction ease

Committee hears bill to ban landlord applicant screening fees; advocates cite barriers, landlords warn of costs

House committee hears bill to require written holding‑deposit agreements, penalties for breaches

Bill would let tenants accept new housing and give 30‑day notice after landlord issues 90‑day termination