The fight over Portland's new renter protections moved into its second round this morning, with no clear winner yet in sight.
In a summary judgment hearing, Multnomah County Judge Henry Breithaupt heard arguments from both the City of Portland and landlords challenging the city's new rental relocation assistance ordinance.
The ordinance, which requires landlords to pay relocation costs for tenants who must leave their homes due to no-cause evictions or rental increases above 10 percent, has been cheered by renter rights activists, but is loathed by landlords.
The latter group is represented by landlords Phillip Owen and Michael Feves, who are suing the city on the grounds that the ordinance violates a state law that prohibits rent control and permits landlords to implement no cause evictions.
At the courthouse with the tenant union @PDXTenantsUnite to witness the City's defense of the #relo ordinance. pic.twitter.com/nSIUZaOrgH
— Sammy Black (@SammyBlackPDX) April 6, 2017
In this morning's hearing, the landlords argued Breithaupt should summarily rule the ordinance illegal.
The main question discussed was whether or not the city's law can peacefully coexist with state law. “Our discussion today has to do with whether or not the City of Portland, in doing what it did, went beyond the limitations the state legislature has implemented," Breithaupt explained.
The city, of course, says it didn't. It maintains that the relocation ordinance can coexist with the state statute. “The question really is, does the city ordinance make it impossible for plaintiffs to comply with the state law?" Denis Vannier, council for the city asked. “The answer is obviously no."
John DiLorenzo, the landlords' attorney, has a different perspective. He says that while the city is not prohibiting landlords from exercising their right to evict tenants without cause or jack up rents, the ordinance will deter landlords from doing so in a way that amounts to prohibition. He explained that by penalizing landlords who violate the ordinance, “The city is attempting to prohibit indirectly what it cannot prohibit directly."
A decision on whether or not that's true will have to wait. DiLorenzo said this morning that council for the city had raised new issues in a response to a briefing that he hadn't had time to address. The landlords will have one week to file a briefing in response to the city.
A judgement on whether or not the law will be tossed before trial is expected the following week.
This is the second hearing in which landlords have tried to knee-cap the new law. In February, they argued their case before a federal judge, who promptly sent the matter to state court.