Letter: 90-day notice: The effects of unintended consequences
Published 12:00 am Wednesday, December 16, 2015
Let’s talk about the idea of a 90-day notice requirement. It is easy for renters to call their landlord greedy and without scruples. The fact of the matter is most landlords do not give notices just so they can raise the rent.
Landlords are in the business of retaining tenants, not sending them on their way. They could just as easily give a rent increase notice that you could accept or give your 30-day notice to vacate.
A tightening rental market does, however, force landlords to review their current tenants. Let’s say a tenant is chronically late on his or her rent. Or there have been numerous complaints from other tenants. Or they have kept a pet when their rental agreement clearly states pets are not allowed. A landlord could give a tenant a 30-day notice “with cause” and force them to vacate, either through voluntary surrender or through the Forcible Entry and Detainer process in which a landlord takes his or her case to court for resolution. Most landlords do not wish to take this route, as a successful eviction does not guarantee full repayment. Further, an eviction based on a court judgment sticks with the tenant and makes it much more difficult for them to find a new place as most landlords will not rent to someone who has been evicted for cause. Thus, a landlord will usually be more inclined to give a simple 30-day notice. The landlord gets his or her unit back, and the tenant is able to move on without a strike against him or her.
Landlords who currently have rental properties have been on a roller-coaster experience in attempting to keep their investments profitable. During the recession, the vacancy rate at times was upward of 50 percent. Some landlords were lowering rents, offering extra amenities such as one month’s free rent after one year and even installing washer and dryers in units. All of this was gauged to attract new tenants. One landlord even sent out Safeway gift cards a couple of years in a row at Christmas just to say thank you for being his tenant. This was considered a “renter’s market,” where landlords were in essence giving the farm away to attract and retain tenants.
Now, let’s imagine a Central Oregon rental market that requires a 90-day notice.
Here is my prediction. Landlords will require first month’s as well as last month’s rent and an increased security deposit. Most landlords do not currently require last month’s rent. This equates to having to have funds equivalent to three times rent just to be considered. Further, landlords will be inclined to tighten their screening policies, meaning only the best and most qualified will be considered. This will end up negating most “protections” afforded by a 90-day notice requirement.
The simplest of truths is that landlords have an investment, an investment they will protect. With a 90-day notice requirement, landlords will be at a financial risk, one they will protect themselves from.
You may ask, why would a landlord do this? The answer is simple. With a 90-day notice, there is a 90-day revenue exposure to the landlord. If you were given notice, would you pay the landlord for all of those three months’ worth of rent, or would you be forced to save up to rent a new place? Some would of course pay, but some might not be able to. This is why a landlord will probably be forced to institute new requirements as I have described for rental consideration. Like it or not, that may end up being the new reality.
Oh, the effects of unintended consequences …
— Tim Sinniger lives in Bend.