Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rental Assistance Eviction Testimony topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Housing professional tells Portland committee lawmakers: eviction-assistance rules creating loopholes
Summary
A housing-credit professional testifying Feb. 11 alleged Oregon rental-assistance and court practices are allowing some landlords and attorneys to circumvent protections in House Bill 2001, and urged the committee to pursue oversight and changes.
At the Feb. 11 meeting of Portland’s Homelessness and Housing Committee, Addie Smith, who identified herself as a housing-credit certified professional with more than 30 years' experience, told members she had observed what she described as repeated problems in how rental-assistance funds are distributed and used in eviction cases.
Smith told the committee that tenants pursuing appeals of eviction judgments have limited access to rental-assistance funds and that, in her view, some landlords and their attorneys are using payment and court-timing strategies to obtain possession despite House Bill 2001. She said rental-assistance programs cap arrears assistance at about $8,000 and described scenarios in which landlords “returned” rental-assistance payments to create a higher unpaid balance in court, which she said let them proceed with evictions.
Smith named a set of organizations she said are involved in distributing or administering assistance, including Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS), the Oregon Law Center, eviction-defense groups, United Way, Home Forward and the 2-1-1 system. She called for independent oversight of how organizations apply guidance and distribute funds.
Her testimony included an allegation that judges, landlords and attorneys in some cases are interpreting or applying House Bill 2001 in ways that favor landlords and that the statutory language about the amount owed under the termination notice should be amended or clarified. Smith asked to be part of a subcommittee and said she would share additional details with council staff.
Council members thanked Smith for testifying and asked her to follow up with written materials. Councilor Marillo suggested Smith contact the state legislators who sponsored House Bill 2001 to ensure they are aware of any potential loopholes and possible amendments. The committee did not take action on Smith’s allegations during the meeting.
The claims in Smith’s testimony were presented as allegations by the testifier and have not been verified by the committee or staff. Committee members asked Smith to submit documentation to committee staff and indicated they would follow up outside the meeting.
No formal votes or policy changes resulted directly from the public testimony during this meeting.
