Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rent Control Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tenants union urges rent rollbacks, fines and audits after alleging hundreds of rent‑control violations at two Portland buildings
Summary
Trelawny Tenants Union told the Portland Rent Board it has documented dozens of alleged rent‑control violations at 59 State Street and 655 Congress Street and asked for rollbacks to December 2022, forfeiture of banked rent, fines and audits. The landlord’s counsel disputed claims and said many notices are being remedied.
Trelawny Tenants Union representatives and dozens of tenants pressed the Portland Rent Board on May 28 to hold landlord Jeffrey Rice and his management company accountable for repeated rent‑control violations at multiple properties, particularly 655 Congress Street (the Trelawny) and 59 State Street.
The union, represented by Ethan Strimling (organizer) and other members, told the board it had found “more than 230 violations” across Rice‑related properties and alleged at least 164 violations at the two buildings that are the immediate focus of the hearing. “From what we know, among his many properties, he’s overcharged tenants at least $330,000 just in the documented cases we know about,” said Abigail (Trelawny Tenants Union organizer). The union asked the board to roll rents back at the affected properties to December 2022 levels, to forfeit any banked allowable rent taken since then, to impose fines (the union proposed $250 per violation), to order a full audit of 59 State Street and to schedule annual compliance reviews for both buildings.
What the landlord’s representative said: Jeremy Dean, attorney for landlord Jeffrey Rice/Apartment Mart, disputed claims that the violations were intentional. Dean said many alleged errors were the product of misapplied legal advice or administrative errors and that Rice’s operations have recently added a dedicated rent‑compliance staff person. “He wants to follow the ordinance,” Dean told the board, adding that his client has worked with counsel and city staff to correct errors as they are identified.
Board and staff status and process: City staff and the landlord’s counsel reported that the city has issued notices of violation across Rice‑related properties; at least 13 notices were referenced in the record. The city told the tenant union this morning that none of the 13 notices of violation had yet been fully satisfied, and the union said 12 of those had been referred for prosecution. Dean said some of the notices have been addressed or are being adjudicated and that refunds and rent adjustments are being processed.
Public comment and tenant testimony: More than a dozen tenants and community members testified during an extended public‑comment period. Tenants described receiving notices demanding back rent or eviction threats later determined to be incorrect, inconsistent rent increases, long delays in refunds and fear of retaliation for speaking out. One tenant who identified herself as Giselle said she received a letter demanding $580 in back rent after an apparent retraction by the landlord; she said she did not pay the demand. Several tenants and community speakers urged the board to impose fines and ensure refunds, arguing that without punitive measures the landlord would continue the practice.
Board action and schedule: The board did not rule on the union’s substantive requests at the hearing. Instead, it scheduled further proceedings to continue deliberations: the board set a special meeting on June 5 to continue deliberations on the 59 State and 655 Congress appeals, and it scheduled a separate special meeting for June 11 to hear a related new appeal referenced in the record. The board also set a July 9 special meeting to address backlog matters related to other port property appeals. The board noted that many notices of violation are under appeal and that the city and landlord are exchanging information.
Why this matters: The union’s requests, if granted, could require significant refunds to tenants, fines for the landlord, and regular auditing of multiple properties. The case highlights enforcement challenges under Portland’s rent‑stabilization rules and the tension between restitution to affected tenants and whether additional fines or penalties should be imposed.
Ending: The Rent Board will take up the matters at the scheduled special meetings, where members said they expect additional evidence and staff reports. The board encouraged tenants and other interested parties to submit materials early so staff and board members can review them in advance.
