Before Oregonians even sign a lease or prepare for a move, they often face significant costs in application fees and deposits, amounting to hundreds or even thousands of dollars. In response, some Democratic lawmakers in Oregon are advocating for reforms to alleviate these financial burdens. Recently, they discussed proposals to prohibit landlords from charging screening fees and to penalize those who accept holding deposits but fail to follow through with renting the apartment. Additionally, a controversial bill allowing landlords to impose monthly fees instead of a traditional security deposit has raised concerns among tenant advocates.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly 37% of Oregonians are renters, surpassing the national average. This trend is particularly pronounced in cities like Eugene, Corvallis, Monmouth, Beaverton, and Seaside. As rent prices continue to rise—Zillow estimates the average rent will reach approximately $1,800 per month by February 2025, an increase of $30 from the previous year—affordable housing remains a pressing issue.
Rep. Annessa Hartman, D-Gladstone, introduced House Bill 3521 after hearing from renters who have lost significant amounts of money due to holding deposits for apartments they ultimately could not occupy. Hartman cited instances where renters arrived to find homes infested with mold, broken plumbing, or pest problems, only to be told they would forfeit their deposit if they did not sign a lease. In some cases, landlords accepted deposits but then rented the unit 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 stated.
Landlords voiced strong opposition to Hartman’s proposal during a hearing with the House Housing and Homelessness Committee. John Baker, representing Oregon Realtors, argued that the bill would discourage landlords from holding properties off the market for tenants in exchange for a deposit. He warned that the bill could lead to landlords requiring immediate lease agreements, which might not be feasible for all prospective tenants.
Other landlords expressed concerns about being penalized for circumstances beyond their control, such as natural disasters or delays in repairs that render a unit uninhabitable. However, Rep. Pam Marsh, D-Ashland and chair of the housing committee, emphasized that tenants also encounter unexpected challenges that could result in loss of their deposits. “I wonder why landlords should receive special treatment when tenants are also affected by circumstances beyond their control,” Marsh remarked. “The consequences should be equitable.”
Rep. Mark Gamba, D-Milwaukie, proposed House Bill 2967 to eliminate screening fees charged by landlords. Gamba highlighted that even lawmakers face the issue, having experienced the frustration of paying application fees while searching for rental apartments in Salem during legislative sessions. Current law mandates that landlords refund screening fees within 60 days if no background check is conducted, but compliance is inconsistent, leaving tenants to pursue their refunds. “If you spend $50, $60, or $70, you’re unlikely to take the time to sue six different landlords in small claims court for that amount,” Gamba noted. “But it adds up quickly.”
Adriana Grant, a policy associate with the Eugene Tenant Alliance and a low-income renter, shared her personal experience of spending nearly $500 on application fees last year, with little hope of recovery. While landlords, lobbyists, and tenant advocates voiced their opinions during the meeting, numerous Oregon renters submitted written testimonies detailing their difficulties with application fees. One renter, Whitney Donielson, noted that she and her spouse pay $40 to $50 each in fees every time they move, highlighting that the proposed bill does not impose a cap on total fees.
Although a tenant opting for a $25 monthly fee instead of a $1,000 security deposit might save money in the short term, those staying in an apartment for over three years could end up spending more than if they had paid an upfront deposit. Unlike security deposits, which can only be retained for unpaid rent or damages, the proposed monthly fees have no requirement for landlords to return them, raising concerns about their potential misuse.
