ke net profit that you know it's never there because they're just not calculating their operating expenses correctly so asking somebody who is making housing a business or their their business um to have accurate accounting of their operating expenses it's actually a way to support them as as an entrepreneur right because you do need to have accurate accounting of all your expenses so I as as as any buddy that's you know running their own their own business or doing their own accounting you know I would expect them to have accuracy in the expense of their operating expenses regardless but I I don't want to pretend that this application is simple and all you have to do is plug in your PNL numbers here um so I just wanted to say that that I while cumbersome I do think that it is appropriate and it's it's beneficial to the landlords themselves just to have accurate information on the operation and that's all I have thank you counselor I have a question for you chair simpson I think on the heels of that so I appreciate that um that commentary that you know the more information you have the more organized the information is the better poised of businesses to succeed um and we have lots of folks who own properties in portland with many many units but I'm wondering about the person who might own a two unit um uh who works full time maybe has a family um but has these two units of housing that they rent out so it's not their business per se um it it is of course a business but it's sort of in in addition to their um you know their work in their life and I'm just wondering to the to the extent that you have a sense of this can you talk at all about the different kind of landlords that we have and how this interface works for the smaller ones yeah thank you for your question madam mayor I I think you bring up a concern that I myself and others on the board have expressed with the ordinance um I my reading of the ordinance is I don't see a way to simplify it too much but I think that there are a number of you know smaller landlords in portland who may only have a few units who would wish to utilize this process one thing I will state is that not all the only landlords who are going to be using this form are the ones who are trying to achieve a rental increase that is above the automatically allowable so we don't really have a prediction for how many we'll see but if it's the historic you know trends of the board we get a few per month um so if more would like to use this then yes and smaller landlords could you know it is asking for a lot of information one thing I will say is that the board works a lot with the housing safety office who ends up being on the hook for answering a lot of the questions from landlords and they can provide feedback to the board on things that can be done to improve the form so and I'll continue to work with the corporation council's office on any you know revisions that we can make that are still compliant with the ordinance after we get some experience with how this will work for portland one of the last things that I'll say is that a lot of the cities that have these maintenance of maintenance and net operating income methodologies have staff professional staff that are dedicated to these sort of things in portland this entire infrastructure is based on volunteers so it certainly that could be an area of difficulty for applicants but I won't get too much into that but I think hopefully that addresses some of your concerns that helps thank you there questions discussion from the council before we move to a vote here um uh I want I want to say thank you to to you and to others who serve on the rent board in that volunteer capacity we know that you're putting in a lot of time and bringing your own um context and personal expertise to the table so um I think we hear you that um there's a volunteer role and then there's a paid professional staff role and I want to acknowledge how much work you all are doing as volunteers thank you and I think we're ready to go ahead and vote on uh these uh to to pass these as an emergency order 155 Councillor Fornear yes Councillor Rodriguez yes Councillor Dion yes Councillor Alde yes Councillor Zauro yes Councillor Trevorrow yes Councillor Pilatier yes Councillor Phillips yes Mayor Snider yes Order 155 passes unanimously thank you again for being here and as mentioned we're going to take a little bit of a break before we head into Order 157 so that um people can uh do whatever you need to do so let's meet back here in 15 minutes it is now 741 um so I will see you at 756 and I'm on zoom Peter I'm looking at you are we good to go thank you thank you very much um okay so um we are back we've got attendees we've got folks in chambers thank you for being here we've got one more item on our agenda this evening um which is Order 157 so we'll head right in there and I'll ask the clerk to start us out by reading that order into the uh record Order 157 22 23 setting an election date on citizen initiative amendment to the Portland City Code regarding an act to approve tenant protection sponsored by Ashley Ryan City Clerk okay thank you um so I'm going to spell this out a little bit and then we're going to go to public comment um so we've got a couple of things in our um our agenda backup back up this evening we've got um a citizen initiative which is an amendment to an ordinance that uh we had a public hearing on last week um in response to our the hearing had to do with setting the public hearing date um so tonight what we will be doing is having a public hearing um on the council's work to set an election date for a proposed citizen initiative that has been submitted to the clerk's office in addition to this citizen initiative we have an amendment to order 157 in our backup materials sponsored by both um counselor uh uh Phillips and counselor Trevorrow so that serves as an amendment to order 157 hope that makes sense so when we take public comment this evening we'll be taking public comment on setting an election date for the citizen initiative amendment to the Portland City Code regarding an act to improve tenant protections and we'll be taking public comment on a proposed competing measure which acts as an amendment to order 157 I hope that makes sense to folks the original 147 is setting the election date for uh the citizen initiative the amendment to 157 is a possible competing measure that will be uh teed up for you by counselor Phillips before we head into our public hearing so um we've got like I said we've got folks with us here in chambers people on zoom I just remind people to give us your first and last name either the your address or the neighborhood you live in or the organization that you represent the city clerk will keep your time to three minutes and give you a 30 second warning um we appreciate hearing from you and lastly what I'll say here is in the event that um so we've got the the order setting an election date on the citizen initiative in the event that an amendment to order 157 were to pass there would also be a third element on the ballot which would be the none of the above which we can of course talk about later but I think everybody's pretty familiar with with what all that looks like so with that I hope I've made that less confusing not more confusing I'll go right to my colleague counselor Phillips to offer her amendment to order 157 and then we'll open it up for public comment thank you mayor um I um see I um I looked at the um citizens initiative um and I um had some concerns um that we weren't really um completely looking at tenants tenants rights um because ultimately our goal here is to look at housing and it's not just to look at the unhoused it's not just to look at the homeless but it's also to look at those folks that are in housing and making sure that those folks are being able to afford to stay in their house um or their apartment um and uh making sure that we were being fair um to them and and and getting them to pay their rent um and staying housed we also have an obligation to landlords right we also have that obligation this is not just so it's just not it's not a one thing it's both and so I really tried to take a look at this and I really tried to put a competing measure together with the help of consulate to viral and with the help of corporation council um to something that um I think is fair um to both and so um and taking a look at this I I've talked to folks on the council about this I've I tried to get some support I've tried to say is there's something else that we should be putting forth um and so I really tried to have this be a competing measure from myself and me um with help and with consideration from the council um and I appreciate council to viral um being willing to co-sponsor this with me also basically I want to put together a competing measure that says a couple things one um in simple terms that we uh increase the banked rent from 10 percent to 20 percent um and if somebody is um if there's a no cause eviction or a voluntary termination um that some that both the landlord and uh the tenant agreed to that and we get an affidavit from that stating that that was the case another one is uh supply is uh the voluntary terms of what it does mean um to actually have a no-cost eviction or um voluntary termination and the other one is to increase the the relocation cost by two thousand dollars depending on when you leave so that's what I'm putting forward um I welcome comments and I welcome comments from both the public and from my colleagues um on this measure thank you councilor and now we will open it up for public comments so again if you're with us in chambers please feel free to step forward make a line behind the podium so that I know you're here and you want to speak don't wait to stand up we can keep keep it rolling and I'll toggle between chambers and zoom so I don't see anybody in chambers I'll go straight to zoom Rudina you're up uh hi can you hear me yes we can yes uh Madam Mayor uh City Councilor and Staff my name is Rudina Gabizia I live in Portland at 285 Clifton Street my husband and I have no own property in Portland for over 40 years my husband is born and raised in Portland and I'm an immigrant and I've been living in Portland for a long time we both have been worked very hard for every dollar we have when we first started being landlords everything was done with a handshake later on Elise and the last three years has been very complicated you literally have to be a lawyer in order to keep up with all these legal changes the lease is not five pages anymore but 50 pages before rent control we usually did not increase rent to our current tenants but after they left we were able to update our property and send a set of rent to market value the last three years this has not been possible we have to increase rent for our current tenants every year after the lease after they leave we won't be able to update our property because we can't recuperate our losses anymore we worked very hard to collect signatures from our community to place our proposal to address this on the ballot we spoke to Portland resident and collecting it in the end over 3 000 signatures actually more if we had more time today I found out that there is a competing proposal that did not require collecting signatures not sure what this is why are certain council members working with and for Ethan Streamling trying to undermine our efforts with a proposal on the 11th hour the proposed act to improve rent control maintains all tenants protection in the current rent control ordinance approved by Portland voters the proposal is incredibly narrowing focus and easy to understand by both tenants and housing providers we have volunteered countless hours to put the risk proposal and the company summary front of the voters because we believe it is crucial compromise that will help tenants and help Portland because without this we are thinking on selling out all our properties important thank you for your time thank you for your comment please step forward you can you can just stand right up to the mic and give us your name thank you mayor thank you counselors and my esteemed community members my name is Leo Hilton I live at 3 Salem street in district 2 and I'm a co-chair of the main democratic socialists of America I know we're not speaking to the merits of these proposals this evening but I just want to say rent control works in our first two years under rent control in Portland we with the enhanced tenant protections our city is effectively stabilized rent for the first time in decades it's not perfect but I think the laws greatest flaws are exhibited in the city's failure to enforce them effectively the sponsors of this proposal this ballot question argue that they can fix our rent control measure and ameliorate the housing crisis by allowing landlords to further increase rents if this act is an act to improve tenant protections the question for me is improve them for whom it's clear to me that this initiative sponsored by a group of landlords and developers is a cynical attempt to improve their own ability to enrich themselves and I think most relevant tonight is their insistence on deception as a key element of their campaign for such they masquerade as a grassroots group advocating for tenants rights calling themselves the rental housing association and I'd also just like to put forward what is a rental housing association the only people providing housing are the my brothers and sisters in the building trades who are building the buildings that we live in and maintaining those buildings but in addition to that they've titled their question in a way that misrepresents its content and included a summary that seems guaranteed to confuse voters as to the actual matter that we're voting on last month I was sick with COVID went out for my once daily walk double mask trying to keep myself away from other people and I was accosted by a signature collector who continued to badger me even after I told them that I was contagious with COVID I refused to sign their petition and I was a little bit perplexed that they didn't have any supporting documentation or full language of the measure while they were collecting my signature this is all to say I urged the council to do what seems only reasonable in response to this clear attempt to gut an important provision of a law that was adopted overwhelmingly by the people of Portland at two elections with some of the highest turnout we've ever seen at an election that historically has some very very low turnout and what I'd ask the council is that first you amend the summary language to accurately represent the intent of the question specifically that it will amend not improve tenant protections and to remove the clearly biased language about discouraging no cause evictions and aligning it with 30 second warning thank you and second I fully support the competing measure sponsored by counselors Phillips and tovaro I think that this is important so that Portlanders can use this opportunity at the ballot to vote for something positive make a positive impact in our city that allows us to build a place we can all can live in and not just for the people who own the buildings thank you thank you for your comment and I do just want to remind folks that what we're taking public comment on tonight is two things setting an election date for the citizen initiative and secondly the amendment that was offered so if you could narrow your your comment to those two things that would be helpful thank you next we'll go to zoom chris acedo chris acedo at 12 pine street um I wanted to uh just point out the utter hypocrisy of the idea that when other people other groups others quote associations that the previous we could spoke about when the dsa came in with with their referendum question nobody from the council tagged an amendment onto to their uh amendment questions but when something uh when the citizens initiative is raised from quote a competing group of the dsa namely landlords this association an amendment is hooked onto it the the it seems so hypocritical that that when the citizens initiative is formed in this case that it can't be put on the ballot it has to be put on the ballot with modifiers set by the council but when someone else puts one on yep you're good to go and I would like to ask councillor uh Phillips directly if she did or did not get this information this amendment this idea from the former mayor third place third place in the last election Ethan stremley because that pollutes the whole process it's like he's running the council from uh the trailway building because if it's if it's if it's Regina's idea on her own fabulous even though it's hypocritical but I've you know Mr. Acedo I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm just I was you can try to interrupt the last speaker but I'm gonna interrupt you and I'm gonna just make this reminder please focus your comment on setting an election date and the decision before the council of whether or not to approve uh an amendment to order 157 so again I I really didn't want to interrupt the previous speaker and I don't love to interrupt speakers but I'm asking folks to stay as disciplined as you can within the context of public uh comment thank you okay on my time I'll be as disciplined as I can the amendment is tagged on to a referendum question where it was never tagged on to referendum questions in the past it's it's it was never applied to previous citizens initiatives and questions and part of that amendment is where did the idea for the amendment come from so I'm very precise on what I'm speaking about the amendment is polluted by the idea that the person who's initiating the amendment got that amendment for some from somebody who initiated any second warning I've said everything clear I'm sure people get my point I don't have to have to add to it thank you for your time thank you for your comment chambers hello my name is Zara Kane I work full time in Portland's food service sector and I live in Westbrook because I cannot afford Portland's rent I ride the bus southern main landlords association has gotten a makeover recently realizing astutely that public sympathy for landlords is in short supply they have renamed themselves the rental housing alliance of southern main when put it when you put it that way it almost sounds like they might be representing renters they do not they tell you they are going to improve tenant protections they are not this is an act that extends no protections whatsoever to Portland's tenants their message to you is that this will only affect the next tenant many of you are renters think about your own apartment think about that mold around the bathtub lining and the ants that come through the floorboard every May hi there sorry sorry about that again hate to interrupt but really what we're so the initiative set forth by landlords that is slated for action tonight by the council to set the election date that's going to be decided by voters so the content of that is going to be decided by voters and so what we're talking about tonight as an action for the council is setting an election date so that's we're taking public comment on setting the election date again when when we talk about the amendment to order 157 we're talking about the possible inclusion of another viewpoint on the ballot so if you could please keep your comments focused on what we've published in the agenda for public hearing I'd really appreciate it right on the situation for Portland renters is dire as it is giving further handouts to the rent to the landlords of Portland is again something that will be decided at the ballot box in June with the and as a resident of Westbrook I am of course powerless to stop the will of the public however supporting regime um counselor pelleteers competing measure is a means by which the residents of Portland can actually advocate for those their own interests versus being asked to sign away their rights the mechanisms by which we actually keep the rents down in Portland without any means by which to advocate for themselves that ballot box it's going to be a low turnout election in June and we want to give the renters of Portland something positive that they can actually look forward to thank you thank you for your comment Emily manter on zoom my name is Emily manter I live on Cumberland Ave in district one in Portland I'm speaking in support of adding the competing measure in early 2021 I moved into an apartment in Portland and learned learned that the landlord had increased the rent 60 between the previous tenant and myself without having made any significant improvements to the unit as an example I did a bit of research and I think the oven was from the 80s so they were not making improvements that they needed to pay for this was an extremely high rent increase that was not allowed under the rent stabilization ordinance that was in effect at the time I raised the issue with the landlord and copied the housing safety office and the landlord adjusted the rent to be in compliance however when my lease expired the landlord um did pursue a no-cause eviction um I imagine they raised the rent at least 50 for the new tenant rather than the 5 allowed under the ordinance and I imagine they got away with it my experience is not unusual these days unfortunately and it's clear that extreme rent hikes between tenants is something we need to make more difficult and enforceable not easier um in my eyes this is an issue of disincentivizing evictions um so I would support having a competing measure on the ballot um to give folks um more options because I think that um this this measure needs an alternative um because it would certainly make things worse um thank you I am curious about um the competing measures um aspects around no-cause evictions um I don't quite understand what that piece would do and I'd be curious about that thank you thank you for your comment um just another reminder to folks come on step forward if you're in chambers you don't have to stand back you can be at the at the mic at the ready please direct your comments to me those are part of the council rules we don't call out individual counselors um so you can direct your comments to me but we're really not pulling out individual people's names here um thank you uh for familiarity with the council rules and we'll head to our speaker here in chambers uh hi my name is Chase Heimbach um I live on congress street in district two um I assigned um to this measure because I was lied to by the person collecting signatures um yeah so I think that we should probably have um a competing measure and change the language um I'll keep it short thank you thank you for your comment Jonathan Cully on zoom yes hi thank you mayor uh Jonathan Cully owner of red from property sweet development owned apartments um in Portland um you know first I'll acknowledge what sort of that everyone's hanging and the council knows we do have an affordable housing crisis locally regionally nationally um that deserves bold solutions but it's important that there are thoughtful solutions and and ideally apolitical it's a shame that housing policy has become politicized and I think there's blame to go all around for that um I do think that you should put the uh the uh citizen petition ordinance on as soon as possible I was part of um the effort to create this petition um I think it should go on soon because um I will sort of reiterate that the petition does not remove or change any protection for existing tenants it does address what happens when a tenant voluntarily moves out allowing for a reset of basement um my concerns about the competing resolution are largely process oriented um from my understanding there's no precedent for the council to offer a competing resolution to a petition proposing ordinance changes I know the homeless services center there was a competing resolution but that's a different situation um there was obviously no competing resolution when the DSA proposed rent control in 2020 nor the rent control changes in 2022 um and I would say in the past that councils determined that the voters should decide on the merits of the petition and not muddy the waters or confuse voters with an alternative proposal and I think that's exactly what this petition how the the completing uh competing resolution would do um my reading of the competing resolution is that it's frankly vague and difficult to interpret and will increase the administrative burden on the city uh well the citizens initiative will dramatically decrease the administrative burden on the rent rent board and city staff um finally usually when the council makes housing policy it's been through a thoughtful and deliberative process and it usually starts with staff's research and analysis and then moves to committee for discussions and deliberations before being worthy of consideration by the full council um in this case it appears that the resolution just surfaced at the very last minute maybe last week um my understanding is there's been little or no staff input it certainly didn't originate with staff and there's no clarity on who wrote the documents and what the specific policy goal is that they were trying to target so um I urge you to reject the competing resolution based on both substance and process thanks thank you for your comment and chambers please hi thank you all my name is Stacia Brzezinski I'm on Deering Street I strongly support the competing measure and I'm here to speak on that for myself and the many many low and income renters in Portland the search for affordable housing is exhausting demoralizing usually unsuccessful and if you haven't considered this I'd like you to consider it today entirely unnecessary I'm speaking now to all in the council as well as the questions authors if you're present housing is not optional it's not a luxury shelter is a basic human need and we should respect that unalterable fact and protect it fiercely I voluntarily moved out of my apartment last year to move in with my partner that's wonderful if the person in my current apartment did the same thing before me that shouldn't mean that I couldn't live there so excuse me I wish that um the fact that housing is a human right was uncontroversial enough to never make it onto a ballot and from what we know about how signatures were gathered there's a good chance it shouldn't at the very least Portland voters deserve clear honest language but also a functional alternative when this enormous part of their lives of my life comes to a vote thank you thank you for your comment over to zoom Jamie Clark please hi everyone my name is Jamie Clark I live at 60 Brack history in district 2 I'm here to speak in support of the competing measure and for the change of the summary language to the proposed question um as someone who works in the city at a local grocery store an essential institution to the city city I've struggled to make rent in the past in the very recent past and recently had to change my living arrangements due to rent increases in my old neighborhood I was lucky to find affordable housing luckier than a lot of people who live and work in our city with already high rent in Portland giving the landlord giving landlords the ability to raise rent as much as they want after a tenant leaves will hurt those who are already struggling with our city's rent people who live work and contribute to our city the act to improve tenant protections is a misleading name and I urge the council to alter the language and to allow the um uh the competing measure to go through um and that's really all I have to say about it but thank you for your time thank you for your comment hi my name is Camille Howard I live on Vester street in district 2 and I'm speaking today in support of councilor Phillips amendment I work between 45 and 55 of hours each week and can still just barely afford to live here in Portland and I've had many friends and neighbors be asked to leave their apartment over the years and have seen them struggle to find new housing in the city this has led to a persistent anxiety that for some reason I may have to leave my apartment because the market is already so much more expensive than the rent that I'm paying now if friends balloon even further in town it means that I would lose my community and my life here in Portland I encourage the council to consider how difficult the rental housing market already is for young people trying to start building their financial lives in this city and to change the summary language to reflect how this measure would truly affect the city and tenants who live here and to add the competing measure to the ballot that would truly protect Portland's tenants thank you for your time thank you for your comment Elizabeth Frazier on Zoom good evening I hope you can hear me okay my name is Elizabeth Frazier I live on commercial street right here in our lovely city of Portland I am speaking this evening in support of setting the date for the citizen initiative for the earliest possible election date and appreciate the council support of that effort I am speaking in opposition to the effort to do a competing measure for two reasons one I you know do a lot in housing policy both you know sort of locally and at the state level and typically those types of policies started in the housing committee and are brought forward in a thoughtful and deliberative process that wasn't the case here in fact I don't believe the language has been reviewed by any deliberative body in advance of tonight's hearing so I would oppose that for that reason but also because I'm a renter here in Portland as well I have been for about seven eight years I've been living in the same building during that period of time and the landlord actually lives in the building with me which is very unique I live down on commercial streets you can imagine how unusual that is but in the first few years I was here my rent probably increased two percent per year maybe two point five percent I was very happy about it since 2020 my rent has increased by the maximum every year and I certainly understand the rationale for it I don't blame the landlord whatsoever they had to put in a multi-million dollar window refit project here this year and I'm sure that was a very expensive project for them and it should certainly be something that they're able to recover the value of the property in if and when I choose to leave so I would say that encourage the council to oppose the competing measure that's been presented and please set the election date as early as you can and I'm going to give you back a minute and 12 seconds thanks so much thanks for your comment and here in chambers thank you madam mayor members of council my name is Grayson lookner I'm a state representative in Portland I reside on warwick street and I'm here to speak in favor of the amendment I serve on the housing committee at the state of Maine in the legislature and I also want to apologize on the behalf of the state of Maine because we have not done nearly enough to address the housing crisis that you all are keenly aware that we are mired in and have been mired in for decades so it's fallen not just to the state the federal government has failed as well to provide solutions for housing and that has forced this city to take action to protect tenants and to protect the notion that housing is a human right which I believe to my core so it's not easy I'm going to say something that's probably going to alienate some people behind me I don't think it's easy to be a landlord in Portland I think it's much harder to be a tenant in Portland who is facing eviction who doesn't know where they will end up and if they can keep their jobs if they can live in this community that we all value so much so I think that this amendment is well thought out it's a compromise it's going to make it easier to live in this city and I truly don't believe that many building owners who are providing housing are going to struggle I think if you look at the market treating our housing as a market these people are doing just fine and we have to ask ourselves you folks have to ask yourselves out of mayor that you know what is the most important thing here providing a livable city for all or allowing a small privileged segment of folks to continue to make large profits at the expense of people living here so I'll see the rest of my time and look forward to hearing you all chime in in the housing committee in Augusta so thank you thank you for your comment next week go to Madeline on zoom Hi my name is Madeline Mackenberg I live on Deering Ave in District 3 I'm thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight and I just also want to include my voice in favor of the competing measure um Portland rents are incredibly high um I have multiple times over the pandemic um had very unstable housing and honestly it almost left our community for New York where I was able to find cheaper places to rent but so much of my life is tied here that it was important to stay this is my hometown this is my community and um I think that it would be important to look at the language of the proposed ballot question as well um as it's incredibly misleading and um that's all I really have to say I feel like everybody who's been speaking in favor of the competing measure have had really beautiful points to make and I just want to reiterate that I am in support of their voices as well and if the competing measure thank you so much for your time thank you for your comment next in chambers that's you yep Hi um I am Dylan and uh I live in uh D2 Grant Street and uh I would like to speak out against the uh misleading language of this and advocate for changing the language to reflect the true spirit of this initiative um this is uh an amendment and not an improvement it doesn't specify any improvements and to the protections for tenants um and uh the the clearest point of the initiative is to uh got rent protections um and uh all right so just a reminder we're setting an election date for the citizen initiative and then we're talking about the amendment that's being proposed anyway um um I lost my spot now I'm all like all right uh so yeah uh the um language here is uh does not um uh it's the first half of it um it doesn't say anything about uh the protections um to tenants and uh it doesn't say it just says discourage it does not say it doesn't specify what disincentifies is uh landlords from um uh evicting their tenants at the end of the year it doesn't have any solid um uh language to uh to support that and I don't know uh why it's um called an improvement to tenant protections when there's nothing in the language to um uh support that and uh I every time uh something like this comes up um uh the young folks all all all show up because um we're we're uh we're we're trying to make it and um and uh if we're um if we're uh very certain warning uh if we're turning off um what's what the spirit of the uh rent control ordinance is and um giving landlords free reign to increase uh their rents and incentivizes them to uh to discontinue leases and uh or you know um not make improvements to properties you know there is no uh checks and balances for the for any landlords to be um genuine uh in keeping their tenants and all thank you thank you for your comment uh can I have one more minute I'll just ask you to wrap up we've got a lot of folks who are looking to speak all right um yeah so uh it um it offers no protections to the tenants at all and just um uh yeah it and uh so yeah that that's what I want to speak against is that um that how misleading uh the language is and how many of those 3000 signatures just saw improved tenant protections and um signed way and uh anyway thank you thank you very much for your comment next we'll go back to zoom we've got Hadrian Hatfield hello um thank you everyone for allowing me to speak today my name is Hadrian Hatfield and I live at 196 bracket street in district 2 um I would like to voice my support of an amendment um and adding a competing measure to this citizen initiative um I believe it's necessary to add an amendment despite um the the lack of other um instances of this happening in the past because of the confusing and misleading language of this is the initiative I am one of the people who signed it and thought that I was um signing something that would support tenants and only realized later after a great deal of effort and research that that I didn't support it and I'm not here to talk about like we're not debating um whether to support or reject the measure but um I I think that it's necessary because to to add an amendment because the language is misleading um and I support the proposed amendment slash competing measure um because I believe it offers a reasonable compromise between the existing code and the citizens initiative and I really appreciate the specificity of the exact things that would change which I believe are the specificity is what's missing um from the existing citizens initiative so um thank you very much for giving me the time thank you um hi my name is rose do boys I live on morning street in district one thank you for giving me a chance to speak tonight and why support the competing measure this past november the board the voters of portland overwhelmingly voted to enact a law that gave many new protections to tenants including limiting the ability of landlords to excessively raise rents in precincts for the high concentration of tenants over 75 percent of voters voted yes it should be clear to anyone why this is so incredibly popular with portlands tenants rents already far exceed what many of us are able to afford and many tenants including myself are only a rent raiser two away from no longer being able to live in portland having to face leaving our friends family and community behind giving landlords the ability to raise rent as much as they want on turnovers as this new measure proposes will be devastating to our city and undue key elements of what we just voted on only four months ago um anyone who is evicted or needs to find a new place to live for any other reason will find themselves facing rents much higher than they have now unlike some of the other residents here tonight I did not grow up in portland for most of my life I lived in rural and conservative parts of new england and as a young trans woman this is an incredibly difficult isolating experience I cannot express in words how much leaving that behind and moving here changed my life for better the city is a place where I'm able to be myself and have a wonderful queer community I cannot have imagined ever wanting to leave all that being said while portland prides itself and being a welcoming place for queer people if we can't afford to live here then no amount of rainbow crosswalks and pride flags and shop windows will amount to anything more than hypocrisy if portland wants to remain a safe harbor for queer people then its housing policy must reflect that commitment trans people struggle disproportionately with homelessness due to due to having a much lower income on average and higher rents will destroy the city's working class queer community if this happens I simply do not know where else I will go this ballot question by enabling landlords to have unlimited increases on vacancies will make it impossible for young queer kids to move here like I did many of them will be trapped in vulnerable and often abusive situations as any vacant apartment of portland will be privately expensive I asked the council to support adding a competing measure to the ballot the original measure claims that old scourge no fault evictions but this is simply not true the proposed competing measure will give voters a choice to actually limit this practice from happening while acting as a compromise and allowing landlords to raise rents when they actually earned it I also encourage the city council to change the summary language to be more neutral the current language is misleading and it is only fair that the voters know what they're voting on unlike what happened when the signatures were collected which is something that I personally witnessed happening thank you for giving me the time to speak and in particular I want to thank the two counselors for sponsoring the competing measure I and portland's tenants will not forget it thank you thank you for your comment Matt Walker on zoom hello thank you the opportunity to talk my name is Matt Walker I live at 655 congress and I am talking today because I want to speak in support of councillor Phillips's competing proposal so thank you to councillors Phillips and Trevorrow wow you've got guts that's pretty cool I think it's really cool when the councillors want to step up for the citizens so specifically I like this proposal because what it's doing this competing proposal right what it's doing is it's specifically targeting the claimed intent of the original proposal right so the original proposal talked about incentives for landlords to increase rents on existing tenants and it talks about discouraging no-cause evictions but nowhere and what they're going to do is actually going to do that so these the the councillors competing proposal targets those concerns that they said they had and come up with and came up with a solution to fix them and I especially like that the their summary language here is specific it's got like an abcd of exactly what it's going to do right abcd exactly what it's going to do you will scroll through the the legal text and that's exactly what it does when you look at the original language's summary it it talks about the incentives and it talks about what it discourages but it does not talk about what it actually does what it actually does it says the landlords will just jack up the rent between each tenant and it's going to just break rent control that's literally what the intent is so given the circumstance with the signature collections I think it might be a good idea for the council to take a look at the original summary language too and just make sure that it's actually talking about what it will exactly do right what what's it going to do and not about what it says its intent is not about what the incentives or what what it discourages just what does it do so I fully support the competing proposal it's specific in what it's going to do and it directly addresses what the purported intent of the original proposal was it's a really incredible piece of work to put out so quick and I thank you I really think it's you've got guts and it's it's super awesome to see that coming from my city council so thank you good evening councillors and madam mayor my name is katie wilson and I live in district two on hill streets I am speaking tonight in support of the competing measure as has been stated time and again this evening housing in portland is already cost prohibitive and hard to come by portland voters demonstrated in both 2020 and 2022 that they support rent control and want to see housing made more affordable in this city councillor Phillips and councillor travaro have crafted a competing measure that seeks to preserve the core tenants of rent control while concurrently making a compromise with those landlords who are concerned about their ability to increase their rents after a tenant voluntarily vacates their unit thank you for your time I hope you will vote in support of the competing measure thank you for your comment we'll head back to zoom Winston lumpkins thank you uh madam mayor and the portland city council for the sake of democracy it's essential that people understand what they're signing and what they're voting for I expect the council to provide a clear and neutral description and title for the referenda as you have done for other referendas in the past didn't disingenuous for an act to improve tenant protections to be called any kind of improvement though it is poorly written and confusing it will create at least a slightly increased motive to coerce tenants to leave their apartments existing regulations in spite of november's election are not sufficient to protect tenants from being asked to leave so that landlords can raise rent even by five percent some of my closest friends have been deeply affected by this in the last few months and are facing an uncertain housing situation because of it self-reporting your landlords wrongdoing simply does not work and cannot work an act to improve tenant protections in fact does nothing to prefer further prevent the displacement of current tenants and leaves in place the currently insufficient system of self-reporting it will not improve tenant protections and it will lead to displacement and abuse of portlands tenant population this may be the will of the people in june but we must be aware of what we're voting on I can't write that description any more than the authors of this petition could but I trust the council can figure it out with the help of portlands corporation council whose office I hold in the highest regard that said I support the competing measure as I think it is a good idea to allow landlords to fully empty their banked rent increases between tenants speaking as a tenant I have no issue with yearly increases in rent when I know what they're for as is now the case and they are limited to 10 per year inflation exists after all but it would be nice if there weren't banked rent hanging over a new tenant's head tenants aren't greedy we're afraid I will also mention I think if the legal language of a referendum is under a single page it should be included on the ballot as otherwise there is never no point in never having discussed printing it at all I admit is agreeing with the clerk on that point thank you madam mayor thank you for your comment next in chambers my name is bobby cope and I live in portland at 172 concord street thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight my husband and I have been left-leaning democrats since we first registered to vote in 1972 we own three three unit buildings in portland full of wonderful tenants and we live in half of a duplex and rent the other half to our son and his family we love our home and we love having our granddaughter right next door we have been lifelong portlanders for almost 70 years I grew up in an apartment with my grandmother and aunts downstairs my husband lived downstairs from his grandparents until he was 10 I have never lived in a single family house we understand why people live in apartments and that has been part of our philosophy as landlords in the past I never raised the rents on existing tenants I have great tenants I had one tenant for 20 years I never raised the rent I only raised it upon a vacancy now I raise the rents each year by the percentage allowed in an effort to someday get to market rate if I live long enough we have treated our tenants fairly and favorably without government intervention I believe that I represent a typical portland landlord I support the language and summary of the proposal which was submitted via the referendum process because I believe it will allow us to continue to provide this housing to our tenants without increasing rents every year I went door to door neighbor to neighbor friend to friend gathering signatures for it they understood what they were signing and did so with enthusiasm the proposal I worked for is narrow in focus and easy to understand it remain it maintains all tenant protections in the current rent control ordinance I support putting it on the June ballot conversely the competing measure is confusing and perhaps deliberately so this will only make matters worse for tenants and the rental housing supply if the council wants to bring forth housing policy proposals of such a complex nature such proposals should be thoroughly analyzed and vetted to the proper city agencies on housing I ask you to please deny putting the competing rent control proposal on the ballot it will not serve portlanders well thank you thank you for your comment next we go to zoom tyler mattes you guys hear me we can hear you hey folks my name is tyler mattes I live on salem street in district two thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight I'm speaking out in support of the competing measure uh I'm a blue collar worker in Maine finding reasonably priced housing in portland is always been a tremendous challenge uh the problem is that working people are an essential part of any healthy city and this ballot question and act to improve tenant protections proposes measures that will make our lives even harder it's a misleading name in my opinion and I urge you to alter the summary language of this initiative thank you thank you for your comment next in chambers hello my name is west pelleteer I live on christen street in the west end first I just want to clarify there is no committee process for competing referendum so this is the process um we are in it um this referendum question is a cynical attempt by the southern main landlord's association to undermine the democratic process but fortunately our city's charter places checks in the hands of the city council to deal with just these circumstances um so many of these people who signed this petition perhaps a majority signed because they were told that this would uh protect tenants and lower rent I was specifically told um there's actually two items on the ballot and the this one was the good one um so is the city councils additionally is the city's council duty as defined in state law to ensure that ballot language uh accurately reflects the referendum um at hand uh and the language being put forward in this amendment well the amendment we had heard about uh that language should be improved that the language right now as we've heard uh very misleading regardless more importantly uh the other amendment being put forward tonight is a compromise between the actual impact of the referendum just to allow landlords to raise rent um on turnover uh and then what the signatures were telling everyone in any crowd that I was in uh which is that this would strengthen tenant protections um this is exactly the sort of situation the uh the council's power to add a competing measure to the ballot was created to rectify and I hope you all take this opportunity to give voters an option this June that reflects more accurately what they were sold I'd also like to thank the councils or put these amendments forward for their labor time insertion thank you thank you for your comment we'll go to Rose Greeley on zoom hi good evening um I'm Rose Greeley and my husband and I currently provide rental housing in Portland we've been part of the community for 35 years and Portland property owners for 25 for many years we lived in our apartments alongside our tenants as we improved the buildings we offered below market rental rates successfully balanced rent increases with what our tenants could actually pay and made great friends along the way we provide housing for new manors low income folks and asylum seekers what started as an opportunity to help a community in need of safe and clean housing has become an expensive and baffling effort to meet the city's ever-growing demands on property owners we're selling the building because balancing our vision with what the city expects is no longer tenable I'm speaking today for for three reasons setting housing policy should be carefully considered to address the needs of all and not rush through as part of a political agenda and I personally work together signatures for the proposed ballot question and found enthusiastic support from every person I spoke with the act to improve tenant protections is a common sense and narrow fix that maintains all current tenant protections I strongly support the straightforward act to improve tenant protections and the accompanying summary I urge you to vote against the very confusing proposed competing measure and thank you very much for your time consideration thank you for your comment we'll go next to chambers good evening madam mayor counselors my name is glenn gallick and I live on hill street in district two I'm speaking tonight in support of adding a competing measure to the ballot I want to thank councillor phillips councillor travaro and all of the staff for working on such short notice to put forward what I believe is a well thought out and carefully considered measure on such short notice I believe this measure strikes a balance between the financial needs of landlords by raising the maximum allowable rent increase in case of voluntary turnover from 10 to 20% the strengthening of tenant protections by protecting against no fault evictions and respecting the immense difficulty of enforcing rent control by defining what a voluntary turnover is and outlining a process for landlords to complete should they wish to claim the voluntary turnover rent increase I'm deeply concerned that should the proposed referendum pass we will see an increase in no fault evictions followed by unlimited rent increases which will go unchallenged and never be walked back thank you for your time and careful consideration thank you for your comment jenna lutz on zoom hi everyone thanks so much for the opportunity to speak tonight my name is jenna lutz I live in liby town I'm speaking tonight to strongly support changing the summary language to the proposed ballot question and adding a competing measure the title of this ballot question itself is very concerning let alone its content the title is intentionally deceptive as this measure will in no way improve tenant protections it's actually quite the opposite it serves only to benefit landlords like those who belong to the organization who got this measure on the ballot through misleading campaigning on the contrary removing restrictions on rent raises between lease contracts poses a huge threat to housing accessibility for working class folks ask any working renter in portland and they would tell you that renting in the city is already extremely difficult I've personally witnessed many friends rent being raised multiple times within the span of a few months despite no real change occurring in the unit to reflect that raised rent if this ballot measure passes in the election rental units in the city will become even more unreasonably expensive and price out heartbreaking people who struggle to keep up with rent and cost of living as it is just to enrich landlords who fain financial struggle I urge you to alter the deceptive summary language of this initiative and to to reflect its true impact on tenants and to support adding a competing measure thank you very much thank you for your comment and our next speaker is in chambers good evening mayor Snyder you know my name is Rebecca star I live on Melbourne street in district one as I was standing here you know I had something to say all written out and then everyone in front of me just came forward and said it much better than I could so for the sake of time I will just keep it short and say that I support the addition of the competing measure and I thank council member Phillips and council member Trevorrow for putting it forward thank you thank you for your comment nori hilton on zoom hi thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight my name is nori hilton and I live on belfield street I'm speaking tonight in support of changing the summary language to the proposed ballot question and in favor of the competing measure portland rents are already prohibitively high causing a housing crisis in our city giving landlords the power to increase rent however much they want on turnovers will only make things worse calling this ballot question and act to improve tenant protections is misleading and biased it does not protect tenants rather it allows landlords to increase their wealth I urge you to alter the summary language of this initiative and I support the competing measure thank you for your time thank you for your comment next we're in chambers hi and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight my name is Sarah Loudon and I live on park avenue in district two I'm here tonight to urge all counselors to change the summary language of the proposed referendum question as well as to vote in favor of adding a competing ballot measure to portland's gene ballot as it currently stands both the referendum title and act to improve tenant protections and its accompanying summary language are incredibly misleading and are written to intentionally confuse voters in fact during their signature collection drive last month the southern main landlords association there I'm just going to try to redirect you to setting the election date and then the addition of a possible amendment the southern main landlords association the group behind this referendum hired circulators who intentionally misled many portland voters into signing their petitions if you could stick please to the public hearing that was posted I realize you don't want to but I'm trying to get people to stick to the plan which is we're setting an election date and we've got an amendment to consider so thanks for for adjusting maybe a focus on the content of the citizen initiative which will be decided by voters it needs to be reiterated that portland voters decisively cast their ballots in favor of rank control in 2020 and again in 2022 to strengthen those existing tenant protections our cities landlords are now trying to trick portland tenants as you've heard from multiple signers of the petition and to voting against their own self-interest why it's so these same landlords can continue to profit off of the working class people in the city as the portland press herald reported just a few weeks ago though in the last decade in portland we've witnessed an increase in fair market rent prices by 84 percent uh counselors I ask you an earnest how many people do you know whose income has risen 84 percent over the past 10 years to keep up with such high rental increases it should come as no surprise that currently between 50 and 70 percent of tenants in portland are cost burdened by their monthly rents and those are the people who are lucky enough to be able to find a place to live in portland and the people who have not yet been priced out of their homes an act to improve tenant protections is in fact the opposite of what it claims to be it is a way for landlords many of whom do not even reside in for a second warning to continue to line their pockets with profits it is at its core merely another mechanism for the rich to get richer at the expense of tenants and if it passes in June it will only add to portlands escalating housing crisis I want to thank the counselors who have already come out in support of a competing measure and to thank those who have already spoken in favor of changing the summer summary language of this initiative and I urge all remaining counselors to do the same thank you Harlan Baker on zoom please thank you uh Madam Mayor members of the council my name is Harlan Baker I resided 44 mitten street in portland I'm asking you to support a competing measure to the petition that you have before you I'm going to give you the reason why I was one of the people who were misled into signing the petition on the evening of February the 10th I was approached by a young man asking if I would sign his petition on rent control I asked about the petition and he assured me it was in support of rent control I mentioned there was a petition going around Madam Mayor point of order and he assured me counselor so Harlan I'm gonna redirect you again reason why I think you should put out a competing measure and I think you should put out a competing measure because of the the misleading attempts by the landlord association to get this measure on the ballot that is helpful context thank you I'm serious I didn't know that you were advocating for the amendment so go ahead thank you you know I really don't like being interrupted I don't interrupt you you shouldn't be interrupting me I've had nothing else I want to say goodbye okay next we'll come to a speaker in chambers hi um my name is Sarah McKee I'm a realtor here in portland and my husband and I own a multi-unit on st john street the very first time we raised the rent since purchasing the building in 2017 was after rent control was enacted and our ability to bring our units to market was prohibited one of our units is a three bedroom our current rent for that unit unit after a legal rent raise is $1,375 this is nearly a thousand dollars under what the state defines as affordable housing in portland we'd love to keep our current renters in place without raising the rent who were simply unable to do so under the current law under rent control so like many other landlords we reluctantly raised rent for the first time on our tenants my husband and I also worked hard on the signature drive we worked with 80 volunteers to get this small tweak on the ballot we made sure they understood the issue and allowed for voters to read the initiative every petition had the proposed ordinance attached in addition it was confirmed that when the petitions were returned to the city they were still attached we met with gatherers biweekly to ensure that things were running smoothly and gather gatherers were able to touch base express concerns and ask questions we are proud of our effort we collected over 3 000 signatures from registered portland voters twice the amount required by the city i have concerns with the last minute amendment amendment proposed by two city counselors the amendment does nothing to incentivize landlords to not increase rent under the rent control ordinance additionally it seems out of precedent of previous council councils as competing measures were never added to the myriad of citizens initiatives over the last few election cycles i feel this competing measure will only confuse voters and i hope that the council chooses to place an act to improve tenant protections on the ballot without a competing measure thank you for your comment spencer m on zoom hello can you hear me yes we can thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight my name is spencer mcfadden and i live on washington avenue in district five i am speaking in support of changing the summary language on the proposed ballot question and in favor of the competing measure uh rents are already ridiculously high um voluntarily uh raising is one of the common tactics of gentrification um to a city which would make portland much much less diverse um calling this ballot question an act to improve tenant protections is straight up lying um and like the signature gathering tactics used outright deceptive uh they repeat a lot they i um ended up signing i got a lot of uh the uh phrasing of rent control uh repeated to me a lot um without actually going into it and i would like people to actually um be able to afford to live in the city i urge you all city council members uh to alter the summary language of this initiative and i am in favor of the competing measure thank you for your time thank you for your comment next comment is in chambers hi my name is buddy more i live at 95 wild street i served on the rent board and helped to draft the current rent stabilization ordinance that was passed as question c last november uh in the portland metro area unlikely one of the most qualified individuals to speak about this topic portland is a city of tenants with almost 60 of our residents being renters and even more of our community members experiencing housing insecurity or homelessness we are all existing tenants because we do not have control over our housing i would encourage counselors to support a competing measure that would truly protect tenants a reasonable proposal that addresses the concerns of frequent rent increases on incumbent renters while still allowing landlords to obtain a fair return what the southern main landlord association is proposing in contrast to the competing measure is called the vacancy decontrol this was implemented in many california cities at the behest of landlords resulting in dire consequences for renters according to several studies the median rent in these cities doubled under vacancy decontrol each time a tenant moves out that will be one less affordable park apartment in portland leading to what researchers call involuntary displacement this process is a key driver of gentrification and the displacement and replacement of our community members despite concerns that landlords are unable to recoup investments and make needed repairs the law already provides a pathway for them to reasonably increase rent to recoup capital investments and make needed renovations all while receiving a fair return on their investment in line with decades of legal and regulatory precedent this process was approved by the council earlier tonight the difference between the initiative in question and the law we have now as well as the competing measure is simply that the current system requires public oversight over drastic rent increases while the proposed ordinance does not this oversight is crucial to protect the interests of the majority of portland residents in the midst of this current housing crisis the first thing we must do is keep the housing we do have as affordable as possible to tenants who make up most of our residents the smla proposal alone would be a step backwards in the wrong direction for portland thank you thank you for your comment we'll go to john john on zoom hey there uh john wasp tiger wasp i live on robert street uh in oakdale neighborhood and i'm just wanted to um speak out in support of this competing measure um to this ballot initiative thing that the landlord association put out there um i myself am starting to have to like look for new housing and dear lord is it expensive um and not sure i'm going to be able to stay in portland but i'm also a social worker and a fair number of folks um that i work with who are low income live in portland have been just in the last year getting displaced some of the things that landlords have pulled have been blatantly illegal but all of it really points to they were longtime tenants landlords clearly want market rate they're pushing them out so i see this competing measure as hopefully a step in the right direction and away from this astro turf whatever that these people put together and i also would urge that landlords just sell their buildings and get a real job um and thank you for your time uh thank you for your comment um it is super hard to try to focus these comments tonight so i really do appreciate when folks try um i think we're being pretty loose with comment in general people are passionate we get that we like that that's why we're here but i really am urging on both sides of the issue focus on the publicized public hearing for tonight i think it's just respectful um both of you know us and you and and and the differing viewpoints so if we could do our best to focus on the published public hearing content that would be really appreciated thank you so we'll go to our next speaker in chambers and then we've got a handful of other folks back on zoom i don't i don't know what that means what do you want me to do i'm sorry oh just just have been reminding that what we published for a public hearing tonight is order 157 157 which is focused on setting an election date for the citizen initiative so we're talking about um you know we've heard from some folks we'd like to see this on the june ballot that's what's before us tonight and then we've got a competing measure an amendment to order 157 and so we're focusing comments on the amendment and people support or not for that amendment okay so do i say that i'm in support of the amendment make it yes absolutely i'm in support of the first if you wouldn't mind giving us your name and neighborhood and thank you yeah hi everyone i'm sorry i haven't done this in years um my name is how i live on park av i've been a renter for several years um so i i'm here in support of the amendment um like i said i'm a portland resident i've me my family have lived here for over 20 years um after college i decided to stay here because i fell in love with the city you know like five years in and i wanted to stay here so i was able to find semi affordable housing that wouldn't put me in debt and i was really lucky so i immediately signed up um it's been two years since i was able to find it um anything like that in numbers and although i consider myself lucky i still am at an at will tenant um and so are the rest of us who are tenants under a certain landlord company here in portland um i actually got a reminder on my way here today that my rent will be going up it's only going up by $30 which is great right um i don't have a lease right now so like i said i'm actually like an at will tenant um right now legislation is preventing landlords from deciding the price for people like me um being at will i could be moved out next month if that's what my lease says i don't have a lease kind of unprotected here so i just wanted to give my experience as an example um this is why we need ordinances i'm no stranger to confusing language i asked earlier um about what this meant the language part is so essential um english is my second language as you all some you all know um and although i would say i'm pretty proficient when i tried to read more info on this specific measure i was actually i left the document more confused than i was starting it what i did find out though is that this measure will allow landlords to essentially name their price when a tenant moves out why that isn't clear is lost on me um 60 set 60 percent of people in portland are portland renters i think the person behind me um said that earlier we want to stay here we want to contribute to the city we love the city this isn't a radical leftist group organizing together and showing up to take over portland politics these are families like mine who call the city home and want to stay please listen to your constituents tonight and please make this language clear this is your chance to do the right thing thank you bye thank you for your comment next we'll go to daemon on zoom good evening uh my name is daemon yacht of left i live on bolton street in district three in a single family home i'm neither a tenant nor a landlord i'm speaking to you tonight um in support of the competing measure and in favor of amending uh the ballot language before you um and i'll stick stick to um process related arguments i believe that the process the collectors used to collect signatures was flawed and muddied the waters in terms of creating an impression that the citizen initiative somehow provides something for tenants here which it clearly does not if it's red um and there is a video evidence i'm aware of of a collector who actually did not provide the ballot language upon request and i personally witnessed many collectors who miss were miss pailiness leading uh in what the initiative uh actually would do um on the other hand the competing measure actually does those things uh that the collectors uh purported to do that it would do so i think in this case um the competing measure is uh is warranted um you i've heard um a complaint that um it would muddy the waters on the contrary it would provide a great deal of clarity here if you are to uh provide this competing measure which based on the arguments and the number of signatures that we've heard um actually might have a fair amount of support something that legitimately has something for both landlords and tenants to like in it so i think it's in the public interest for you to um both amend um the ballot language advanced by a southern main landlord association and their allies and to uh add the competing measure to the ballot so people have have a choice so that they can support something that there clearly is some amount of public support for um and i i think it's within your power to do that um in terms of precedent um that was done recently in 2021 a competing measure was added uh to uh citizen initiative related to homeless service center policies and it also the uh 30 second warning the amendment language was also edited in that case so it's well within your power to to edit the language add competing measure and there's also precedent to do that so thank you all for your time this evening and i hope you will do so thank you thank you for your comment anybody else in chambers okay we'll head back to zoom amelia kellerher hi good evening um my name is me a kellerher and i'm a renter on grant street in district two and i'm here today to express my support of the measure um and to clarify the language of the current ballot measure i'm also in favor of adding council philips proposed competing measure to the june ballot um and a study released last thursday for the national low income housing coalition found that affordable housing is unavailable for more than half of man's first renters and data from 2021 shows that man's rental housing market is among the least affordable in the nation with nearly 60 percent of extremely low income households spending over 50 percent of their income on rent so as a renter who is misled into signing the petition i believe the the language of the existing measure needs to be clarified and along with some of my peers who are also misled in signing the petition i have requested i requested to have my name removed from the ballot and unfortunately it had already been submitted to city council um but so after conducting additional research on the current measure i believe that if passed it would exacerbate the ongoing housing crisis by further increasing prohibitively high rental rates so in short it just strikes me as very um undemocratic to put a measure on the ballot that is worded in such a way as to intentionally confuse our sway portland voters which is already done we've heard that from many constituents tonight so i don't think that's something that you should feel proud of as um was said a few minutes ago but i would urge all councilors here tonight to alter the summary language of the initiative and propose competing measures to the new ballot thank you so much for your time thank you for your comment next speaker on zoom is alevi you'll have to unmute yourself okay we'll we'll come back to you um and hopes it works out next speaker joe yes hi this is joe the chiano i'm a property owner and i rent for 15 um renters in portland i purchased a building in 2015 with my family first generation american telling american i bring that up because i have a tenant who's from al salvador she's a new um a new manor and she's got two children and i've been renting to her since 2015 and since then we've worked things out to try to accommodate um not increasing rent and unfortunately as a result of rent control i've had to increase rents each year and it's and it's something that i wish i could avoid but you know having not raised rent since 2015 um has really created a very below market rent for that unit and so i bring that up because um if i have the ability to raise to a market rate upon her choosing to to move out um then that would make it much easier for me to maintain the status quo that we started in 2015 and i bring this up because of the fact that adding this amendment that is complicated that many people on both sides of the fence this uh this evening have mentioned how confusing and how convoluted the wording is the the way that the wording for the initial uh initiative that was put forth was that we're going to keep all rent controls in place but upon that person's voluntary leaving of the unit we can raise rents to a marketable rate and keeping things simple on a ballot i think is crucial because what that allows is somebody to say yes or no i want to move forward with this this sounds like a good idea or i don't adding a a an alternative to that makes it very difficult for there to be an affirmative position and so we put forth a a proposal so that we could allow market rates to be adjusted upon uh somebody voluntarily moving out but it gives us the flexibility to say hey listen you know things are working out great i want to keep you as a tenant you can't afford more okay we'll work this out um and unfortunately our hands are tied we have to i you know as i mentioned earlier need to increase rent each year so um nothing more to say other than the fact that i would like to set uh the green ballot and uh you know the the earliest ballot and to keep things simple so that it is a yes or no on the ballot to what was put forth and let the voters decide thank you thank you for your comment and we'll try again with a levy so you are permitted to talk on our end but we need you to unmute yourself okay so we're gonna we're gonna move on to Eli hi um my name is Eli i live on cumberland av in poland main um it came to my attention that the petition i signed that uh it's now what we're speaking about um completely misled me in the information that was given i now understand that it would eliminate the five percent cap and rent increase that currently exists on units that are voluntarily left by the tenant um i also want to mention that a couple of the landlords have been mentioning that they've unfortunately had to raise rent um each year it is not my understanding that landlords have to raise rent each year and that this would help them in not forcing them to raise rent um is my understanding that this new amendment which again i agree has very confusing language and i support the clarification of um would eliminate the five percent uh cap and so that great um you could bring a lower income um apartment up to market value but you could also bring a market value one way way above what it what it what it should be so that being said i'll keep it brief and i urge you to amend the ballot length on this question to remove any language that seemingly promotes um uh renters uh good good will um and to um add a competing measure thank you thank you for your comment and next we'll go to brit vitaleas good evening thank you for your time my name is brit vitaleas i'm president of the much uh spoken about rental housing alliance um this is really a process question this evening and um and and when we're concerned about um i think it's worth looking at the language we've heard a lot about housing challenges and greedy landlords but looking at the language i think the council has to determine whether it warrants and needed a competing measure there is about all of one sentence in the proposed language um that is that is what's in here it says if the tenancy of a covered unit is terminated voluntarily by a tenant the landlord may establish a new base rent at their discretion and then it defines voluntary termination and the rest of it is about protecting the tenants that's all so i'm not sure what all these charges are about the confusion and then um the clarity of the um competing measure i think the green new deal was rather confusing when it was an inclusionary housing bill called the green new deal and what feels like is happening is the dsa anything's trembling or finding a way to get something on the ballot without having to go through the process uh the referendum process here in the city so to the substance of order mayor can we make sure he stays on topic please i'm sorry um yes uh well i'm asking just focusing on the content of the public hearing this evening which is setting the election date for the citizen initiative and the amendment that we have before us in the packet to 157 understood i apologize i was trying to cite the precedent for other titles and other summaries that have been in the past and this exists within that context i certainly the i would like to hear the council explain um what's going on in the counter proposal and how it's a competing measure against what is really a very simple question um a 20 increase is not a given increase we've all read this several times over the weekend and it's very confusing 20 is a cap of the increase but that's on top of only what you get is a bank grant 70 of cpi and only 5 on a turnover those things are never going to equal 20 so i think this is misleading it's much more complicated and we'd really like to know where it came from the referendum process is a challenge in the city we tried to grab this thank you in a very very narrow way i hope the council wrestles with the proposal puts it on the ballot and sees that there is no need for countermeasure anyone who signed anything could easily read the language it was there and if it wasn't there they should not have signed but the process is important and anything that comes forward from the council should be clear should have been deliberated it's coming forward in the council's name thank you very much thank you for your comment and thank you for the point of order um councilor fornier okay uh alivi are you able to to speak i am i think i am muted myself great you did okay um good evening my name is alan levy i live on festenden street in portland and i own rental units in south portland as well as in portland and i am speaking in opposition to the competing measure of the referendum initiative i respect the care and the due diligence that the south portland city council engaged in order to put together their rent control policy while one may agree or disagree with the outcome what i can say is that the process is good governance it was unrushed thoughtful and stakeholders were considered over a two-year period the city of south portland developed their rent control policy i consider this good governance the city of portland also has the opportunity to exercise good governance this evening there are lessons to be learned from the south portland city council's rent control process please consider the due diligence and the amount of time it took for south portland to come out with a well thought out rent control policy and then please consider the process of how councillor phillips and councillor trevoros competing measure came to be i am unsure of how much due diligence went into the crafting of their measure i am unsure if stakeholders were involved i am unsure of its clarity to tenants or to landlords the only fact that i am sure of is that this measure was presented publicly this past sunday at the 11th hour i am not asking the city councillors to vote for or against this amendment measure based on whether they are for or against rent control i feel the council should vote against this measure due to its lack of a transparent and thorough process the city of portland voters deserve better if they if they are going to vote on a measure to amend rent control thank you very much thank you for your comment okay i want to thank everybody who has offered comment tonight i'm going to close public comment on order 157 we've had about 40 speakers both here in chambers and on zoom and again um a little tricky to keep everybody on course um but the effort was is really made um to you know try to try to stick with what we've publicized for a public hearing and be relevant to the order in front of the council for action tonight so as we get into our discussion we're going to need a motion and a second to consider what's before us this evening um so i'm looking for a motion from the council please so move is there a second second councillor travaro with the second on zoom thank you um so we will get into a council discussion um councillor philips at the appropriate time you can go ahead and offer your amendment um i would like to turn to the clerk just because we do have an inclusion in the packet that has to do with um signature gathering and other elements associated with the clerk's work to support the council's action to set an election date so if you i just want to tee you up for that so that can be um you know put put on the record that we've got that memo in the packet and then we'll go to council for discussion on february 16th the rent housing alliance filed positions in our office regarding the amendments to the portland city court of ordinances chapter six buildings and building regulations positions were titled an act to improve tenant protections the petitions contained a total of four thousand thirteen signatures for verification um through that process we validated 3087 signatures and 926 of them were rejected the required number of signatures needed to be put on the ballot is 1500 um we did have some uh complaints about uh removing signatures but uh once petitions are filed we're not allowed to do so um so uh they won't they shouldn't be removed once they're filed in our office um even with those complaints the amount of signatures that were collected was way more than what was needed to be put on the ballot um during the council meeting in march six the public hearing date was set for this evening march 20th the notice of public hearing as well as full text of the ordinance was put into the portland press herald on friday march 10th um and then tonight's meeting council will decide to put the initiative on the ballot for consideration on the june 13th 2023 election under section nine dash four one a of the portland city code i'm also requesting that the title and summary only be placed on the ballot due to the length of the text um and it's not reasonably possible to reproduce the full text of the initiative on the ballot for june i appreciate that thank you very much um for sharing that information and so we've got a motion we've got a second i look to the council for discussion counselor zaro thank you madam mayor uh just for clarification we are we were discussing and debating the amendment as well or primarily the amendment has been teed up but not yet offered or uh we don't have a motion um for it so right now we're in the content of 157 okay i'll do a little bit of both just because i feel like everything is really tight in um first of all thank you everyone for giving comment i feel like the only time we really see this room as full as it is tonight is when we're discussing referenda the last time was in august and a lot of familiar faces are here tonight i'm just going to take a moment uh to discuss not the content of what we were talking about tonight so far with the referenda or the competing measure but rather the process that got us here i think we've come to a point where we can now expect referenda at every election not just in november but now in june uh it really doesn't matter if the council's working on it in our committees uh even though that's what we were elected to do but we're seeing them come in abundance uh what was once a process that was meant to be the people's veto now feels a little bit weaponized uh into a back and forth uh in between elections and um it's resulting in uh enacting policies that are well intentioned but have unintended consequences it's putting us in a position of wanting to do the best we can but having our hands tied because we can't change things in the moment um and it's it's creating situations for city staff where they are not able to to enact the policies themselves it's even been shared tonight so you know i personally just want to say i believe it's time for this council to collectively and collaboratively discuss and debate amendments to chapter nine and send our recommendations to portlanders to align our referenda process with the state because this is not working we are watching people tear each other apart every time they get something on the ballot and we're going to disappoint whoever whether it's you're in the room or someone who's watching on zoom you're going to be disappointed because we have very limited capacity in this moment and so i'm really frustrated because i really want to help but i can't and i know my colleagues likely feel the same anyway i digress so it's already two two and a half minutes left um okay so what i've heard a lot tonight is i remember in 2022 the landlord association it was a key funder of enough is enough a group that was formed to oppose all referenda because they said that the referenda process was being abused i remember being in this room with all of you or most of you um welcome councillor um and i remember we were being told don't bring a competing measure let portlanders vote on it we were being scolded we were if we considered that it was going to be a direct slap in the face of our citizenry um let the voters voted up or down and i agreed with that and and now i'm hearing the opposite and i'm feeling a moment of cognitive dissonance because i don't know which one it is um i i want to thank my colleagues you know councillor philips councillor travaro um for engaging on this topic i believe you know i did i tried something similar last summer by adopting and referring um it didn't work out but i know how hard it is and you you walk away from this meeting feeling pretty bruised and people can be really harsh but it doesn't mean you're not coming from a really good place and you want to you want to do good and i respect you immensely for that my friend um but you know i think it's really important for us to pursue what we're passionate about in this i think that working with members of the community is really important that being said it's really important that we do that together um we have to do that collaboratively and the last time this body considered a competing measure was in 2021 it was with the smaller shelters question and at the time it had been worked on in hhs committee um i expressed my concern with it because i was not on that committee and i didn't want to put a council approved so it is a competing measure uh out without having a workshop on it i had to go back and look at that meeting to remind myself of where i fell on that and um i can i i'm having a hard time now and i had a hard time then saying how can i understand the impacts of what this council was endorsing 30 second warning if i did how is that possible i'm gonna need an extension without i didn't speak at all tonight so i'm gonna i'm gonna take some of that other time it's horrible how am i going to understand something this impactful without having time to dig into it without having a workshop without having a dialogue and working together i received this competing measure on friday morning it was three days ago many of the people we heard tonight knew more about this before i did and i spent the weekend reading it but that puts me in a really uncomfortable spot because i'm supposed to be ready and to to dive in and i'm just being really honest with everyone this we don't get any special access before most other people do this is just the name of the game for me here's where i'm at i'm going to try to wrap it up really quick i would really like to see this referred to hgdc so it can get a full analysis from city staff and colleagues on the council i know that we are in a time crunchier but there's nothing that says that we can't bring something back for a november ballot that says you know because we'd have to put this out for referenda for voters to vote on but this needs more due diligence i don't want to endorse and i don't believe endorsing any referenda at this point seeing this dueling back and forth overturning what just had passed is like i said at the beginning of this it's unsustainable it's not how you run a city citizens are getting whiplash they're getting angry they're getting upset on both sides i understand that but we can't exist in these polar opposite uh politicized realms it's not good for any of us and i want to believe that folks are coming from a good place and they really want to see the best for the city but i'm watching it tear we're tear at the fabric of what we're doing here at municipal government so i'm rambling ultimately we need to bring landlords and tenants and developers and housing experts together see sawing between these questions isn't doing it so just just to be clear i do not like this referenda i personally will not be supporting it in june i wasn't planning on bringing anything from the floor this evening as i thought colleagues were also going to tonight with their competing measure bring amending amending the title um because i do think the title is misleading and the council does have an obligation and a responsibility to amend that um i did not prep anything in the packet because i thought it was coming but i would be open to amending the title of the referenda this evening to be objective and clear and my understanding is that the summary will not be on the ballot just the title so we we potentially wouldn't have to amend the summary title and summary there i am corrected anyway thank you for letting me go over so sorry i'll yield my time thank you there's no time to yield councillors your time okay doke uh thank you for your comments um and thoughts shared councillor fornir thank you so much and i think what i'm going to say is very much echoes what councillors are just shared um and so i will try and keep it brief um and so i think my my issue is again more about process and i appreciate that i had a great chance to chat with councillor phillips over the weekend to just talk a little bit through um the content it's not for me that i disagree with the content of what's in this i very much agree that a lot of this needs to happen but i think we also heard from the public that you know there is no committee process to be able to talk about referendums you're right because we're not supposed to govern by referendum we have we're set up to govern through committee through this deliberative body where we can engage experts on city staff in our corporation council in the community to talk about all of these issues and be able to put forward good policy that's going to benefit more than just again as councillor mentioned councillors are mentioned this this back and forth and so i think i i really appreciate the referendum process i think you need to have um the the ability to be able to question the governing body but again it feels like we are doing this in every election nothing has a chance to even get underway or be worked on because now we're in the next election cycle trying to establish what's going to be coming next and so i think for me it's it's sort of ironic as councillor mentioned that this last election we had a group very loudly advocating against referendum and then the next election they are using that as their vehicle to move policy and i just i feel like this is not productive it's taking up city staff time um i really believe that you know i have been the chair of legislative um committee and currently i'm the chair of health and human services and public safety and being able to have the ability to bring in experts have deliberative conversations be able to ask questions of corporation council i'm very proud of some work we're getting to do on pregnancy crisis centers and you know being able to bring forward that for our city but it's through conversations that we're having um with all of these different bodies to be able to make good policy um that will withstand challenge that will be enacted for our city so i'm i'm getting a little bit afar too um really bringing it back to say i i want us to have we know rent controls work you know in different municipalities um i really have high respect for my fellow sister counselors uh travaro and phillips um and appreciate that they brought this forward i too would love to see it and i in my notes had said i would love to see whether it's a task force or an ad hoc committee or going back to h edc the ability to bring together all of these stakeholders to talk about how do we right size this for our city you know we've heard from both landlords that have hundreds of units and those that have four and live in one of the four and so i don't believe it's a one size fits all but we can't discover that if we only have 48 hours to review very complex housing policy i'm not a housing policy expert that's not my job my job um is training people how to run for office you know who are um native leaders in their own communities so i have to be able to talk to experts and have time to deliberate i need also some downtime over a weekend to be able to spend time with my family and so when we get something on friday afternoon to have to make such a significant decision this is not a quick and easy policy i called corporation council this afternoon to try and work through some of my questions as well and so i don't feel good about putting something on the ballot that i don't have all of my questions answered and having to now talk about this after an entire council meeting debate this late into the evening i you know i just don't i don't feel comfortable being able to move this forward so while i appreciate what the body of it is and i do want to move these types of things forward i think there are other avenues that we need to use rather than putting out a competing measure so i'll leave it there thank you 30 seconds to spare um and you're going to yield that time i'll i'll give it back to thank you thank you councillor fornier councillor dion thank you madam mayor first of all let's do it in june that's the easiest part of the issue tonight let's i vote for june in terms of the competing measure i'll vote against it all right i i spoke with council Phillips beforehand it it's really a matter of process certain people gather petitions how they gathered them there are venues to deal with that if they can be proved the fact of matters certain citizens gather the petition opposing a question of the public it's incumbent on the public to become educated it's almost like we want to make sure they can't get confused isn't that said in every single election for every referendum question my god if i sense i could lose they might be confused if i sense they win they must have understood everything i've said i do agree with my fellow councillors this journey we've taken into policy by referendum is disastrous and i tried early in tonight's meeting to give us an illustration of that when i pose questions to the chair of the rental board to see if we could make modifications in something that i sensed he understood was a challenge for some of our constituencies we somewhere on the city recognized a similar challenge during nothing we can do right because it's a five-year term that's no way to run government all right somebody says yes there was precedent on the shelter initiative a competing measure was put on after nine years of work and committee it was clear what was at stake in that particular competing measure this one here i learned about uh vacancy deregulation all the legal considerations on how to frame an argument for the space between tenants i wish it was clearly settled law and i did read cases i read articles i read both sides of the argument there are many questions and i raised that with councillor phillips and she agreed well there are other questions to be answered if that is the case and i took her at a word then it's not ready for prime time now would i support that he cd visits this question yeah sure that that sounds good tonight i'll say it's not likely to be effective because we'd be trying to modify the structure of a statute in ordinance that we can't modify to what 2025 am i correct corporation council 2027 well it's five years from the right and it's unfortunate that we can't see that's the legal opinion so 2027 it remains an immovable beast all right no matter what good work we do on committee it's just interesting but it doesn't change the substance i think there's more to be said for this council to engage in its work to modify how referendum questions are presented that might change the atmosphere but up to this point i have to honor the efforts made by the parties who brought forward the petition i don't have an objection to this idea of modifying the language i mean an act to improve tenant protections it could be a stretch okay it could be a stretch now i will say in fairness with some of the other material i've read from other parts of the country there's part of that that fits into their theory of as to why vacancy deregulation makes sense so they wouldn't be so quick to chuckle that this title doesn't make sense but i can understand that the common person might assume something by reading this title and it goes to my overall theory on referendums i'll close with that is most people just read the titles that's why this is dangerous you make i read one referendum it was 14 pages long how many voters really read that come on let's be real with each other now if we're gonna do this kind of work we need to be real so that's why i understand titles are everything thank you very much madam mayor thank you councillor dion first to councillor travaro on zoom and then next to councillor redriguez thank you mayor i'm not sure where to begin and my thoughts have been kind of everywhere based on the comments that i've just heard um i think you know i was inclined to support this competing measure because i was coming at it from the perspective that it was a compromise between the the desire that we saw as exhibited by the the last referendum which is now in place to have um to have tenants rights um and this they need for landlords to you know recoup rising costs um and there's nothing in the competing measure that gives more rights to tenants than they have currently um it just the the major component for me was that it it kind of gave some clarity to buy how much uh rents could be increased annually rather than just kind of to whatever degree if they deem appropriate um so you know that's that's kind of where we are i i'm finding it really unfortunate that the entire debate circulates around processes rather than substance and my hope was that through the offering of a competing measure that would be an avenue for us as a community to get to the substance of this issue um you know the comments from the public largely have have centered around processes and you know intentions and that's really not what we should be talking about we should be talking about you know what's appropriate increase in in rent each year what can tenants afford what can landlords afford um so that's just where where i was coming with this i i don't know that i'm totally on the same page with some of my colleagues regarding the referendum process i you know i grew up in main and we're a referendum state and to me it has always been another check on the balance of powers and it's closer to a direct democracy and to me i i like to even though i'm i'm on the side of the council now rather than the side of the public i um i like to retain the idea that these referenda keep us accountable to the work that we're supposed to be doing um in terms of how much it's in alignment with the sentiment of the voters um so you know i'm open to having those discussions in the future but i was hoping that we could work with the process we have today to get to the the sort of question that we need to grapple with uh so you know if this were to be to be offered as an amendment i would support it um if it's not then i suppose well here's one question do we have the um the purview to send this to the november ballot as opposed to the june ballot um if we wanted to go the route of kind of putting this whole subject through committee i guess that's a question maybe to the cleric corporation council i'm i'm looking at them i think we just need a minute there good question counselor we can come back to it if you want to know what time well there's language in in the in section 939 the time of the election um which has to be no less than 60 and no more than 150 calendar days after the council meeting um and so yeah so i think 150 days is before november right that's just yeah pardon public hearing it's yeah no yeah no less than 60 and no more than 150 days after after today okay but is more than 150 days to the november election okay i think that's the answer counselor for that um for the the referendum the signature referendum we would we're only allowed to set it for june um if we so you know if this amendment if the amendment were offered i would support it today going to the ballot if it um if we want to as counselors are had suggested put it um on a november ballot and in the meantime put the referendum on this ballot um we could go that way i would also be open to working through some amendment language for the title um if counselors wanted to work that through this evening that's just where i am at the moment thank you thank you counselor travaro counselor rodriguez thank you mayor um you know in the backs of counselor tomorrow's comments i think the only thing i wanted to say was um kind of pause for a moment and see if there was going to be a motion before we go any deeper discussing and something that's not really on the floor um and then since i do have the mic and i have four minutes and 40 seconds to go i'm not going to use them all um i will say that um i agree a lot with what most of my colleagues have said um i am interested in looking at the process and having the council um try to mirror the the state uh citizens initiative process um i i do agree that the citizens initiative is intended to be a like a tool that the citizens use and i don't want to discourage us use but i also want to uh you know i want to acknowledge the challenges that it presents to good governance um and particularly in issues that we've highlighted as the priority for us to to take on so um all that said i'm going to pause with four minutes to go and see if my colleague does want to put a motion to get the competing measure on the floor and counselor philips i was just going to say in response to counselor rodriguez um i think that you know we have the competing measure in the packet if if you want to continue to hear people speak before you offer to get a sense of the room you can or you can just go ahead and offer it whatever your preference is no i'd like to um i'd like to go and offer and before i offer it i just want to i just want to talk about the process right i um first of all i just wanted to address the referendum because i wasn't here i i certainly understand the frustration about referendums and competing measures and you know i i understand that i can't speak to that because i wasn't here in this role and so whatever happened last year or two years ago or three years ago i can't speak to and so again frustrating process sure it is what it is what happened happened and so for me it's like okay well that's what let's even though that was a frustrating process how about if we leave that in the past and then go forward and think about where we are right now because i again i can't speak to that right and we can have conversations about referendums and all that stuff i also didn't create a competing measure i would see it before me it's in the ordinance i didn't create it i found out that you could do a competing measure i saw i had some concerns on the landlord referendum and so i said hey let's do a competing measure and so and so that's where it ended up it was i said okay let's go ahead and do one and then it's like okay well what is the language i tried to look and see and be mindful that this is a tough subject and this is going to affect renters and it was going to affect landlords and i said what to me what what is fair out of this what can we do and i tried to work with i not tried i worked with corporation council to figure out the correct language the language that came from me language that came from me in order to bring this forward and and and to you know and and i will uh i will maybe uh continue on to what my counselor counselor to varro said to get to get all chopped up about the process i thought i followed the process i saw a competing measure i got some language i talked to corporation council i talked to my colleagues i talked to my colleagues right i said hey i'm going to be putting this forward i don't know what i don't know all the language i wanted to wait for a corporation council uh to give me something and then i sent it out and not only that but i made personal phone calls to people to say what do you think do you have anything that you want to change let's have a conversation about this right i reached out and so to say i didn't follow the process or whatever i i followed the process that i thought i was supposed to follow and for us to get tripped up over the process versus what's in this language and we have something that the the initiative i want to put forward is for us to look at a couple things one is bank rent to take the 10 and make it 20 so let's let's look at the issue here right let's look at the issue let's see process out there you know for a minute and let's see referendum versus competing measures versus this versus that let's leave all that out in in the in the in the in the peripheral for a minute so what i want to bring forward is to increase the rents from 10 to 20 percent right the other thing is supplying an affidavits for somebody to say yep you know what this was volunteer voluntary between you and i this was voluntary i'm not asking you to leave i'm not evicting you you and i have agreed that it's time for us to part ways you're going to go your way and i'm going to go mine it also looks at increasing the relocation costs our priority is housing we absolutely and not but anybody else in a warming center or in a school or in a family shelter we can't so in order for us in order for us to be fair to your second warning in order for us to be fair to our tenants it's like okay well you need you need to be relocated we don't nobody has security deposit and all that other stuff so it's it's also taking a look and increasing those relocation costs about the 2000 to 2002 months front and also you know what it means to be voluntary terminated from an apartment and you know we did talk to experts they're right here I did was it set up separately and did we get in a room and you know I have a great have a conversation about it no well actually we did because we're all in the room and we did have a conversation about it but we did have a conversation about it and there were folks that came forward that said rent in Portland is unaffordable I know do you want me to stop well no I'm just I'm just giving you that look because after the five minutes is up we usually say the five minutes is up right that right it is the five minutes is up that's when actually yes um yes so I mean I think I think I'm you know what I mean I think people get it I know it's late you know I know all of those things I do not support putting it on the ballot in November what happens to the referendum the referendum if we put it on the ballot in June I don't know what will happen but if we put this on the ballot in November I don't I don't know what happens I don't have a crystal ball all I'm saying is is that we have a competing measure to me it's great language on how we can protect both the landlord and the tenants obviously I am going to vote for it and counselor would you like to offer a motion to amend order 157 oh sorry yes I'd like to offer a motion to amend 157 and is there a counselor who would like to say that counselor Ali with the second so we've got a motion to we've got a motion and a second to amend order 157 so we're in the amendment and I'm going to take this opportunity to say a few words and I'll call on you counselor Palatier so I appreciate this conversation I really wish we were truly talking about the substance of the competing measure tonight and instead we have been talking about policy or sorry process so I do want to first start out by thanking everybody who came and has stuck with us all night and who offered public comment whether you're on zoom or in person I know that it's a long night and I appreciate that for me I I I really want policy that's durable and and my I have to say that I feel like it's accomplished best through an inclusive process the democratic process that is deliberately slow and that's frustrating but it's the way that policy making was developed in our country and how we ideally do the work here in Portland with representative government is to build an inclusive process so that we get those stakeholders that were mentioned earlier we get citizens we get experts we get policymakers we get corporation council we get city staff we really talk about the issue and we come up with a compromise as a result of debate and dialogue before policy is put forward for consideration and action so for me any ready-baked ordinance that comes to the council or to the community feels like it's not it's it's antithetical to durability because that durability was taken away because there was no process so that's always been my struggle with the citizen initiative process is we get something fully baked and we put it on a ballot and the drafting is done nobody gets any say and so that public process regarding the substance to me is very important it may be that somebody has a great idea for policy but if it's not done in public with the opportunity for dialogue and debate it just doesn't strike me as durable and that's part of what I think we're struggling with here in Portland is that we're approving things on ballots that are ready baked and they're put before voters and then people say how do we change this okay let's go back to the citizen initiative process because the council can't handle it in five years and so we end up talking about this process versus substance because we're stuck in that tangle right now I don't think it's ideal um I think that the council has become an arbiter of political adversaries this is what I have experienced over my three and a half years here starting in the summer of 2020 the council had to decide about putting citizen initiatives on ballots should there be a competing measure what do we do do we adopt if we adopt are we circumventing the process that citizens want so I think that the council has become an arbiter of political adversaries because we're getting the adversaries who are putting citizen initiatives out there so our role is we're sort of stuck in the middle what do we do with these things we put them on this ballot or that ballot what are the voters going to do it's it's frustrating I think all of us raised our hand for public service because we wanted to be policymakers and we wanted to be part of a governing body and we want to act as fiduciaries and we're stuck in the middle of people saying don't use citizen initiatives for policy then we're stuck with people saying don't offer competing measures you need to respect the citizen initiatives and that's exactly what has happened to us many times at this table in the last three and a half years don't touch the citizen initiatives that's democracy and I'm fine with that as as was mentioned earlier lots of policymaking happens through referendum but it is really difficult when we get the competing messages from the community don't offer a competing measure do offer a competing measure what's what's don't vote for a citizen initiative none of them do vote for citizen initiatives so it's it's tricky and frustrating I would say at this table because we love this work we would I think that that's why you raise your hand for public service is because you actually really love the committee work and the slow iterative process to make good policy so you know we're not required to advance a competing measure of course we're not required to do that we have a community group that wants that for me consistent with past practice we have been told let the initiatives go to the voters if it's gone by way of a legitimate process that's in our current code let it go to the voters do I always love it not really but this is what we've got right now so as meant as was mentioned earlier I think that review of substance of chapter nine which is on the council's calendar will begin that work on March 27th is imperative and and and so to me that's where this lives so I'm not inclined to support an amendment tonight I always I always am appreciative of of people bringing things forward I haven't had the the chance to really discuss the content or the substance with the sponsors we've we've I feel like unfortunately we haven't discussed the substance we've actually just discussed the process and it all happened so rapidly that something hit our agenda packet on Friday afternoon and so I haven't had time to digest that substance so I won't be voting for the amendment I will be voting to send the citizen initiative to the June ballot thank you for the time I think Councillor Pelletier and then back to Councillor Rodriguez thank you I'm tired but I yeah I feel like I I don't know where to begin on this whole conversation and I'm again I feel in disalignment with some of my colleagues because everybody wants to do process and everybody wants to tie it up in a ball and make it nice and me and there's this consistent undertone of like we're not supposed to do it like this in process but in terms of a competing measure this is the process two counselors got together they had a conversation with their stakeholders or they had a conversation with community members and they decided to create a competing measure and people put citizens referendum on the ballot it's a process it is the process and I also just like to add this is a city of renters and it's really scary being a renter your future is very unknown you have very few rights and I'm pretty sure I'm the only renter here on the council it's scary being an at will tenant it's scary wondering if you'll get evicted so that your landlord can renovate the building and you have no money and nowhere to go and it's scary not being able to afford your rent here so I would love for us to be able to do this in a perfect way but there is no perfect way because we are talking about an imperfect system with a very significant power dynamic and power imbalance and it's not ideal but it's what we have which is the competing measure and I also feel like we're back on forth unlike we can't govern by referenda we need to reel in chapter nine and it's wild to me that nowhere in this body we've discussed people feeling so disenfranchised by their local government that's why they're putting forth measures like rent control that's why they're putting forth measures like tenant protection so if we are going to have a stakeholder conversation I would love to have one about why people don't feel like their local government is in support of them I would love for us to start there if we are going to dissect chapter nine because that's a whole part of this conversation that I don't think that we talk about I also think that there is always like I said a power imbalance between tenants and landlords whether people want it or not it exists even if you are the nicest landlord in the world you still control the livelihood of your tenants by determining how much they pay and how long they can stay in the unit even if you never raise the rent and I think the amendment of an act to reduce no-cause evictions is a balance especially in terms of the relocation requirement which I also think is fair landlords have normalized asking for first month's rent last month's rent and a security deposit before you can even rent the apartment so I think moving this measure forward is more than fair and at the end of the day it's still going to be up to Portland it's still going to be up to the voters just because we're putting it forward on the ballot does not mean it's automatically going to pass and again I think in a city that is rapidly becoming unaffordable Councillor Phillips and Councillor Terviro's amendment is fair it feels like it is a balance and it feels like it is fair and I feel like they follow the process the last thing that I'll say is I'm I'm not going to talk about the act to protect the act to protect tenants citizens referenda I'm not going to talk about the content of that because because I'm I'm fine with setting it so voters can support it but I will say there is no way I will support setting it as it is written now where it says an act to protect tenants I am not comfortable with sending that to the ballot as it is written because I think it is subjective and misleading somebody already said that so I don't know where others stand on that I've heard that some councillors are in agreement with maybe amending the the title and the text so that way when people are going to vote you know they're clear on what they're voting on so yeah I'm just going to leave it there for now thanks thank you councillor Rodriguez oh and then councillor Ali thank you mayor um couple of things I just wanted to say to councillor Phillips you use the tools that are available to you and that's fine there's absolutely nothing wrong with that kudos to you and councillor Terviro for doing that I think however that when we hear like the word process thrown around I think the best way my I hope I'm not mansplaining here the best way for me to like to explain how I feel about it is that you know the the way in which policymaking usually takes place compared to the way that you know this happened is a way shorter you know window of time it's not as inclusive I know that you reached out to me over the weekend I was doing one of the four jobs that I that I do and I just didn't get a chance to get you know as much attention to it as I as I should have um so in comparison in what you know a two-year process to create policy versus you know a weekend clearly one is more thorough than the other so I think that that's the difference here but you you did exactly what's within your your toolbox you know and kudos to you um I will not be supporting the amendment because like I said I just didn't think that it's a thorough process and I haven't even had a decent chance to to dive into it um lastly I'm I hear and I sympathize with the call to change the language but in I've not seen a motion here so without the example I agree with it I don't have an motion to offer I'm fine putting it in as is presented um so but I hear a lot of energy and I think we've all used up our time so if if we can just have a motion or an example of what we want the language to be let's have that discussion um and see if we're going to do it but right now that's not on the floor um so just to recap well I don't support the amendment um I guess I'm fine putting the original motion on the ballot though my heart tells me that even that doesn't make sense but I don't want to undermine their process thank you Councilor Rodriguez I um I think that when it comes to um any amendments outside of the motion that we're currently in Councilor Phillips amendment right now that would obviously we don't have anything prepared or shared or in the packet so somebody would need to come forward with something from the floor so that's up to my colleagues to decide if you're ready to do that in the meantime Councilor Ali the floor is yours and we're in the midst of discussing the amendment thank you mayor I have a question and then I would discuss the amendment if someone wants to bring the uh emotion on the floor how many votes do they need seven seven okay just to clarify that um I know that we uh having a conversation around process I am very sorry I just sorry I answered real quickly I wanted to make sure are you saying if someone were to offer a separate amendment that's not in the agenda packet how many votes would it need to make its way yes that's my question seven no sorry sorry I want to yeah no just a regular majority just a regular amendment not a competing measure or a competing measure a emotion to change the title oh I'm so sorry okay I am misunderstood glad we paused okay let's let's go to the experts here that's just five votes it's just amendment from the floor like that if it was a competing measure and it wasn't in the packet then what the mayor said was correct it would have been seven votes from the floor um because it would have been an unagented item but we're just talking a straight amendment to to the title it's five votes yeah I'm not often I mean I'm just asking because I've heard that there's a rumor that uh yeah uh I know we're speaking we're having discussion about um um process and uh uh substance I am extremely process oriented and I believe that you get to substance through process and um I've been through several of these uh amendments and backlashes and um you should have done this you didn't do this uh it was a time that I was the only one that didn't support uh an amendment that didn't uh join my colleagues on the council to make a public statement against a a referendum why because I believe in process they were accused of having gone under the rock and create a a a a referendum without having enough public process and I've heard that today from both sides and uh I don't know what to say to that um I hope and hope that in the next few months we will look at uh is it chapter nine may or that is your favorite chapter right um we'll look at chapter nine and then find a way to fine tune that process like I said I'm process oriented find a way to fine tune that process so that uh whether it is those of us who are here right now or a new uh group of councillors that will be discussing referendums in the near future they don't have to go through uh process like this and councillor Phillips thank you for bringing this forward I'm not supporting it but thank you for um as councillor Rodriguez said you use what is available to you I may not agree with it but thank you for the effort and um as I said I'm a the process oriented it's part of the process so thank you for being there for me thank you thank you councillor Ali okay so I think I don't see any more hands oh okay councillor Fornir um just a real quick interruption um where we're after 10 do we need to take a motion to do you want to offer a motion to continue the meeting I'd like to offer a motion I guess to continue beyond 10 o'clock now that it's time to leave councillor Ali has the second we'll take a quick vote on the motion to continue our meeting past 10 p.m which it is councillor Fornir yes councillor Rodriguez I want to think about this yes councillor Diane yes councillor Ali yes councillor Zaro yes councillor Chavarro yes councillor Pelletier yes councillor Phillips yes mayor Sider yes okay we can continue thank you thank you for that procedural check in we're back to the um amendment that's being offered to order 157 I think we're ready to vote on the amendment brought forward by both councillor Phillips and councillor Chavarro councillor Fornir no councillor Rodriguez no councillor Diane no councillor Ali no councillor Zaro no councillor Chavarro yes councillor Pelletier yes councillor Phillips yes mayor Sider no um okay doke so the um amendment fails uh six to three and I have a hand up from my colleague councillor Za