Portland, seen from Pittock Mansion, June 8, 2021.
Kristyna Wentz-Graff / OPB
Enforcement of Portland’s property maintenance rules are complaint-based. That means the city doesn’t even come to investigate unless a neighbor or anyone who passes by a property reports something. In about a third of cases, Ombudsman Jennifer Croft says, no violation is found. In other cases, fines can be imposed and homeowners can be burdened with ballooning penalties if they can’t or won’t fix the problem. Those most affected by this system are homeowners of color who live in diverse or gentrifying neighborhoods.
In 2021 the Ombudsman’s office laid out these problems, and its recent report details the progress the city has and hasn’t made implementing its recommendations to address this inequity. Croft joins us to share the details.
Note: The following transcript was transcribed digitally and validated for accuracy, readability and formatting by an OPB volunteer.
Dave Miller: This is Think Out Loud on OPB. I’m Dave Miller. Portland’s process for enforcing property maintenance rules disproportionately impacts homeowners of color and neighborhoods threatened by gentrification. That was the finding of a report by the city Ombudsman’s office back in 2021. Now, a new follow-up report four years later has found that not much has changed. Jennifer Croft is the Ombudsman, and she joins us now. It’s great to have you on Think Out Loud.
Jennifer Croft: Thank you. Happy to be here.
Miller: Four years ago, when that first report came out, then OPB reporter Rebecca Ellis summarized the results this way:
“Wealthy white residents moving into racially diverse neighborhoods are weaponizing the city’s complaint system to change the area’s aesthetics. In the process, they are forcing long-time residents of color into debt.”
What kinds of complaints are we talking about?
Croft: So, the report came out in 2021. It was focusing on how the city enforces rules around how people should maintain their properties. That system, the way the city does enforcement of those rules, is basically a complaint-driven system. So people reporting when they think there might be a code violation and I think, in many cases, with owner occupied properties, [it] is probably neighbors. Those rules cover things related to the exterior condition of the property – things like the condition of the roof, the walls, the door. It can also be about vegetation on the property, the height of the fence, how tall the grass is. Also the cleanliness of exterior areas, whether there is trash or other debris, what kinds of things can be stored on the property. So there’s a whole range of codes about property maintenance and yeah, complaints can really be taken about any of those potential violations.
Miller: How might a complaint about peeling paint, or a broken window, or a fence that’s too high lead to tens of thousands of dollars of fees?
Croft: So what happens is that the city follows up on all complaints, if they think there might be a code violation. And if they do find a violation, they give the owner time to fix that. But if it’s not fixed in the specified amount of time, that can result in an enforcement fine, which if it goes unpaid can become a lien on the property.
Miller: Meaning, when it’s sold, the city gets a cut?
Croft: Right. It can make it more difficult to borrow money, to sell the property. Exactly.
Miller: What were the recommendations four years ago from the Ombudsman’s office?
Croft: The recommendations were directed to the commissioner in charge of the Bureau of Development Services, which is now Portland Permitting and Development, and to the director of that bureau. And the first one was to commit to eliminating the disparate outcomes of that complaint-driven property maintenance enforcement system. The report had presented a lot of data showing that that complaint-driven system does not impact Portlanders equitably, that complaint rates are higher in neighborhoods with larger communities of color where there is more gentrification.
The second recommendation was about talking with the communities affected by that enforcement system, to identify equity-driven reforms to the system. And the third recommendation was to assign a dedicated project manager who would lead that work of engaging with the community and identifying reforms.
Miller: All of this was four years ago. What did you find?
Croft: I would say it’s a mixed picture. We found that the city has not fully implemented any of those three recommendations. They have taken some steps. I would say there was, at the time the report came out, the commissioner in charge and the bureau director agreed with the recommendations. They made a clear commitment to address the disparate impacts and inequitable impacts of the enforcement system that the report had identified. And that commitment has been carried over into different policy documents, racial equity plans that the bureau has developed. I think that the commitment is there and they have taken some steps toward implementing.
I think one example is that they have adopted a policy that deprioritizes enforcement if the number of non-critical violations is not above a certain amount, so really trying to focus on more critical violations. They’ve made it easier for people who might be struggling financially to get fee waivers or lien reductions. But really what we see is that nothing has changed in the fact that the system is still based on complaints. And the rules themselves have also not changed. That was something that the initial report also pointed out, was that really those rules were rooted in a system of, and history of, racial oppression.
Miller: We reached out to Portland Permitting and Development and got this statement from the interim director: David Kuhnausen wrote, “We are committed to finding more equitable approaches to our work, and understand that community engagement and education plays a large part in reducing compliance cases. While budgetary concerns and staffing capacity continue to be obstacles that the bureau must find creative solutions to address, we will continue to work with the tools and staff we have to address this recommendation.”
You’ve said, and you just mentioned there, that the heart of this is the city’s continued reliance on complaints as the basis for enforcement. But if I understand that statement from the interim director correctly, at a time when the city is facing gigantic budget cuts and maybe staffing cuts as a result, what alternative is there? I mean, what would it mean for the bureau to do proactive investigations?
Croft: Yeah, I think that’s where the initial report was not very prescriptive about what exactly the city should be doing. Instead, it emphasized that it should engage with the communities that have been negatively affected by the current system to talk about how the system could be changed to be more equitable, which can include changing the actual rules that the bureau is enforcing. Maybe taking a hard look at those, and seeing are those really about health and safety, and where are they more about aesthetics?
Looking at that fundamental question: what is the city’s role in the question of how homeowners maintain their properties, if it’s not a question of health or safety? And I think that there are also ways maybe the city could look at, is there a need to follow up every complaint? Should there be a higher threshold before moving on, in terms of numbers of complaints, before moving on to enforcement or proactive enforcement – which can also have its downsides.
But I think one thing the bureau says they’re trying to do is to focus more on rental and proactive rental inspections. Obviously, renters can be vulnerable if a landlord is not maintaining the property. And that would reorient the focus from owner occupied properties. And I think also looking at where can the city better support homeowners? Look for ways to encourage and support compliance for people who might need that help, rather than a punitive approach.
Miller: Jennifer Croft, thanks very much.
Croft: Thank you.
Miller: Jennifer Croft is the Ombudsman for the city of Portland.
Contact “Think Out Loud®”
If you’d like to comment on any of the topics in this show or suggest a topic of your own, please get in touch with us on Facebook, send an email to thinkoutloud@opb.org, or you can leave a voicemail for us at 503-293-1983. The call-in phone number during the noon hour is 888-665-5865.
