Owen v. City of Portland

"A state statute will displace the local rule where the text, context, and legislative history of the statute ‘unambiguously expresses an intention to preclude local governments from regulating in the same area as that governed by the statute.” Gunderson, LLC v. City of Portland, 352 Or 648, 663, 290 P3d 803 (2012)

Appellants challenged Portland City Ordinance 188219 that “requires landlords to pay relocation assistance to tenants under certain circumstances.” Appellants assigned error to the dismissal of their action and argued the ordinance violates ORS 91.225 which does not allow for rent control ordinances, and that “the text expresses an intention to preempt ‘[a]ny local enactment that has the effect of ‘controlling’… the rent that may be charged.” Appellants argue that the Ordinance “contravenes state law.” The city argued that state statute is not applicable as it only has to do with ordinances that put limits on what landlords can charge for rent. “A state statute will displace the local rule where the text, context, and legislative history of the statute ‘unambiguously expresses an intention to preclude local governments from regulating’ in the same area as that governed by the statute.” Gunderson, LLC v. City of Portland, 352 Or 648, 663, 290 P3d 803 (2012). The court concluded that the ordinance is a restriction, but it is not encompassed by the definition of ‘rent control.’ Vacated and remanded.