Owen v. City of Portland

“A party that challenges a home-rule city’s authority as preempted by state law is required to show that the legislature ‘unambiguously’ expressed its intent—a high bar to overcome.” Rogue Valley Sewer Services v. City of Phoenix, 357 Or 437, 454, 353 P3d 581 (2015).

Petitioners appealed the trial court’s grant of the City’s motion for summary judgment and assigned error to the trial court’s interpretation of ORS 91.225.  On appeal, Petitioners argued that ORS 91.225 preempted any local law—including the City’s relocation assistance ordinance at issue in this case—that “exercises influence” over rents charged by landlords.  In response, the City asserted only local laws “that regulate the price landlords may charge for their rental units” are preempted by ORS 91.225.  “A party that challenges a home-rule city’s authority as preempted by state law is required to show that the legislature ‘unambiguously’ expressed its intent—a high bar to overcome.”  Rogue Valley Sewer Services v. City of Phoenix, 357 Or 437, 454, 353 P3d 581 (2015).  After examining the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 91.225, the Court found municipalities are not allowed to enact ordinances that control rents but may enact measures “that affect the amount of rent” or discourage rent increases.  Further, the Court concluded the City’s ordinance neither controlled, nor effectively controlled, the rent landlords could charge.  Thus, the court held that ORS 91.225 did not preempt the City’s ordinance.  Affirmed; remanded to circuit court for further proceedings.