Oregon’s first-in-the-nation statewide rent control legislation didn’t chase away new housing construction after the Legislature adopted the controversial policy in 2019. But one of the biggest worries for rent-control skeptics has always been if lawmakers would leave well enough alone.
The worry is merited. The law started off with a cap on annual rent increases of 7% plus inflation for buildings 15 years or older. But amid spiking inflation, legislators in 2023 added a proviso that such an increase could not exceed 10%.
The backsliding appears to continue this session.
House Bill 3054 would allow rent increases no greater than inflation for those living in manufactured home parks while Senate Bill 722 – largely aimed at banning algorithm-based pricing software by rental companies – includes a provision to remove the rent cap exemption for buildings older than seven years old. Although both stem from good intentions, these short-term Band-Aids carry negative long-term consequences – most notably, a message that the developers and investors needed to reverse the state’s housing deficit should just steer clear of Oregon.
Advertisement
To be fair, legislators are understandably trying to respond to the urgent needs of constituents, many of whom are already struggling to make rent. HB 3054 addresses a particularly vulnerable group – people who own their manufactured homes, but pay rent to the owner of the manufactured home community where they live.
They don’t have the option of easily picking up and moving when faced with the large rent hikes that corporate owners regularly pass along, said Rep. Pam Marsh, D-Southern Jackson County, one of the bill’s chief sponsors. And manufactured homes provide a vital source of affordable housing in a state that needs every bit it can get.
But clamping down on allowable rent also squeezes the mom-and-pop operations that have long tried to keep increases down but are facing soaring insurance, utility charges, maintenance costs and property tax expenses. The likely result? Many have testified that they may end up selling to those same corporate operators or to developers eager for the underlying land – but not the manufactured homes.
SB 722 is less targeted and could ultimately have a broader, negative impact on Oregon’s housing market if it goes through unamended. Currently, Oregon exempts new apartment buildings less than 15 years old from the statewide rent cap, giving investors more confidence about taking on the financial risk of new construction. The bill calls for slashing that exemption period to only seven years – a cut that could dramatically change the value of a building and, with it, the financial calculus for investors and developers.
However, rather than tailor solutions to the problems – perhaps by increasing funding for targeted rent assistance – both bills double down on a law that has received little analysis of its impact on Oregonians. The rent stabilization law, Senate Bill 608, was the first statewide rent control legislation in the country. While outside economists have looked at overall trends, the state has commissioned no review of its effects, the governor’s spokeswoman acknowledged. Such a new approach to addressing our years-old housing crisis should merit far more curiosity and scrutiny than it has.
Advertisement
Anecdotally, however, Oregonians have shared stories of rent hikes that now routinely match the cap, Marsh said. It’s as if the cap has simply become the default – a relatively unsurprising reaction in a market where the state controls the price someone can set, regardless of any change in underlying costs.
Both Marsh and Sen. Chris Gorsek, D-Gresham and a chief sponsor of SB 722, told the editorial board they are considering amendments to their bills to address concerns. Marsh is looking at exempting smaller manufactured home communities in an effort to direct the restrictions to larger corporate owners. Gorsek’s bill has two amendments under consideration – one that shortens the exemption period to buildings 10 years and older and a second that drops any change to the exemption. Legislators would be wise to adopt the latter option immediately.
But even if that occurs, legislators must acknowledge that they are broadcasting that Oregon is an unreliable place to do business as its lawmakers don’t grasp or don’t care about the financial considerations that go into making long-term multimillion-dollar investments. Instead, hasty legislation and the lack of any state analysis of how rent stabilization has affected rents reinforces a sense that Oregon governs by feel.
No rent cap, no matter how low, will add the hundreds of thousands of new housing units needed over the next decade. State and local government, despite devoting hundreds of millions of dollars in the past few years to affordable housing construction, can barely make a dent in the hundreds of thousands of units that Oregon must add in the next decade.
Instead, legislators’ reflex is to continually clamp down on what rent stabilization allows. So far, based on comparisons to Washington state, Oregon’s existing 10% cap appears not to have chased away development, economist Mike Wilkerson said. But shifts on that front could easily change the equation.
Advertisement
“This slippery slope is what will actually make investors leery,” he said, adding that they will do “what every rational person is going to do – assume that’s going to continue.”
Oregon’s elected leaders should recognize that tighter rent stabilization provisions won’t lead Oregon out of our housing deficit. It will only dig the hole deeper.
-The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board
Oregonian editorials
Editorials reflect the collective opinion of The Oregonian/OregonLive editorial board, which operates independently of the newsroom. Members of the editorial board are Therese Bottomly, Laura Gunderson, Helen Jung and John Maher.
Advertisement
Members of the board meet regularly to determine our institutional stance on issues of the day. We publish editorials when we believe our unique perspective can lend clarity and influence an upcoming decision of great public interest. Editorials are opinion pieces and therefore different from news articles.
If you have questions about the opinion section, email Helen Jung, opinion editor, or call 503-294-7621.
SALEM, Ore. (KATU) — Oregon’s childhood vaccination rates have fallen to their lowest levels on record, while the number of parents claiming nonmedical vaccine exemptions continues to climb, according to newly released data from the Oregon Health Authority.
The agency reported on Thursday that 85.6% of Oregon kindergarteners were up to date on required vaccines during the 2025-26 school year.
At the same time, the nonmedical exemption rate reached a record high of 10.9%.
State health officials say the trend is raising concerns about the potential for outbreaks of highly contagious diseases, including measles and whooping cough.
Advertisement
“Although the vast majority of families in Oregon are still choosing to protect families through vaccination, the downward trends are deeply concerning,” said Dr. Howard Chiou, medical director for communicable diseases and immunizations at OHA. “We risk seeing the return of diseases such as measles and polio—diseases of the past that once caused widespread harm but are entirely preventable with vaccines.”
READ ALSO | Oregon State study raises concerns about AI’s impact on student thinking skills
The statewide numbers tell only part of the story.
According to OHA, more than one in three Oregon schools with at least 10 students have measles vaccination rates below 95%, the threshold public health officials say is needed to help prevent outbreaks through community immunity.
Chiou said those exemption rates, combined with lower vaccination coverage at some schools, are increasing the risk of disease outbreaks.
Advertisement
The concerns come as Oregon and the nation are seeing increases in vaccine-preventable diseases.
OHA says the nonmedical exemption rate for the second dose of the measles vaccine has nearly doubled over the past decade, rising from 4.9% to 9.4%.
The state also recorded 1,475 cases of pertussis, or whooping cough, in 2025, the highest total in 75 years.
What could happen if the trend continues?
Dr. Alanna Braun, a pediatrician at OHSU, said declining vaccination rates increase the likelihood of disease outbreaks.
“The thing that really stands out to me the most is just sort of the trend of just ongoing decreased immunization rates across our state and seeing how many schools here in Oregon are now at risk for major outbreaks of some really serious illnesses,” said Braun.
Advertisement
Braun said communities become more vulnerable when vaccination rates fall below the level needed to prevent the spread of disease.
READ ALSO | Council passes Portland Arts Tax update, increasing fee & changing exemption threshold
She noted that outbreaks can affect more than just unvaccinated students.
“A lot of kids have infant siblings at home who are not able to be vaccinated,” Braun said. “Certainly, there are kids in all of these schools who are unable to be vaccinated, kids who are undergoing chemotherapy for cancer. There are teachers who are immunocompromised for various reasons.”
Braun said the long-term outlook is concerning if vaccination rates continue to fall.
Advertisement
“As we’re seeing reduced rates of immunizations, I think it’s more and more likely that we are gonna see some of these preventable illnesses with more frequency,” she said.
What parents can do
OHA is encouraging parents to check vaccination rates at their child’s school and talk with their healthcare provider if they have questions about vaccines.
“We want to empower families to make informed decisions,” said Chiou. “We want parents to revisit and reconsider their decisions because the situation in Oregon has changed.”
Parents can view vaccination and exemption rates for individual schools using OHA’s School Immunization Data Dashboard.
PORTLAND Ore. (KPTV) – Starting in 2026, a new law in Oregon requires all non-motorized boats, regardless of size, to buy and carry a waterway access permit. That includes paddleboards and kayaks.
But there has been some push back from one organization.
Ben Roche is part of Let Us Paddle. The organization aims to repeal the updates to the waterway access permit.
“It’s Oregonians constitutional right to free access to our waterways. And human powered watercrafts are the best way to do that, and the least environmentally impactful,” said Roche.
Advertisement
According to the Oregon State Marine Board, permit fees range from $6 to $35.
If you’re caught without a permit, there’s a $115 fine.
The state agency says the funding goes directly to two programs.
One supports aquatic invasive species watercraft inspection stations and the other improves access points to the water that specifically serve paddlers.
“There is a need for inspection and we support that. What we don’t support is charging recreational paddleboarders for cleaning of motorboats that enter our state,” said Roche.
Advertisement
Roche adds, the state is only funding a few dozen access points.
Let Us Paddle has collected at least 20,000 signatures, and they want about 130,000 more by July 2.
They need at least 120,000 verified signatures to put the repeal before voters on the November ballot.
But even if they don’t meet the requirement, Roche says he’ll keep pushing for change.
“I think it’s really a poorly crafted bill that collects a small drop in the bucket of revenue but impacts thousands of recreational kayakers across the state,” said Roche.
Advertisement
FOX 12 reached out to the Oregon State Marine Board to ask more questions, but have not yet to heard back.
Oregon DMV temporarily paused dispersing new undercover vehicle license plates starting April 15.
FILE – The U.S. Department of Justice seal is seen on a podium before a news conference, May 4, 2026, in Washington.
Julia Demaree Nikhinson / AP
Advertisement
The Justice Department is suing four states after they refused to issue confidential license plates to federal law enforcement agencies, despite having done so in the past.
The lawsuits, filed Wednesday in Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts and Maine, seek to force states to resume what the federal government describes as long-standing, routine policies.
The scope of the combined litigation raises questions about ways the federal government has aggressively carried out immigration enforcement since President Donald Trump’s reelection, and whether the Constitution grants states the power to deny federal law enforcement agencies license plates that effectively conceal officers’ identities.
“Oregon’s DMV policy illegally discriminates against the United States, violates the Supremacy clause, and is unconstitutional,” attorneys for the federal government argued in court filings.
Oregon DMV temporarily paused disbursing new undercover license plates to all federal agencies starting April 15.
Advertisement
“The DMV is currently evaluating the undercover vehicle registration program to ensure the program complies with Oregon law,” Oregon DMV Administrator Amy Joyce explained in a May 22 letter to Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate.
A recent lawsuit filed against Oregon State Police alleges the state is providing personal information to federal immigration authorities through databases, including Oregon’s DMV.
“If the DMV process for issuing undercover plates could be questioned under Oregon law, the State is at risk for additional litigation,” Joyce explained in the letter to Shumate.
The state’s review of the undercover license plate program doesn’t prevent federal vehicles from legally driving on Oregon roads.
“State and local law enforcement are unaffected by this pause and the federal agencies that participate in the program are able to continue to use their existing unexpired plates,” Kevin Glenn, a spokesperson for Gov. Tina Kotek wrote in a statement.
Advertisement
Immigration officers have relied on these license plates for enforcement, including during Operation Black Rose in Oregon. According to U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement, officers arrested more than 1,498 people between September and March, which led to 1,057 removals.
The lawsuits filed Wednesday argue the states’ DMV policies undermine ongoing federal investigations.
“Federal law enforcement agencies should not be subject to the challenged DMV policy, which is unconstitutional and recklessly disregards officer safety, public safety, and federal operational needs‚” the Justice Department’s lawsuit states.
Sign up today for OPB’s “First Look” – your daily guide to the most important news and culture stories from around the Northwest.
