Bend’s housing problem is real. The City’s HOME Committee report says Bend needs 21,168 additional homes affordable to households below 120% of Area Median Income by 2045. The Council has also set a 2025-27 goal of permitting 3,942 homes. We support those objectives. As Bend landlords, investors, and the operators of a local property-management company, however, we do not believe a mandatory rental registry, registration fee, or vacancy tax will help achieve them.
The committee’s own analysis shows the mismatch. A registry and vacancy-tax system would require about $400,000 in initial investment, two to three additional City employees, and two to five years to implement. Its potential to create housing units is rated “low.” With ambitious production targets and limited public resources, the City should prioritize policies that actually make it easier to add homes.
A registration fee would become another operating cost for rental housing. Property taxes, insurance, utilities, maintenance, labor, and regulatory costs have already increased substantially. Landlords cannot absorb an unlimited series of new charges. Over time, those costs affect rents, discourage investment, and make it harder for small housing providers to remain in the market. The report itself recognizes unintended rent increases as a risk.
The proposed use of registration revenue is also too broad. The report suggests it could fund tenant education, market analysis, code enforcement, housing preservation, and other City initiatives. Rental-property owners should not be singled out to fund general housing policy simply because they are easy to identify and bill.
A vacancy tax presents even greater problems. Homes may be temporarily vacant because of repairs, tenant turnover, construction delays, insurance restoration, a pending sale, or other legitimate circumstances. Determining which vacancies are taxable would require complicated exemptions, reporting, inspections, enforcement, and appeals. Responsible owners could be penalized for circumstances outside their control.
No Oregon community currently operates a residential vacancy tax. The report describes legal challenges, enforcement problems, rejected proposals elsewhere, and uncertainty about whether these taxes reduce rental costs. The vacancy tax was not among the committee’s three favored revenue mechanisms.
Council has better options. The committee identified targeted development-charge relief, property-tax exemptions tied to affordability, infrastructure assistance, financing tools, and support for community land trusts as higher-priority production strategies. Faster permitting and predictable development standards would also help.
This is not an argument for doing nothing. It is an argument for judging every proposal by three practical questions: Will it add housing? Will it lower the cost of providing housing? Will it encourage long-term investment in Bend? A rental registry and vacancy tax fall short of those standards. Cooperation and production incentives offer a better path toward the Council’s housing goals.
Reach out to the Council to let them know not to spend public resources on an issue that only adds bureaucracy and does nothing to help the affordability crisis in Central Oregon. They can be reached at council@bendoregon.gov.
