A long-term tenant can satisfy Hood River's rental residency rule
A long-term tenant can satisfy Hood River's rental residency rule
2026-09-15 · Oregon · Courts
Ten out-of-state owners argued that Hood River's short-term rental rules discriminated against them under the dormant Commerce Clause. They lost in the district court in March 2025 and lost again on appeal in July 2026.1
The rules
Hood River permits a homeshare or vacation home rental in a residential zone only “when it is an accessory use to the existing and continued residential use of a dwelling as the primary residence of the property owner,” capped at ninety days a year. Proof of primary residence is by voter registration, an Oregon driver licence or ID, or a prior-year federal return.
Then, in July 2024, Ordinance 2083 redefined “primary residence of the property owner” to include “the title owner or a long-term tenant who resides on the property under a residential lease with a term of at least 12-months.”
That amendment is what decided the case.
The district court
Judge Adrienne C. Nelson granted summary judgment for the city on March 31, 2025.
On discrimination: “Further, the Ordinances apply this requirement equally to in-state and out-of-state owners. If an Oregon resident resides in a different home than their rental property, whether in Hood River or elsewhere in the state, the rental would not be 'an accessory use to the existing and continued residential use of a dwelling as the primary residence of the property owner.'”2
On forced residency: “Here, out-of-state residents can participate in the short-term rental market in Hood River by obtaining a license, and they are not required to become residents of Hood River or Oregon to do so. There is thus no compulsion to become a resident.”
On purpose, addressing testimony from the public hearings: “The testimony of non-legislator attendees at public hearings cannot be used to describe the legislative intent of the Ordinances. Absent any evidence to the contrary, the Court must accept the stated intent of the legislature, which is to ensure sufficient housing and maintain the quality of life of the community. These are not discriminatory purposes.”
And on balancing: “Plaintiffs have not met the threshold requirement of showing that the Ordinances impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce.”
The Ninth Circuit
A panel of Graber, Clifton and Sung affirmed by memorandum on July 20, 2026 in No. 25-2638. It is not for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, but the reasoning is the clearest available statement of where the line sits.3
“The ordinances do not discriminate against out-of-state interests. … Like the ordinance at issue in Rosenblatt, Hood River's ordinances apply equally to Plaintiffs and 'to owners who reside in [Hood River], but at a property separate from their rental property.'” And: “'While non-resident property owners cannot personally serve as the primary resident' required by the ordinances, 'that is because they are not similarly situated to the [Hood River] residents who can.'”
On economic value: “Furthermore, the ordinances do not 'prevent an out-of-state homeowner . . . from being able to extract economic value from the property.' Finding a long-term tenant who is amenable to short-term renters may present some difficulty, but a similar difficulty was apparent in Rosenblatt, and Plaintiffs present no evidence that they cannot find such long-term tenants.”
The panel added a point of Oregon law: “Indeed, Oregon law provides that a landlord and tenant may mutually agree to 'allow an individual to become a temporary occupant of the tenant's dwelling unit.' Or. Rev. Stat. § 90.275(1).”
On balancing: “Even if property owners who live outside Oregon are unable as a practical matter to offer short-term rentals in residential zones, they still may offer month-to-month rentals. … And the loss of 'a preferred, more profitable method of operating' in a market is not a substantial burden.”
The distinction that decides these cases
Both courts distinguished the leading decisions the other way — Hignell-Stark v. City of New Orleans, 46 F.4th 317 (5th Cir. 2022), and South Lake Tahoe Property Owners Group v. City of South Lake Tahoe — on a single ground: those ordinances required that the primary resident be the owner. Hood River's does not.
Where a long-term tenant can satisfy the residency condition, an out-of-state owner is not excluded from the market. Where only the owner can satisfy it, the ordinance operates as a residency requirement and is vulnerable.
That is the line Oregon municipalities are now drafting to, and it is why Hood River amended its definition in 2024 rather than defending the original.
An evidentiary lesson worth recording
The panel noted in a footnote that plaintiffs' affidavits addressed the ordinances as they stood in 2023, and that “Plaintiffs submitted no evidence concerning Ordinance No. 2083, which took effect in 2024 and allowed the primary-residence requirement to be satisfied by a long-term tenant.”
The case was litigated against a version of the rules that had already been amended. For anyone challenging an Oregon short-term rental ordinance, the record has to address the ordinance actually in force.
What it does and does not mean for an association
It says nothing about a private covenant, and that distinction is important. The dormant Commerce Clause constrains state and local government action. A CC&R rental restriction is contract between private parties, and constitutional limits on government do not reach it.
What the case does tell an Oregon board is about the environment it operates in. Municipal rental restrictions in Oregon are surviving legal challenge on both state and federal theories — the residency condition here, the licensing scheme in Briggs v. Lincoln County a month later. An owner who bought expecting to run a short-term rental is increasingly likely to be constrained by the city or county whatever the declaration says, and an association enforcing its own restriction is doing so alongside, not instead of, the local regime.
Note also the Ninth Circuit's observation about ORS 90.275. Where a long-term tenant occupies a unit in an association and hosts temporary occupants by agreement with the landlord, an association's rental restrictions and the local licensing rules can both be engaged, with different definitions of what counts as a rental. Our Oregon short-term rentals page covers the covenant analysis.
What to watch next
Whether the Ninth Circuit publishes on the point. The Hood River memorandum is unpublished, and Rosenblatt v. City of Santa Monica, 940 F.3d 439 (9th Cir. 2019), remains the published authority — which the panel confirmed is binding rather than dicta: “Contrary to Plaintiffs' contention, Rosenblatt's resolution of that issue constitutes binding circuit law.”
Related Oregon HOA Topics
Stay on top of Oregon HOA law
Every week: new Oregon legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.