A industry group for landlords and property managers launched a robocall campaign aimed at drumming up opposition to a proposal that would ease criminal background checks and other screening practices for renters in Portland.

The calls didn’t identify their source or provide a return phone number, an apparent violation of Federal Communications Commission regulations. But Multifamily NW, the industry group, acknowledged it had paid a contractor to make the calls.

The Oregonian/OregonLive inquired after obtaining a recording of a call from a recipient. City Commissioner Chloe Eudaly, who sponsored the ordinance, also said in a Facebook post on Tuesday that constituents had reported receiving the calls. She called it an “unethical smear campaign."

Robocalling has been a mainstay during election season, but such a campaign is rare in the machinations of the Portland City Council -- and particularly when voters can’t directly influence the outcome of a policy at the ballot box.

The call commissioned by Multifamily NW urged recipients to call various members of the City Council and ask them to delay the vote. It says changing renter screening would hurt residents of affordable housing communities by diverting money to legal and administrative costs.

“We are to a place where we’re looking for any way to get the message out that the services these communities provide are vitally needed,” said Deborah Imse, the industry group’s executive director. She added that she would contact the contractor making the calls to ensure they are in compliance with regulations.

Andy Miller, the executive director of the affordable housing nonprofit Human Solutions, said he received one of the robocalls.

“It’s kind of shocking,” he said. “I disagree, obviously, with the basic premise.”

Miller said his organization supports the ordinance because it will further the goals of the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits housing discrimination against certain groups, and improve access to housing for people with barriers such as criminal convictions or poor credit.

He said his group does have concerns the policy could increase costs for providing affordable housing, which already operates on slim margins because of the low-income residents served.

“As an affordable housing provider, we had some reservations about the complexity,” he said. “We are hoping in good faith that Commissioner Eudaly’s office will actively monitor the ordinance to ensure it achieves its intended effect without huge administrative burdens.”

Eudaly said in the Facebook post that the ordinance “will not take away from low-income housing programs or programs that serve seniors or people with disabilities.”

Imse said she stands by the content of the calls. Given affordable housing providers’ slim budgets, the administrative costs of the policy would result in fewer services or poorer living conditions.

“The money is going to have to come from somewhere," she said.

The policy is aimed at limiting landlords’ use of past criminal convictions, credit scores and income to screen tenants. It offers landlords two choices:

A “low-barrier” screening regimen that’s more forgiving of older criminal convictions or past credit issues;

Or the landlord’s own screening but with new demands. The landlord would, for example, have to weigh “supplemental evidence” submitted by a prospective tenant, say participation in credit counseling. If landlords deny the application, they must outline the reason for denying the application, specifically addressing any supplemental evidence.

Landlords also could only require tenants to earn up to two times their rent in income, or 2.5 times for apartments with lower rents. That’s a lower threshold than the three times the rent many landlords require today.

Landlords have argued the policy puts them in a bind: rent to tenants who don’t live up to their standards, risking damage or legal costs later on; or take on extra legal liability and costs up front to use their own screening standards.

Eudaly’s staff has argued that convictions and poor credit unfairly bar tenants from finding decent housing, especially in a tight rental market, but aren’t a good predictor of whether that tenant will pay the rent on time, face eviction for lease violations or leave the home in poor condition.

-- Elliot Njus

enjus@oregonian.com; 503-294-5034; @enjus

Visit subscription.oregonlive.com/newsletters to get Oregonian/OregonLive journalism delivered to your email inbox.