The Oregon Legislature is considering bills that would meddle in the landlord-tenant relationship and harm the rental marketplace.

Democratic House Speaker Tina Kotek is behind SB 608 which would limit annual rent increases to 7 percent plus inflation for most rentals and restrict a landlord’s ability to evict tenants without cause.

No other state in the nation has enacted a statewide rent control measure because capping rent increases unreasonably limits a landlord’s flexibility to deal with market changes or capital improvement needs — such as a major roof repair or plumbing upgrade. Plus, there’s the inconvenient fact that voters tend to approve measures that increase property taxes. Landlords need to pass that along to tenants.

Indeed, communities with rent control like San Francisco have had the unintended consequences of deteriorating housing stock and less supply. That won’t help renters nor will it make housing more affordable.

The bill would also prohibit a landlord from ending a rental agreement without cause after a tenant has been renting for a year except in rare circumstances. In most cases, it would be best if a landlord had a clear cause to get rid of a tenant, but sometimes a situation just doesn’t work. Maybe it’s a personality conflict. Or maybe the landlord wants to shift to short-term rentals to take advantage of a temporary increase in demand — such as the 2021 track and field championships coming to Eugene.

The point is, these decisions should be the landlord’s to make — not the Legislature’s. And it certainly shouldn’t be a one-size-fits-all approach that seems to target Portland but would have negative consequences across the state.

Another bill under consideration (HB 2683) would prohibit landlords from charging higher rents for tenants with pets. Again, this is a decision that should be made by the property owner. Some pets can be incredibly destructive. Dogs can tear up carpets, mar floors, even chew on woodwork. Cats can turn walls or columns into scratching posts or use an entire apartment as a litterbox, leaving an indelible odor.

The legislation doesn’t prohibit additional damage deposits for pets, but it can be hard to know how much damage a particular pet is capable of inflicting. A higher deposit increases the barrier to initial renting when added to first and last month’s rent plus the standard deposit. Spreading the potential cost out across months and across pet owners is reasonable.

Together, this legislative meddling would cause no end of headaches for renters and landlords alike.

If landlords can’t charge a premium for pets, they might just not accept them at all. If they know rents will be capped moving forward, initial rents are likely to go up significantly. And if they know they can’t get rid of a tenant after a year, they might be more inclined to evict questionable tenants before the year is up rather than trying to work out any issues.

Let the marketplace do its job. If lawmakers really want to help, they should take a hard look at state land use laws that hinder increasing the supply of rental housing. But that’s an editorial for another day.