Behind the RENT Ordinance: Part 8

Relocation Costs on You? O-25-88 Mandates Landlords Pay Tenants to Move

O-25-88 continues to raise red flags for housing providers—and one of the most problematic provisions is buried in Section 14-28-11: Relocation Assistance.

Under this provision, if a tenant is forced to vacate due to property conditions, alleged lease violations, or even temporary repairs, the landlord could be required to pay all relocation expenses—with very little clarity, no cost cap, and the threat of a property lien.

In this eighth installment of our blog series on the RENT Ordinance, we break down how this section creates financial risk, legal ambiguity, and enforcement overreach for housing providers across Albuquerque.

What’s in the Ordinance?

If the City determines a landlord has materially violated a lease—by failing to maintain habitability, unlawfully terminating a lease, or engaging in other conduct that “forces the tenant to vacate”—the landlord must:

• Pay relocation costs calculated by the City (no cost cap or negotiation allowed)
• Remit payment within 7 business days of a decision—even if appealing
• Have a lien placed on their property if payment is delayed or disputed
• Navigate a short, complex appeal process after payment or lien issuance

The relocation amount is based on “average market rates” for Albuquerque and is meant to cover temporary housing and moving costs—but those rates are set unilaterally by the City, without transparency or case-by-case consideration.

Why This Is a Problem

This provision creates unintended—and costly—consequences for responsible landlords. Here’s what makes it so concerning:

• Vague Triggers Invite Misuse: The term “forces the tenant to vacate” is not clearly defined. It could be interpreted to include routine repairs, pest treatment, or even tenant-caused issues. Without precise language, landlords could be unfairly penalized—even when acting in good faith.
• No Cost Cap = Unlimited Financial Risk: The City sets relocation costs based on “average rates,” but there’s no published cap or method for adjusting those costs based on property type or circumstance. Landlords have no say, yet are required to pay—or face a lien.
• Due Process Comes Too Late: Even if a landlord disagrees with the City’s decision, they must still pay the full amount within 7 business days or face a lien on their property. That means penalties can be imposed before a fair hearing or legal review—a clear violation of due process principles.
• Discourages Repairs and Improvements: This section could make landlords think twice about tackling repairs or upgrades that might temporarily displace a tenant—ultimately leading to less maintenance, not more, and a deterioration of housing quality in Albuquerque.

A REALTOR® Perspective

REALTORS® support safe housing and clear repair procedures. But policy must also protect the rights of property owners. As written, this section of O-25-88 does the opposite—creating legal uncertainty, fast-tracked penalties, and broad authority without accountability.

Smart housing policy includes clear definitions, transparent processes, and fair protections for all stakeholders. This provision misses the mark.

Stay Informed. Stay Ready.

Your advocacy stopped O-25-88—for now. But since it was never formally removed from the LUPZ Committee, it could return at any time, including the next meeting on Wednesday, August 13th.

If it does, your REALTOR® community will continue to stand up for balanced policy that protects housing providers and tenants alike.

Watch for the Next Blog

O-25-88 in Review: What We’ve Learned and What Comes Next