Oh HELL yes. Nice steps.

6291 seems like a slam dunk. I don't know enough about the current rules touched on by 6292 to comment.

@1

You mean 'oh, go to hell!'

How hard is this, really, for liberal halfwits to grasp? As a landlord all increasing my costs does is increase the rental price. Ask me to pay somebody else relocation costs? Fine. I'll average the likely costs to me and raise rents accordingly. Limit my ability to rent MY property at a rate the market bears? Ok. No more month to month rentals in the state I guess. It'll be minimum 12 month leases priced at my projection of rental markets 6 months in.

See, despite what liberal scum believe property rights have value in a civil society. And despite what progressive thieves imagine I don't own rentals as a charity but as an investment, a business. I don't owe any single solitary person a place to live they can afford. That's on them.

So go ahead, Frockt and Wells. Act out your hatred of anyone who bothered to earn their way in our society. Jack the rental market up 25 or 40 percent. Then see how your idiot constituents like you.

Would be nice if they included a provision that says that other fees levied by landlords that accompany rent are rent (and should be listed as such).

@4 I'm a part time landlord who is a former renter who earned my way to landlord. This only seems to hurt landlords that use application fees as a source of income, not as actually covering costs.

@4: I think part of a "civil society" is not referring to people who disagree with you as "scum", n'est pas?

As to the screening costs, I don't make money on those but on rent and property appreciation. At best I get paid for my time meeting the putative tenant, running the application and deciding if the tenant is a good risk.

Here's free advice. Decide the top 2 or 3 possible units you might want, and can afford. (If your rent is more than 50% of your income, as a landlord I'm refusing the app, since you WILL have some time when the choice is rent or some emergency.).

Now drop an application only at your top choice. If you know you have credit issues discuss them with the landlord prior to applying. They find out anyway, and if your rent history is good they may choose to ignore it. If you've got bad rental history, tell them. At worst they'll know what it might cost you a hundred bucks for them to find out. At best there's a good reason and you can talk them into ignoring it. Either way, don't drop 3 applications and hope- and then get mad at the cost of applications. Remember, an inquiry into credit history can negatively affect your credit, so don't initiate inquiries on hope.

The general gist? You're grownups or I wouldn't be leasing you a unit. Do try to act like it.

Include discussion on prevention of counterfeit reports.

Contact your legislators today!
http://www.tenantsunion.org/en/news/494/…

@6

As I noted, it doesn't hurt landlords. It hurts tenants. Unless as a part time landlord you assume the costs of your business don't factor into rental pricing, that is. But most landlords, and all long term successful ones naje that assumption, so a few who don't won't change the salient fact. This bill would reduce affordable (whatever that means) housing, not increase it.

You forgot to mention "allow cities to pass their own rent control laws." These steps that you outline are worthwhile and will help, but the key action the state needs to take is to restore local control to rent regulation.

@12: Seems like these rules would encourage landlords to be better about their business. If you keep your tenants happy by providing a good product/service, there will be less turnover and you won't need to worry about the costs of getting a replacement. Am I right?

@7, 10: No, it's just a weak attempt at French. It's n'est-ce pas.

@8: But what's the issue with making it easier for people to apply and use the same credit check?

I rent out the basement of my house to a nice couple. I've never raised rent on a tenant because I think happy tenants are good tenants, and my tenants tend to stay a long time as a result. Nonetheless, I hope there is an exemption for tiny operations like mine. If I ever need to boot someone from my basement it will either be because they are intolerable neighbors or some emergency comes up like my Dad having to move in with us. Ninety days would be a burden, as would having to pay relocation fees.

I think this should only apply to buildings with at least 2 rental units.

All that said, I'm generally in support of this bill. I was a renter for a long time, and being kicked out for a remodel, and abrupt rent hikes are really painful.

@18: Laissez les bon temps rouler.

@9

Actually, I do honor credit checks others pulled, if recent. But if I provide them to other landlords I could be sued, so that I won't do.

A unified application process seems a good idea. I'd have to see more details like who approved vendors are, what approval for it looks like etc to have an opinion about it. But in theory a good idea among a slew of really very bad ones.

@4, @8, @12 I see that you're still operating by the book out of How To Win Friends And Influence People. How's that working for you?

@21

Should have been a response to 17.

@23
uhhh that stuff that you don't think is a totally bad idea? That is the bill. That other stuff you're super upset about? Not the bill.

Also, about your point on month to month V year leases. Have you ever actually offered someone a lower rent if they took a month to month lease? Cause as a renter I've certainly never had that experience.

@22

Fine. But business associates and tenants aren't friends. That's a rookie mistake I stopped making a long time ago.

Care to address the actual points. I'll recap for you-

As a landlord I don't owe anyone who can't pay my rental rates a place to live. I sure as hell don't owe them relocation costs if they can no longer afford my rents.

A careful tenant can limit application fees very easily without this bill.

At best this bill addresses a problem poorly, and will have the opposite affect to the intended one.

@26
This isn't a bill to lower rents. If you stop thinking that it is, you will understand it better.
You can say that you don't owe anyone relocation fees, which is sometimes true and sometimes not. You see, in this country, what people do or do not owe each other is decided by two things: laws and contracts. If a law says you owe it, you do, same as a contract. You might not like it, but then people dont like your rents, and its tough titties for both of you. Laws and contracts.

@4 - This stuff about "pass the costs on to tenants" is, by and large, a lot of nonsense. You are *already* charging as much as you think the market will bear, aren't you? Or do you keep your rents lower than you could get because you're such a nice guy?

@26 I'm going to give you a little tip about being an adult, which you seem to be obsessed about: Don't insult the people whose minds you want to change. I don't care about your debate per se, except that it's a real debate about real points and not you turning it into a fake adversarial juxtaposition of deserving versus fools.

@30 that's good advice but you're tilting at windmills.

Seattleblues is about the worst xtian any of us have encountered.

Seattleblues, do read comment #30 and parse it through the xtian values of humility, being non-judgemental, and and so on. Then fuck the hell off.

I feel lucky that I own a home. I've been thinking about selling, and was worried about home value appreciation and what I can afford, but then I noticed what rents are in this city and I was floored! It's SO much cheaper for me to pay a mortgage than a rental on the same type of property. Wow. I feel really sorry for the renters in this city these days...

@31

Granted my comparative religion course in college was a couple decades ago, but what's an xtian?

Don't recall that one among the major faiths...

Not that I expect it but any answer to the salient point, that this bill would be ineffective at best, counterproductive at worst?

Other than the 'you already charge market rates' since it's relatively obvious that if you change market conditions you also change market rates

Oh, and Doc? You have a pleasant evening as well.

Oh HELL yes. Nice steps.

@27

Sooo the problem is so called affordable housing? But the solution is in a one time fee which the tenant can limit quite easily as it is?

Here's a free tip. Nobody has a god given right to live anyplace. You earn that right by paying whatever the rents or purchase price of housing in that area are. It is emphatically not the province of government to ensure a certain group of people can 'afford' to live in a given place.

Here's another. A tenant would get one dime of my hard earned money for 'relocation costs' only from my estate.

@33
How does this change market conditions? It changes a margin for a business, but not the market. How does the landlord having to pay relocation fees change the MARKET? Maybe demand goes up 1% because of the people who would have been homeless staying in the market? And honestly, a lot of buildings are owned by major property companies. If they can convince tenents to move to one of their other properties, they pay the relocation money to themselves. The little guy is just less screwed, and raising rents is less profitable since you dont nail em coming and going, only coming. I fail to see how that is a problem that I should have any sympathy for.

@14

You're finally getting it. The market resolves this 'problem' better than a couple vote ginning progressive idiots promoting class warfare.

Good job, kiddo!

@37

Weird. I don't see how paying the moving costs of someone who couldn't be bothered to, you know, pay their own damn moving costs, are MY problem.

@39They are your problem if they are legally your problem. Right now they aren't. Maybe they will be soon. Businesses must be compliant with the law. You owe people what the law or contract says you owe them. Why do people "owe" you more in rent if nothing has changed with the building? What did you do to "deserve" it? I think you will agree that those are silly questions, but you are falling into the same trap.

@39
Also, the people are not too lazy to pay their moving costs. Its not as if they are all loaded, but can't be bothered to pick up a pen and write a check. They don't have the cash to move at short notice. I don't know why you find that hard to believe, but in many cases it's true.

The relocation payment is only required when the landlord breaks the lease.

@43: Just for fun I looked up the reasons it's required:

"The Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance was passed in 1990, and requires landlords to pay relocation money to low-income Seattle tenants who are displaced from their units because of housing demolition, substantial rehabilitation, change of use or removal of restrictions placed on subsidized housing."

So SB: The reason you'd have to pay, is because shelter is something fundamentally necessary, and so if you force them to move for one of those reasons, you have an obligation to help them, provided they make a certain amount. So this isn't something you have to consider in your rent price, but in your calculation on the profits of doing whatever it is that you'd be doing with their unit.

Quote from http://www.tenantsunion.org/en/rights/te…

@44 that's what I read too. I summarized it as "breaking the lease" because that's essentially what happens when you evict someone through no fault of their own. The fact that SB either wants to do this to people (poor people no less) OR is incensed over a misunderstanding suggests she is cruel, misinformed, or maybe both.

@42
It's not the u-haul, its the first last and deposit. An EXTREMELY conservative estimate has that at 2500 dollars(835/month, dream rent). The average savings account balance of an american family is $3800. SO 2/3 of your life savings, bye bye, with 30 days notice. 25% of familys don't have any savings at all, and only 38% have a rainy day fund. A lot of that 3.8k average is due to rich people having a lot in the bank. So sure, just poping for a uhaul is fine, if you're planning on moving onto the sidewalk somewhere.

To all of the folks who think this is a good idea but golly you just want an exception for whatever reason you pulled out of your ass. FUCK YOU!!! The law should be the law for everyone with NO exceptions. Period. That includes this piece of legislation that goes in the right direction but let's be honest is the very least they will do (seriously, it's nice but it's like taking a piss on a raging forrest fire then saying "I helped!") or the $15.00 an hour minimum wage.

Exceptions to the law are nothing but loopholes. And that shit's gotta end

Maybe I'm way out of line here, but if Seattle is anything like DC - and I think it is, in terms of the rental market - part of the reason application costs (fees x attempts) are so high is that it's a seller's market. When I rent my place, I screen about 5 people in an open house format, and pick the best one. Each of those potential tenants pays the screening fee, only one gets the apartment. It's not a matter of "well, if you were just more responsible, I'd rent this place to you/you're responsible enough so you get an apartment." There's only one apartment, and usually multiple candidates. Even at the large complexes, sometimes they only have 3 or 4 apartments available in any given month, and maybe only 1 or 2 in your size. This isn't a "qualification" issue so much as a "competition" issue.

But, I'm not heartless, so I agree that it sucks to pay the fees over and over again trying to find a place. If there was a centralized system whereby I could review a tenant's reports WITHOUT submitting the order myself, that would be fine. Good for both of us, probably (less money for them and less time for me). Maybe the city could even negotiate a good "bulk" rate for the runs, to further reduce the costs to tenants.

Also, I disagree with *most* exemptions to rules, because people find a way to abuse them. The one I think should be made almost every time (except in terms of safety and habitability and enforcement of the contract as written - i.e., still has to be up to code and no shenanigans) is if the apartment is located in or on the property of the owner's primary residence and rented square footage does not exceed 33% of the overall habitable space (see...this stops landlords from "living" in one unit of a building and renting the rest, while claiming the exemption!). It's one thing to have a tenant that grates on your nerves in some way that doesn't rise to eviction level living *separately* from you, but if they're living right below you, or above your garage, that's a whole different can of worms. Primary properties are also much trickier when emergencies arise...you end up needing to care for a family member, you are suddenly relocated to another city, etc. You can sell an investment unit with a tenant in place. You can hire a management company to oversee a separate building/unit in your absence. Can you imagine listing a primary residence for sale and saying "...and this feature is known as Joe. He lives in the basement and comes with the house! No, sorry, you can't decline this feature. And if you want him out when his contract expires, you'll need to let him know a few months in advance and, possibly, pay to move him." This is, of course, why I wouldn't rent an accessory dwelling unit, but property prices are high here and I know lots of people can only swing buying a house in that way (and they tend to be cheaper than other rentals, so good for renters, too). I think those landlords deserve a little bit of protection for the "sanctity of their home" as much as renters deserve to have clear, effective rules that make renting predictable and safe.

@38: ...except that the market ISN'T doing that. In fact, if you make money off of screening fees, the market is actually ENCOURAGING high turn-over rates. If this legislation passes, it will do what the market doesn't to improve the quality of service.

They charge $45 for a report I could have delivered to them myself, with even more information, for less than $10. They see those fees as a profit tool at those prices, either that or they're just handing that profit onto the private sector for absolutely no gain. Glad it's being looked at for getting fixed.

@51, we're not all jerks. I use TransUnion to screen my tenants, and the applicants log on, enter their info, and pay them directly. I make not one dime off of that. If you brought me a *full* credit report with a printed pull date within the last few weeks, I'd honor that, but most applicants don't. Then again, I agree that it would be even better if the city/county/state had a "central pull" option that I could just retrieve, for little time on my part and little cost on the applicant's.

Also, @51 and others, I DO talk with your references on my own time FOR FREE. I don't make you sign the letter permitting your references to discuss your rental history or other information relevant to your qualifications as a renter for nothing. During the worst of the housing bust, I rented to a woman who had been relocated and went through hell with the home she owned in an area hit hard. If I were ONLY relying on her credit report, I would have said "no, thanks," but her previous landlords couldn't say enough nice things about her, and she had a credible story about wanting to move closer to work (my apartment is 10 minutes by car and 20 minutes by transit or bike from where she worked, versus the far-flung suburb she *was* living in because that's what she could get with poor credit). She told me upfront about her situation and gave me more references than I asked for (employment, housing, and personal). Before she left (TO BECOME A HOMEOWNER AGAIN IN HER NEW CITY), I begged her to take pictures of the apartment as she had furnished and decorated it because she had arranged, decorated, and cared for it so nicely. I also provided a reference to her lender that she had always paid her rent on time and otherwise been a responsible tenant.

As a resident manager, I am leery of a standardized screening report. I don't mind it for the credit report, which will be the same no matter who pulls it, but there is the matter of verifying employment and rental history. That screening needs to stay personal. A third party is not going to care as much as the manager of the property. A third party might not get accurate information or may just accept obvious lies as truth because it's easier for them.

For example, I had a prospective tenant put a family member's house/name as one of her rental references. She claimed it was an apartment but an internet search showed it to be a single home, not an apartment. Also when I called for a reference, the "landlord" had the same last name as the tenant and when I flat out asked if they were related, he waited three seconds before he said, "No." I can easily see a third party screener just shrugging and saying, "Okay" in that situation.

Now I can already see that some would say that there is nothing in the new bill that would stop me from doing that and I agree but I do think that there should be an additional fee for that. It is more work for me to do, and the building has to pay me for the extra time so I think it fair that they pass on the cost of that.

I would like to see someone sponsor a bill of not allowing landlords to accept multiple application fees. As a resident manager, I don't take multiple applications. Here's how I do it: The first person who wants to put an application on it has the option of putting a $150 holding deposit on the unit while I run his/her application (an additional $45 charge). If the application is approved the tenant gets that unit and the holding deposit becomes the non-refundable cleaning fee. If he/she is not approved, the $150 is returned to him/her. If he/she changes his/her mind while the application is being ran or after it is approved, we keep the $150 as a penalty for backing out of the agreement. Seems fair and I don't see why everyone can't do it this way. It's more fair to the prospective tenants and still very fair to the property managers.

Before, I became a property manager, I looked at an apartment with my roommate and we were going to put in our applications. When I went to deliver our applications, the man started to put them in a pile of no less than 20 other applications for the same apartment. When I saw that I took my applications back. Property managers/landlords who collect multiple screening fees are scum. Try to avoid them if you can.

Imagine this... the report is not complete. I take the time, trouble and expense to run my own out of my pocket to protect my interest... in the meantime this person goes around, views and applies for 5-6 other apartments that they might like to live in.

They decide to take another one... now it cost me $15-30 (couple) to run reports on people who weren't serious in the first place and they didn't have to pay me to apply.

Easy-sneezy... if their credit sucks, they have a criminal history and/or evictions, they've obviously made choices in their lives that is now coming down to bear on them in the form of being unable to find a place to live. Your Solution: take it out on the person who works their ass off to provide housing for people and gains very little from it.

SOLUTION: I just won't accept applications from people who show up with one of those reports. It tells me they have problems. They have already been turned down by someone else. I just won't waste my time with them.

For those of you who think I'm MAKING MONEY by taking applications BE REAL! I have an apartment that I want to rent for $1200/m... ya... I'm going to do everything in my power to leave it empty while I pay the utilities and collect a $50 application fee every other day, or two or three. The application fee shows some level of interest/commitment of the applicant. Without it I'll be running around screening people who are just fishing for ANYONE who will take them in. I'm not running a charity. I do not feel the need to provide housing to people who have shown themselves to be irresponsible. I work my ass off to pay my mortgages, insurance, property taxes and walk away with something much much less then minimum wage with longer hours and dirtier work. I have a right to protect my interest, my investment, my life... this Robin Hood mentality is leaving me out in the cold.