The Rental Housing Authority of Puget Sound invited a select group of people to a roundtable Tuesday to hear concerns about the city’s new rental housing inspection law which shifts the burden of reporting problems with rentals from tenants to requiring the city to conduct them automatically. (Also slated for discussion was a proposal to make convicted felons a protected class to help them find decent housing, but more on that later).
Pro-tenant advocates fear that RHA is trying to skew public opinion about these not-so-landlord-friendly bills by only inviting input from member-landlords and their tenants who sympathize with them—opinion that will ultimately end up at city council. (The rental inspection bill passed last year but will be finalized by council in July). Tenants Union of Washington Executive Director Jonathan Grant pointed to the alarmist nature of the invitation that was sent out.
The City of Seattle is developing a number of new laws and regulations that will impact residents and owners of rental housing within the city. For example, mandatory apartment unit inspections (performed by the city or its designees) and criminals becoming a protected class in housing. These are poised to impact tenant privacy and compromise building safety. Unfortunately, these proposals are being drafted with little input from those who live in rental housing or those who operate rental housing.
Both Council Member Nick Licata, who co-sponsored the rental inspection bill, and Grant felt that RHA’s letter misrepresented facts to scare off tenants. Grant pointed out that RHA had conveniently forgotten to mention the city-convened stakeholders group comprising landlords, housing providers, health department and legal aid representatives, and two tenant advocate groups who would be meeting 12 times to gather input on the new law. “So clearly, there is a lot of tenant and owner input being sought in the formation of this policy.” he said.
Not enough, said RHA president Julie Johnson, who owns 10 rental properties in the city. “There are landlord and tenant advocates, but only one ‘real’ landlord (RHA’s legal counsel Chris Benis) and no tenants,” she said. “Where are the real life tenants who are happy with their leases? Where are the real people?”
Grant pointed out that he and tenant advocate Laurie O’Connell were both renters on the stakeholders group. As for more landlord representation, Licata’s office said that the stakeholders group included landlord lobbyists and people who managed low-income non-profit housing, essentially acting as “landlords” to their clients.
“I am baffled by RHA’s position,” Licata told The Stranger. “RHA was very supportive of the bill. They are bringing process questions I don’t understand since they helped set up the process. They are bringing back old problems that’s already been resolved and if they haven’t, they can talk about them at the stakeholders meeting.”
Johnson said RHA has always been wary about a mandatory inspection bill. One of the main reasons is the $28 they will have to pay the city for each rental unit that gets flagged for inspection. “At the end of the day the renter will have to pay for it,” said RHA chair Jack Hawes at the meeting. “I am running a for-profit business, not subsidized housing.” Others said that inspection fees were just another way for the city to make money. Some tenants said they were concerned about having inspectors walk into their apartments when they weren’t around.
Still whatever the grievance, Grant said RHA had cherry-picked a handful of people to represent only one side of the story. “We get hundreds of calls from tenants who are fed-up of living in sub-standard conditions and want pro-active inspections,” Grant said. “What about them?”
If the audience inside the RHA conference room seemed somewhat reluctant about the inspection bill, they almost had a hernia when they found out that the city was proposing legislation that would make it illegal for landlords to discriminate against people based solely on their conviction or arrest record. “I am all for second chances, but morally I have a problem with renting to criminals,” shot back a landlord.
“It seems that criminals have more rights than ordinary citizens,” said a renter, insisting that she’d rather move to the eastside than be around criminals. Nobody seemed to care about the part of the proposed legislation which said that an applicant’s records would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis or that landlords would still have the discretion to deny housing if they saw that the applicant posed a threat. “We do not have the expertise to determine that, so god help us,” one landlord said. Others said that putting criminal records in the same category as sex, gender, and race was a big jump.
“I don’t think it’s a law that’s trying to get homicidal maniacs into your property,” said Grant, who crashed the meeting. “The intent of the legislation is to get away from a categorical ‘no.’ Having a record does not mean the person is an active criminal—If a person had a DUI from five years ago when they were 19, but has served their sentence and is now a positive member of the community, why does this record mean they would be a dangerous renter?”
“If a person had a DUI from five years ago when they were 19, but has served their sentence and is now a positive member of the community, why does this record mean they would be a dangerous renter?
I don’t think this is the kind of crime landlords are worried about.
$28 annually, even passed to the tenant, is completely fair. Ideally, the city should be proactively looking for violations so a tenant wouldn’t have fear retribution from a landlord that doesn’t appreciate being up to code.
And personally, I could give a shit if my neighbor killed someone once, as long as they keep their stereo down.
The facts in ths story probably need to be checked once again. It might help if the journalist could write an unbiased story. It’s interesting that it is always the “tenant advocates” bashing lanldords and never the other way around. Housing providers recognize that residents are customers. It’s time the City recognized rental housing as a community benefit instead of as an inconvenience.
This is a bad idea that sounds like a good idea.
In case anyone’s interested in facts… Here’s the questions RHA was asked and their response…
Where does RHA stand at this point with the proposal to make criminal records a protected class? When housing providers screen prospective tenants we look for residents that will pay their rent on time, take care of the asset and be respectful to their neighbors. Residents like to know their neighbors also meet those criteria. In order to determine those criteria housing providers run background checks. Landlords have the right to ask the most qualified person to rent their premises. Anything that could hinder that process is concerning to us. While ensuring ex-offenders can find housing is a community concern, the question then becomes whose responsibility is it? RHA needs OCRs help in crafting a solution that addresses housing for past offenders in a manner that does not place the building or neighboring tenants at risk.
Where does RHA stand at this point with the proposal on inspections? Almost 49% of Seattle’s housing stock is rental housing. We understand a housing providers obligation to provide premises fit for habitation. However, we believe enforcement efforts should be manageable and affordable for the city. We feel the city has several options left to explore before making it mandatory for every rental unit in the City. Any inspection program should be targeted towards problem properties.The City of Tacoma is unveiling their inspection program and already had their first reading for adoption. RHA is in full support of their ordinance.
The criminal history thing is a bit of a non-issue, what with the host of other reasons not to rent to someone (lack of income, poor credit score, bad rental history). I worked in property management and we never had a problem with your malum prohibitum crimes like weed, and when it came to violent criminals, I can’t think of one application that didn’t have an abysmal credit score and insufficient income.
Um…yay bigger government?
Fuck both of these bills. Have laws protecting tenants who whistle-blow from vengeful tenants. But, having a government that charges more money unnecessarily for proactive inspections is criminal. And, what is the policy for informing the tenants? What if I have a pot farm or a sex dungeon set up that I don’t want to be known by the landlord or the inspectors? Do I get advance notice?
Not allowing landlords to ban tenants based on criminal history is asinine. It’s that type of attitude that leads to more victims from the same criminal. It’s that type of attitude that lets criminals off early for “good behavior.”.
Oh, so that’s why my landlord refuses to make repairs in a timely fashion and whines like a little bitch when I call him on it, because I’m his “customer.”
@8 — Yup, sounds just about right. You’re a customer with a contract and lots of inertia. He’s a service provider who only cares about your happiness when the monthly rent checks are due.
@6: Good point; this law won’t have much affect on middle income renters or their landlords. But it will probably make low income housing more scarce in Seattle. An eviction in Seattle costs thousands in lost rent, court costs, moving and storage. Assuming that criminals are much more likely to have to be evicted (I have no proof of this but it seems probably), and we force landlords to treat criminals the same as low income non criminals, landlords will respond by making their financial requirements more stringent, and raising prices for everyone to cover their increased risk. The result will be less low income housing.
For anyone suggesting that the City should proactively be inspecting rental housing, tell us where the money to pay for all those inspections is going to come from.
@TheMisanthrope – “Not allowing landlords to ban tenants based on criminal history is asinine”
that sword is double edged. While might allow dangerous people to find a place to live, it also allows harmless folks with felonies that chance to rent. I think the latter is more important that preventing the former. Additionally, if you took highschool level psych, you know that having a stable place to live just *might* make those dangerous people less dangerous. (maslow)
@TheMisanthrope – “Not allowing landlords to ban tenants based on criminal history is asinine”
that sword is double edged. While might allow dangerous people to find a place to live, it also allows harmless folks with felonies the chance to rent. I think the latter is more important that preventing the former. Additionally, if you took high school level psych, you know that having a stable place to live just *might* make those dangerous people less dangerous. (maslow etc)
Is there a huge problem in Seattle preventing non-violent felons from finding apartments?
Repairs and maintenance happen just like they would if you owned the property. It doesn’t mean you have a bad landlord…
If you landlord is not fixing items that need to be maintained… then I would suggest. 1) Put the request in writing, if the landlord does not respond you have options. Call DPD and they will come out to inspect your unit (for free), get an estimate to get the repair fix and send it to the lanldord – if he still doesn’t respond, use the repair and deduct method… or if the problem is about habitability quit the lease. Consult the law RCW 59.18.070, 59.18.090, 59.18.100 first to understand the law completely and to protect yourself. No one should have to live in a substandard or derelict housing unit! However, the majority of tenants and landlords have successful business relationships.