Seattle renters are all too familiar with the gut-punch of rent renewal notices: a cheerful “Happy Anniversary!” followed by a staggering increase—9.9 percent, 15 percent, or a jaw-dropping 45 percent. Between 2021 and 2022, downtown Seattle's median asking rent soared from $1,300 to $3,118, as housing costs fluctuated post-peak pandemic. Residents across the city struggled to keep up with skyrocketing housing costs, leading Seattle to launch the Economic Displacement Relocation Assistance (EDRA) program in July 2022.

EDRA was created to address the growing crisis of economic evictions. But instead of preventing displacement, EDRA only responds to renters already in the process of being displaced. Rather than by regulating rent increases or alleviating financial pressures renters face, the city created a bureaucratic system that renters must opt into and navigate. This shifts the burden of time, effort, and knowledge onto renters while failing to address the root causes of displacement or provide meaningful support to help low-income households remain in Seattle.

We renters make up the majority of the city’s population, with more than 50% renting since 2019. According to 2023 data, 23 percent of renters spend more than half their incomes on rent, far exceeding the 30% affordability threshold. While rents dipped following the sharp rise in 2022, they’re climbing again, with downtown apartments seeing a 2.5% year-over-year increase. Codified in Chapter 22.212 of the Seattle Municipal Code, EDRA was created to assist tenants facing “economic displacement” due to rising housing costs. 

Under this program, renters who receive a rent increase of 10% or more and earn less than 80% of Seattle’s area median income—about one-third of the city’s households—can apply for relocation assistance. This assistance is a lump sum payment, equivalent to three times the tenant’s current rent, which the landlord reimburses to the city.

With EDRA named in multiple landlord lawsuits filed against the city, the “toxic cocktail served over the icy conditions and the glacier pace of the King County courts,” one might assume that landlords have been in a continuous loop of hitting tenants with rent increases over 10 percent and then being forced to pay the city to relocate them. But when we dig into the real numbers, the situation looks a bit different. 

EDRA by the Numbers 

Since its inception, EDRA has seen wildly fluctuating applications and approvals. In 2022, 89 tenants applied with 11 deemed eligible. The following year, applications rose to 316, with only 87 deemed eligible. By 2024, applications dropped to 143 with 67 deemed eligible. 

Noting the large decrease in EDRA applications from 2023 to 2024, Bryan Stevens, Director of Media Relations at the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, framed this as a net positive, “The program has much more visibility in the landlord and tenant community than ever before. Many landlords are keeping rent increases below 10 percent and tenants are contacting our department before submitting EDRA applications so we can vet them for eligibility in advance.” 

Despite the program's increased visibility, only 165 of the 548 EDRA records filed as of November 2024 have been deemed eligible. Of those, 57—roughly 35 percent—were appealed by landlords, with 9 of those appeals overturned. 

The remaining 383 EDRA records were either "admin closed" due to failure to respond to requests for additional information or insufficient documentation, "withdrawn" by applicants who chose not to proceed, or "denied" for not meeting income-eligibility requirements or because the rental increase was not large enough to qualify for relocation assistance.

The program has approved approximately 80 applications annually, with an average household payment of $4,544. To date, the city has disbursed $740,787 in EDRA payments and is awaiting reimbursements of $157,000 from landlords.

How It All Begins 

In my decade of renting in Seattle, I’ve yet to find a landlord who doesn’t love an annual rent increase. One of the five tenant protections cited in lawsuits against the city is the 180-day notice period, which passed in 2021. Enacted shortly after statewide COVID-era rent increase restrictions lapsed, the law requires landlords to provide tenants with at least 180 days' written notice before increasing rent. If the proposed increase is 10 percent or more, the law mandates that the landlord include an EDRA notice.

For three years, I lived in a Central District apartment complex participating in the Multifamily Property Tax Exemption (MFTE) Program, which offers tax exemptions to landlords in exchange for keeping rent costs slightly lower than the market rate for a percentage of tenants. After rent increases resumed in 2021, I received my usual annual hikes. But in 2024, I was hit with a 17 percent increase compared to the previous year.

The steep rent hike made me eligible for EDRA. The application process is based on three key criteria: your rent increase must be 10 percent or more, your household income must be at or below 80 percent AMI, and you must notify your landlord in writing of your intent to move.  I promptly notified my landlord in writing of my intent to move.

I submitted my initial application and documents on the Seattle Services portal and received a tracking number. I was then prompted to provide additional documentation: EDRA requires tax returns, pay stubs, unemployment or Social Security benefit letters, retirement statements, or child support award letters. My form was fully submitted in July, and it remained pending in the Seattle Services Portal for three months until a caseworker was assigned in October.  

Navigating the EDRA Timeline 

According to the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI), the average time from "open" to "eligibility determination" is about 70 days, including outliers that took 100 days or more. When excluding those outliers, the averages are as follows:

• 56.36 days: Average time from "open" to "eligibility"

• 79.68 days: Average time from "open" to "close" (excluding cases that were administratively closed or withdrawn)

The timeline alone presents a significant obstacle. My application took 93 days to be assigned. I submitted in July, expecting to receive assistance before my move-out date of September 1. I based this expectation on the EDRA application timeline, which shows that “within 10 days of receiving a complete application” the “Tenant is notified of EDRA decision.” 

As my move-out date approached, I was forced to make other plans. With no EDRA funds to assist, I withdrew money from my IRA incurring penalty taxes. While I was able to do this, most low-income renters don’t have a retirement fund to dip into. Renters being economically displaced typically don’t have extra resources to pull from. I covered moving and move-in costs out of pocket while updating my information with the city and routinely checking on the status of my case.

Once eligibility is determined, both the tenant and landlord are notified. If the tenant is deemed eligible, the landlord has 10 days to appeal the decision, should they choose to do so. Once my case was finally opened, it was deemed eligible within three days. Greystar, the largest apartment owner in the US, with at least 15,000 units in Seattle—including the one I was living in—immediately filed an appeal on my case.

Weaponizing the Appeals Process 

Greystar's appeal to my case, signed by one of their local property managers, stated: “My interest in this decision is primarily rooted in the financial stability and overall well-being of the property. If the proposed action were taken, the property would experience financial hardship.”

Seattle landlords have come under fire for employing dubious tactics to bypass ethical standards and the law, including, allegedly, artificially inflating rental rates and colluding to drive housing costs even higher. Among them is Greystar, a major player in the rental market and one of six corporations currently implicated in an ongoing Department of Justice antitrust lawsuit. The DOJ  lawsuit alleges “that the six landlords actively participated in a scheme to set their rents using each other’s competitively sensitive information through common pricing algorithms.” 

Their claim of financial hardship is striking not only because of Greystar’s alleged role in a national rent-fixing scheme but also when you consider their financial standing. As a global real estate giant managing over $76 billion in assets and generating $5 billion in annual revenue, the notion that providing a lump sum of under 5K to a low-income tenant would cause them financial strain is difficult to reconcile. For a tenant already struggling to remain in Seattle, this vast power imbalance makes their attempt to deny relocation assistance all the more egregious.

 

I first became aware of Greystar’s tactics to avoid paying EDRA relocation assistance via the appeals process through a 2024 report by PubliCola. In one case, a tenant was notified of a rent increase exceeding 30%. After the tenant gave notice to vacate, citing the increase as the reason, Greystar—four months later—offered a revised increase of 9.9%. The tenant, having already signed a lease elsewhere, declined. Despite this, Greystar argued (unsuccessfully) that they shouldn’t be responsible for relocation assistance because they had eventually proposed an increase below 10%.

Greystar’s short statement in their appeal to my case claimed, “the fact that the property had already rescinded letters of rent increases to affected residents,” an assertion that was a lie. By the time a court hearing was scheduled for November, I had already moved out of the Greystar property and had been settled into my new home for over two months.

Before the Seattle City Examiner, the SDCI's compliance analyst presented all supporting exhibits used to confirm my eligibility. When it was Greystar's turn, the property manager repeated their initial false claim and failed to provide any evidence or documentation. Shortly after the hearing, I received notification that Greystar’s appeal had been denied, and I was approved for the EDRA assistance funds. Greystar had again wasted taxpayer money, city officials' time and resources, and my own.

Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan on Anti-Displacement

In January, Mayor Harrell signed an Executive Order on the Implementation of Anti-Displacement Strategies. One key investment in the proposed Anti-Displacement Action Plan is EDRA. But EDRA is not an anti-displacement program—it’s at best, a displacement deterrent, and at worst, a response to displacement after it has already occurred. 

With an average one-time payout of $4,544, EDRA fails to provide financial support for renters to remain in their neighborhoods. While I was fortunate to move in with my partner and stay in my zip code, most renters aren’t so lucky. Many are being pushed out of their communities—whether to Burien, Renton, or even out of state— leaving behind their support networks, moving further from jobs, and disrupting the cultural fabric of their neighborhoods.

Though EDRA offers crucial financial support to help renters avoid homelessness, it has assisted only 156 renters to date. The program falls short of the systemic solutions required to tackle displacement. Many nonprofits I reached out to were unaware of EDRA, reflecting an ongoing lack of visibility and access. Its complex requirements, lengthy timelines, and intimidating appeals process only add to the barriers low-income renters face. The irony is clear: if landlords adhered to stifling their greed with a 9.9% cap on annual rent increases, EDRA would become obsolete. 

EDRA is not necessarily a flawed program—it’s a flawed solution. While it could be improved by making it more accessible, shortening timelines, or penalizing wasteful appeals from corporate landlords, those changes alone wouldn't make it sufficient. Senate Bill 5222, currently moving through the state Senate, is a step in the right direction. It proposes capping annual rental increases at 7%, still above Seattle’s cost of living adjustment, but a move toward greater affordability.

We need solutions that tackle the root causes of displacement and housing instability, such as mandatory rent caps and funding for social housing. Tuesday’s special election results show strong voter support for progressive housing policies. Despite over half a million dollars spent in opposition and misleading rhetoric from the Mayor and City Council, voters made their stance clear. When we build coalitions that center communities and communicate our policies with clarity, we win. 

Corporate landlords and wealthy corporations are fortunate to operate here. Holding them accountable is crucial to offsetting the harm they have caused. As we celebrate the progress of social housing, we must continue pushing for progressive anti-displacement strategies. It’s time for policies that don’t just look good on paper, but that deliver real, tangible results.