Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
What "legitimate business reasons" (or even illegitimate ones) exist to not want Section 8 renters? Or Social Security? etc
The LL is guaranteed of the rent which is 90% of what a LL wants.
So, Heidi, why do some LLs resist? Can't raise rent as easily? Or at all?
Sounds to me as if there must be a possible solution for all --modification of Housing Authority procedures.
THAT's where the focus should be, not trying to beat up LLs.
Rent is an economic problem that has to be dealt with through regulation. Land is a finite commodity. You can't just make more of it after its all been bought up. Because of that, landowners have an unfair advantage over the consumers when it comes to rental properties. The Sound is faced with even greater challenges- even though most of the jobs are in Seattle, that City is squeezed between major bodies of water in multiple directions, not to mention a tangled mess of a highway system that takes up further potential living spaces.
Life is very good if you own a lot of properties in the Puget Sound area. Politicians like Ed Murray show up at the mansions by Volunteer Park hosting fundraisers because he knows thats where all the money is. Unless he promises these wealthy old queens protection from Kshama Sawant, he can't finance re-election campaigns for him or his allies. When he does budge, its only because he's being shoved in that direction by constituents whose votes aren't going to be bought by White Elephants such as Bertha and the Tunnel.
As glad as I am to have Kshama in there forcing the City to take renter's rights seriously, she is hampered by the state legislature. We need to mount a campaign all across the state to allow rent-control everywhere, not just Seattle. For the past few years, I've been meeting low wage workers who are now either homeless or borderline homeless in Olympia, folks who aren't strung out on meth or the victims of bad decisions, just people who used to be able to survive in Tacoma on a low-wage factory job who just cant afford to live there anymore and cant find available housing in Olywa. What are we goingt o do? Keep sending them further and further South?
Which brings me to what I came here to say - all of these anti-discrimination measures are great. I'm all for them. But at what point to we start tackling the real problem: severely limited housing supply in the city, as we can only build multifamily housing on 13% of our land?
I want to see rowhouses. I want to see apartments throughout Seattle, not just concentrated in a few neighborhoods. That's the one thing that would really make Seattle more affordable: having enough housing for our people.
Your statement has a few logical flaws I'd like to address. Rent control does in fact put roofs over the heads of people who cannot otherwise afford the roof you would charge them for int eh absence of Rent Control.
Most Seattle jobs are low-wage service sector positions. Unregulated rents are driving people who run this city out of this city, as they cannot afford to live here. You're even displacing them from Tacoma and Everett, which already involve several hours of time to commute into and out of Seattle. If we don't control he rents you are charging, people are going to be so far displaced that they will no longer be able to commute i not Seattle to perform the work we need them to do to keep this city going.
Look, you have people commuting into Seattle from Olympia now just o work at our schools and in our stores. How much farther are you going to shove them out? To Chehalis? Nobody's going to commute every day from Chehalis to work at a Burger King.
What we need us less showing in the private sector and more of it in public ownership. You aren't building anything, even though you already charge rents that rival housing costs in places like Manhattan and LA. Since you are not responding to your out of control profits, there is zero reason to believe that giving you even more money ill do anything to motivate you o build.
And since you won't supply the city with what it needs to survive- affordable housing in the city for the people who work in the city- the city might just have to take that property from you and build the housing you refuse to build. Governments aren't motivated by profit, and can supply based on need.
If this sounds a little too radical for you, wake up my friend. People are losing patience with landlords here, and your pleas for more and more money are falling on deaf ears. It wouldn't take much to convince them to do what I have just described. If you don't voluntarily reduce rents to a reasonable level, we do that without your consent.
That was easy.
And if a tenant has a reduction in income, then the $$ coming from the state must be increased. How long does THAT take and how long do I have to cover the living expenses of strangers before WA state makes the adjustment in what I am paid? And when I thought back to the rude, slow, unhelpful interactions I've had with various city, county and state departments over the years...
Have you reviewed the charts and forms associated with this process? Worked the calculations that have something to do with ensuring the utility bills for the unit don't go over some magic number related to the tenant's income I simply could not figure out before I threw all this shit in the recycle, never to be thought about again?
About these "out of control profits" you speak about. Do you have a source for that? Developers tend to make a profit, sure, but not an overly high one. If it was so lucrative to build then a flood of companies would come in and build until you get back to standard profits.
Rent is set based on demand (how much people are willing to pay). This has shot up because we have a lot of new jobs. If we were able to build enough to satisfy that demand, rents would come back down. But instead we have only 13% of our land area devoted to multifamily housing with 65% saved for one unit per 5,000 square feet (single family homes). That's exclusionary, racist in its roots, and the absolute reason that construction can't keep up with demand and drop rents back to affordable levels.
Want government to seize properties to build? Great. Try that. But considering our government doesn't even have the guts to let people build apartments on our precious rich single family homes, I think you'll have a bit of trouble finding enough backbone to seize property.
I understand that HOAs can foreclose upon and evict condo owners who are just
one month behind on homeowners' dues.
Renting is not fail-safe, either; rents can, and like mortgages & HOA fees, do go up.
The challenge is to find what works (not for all of us) and be prepared to adjust to