I'd have thought the first course of action for landlords would be to tighten up screening of candidates. I know several management companies will outright reject you in Seattle if your credit score is less than 750 and in many cases downtown you need to hit over 800. And that doesn't even start with your gross income to rent ratio.

If the landlords didn't raise the rent, then who did?

@1 They can do that but I wonder how long that's going to be a sustainable practice. The landscape of perfect or near perfect credit really changed after the last Recession. Finding people with spotless credit who want to rent in a market where the choice between paying an outrageous but stable mortgage or paying an outrageous but also rocketing upwards rent increases is generally hard to do and probably harder to do, now. The ultimate goal is to fill vacancies and pristine credit scores seems like diminishing returns, atleast to me. But clearly, Seattle has established itself as neither smart nor long term in their thinking about the rental market.

Here's the problem that Ms. Maykovich and others don't seem to understand about the security deposit. It is called a security deposit because it provides security to the owner should the tenant fail to perform to their terms of the rental agreement.

A deposit is needed to be paid up front to ensure the tenant is fully bought in to the terms. It's much easier for a tenant to decide to break their lease when they've only paid 1/6 of the deposit, versus being fully invested.

Without that security landlords are forced to raise rents and enact more stringent screening criteria standards to offset the risk this creates. How does that help tenants, again?

Also, if landlords are the ones with power why are we the ones who have to resort to lawsuits to have our voices heard?

The city's housing affordability problems are the manifestation of Council's own policies which have failed to accommodate the significant population growth in our region due to economic prosperity. Council has not prioritized enough housing supply to accommodate demand, and that is why rents have risen.

Sean Martin,
External Affairs Director, RHAWA

@4: Excellent points!

@4, Nothing says you need to charge either or both a deposit or security deposit. AND if the market was saturated with an oversupply of rental units landlords scrap the additional fees.

"That means allowing tenants to pay deposits over several months should not translate to a financial hit for landlords, Maykovich said."

Until your tenant skips town and leaves you with a damaged apartment. (Good luck with small claims court.) Sometimes I think the council's collective affluence makes them blind to how regular people live. Folks who are renting out one unit need to be able to protect themselves against the potential of a shitty renter.

I'm not a landlord but could be one someday (1-bed apartment). Ideally, I would refrain from gouging people, but if I can't choose my renter, and I can't get a full security deposit up front, you bet I'll jack up the rent as high as possible and require a high credit score and/or income. What does the council not understand about this? Can't there be a compromise that protects the small-time landlords?

The conclusion of this statement makes no sense:

"Martin has argued that requiring payment plans increases financial risk for landlords and may cause them to increase rent. For security deposits, state law requires that landlords not spend that money, but instead hold them in trust accounts. That means allowing tenants to pay deposits over several months should not translate to a financial hit for landlords, Maykovich said."

Holding a security deposit in a segregated trust account simply means that the money can't be co-mingled with the LL's operating account. So it's true, the LL can't just take that deposit money from tenant and spend it on anything LL wants to spend it on. LL can only take money from the security deposit account under certain circumstances, like damage, unpaid rent, etc.

That's where the potential financial hit comes for the LL. The whole point of the deposit is to provide an assurance that there will be money available if certain contingencies happen, like damages or unpaid rent.

Let's say the lease is for a year, rent is $1800 a month and the security deposit is $1200. Under the new law, the deposit and last month's rent can be paid over 6 months, because the lease is over 6 months.

Prior to move-in, tenant pays first month's rent, 1/6 of the last month's rent ($300) and 1/6 of the security deposit ($200). In week 3 of month one, Tenant spills something on the carpet in the living room near a wall. It's a large greasy spill that will require replacing the carpet and repainting the wall. The total cost of the repair is $900.

Landlord only has $200 of the total $1200 security deposit. Pretty sure that LL is barred from using the $300 of last month's rent to cover this sort of damage. (But even if LL can use that $300, LL is still $400 short on paying for the damage.)

So if LL tries to get tenant to cover the remaining $700 in damage and tenant refuses, what are LL's options? LL can sue tenant, but if tenant has no money, that's not going to do much good and it's going to take time and money to pursue that. Even if LL tried to evict tenant, that's going to be costly, time consuming, and since tenant has only paid $300 towards the last month's rent, tenant has very skin in the game. So tenant is only out $500 if it chooses to bolt.

It seems to me that the first few months of the tenancy are likely to be the riskiest for the LL, because they don't really have much of a course of dealing with the tenant. Even a tenant with great credit could end up treating the apartment poorly or could have an inadvertent mishap. The credit score gives LL some indication of tenant's ability to pay and history of paying. But it's not a guaranty that payment will be made. It's this risk that the security deposit and last month's rent is meant to address. But if LL doesn't get the entire deposit and last month's rent until 6 months into the term, then LL is being asked to shoulder a larger portion of the risk during this time period.

The cap on move-in fees seems reasonable, because this has been an area of abuse. The rest of it is more complicated imho, for the reasons I've sketched out above.

Sadly, I fear these regs may end up having unintended consequences that actually make it worse for the very people they are trying to help, by placing even more emphasis on the credit score.

I guess we'll see.

Yep, it is about the risk. Not, necessarily the upfront receipt of rent and security deposits which are to be kept in Trust. Good credit and the ability to pay security are indicators the tenant will be responsible. There is merit to move-in fees legislation, I used to routinely give folks 2-3 months to pay the up front rent and deposit.

In addition, the ability to choose a tenant has been removed with the First-in-time legislation and the ability to remove a bad tenant has been curtailed with Just Cause Eviction legislation. I used to take chances on people (No Lie), but that option has been removed I have tightened our screening criteria over the years to reduce the risk new tenant landlord regulations have created.

From my experience mom & pop landlords provide the majority of the affordable rents (I have five rental units). Primarily because we appreciate low turnover and low hassles. The local association which represents a lot of us has over 5,000 members. Think other mom & pop's stories are
different mine?

I've never been late on rent despite having had two crappy roommates move out on me, but my landlord doesn't seem to think the Fair Housing Act is a thing (among other issues where I am legally in the right). I want to move (can't actually address the problems, because I don't trust the small--two properties I think--landlord to not find a bullshit reason to evict me or take my deposit). I can't move because I can't afford to save up yet another deposit (and have poor credit due to a long unemployment that I'm finally beginning to fix). I've always left apartments just as good as I came into them and never had any complaints, and I imagine there are a whole crapload of people in the same situation.

Just wanted to share the flipside of the small landlords who are afraid of getting ripped off. What solution can protect both sides?

Several of you make very good points here about the risk that's being shifted to Landlords, and kudos to Sean Martin and the RHA for standing up to a runaway council.

The vast majority of landlords provide safe and well maintained housing, amid skyrocketing property tax and utility costs, for which the city council and media like Ms Groover demonize and berate them constantly. Yes there are numerous examples of badly operated and substandard rental housing- and those owners should be shamed and held accountable (or restricted from operating rental property). But they are the exception, by far. Local landlords are predominantly retired, have inherited a home, have held onto a first home as an investment, or have developed a single family or multifamily rental business, and are very diligent about keeping their property up, both to maintain the value and to attract good tenants....in fact, I hear far more often from rental owners "I hate to raise the rents on the tenants because I don't want them to move out, and it's so hard to find good renters again"

So I am continually frustrated by the likes of Ms Groover who make nasty little digs like this one:

“Our members provide safe and affordable housing," Sean Flynn, board president at the Rental Housing Association of Washington, said
**with a completely straight face**

at a press conference today.

Affordability is not an issue because landlords jack up rents to afford super yachts...it's an issue because property taxes have risen precipitously over the past dozen years, and utility costs have literally gone up over 300% in the last 8 years, and landlords are left trying to cover these costs, with mortgage and insurance, and now juggling new regulations and costs like RRIO registration and inspections, while the city is dumping risk on them and taking away their protections such as the ability to collect move-in deposits at move-in.

It would be great to see some better researched, balanced and objective reporting on this topic in the future.

@9: Yes, you get it.

@11: I think you'd need to explain your situation in more detail, if you want people to understand the how your are seeing things as a tenant. How specifically is the Fair Housing Act relevant to your situation?

@holoroses- I might suggest you look for rentals operated by professional management companies. They are fully licensed and regulated as real estate brokers, and are trained to operate properly within the federal (like Fair Housing), state (like trust accounting and deposit handling) and local (like landlord-tenant) laws. You might find more fair and equitable handling of your lease with such a company over an individual, maverick rental property owner who might not be aware and aren't directly held accountable for the right and legal requirements for managing the tenant and the rental.

@12: Yes, LLs are not a monolith. As you explain, the interests of a small LL may well be very different than a larger LL (e.g., prioritizing low maintenance low turnover tenants instead of trying to always maximize the monthly rent). It's a shame that the regulations don't reflect these differences.

@14: Since moving to my current (no pets unless given approval by landlord) apartment I've had increasing mental health issues which have resulted in two separate professionals recommending a support animal and providing documentation. My landlord refused to even discuss the possibility and was sarcastic and condescending about it.

My previous landlord was also abysmal (the other three, all top notch). All I meant to illustrate was that crappy people on both sides take advantage of things and really make it harder for all of the rest of us, landlords *and* tenants.

@robinseattle (15) thanks for the suggestion! In my search so far the management companies seem to have much higher requirements for credit scores, and repairing that is slow going! But what you're saying makes a lot of sense and is much-needed encouragement to keep looking.

This is a quote from Washington CAN!

“RHAWA doesn't care if people of color, single moms, seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income families are no longer able to live in this great city,” said Mary Nguyen, executive director.

It is very similar to how the Seattle City Council has addressed the affordable housing issue with local rental property owners. No Lie, the Council Members have refused to work with landlords to help solve the problem.

BTW: The Washington CAN report put together to support the Move-in Fee and other Fair Housing Legislation...weak tea or piss beer, you decide?

I think Catalina Vu Del-Ray summed it up perfectly in The Stranger's get out and vote article (re the 2017 Seattle Mayoral race): Seattle was founded by cranky, rich, white people. It sure sounds like they're getting their day in court. Hope affordable housing and reasonable rents can return to Seattle-- and the sooner, the better. Currently, the Emerald City is listed as the 9th most cost prohibitively expensive city to live in----WORLDWIDE.

@20:I stand corrected--and please excuse the typo. I meant to acknowledge Catalina Vel Du-Ray for her comment in Heidi Groover's get out and vote article. Sorry, Catalina, for getting your name wrong.

@20 And Heidi, thanks for yet again another excellent article----your summary really caught my attention. I find it alarming that the city where I was born and lived for seven years at two different periods of my life has become so exponentially unaffordable. This has to change.

I was a landlord once after moving out of a town home and only advertised to coworkers. I found great renters right away at ~20% under market rate with a small security deposit. (Okay they didn't know what a lint trap was, but nothing burned up.) In retrospect I feel bad I did it this way, but it seems that today I'd be even more inclined to. Emotionally I needed to know my renters and have a connection.

@7-9: You are exactly right. While it it true that most tenants don't cause trouble, the financial consequences of a single bad one can be extremely high. A damage deposit is really the only way that a landlord can protect against getting stuck with the cost of repairs. And the first few months are the important one. I'm not really worried about any of my long-term tenants trashing their apartments. I know them and trust them. The new tenant is EXACTLY who poses the risk. Under this ordinance, the landlord has to wait several months before having even the minimal protection that a damage deposit brings.

As to "not being a financial hit on the landlord," the timing of the deposit itself is not the financial hit. We can't take damage deposits & use the money anyway. What is the hit is the extra risk posed by not having a deposit up front.

@23-funny you should mention the lint trap. I just spent almost $200 having a dryer repaired because the previous tenant never cleaned the trap.

Bottom line is this: The City has both told us that we cannot select our tenants based on anything other than arbitrary factors with the First-in-time ordinance, and under the fee payment plan ordinance has taken away the ability to protect against a new tenant causing damages. This IS going to result in landlords being as selective as humanly possible with the things they can control.

The irony of all this is that @11 is the kind of person who i was meant to be helped by this legislation, but exactly who is going to be hurt (= unable to rent an apartment). A fair number of people with crappy credit scores and not-great incomes are great tenants, who pay their rent and don't damage the property. But not all of them. Some have bad credit for a reason. In the past I have overlooked a less-than-stellar credit rating for several tenants based on the ability to get to know them, hear their side of things, and use my own judgment. @11 sounds like one of those. But no more. Someone like that will not get through the qualification process now- it is too big a risk.

@24: And what exactly is the qualification process? Thus far, it doesn't seem to be very clearly explained.

I am a property manager for a small family owned group of properties. I have gone to classes to learn how to institute these new ordinances in to our company. I've rewritten documents and spent many hours changing how we do business in order to comply with them. What has changed for our company is that we have increased the monthly income and credit scores required of new tenants. When you take away someone’s ability to protect their investment how they see fit, than you force them to up their game and adopt protections and requirements that they might not have otherwise had to turn to. As Sean Marten pointed out, these are not huge corporations owning a lot of these properties. They are individuals and families who have worked hard for what they have. I’ve often had apartment turnovers cost upwards of $10,000.00. Even if we kept the full deposit, we’re still out.

The crazy thing is that the huge corporations are the ones who aren't following the new laws. I rent from one of them. I just signed a new lease that included pet rent. Landlords are no longer allowed to charge pet rent. When I asked about it, I was told that their lawyers said it was okay. So, here I am following the law and no longer charging pet rent to the new tenants I have at work, while at home am paying $100 more per month in pet rent.

@25 The process is this. A landlord is now to have a Tenant Screening Criteria. This lays out the minimal requirements a landlord is willing to accept in order to approve tenancy. This includes credit score, income, criminal history, rental history and so on. Basically, they are allowed to require anything they want as long as it does not infringe on a protected class. One could require that a tenant doesn’t drive a Subaru or own a hamster. Because Subaru drivers and hamster owners are not a protected class. This Criteria document has to be given or made available to any prospective applicant. If an applicant applies and does not meet the criteria they are then rejected. A landlord is not allowed to adjust the criteria on an individual basis. Say the applicant meets all criteria but has a slightly too low credit score. I can't make an acceptation for them. Because then it would be unfair for any other applicant who didn't meet the criteria. I have to decline them and wait until I can get an applicant who meets all the criteria. The only acceptation is if a person from a protected class applies. They can then given a free pass and don't have to meet the criteria if the landlord decides to wave it.

@26 I am in agreement, except for the last part on protected classes. It is actually Vulnerable Populations which are exempted ( a general , not well defined class). In addition, the Vulnerable Populations exception applies to units set aside for those classes, or a person who is referred by a third party non-profit which represents Vulnerable Populations. Vulnerable population is to be defined (but not really yet) by Seattle Office of Civil Rights. City Council staff routinely promoted the legislation saying it did not apply to protected classes, this is not true. The suggestion to exempt protected classes from the First-in-time policy fell on Council Members deaf ears. Probably because literally everyone in Seattle's expanded list of protected classes. Really, its true, check it out.

What recourse is there for landlords that are not following the new rules instituted in January? I'm currently looking for an apartment and found one in the Delridge neighborhood of Seattle, located in a large apartment complex. Every single one of their move-in fees breaks the new law, when I brought it up the lady in the office feigned ignorance (or maybe it's possible she really didn't know) and said she'd have to discuss it with the owner but said it was unlikely to change. I don't understand what power I would even have as a prospective tenant when you find places that are not following the rules.

@28: Enforcement of the move in fee ordinance is Department of Construction & Inspections. (206) 684-8850.

"Unable to defeat the movement, the rich landlords in the Rental Housing Association, under the guise of “mom and pops”, are now turning to the courts."

Heidi Groover- PLEASE stop just publishing unchecked facts and do some research on the subject you're reporting on! RHA is in fact made up of predominantly small, local property owners who have 3-5 unit properties. They are not "rich landlords". You're not doing justice to this debate by spewing and re-posting baseless claims that have no basis as fact.