Why is it you go crazy when someone suggests that a person's right to control/profit from THEIR OWN PROPERTY, should take precedence over someone else's (conceived) right to use/occupy said property without fair and timely compensation? I know this falls in line with current libtard doctrine that a scumbags right to steal my stuff far surpasses my right to keep my stuff, but I can't get anyone to even attempt to present a semi-sane reason such thinking

And another thought..... You claim blacks, especially women, are 6+ times more frequently evicted than whites and Latinos are 2x more. How do you justify immediately calling landlords racist motherfuckers, with no intelligible data to back up such a claim? Do black women, Mexicans, and white guys all default on/make tardy rent payments/perform other breach of contract, at the same rate? If so, then I withdraw the question. Or are black women 6x + higher rate of default than whites? In which case I ask again, how is the proportionate eviction rate racist? And, how many of these evictions happen WITHOUT the tenant breaching contract? I can personally find well over 100 lawyers in under 2 minutes who would gladly prosecute the owners in such instances.


Oh look, a racist landlord just crawled out from behind the wainscoting.


@2: Oh look, another snide remark from someone who never ran a business.


Expanded mitigation fund may help. It should provide helpful data on some eviction issues. there is good data that short term rental assistance and expanded services is the best solution to reduce evictions. But that would be too easy a solution. No racist enemy to go after.


The $2 eviction is an untruth. That tenant was probably not paying the full rent for months with multiple warnings and notices as required by the complicated tenant supportive Seattle Landlord Tenant laws. This is just another law that does nothing - it could already have been covered by existing laws. It's just something to get news coverage for legislators to springboard their careers.


why is no one talking on this point
"Landlords must also first apply any
payment to the rent amount before applying it toward other charges. "Rent" is defined to
mean consideration for use and occupancy of premises, and expressly excludes charges for
costs incurred due to late payment, damages, utilities, deposits, legal costs, or other fees such
as attorneys' fees."
So if a tenants gives me money because they damaged my property I must apply that money to rent instead! You must be kidding


4 Another snide remark by a privileged lover of the status quo. Greed is good and poor people aren’t playing by your rules. The rules made by you.


@8 -
When you make the rules, will tenants be expected to pay the rent? Will landlords be expected to maintain the property adequately? I sincerely hope that you don't have different answers to those two questions.


Why is breach of contract by the tenant ok but not the landlord?


Thanks for covering this, Rich. Landlords have power and responsibility. We don't have a problem today with landlords not having enough power, people. We do have a problem with people being evicted.


9 I think 11 answered you quite well.


“Evictions are one of if not the leading cause of homelessness in Washington..”

No, no, no. If you follow the links back, you get to the 2016 survey by Seattle (not Washington) where two-thirds of Seattle’s homeless (69 percent) said they were not originally from Seattle, and a majority (55 percent) reported using alcohol or drugs. (Given these numbers were self-reported, the true figures may be even higher.) A transient, drug-using population will tend to become homeless, no matter what the legal protections we provide to renters. Rental assistance may help a few struggling persons from getting evicted, and we should provide it, but those cases are not the root cause of most homelessness; substance addiction by persons with no local support network explains the majority of cases — by their own reporting.


Not being able to afford a place to live causes homelessness too.

How many people here are originally from Seattle? Could be the minority. Many are being priced out and others forced into homelessness. Because housing is too expensive here for most working and fixed income people.
I’d drink too if I was forced to live on the outside.
The hoarding of wealth is a machine for poverty. We have serious inequality because of the super rich.


As a landlord myself, I don't have a problem with the 14-day extension. The reality is that most mom-and-pop landlords like me don't evict tenants until they've been behind for 3, sometimes even 6 months. Unless they are a pain in the ass or otherwise dangerous to other tenants anf the peace.

I realize the delay might be difficult for a very small number of landlords who themselves live from month to month. But I think balancing the rights of all sides (including society), this is the right decision. Us I said previously, really small landlords and not quick to evict a tenant because it's expensive, not only because of the legal proceedings but also the vacancy and turnover costs.

I do have a huge problem with the second part of the law, which allows judges to take into consideration the circumstances of the tenant. If you eat at a restaurant, shop as a grocery store, purchase gas or even owe the city or state, is a judge going to consider your circumstances in determining whether you're guilty of theft or owe the money?

I think the problem is that folks want to shift society's burdens on one group. I sympathize with tenants and sadly we live in a world with huge income discrepancies and so many people are struggling. However it's not landlords that have kept wages stagnant or are making millions of dollars yearly. Why should it be on them to lose money because of somebody else' is having problems.

This is the problem with demagogues on both ends of the spectrum. Instead of trying to find fair and commonsense solutions that work for everyone, they prefer to villainize landlords or whatever other group they're going after. The State could offer temporary rent assistance or vouchers to tenants facing eviction, funded by taxpayers and so the burden is spread evenly. They could also work with landlords to provide some incentives rather than just sticks all the time.

Unfortunately, the Fringe Left (including this rag) is so invested in virtue signalling but simply don't understand economics and the concept of unintended but perfectly foreseeable consequences. When the minimum wage was raised to $15 an hour, I knew that the cost of everything would go up and so the buying power remains exactly the same.

Here, a couple of things will happen. Landlords will become extremely selective to ensure that they don't get risky tenants. They'll also be reluctant to rent to the classes of people who have the highest default rate. I say this as an African-American, because if I read that a certain group has six times the eviction rate of others and I know that I cannot easily evict that person, I am going to have a really hard time making the decision to rent to them regardless of how much I would want to do so. It is a business and an investment, and I don't know any other business that is expected to just let people take that goods and services without composition.

The final thing is that this is probably going to be challenged in court. The 7th Amendment is a federal constitutional issue, answer this case may find itself in the US Supreme Court and not the state one which also is on the French end of the left. This will cost the State money and in the end they will lose because they over reached. As usual.


@16: As usual, when confronted by the facts, you ignore them or try to minimize them, and respond by re-stating your groundless opinions as if they were facts. As @17 eloquently describes, that’s a really bad approach to addressing problems, especially with laws.

It’s not the “hoarding of wealth” that drove up the cost of living here, but exactly the opposite. Huge numbers of well-paying jobs were created by our tech sector, bringing in many more persons to compete for the same residential spaces. Like writers here at The Stranger, you don’t have the qualifications to do such rewarding work, so you pretend it’s all about oligarchy, because even you know you’d look like a whiny and bitter sore loser if you complained about greater opportunitity.


"Sorry, but it’s difficult to have much sympathy for a 90-year old grandmother who, because she couldn’t start the eviction process after 3 days, was forced to make a couple hundred thousand dollars on her investment property, which will then likely be replaced by an apartment complex or a multi-family unit."

STFU, Richie


Most of the comments here just reflect back exactly what is wrong with this state and its people, not the author. You disgust me.


@20: Not certain if an aggregation of most of the comments is the same as your perception.


@21 perhaps you should continue with you're uncertainty .


Profiteering from property --
from peoples's abodes --
when did we decide that was
how Society need be engineered?

Seems like, as smart as many of us human beings are, we couldda come up with something better; perhaps even something that didn't leave us with hundreds of thousands sans housing, other than on our doorsteps, alleyways, in vehicles, and wherever....

What brilliant fucker came up with that?


WE tried communism, Mistrial? Bull shit.

We DID try socialism -- and we're STILL trying it.
If only we were Smart enough to pull it off more Completely
(with Medicare for all, for example)

Nah, I don't have all the Answers.
But if we never take the time to Consider our Problems,
how the fuck will we ever Solve them?


@12- @11 in no way answered my question. He/she merely expressed a complaint that landlords have some economic power and that we have a problem with evictions. Both of those things are true, but they don't address my question. What I am seeing and hearing from a lot of the commenters here is the idea that a landlord is to be held to his/her obligations (the law does not allow us to get away without maintaining a premises in habitable condition, or to complying with other requirements), but that a tenant can be excused if they fail to follow up on theirs (pay the rent).
I understand the emotional component of dealing with places people live. Housing is a necessity. But why are landlords expected to shoulder the burden of housing those who can't/won't pay the rent (i.e., uphold their side of a contract) while others are not? Food is a necessity, and supermarket owners surely have as much power as landlords. But nobody expects them to allow customers to escape paying for groceries just because they are tight on funds. Same for clothing, etc. No one suggests that oil companies (who are undoubtedly more powerful than landlords) should have to give free gas to the poor. Etc. etc.etc.

What is happening here is that a lot of people are expecting a small group who happen to own property to take responsibility for providing housing to others, whether they pay for it or not. If society wants to provide housing for people who can't pay the rent, fine. Build public housing. I'm all for that, but it's for society at large, not a chosen few, to shoulder that burden.



Firstly -- "And finally ...our little ill advised socialist experiments --Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security are teetering on bankruptcy...funding for these is something nobody wants to contemplate."

Ah, there it is -- you wanna Undo FDR's New Deal
and "replace it" with Trumpfy's Bold New Raw Deal.

You must be one a them "compassionate" Conservatives.

If we remove the income cap on Social Security deductions
we make it Solvent for EVER.
Or nearly so.

Nice Try.


Okay -- not for Ever and Ever, Comrade, my bad -- here's Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (he's the Democratic Socialist!) on the subject:

"I look at this issue for a start by saying, does Social Security have a financial problem now? And the answer is" it does. Right now, despite the fact there is $2.8 trillion in the trust fund — a lot of money — the fact is that trust fund will be depleted in 15 years. But having said that, that does not mean -- as people make it out to mean -- that there is no money to pay out Social Security benefits.

Social Security would still be able to pay out 79% of the benefit owed to eligible Americans because of the revenue coming in every day. So we have a gap that we have to fill. That is number one, and that is absolutely doable.

Right now, if you are a billionaire you pay exactly the same amount of Social Security taxes as somebody who makes $132,900 a year and that is absurd.

Trump pays his entire Social Security tax contribution in half of one day and that is totally absurd. So you make the payroll tax more progressive by lifting the cap for people earning $250,000 a year, including capital gains, profits and dividends.

When you do that you increase benefits, extend the life of Social Security for 52 years. I think that’s what the American people want and what we’re going to fight for."

Your smoke and your mirrors that work their Magic so delightfully Well on FOX (and fiends) doesn't play quite so well here, Mistrial.

Nice try.



"The Democrats will drop Bernie Sanders "the socialist" like a hot brick. Neither party is a socialist party. Nobody will wear it...except perhaps you. So I guess that's one vote."

And yet, Senator Sanders leads all Dems in campaign contributions.
The Majority of Americans support Senator Sanders' Policies.
As do ALL of the Dem candidates.
How's that grab ya, Mistrial?

And yet, if the corporate "democratic' Party has its way,
we'l get us another Centrist who most likely will inspire
NO one. So, maybe you will win. Again.


btw, Mistrial, didja see Bernie on FOX?

First offly, he's got The BALLS to go on Rupert "Uncle
Snoopy" Murdoch's far far FAR right Propaganda Arm to pitch himself.

Secondly, didja happen to notice how when the interrogators asked FOX fans in the audience how many of them got employer-sponsored "health"care, about 2/3 of them raised their hands?

And. when subsequently asked how many of them would like to give that shit up for Socialized Medicine, THEY OVERWHELMINGLY SIDED WITH BERNIE?

Looks like we might just shove a little Medicare for ALL down your sore throat.
(Plus expanded Social Security.
Plus early Childcare.
Plus Education.)

The other healthcare option is, the republican "Plan" is, you're dead.
Which would YOU vote for?


1/2 a paycheck?
You mean, one-half of everything OVER $5,000,000.00?

I'll still (most likely) get by.
But, thanks again, Mistrial, for your Concern.

You must be Fabulously Well-to-Do!
Well, Good for you!


Well, goll-Lee, Mistrial, bet you 'bout over-topped yur Dependses™ when you heard all them gol-danged FOX and Fiends, desperately wanting to CA$H IN on Bernie's MEDICARE FOR ALL Program, eh? And on fucking FOX, no less. Sorry, but it seems like to many on Your Side ain't quite as Dumb as you make them out to be.

Bus, just imagine, if you might Mistrial -- all that Skim, no longer going straight up the Foodchain to your Billionaire Buddies on Wall street or where ever the fuck -- I know, it's gotta be Heartbreaking, to know you can no longer make the massive Killings, in Healthcare.

Have you though about investing in Big Oil?
I'm hearing Good Things. . . .

Please wait...

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.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.