As its last order of business yesterday, the State House voted 54-43 to pass a bill to cap rent increases at 7% in buildings constructed more than ten years ago, offering renters a modicum of the financial stability enjoyed by homeowners with 30-year mortgages. (Democratic Reps Mari Leavitt and Amy Walen joined Republicans in voting against the measure.)

The move gives Senate Democrats one more chance to do right by renters, who make up 40% of state's population and who watched rents nearly double last decade, but the legislation faces an uphill battle. 

At the end of last month, Democratic Sen. Annette Cleveland strangled a similar bill brought forth by Sen. Yasmin Trudeau that would have capped rent hikes at 15%. About half of Senate Democrats this year did not sign on as sponsors to that bill. Of those 15, five said they support the legislation, one firmly rides the fence, seven declined to comment, and two publicly opposed the measure. Renters can only lose four of these people. 

A phone conversation Tuesday with Seattle Sen. Jamie Pedersen revealed just how weird Senate Dems are being about a pretty modest and popular piece of legislation adopted by the rest of the West Coast and nominally progressive cities across the country. 

Sen. Pedersen, who serves in the influential role of Majority Floor Leader, does not champion or co-sponsor the Senate's version of the bill, but he claimed he'd vote for the it if lawmakers muscled it to the floor. Nevertheless, he made strange noises during our chat that offer insights into the thinking of fence-riders. 

When I asked if he supported the legislation, he first responded with a few data points about his district's demographics. He claimed that 72% of households in the 43rd Legislative District rent their homes, which amounts to the highest share of renters in Washington. Around 33% of those renters count as rent-burdened, which ranks as the third-lowest share of such households, he noted. (The government considers people "rent-burdened" if they hand over 30% of their paycheck to their landlord every month.) That rank comes in relatively low partly because, he said, the district boasts the second- or third-highest median family income in the state. "That's a weird combo of things," he said. 

To me, that "weird combo of things" paints a pretty clear portrait of gentrification, though admittedly I have not looked at comparative data going back years. That said, as Amazon and other giant tech companies increased their footprints in the district last decade, Seattle's abject failure to plan for enough housing created a market that allowed landlords to hike rents way up, which pushed poor people away from the city and brought rich people closer to the center of town. By capping rent increases at 7% or 15%, the rent stabilization bill aims to rein in exactly that process, however gently and late in coming. 

But when I asked Pedersen what those statistics meant to him, he said, "It means, as expensive as apartments are, the density thing is working." 

Few in the Legislature now doubt that "the density thing" works. The question is and has always been: how quickly and for whom? Even in the best case scenario, the answer is years from now, and never for very poor people. 

Housing advocates understand the limitations of only trying to juice market-rate and subsidized housing production, which the Legislature has done recently, though not at levels high enough to meet the need. Even the developer-loving YIMBY nerds now recognize and advocate for the need to stabilize rents now while the new housing supply comes online to help slightly lower the rate of aggregate rent increases. So long as the bills prevent the caps from applying to new buildings, which both of WA's bills do, then developers can't reasonably point to the regulation as a reason not to build. 

And with caps at 7% or 15%, we're really only talking about stopping the most egregious increases. Even some landlords don't mind those rates. During the debate on the House floor yesterday, Rep. Chipalo Street, who rents out ten properties, rose in support of the bill and said if he raised rent 7% every year, then his revenue would double in 10 years, an amount that would "far exceed" his costs. In their testimony in support of the bill, several other landlords made similar arguments. 

Oregon adopted rent stabilization in 2019, and California adopted it the following year. The sky has not fallen in those places, though rent in Oregon has. 

But in the Washington State Senate, even begrudging supporters like Pedersen treat the policy like some volatile compound bubbling in a beaker. "We don’t actually know what the long-term affects are of passing a cap, whether it’s 5% or 15%. It’s entirely possible that it’s an experiment worth having," Pedersen said.

For the millions of people who have endured rent hike after rent hike after rent hike after rent hike after rent hike, for the tens of thousands who have had to move farther and farther and farther away from where they work, yeah, it may very well be an "experiment" worth having.

But will we try it? Pedersen doubts it. "We have a Legislature that can do stuff on density and the supply of publicly supportive housing. I don’t think we have a Legislature that can pass rent stabilization, and I'm not the reason for that," he said. 

Of the 15 Democratic Senators who have not signed onto the bill, Sen. Claudia Kauffman (D-Kent) and Manka Dhingra (D-Redmond) say they're a 'yes' on the Senate's version of the bill, which capped rents at 15% and applied the caps only to buildings constructed more than 15 years ago. Sen. Javier Valdez (D-Seattle) is a yes if that legislation comes to the floor. Sen. Sharon Shewmake (D-Bellingham), an economist, reportedly supports a cap at 15%. Pedersen won't stand in the way on the floor. 

In an email, Majority Leader Andy Billig (D-Spokane) said he'd support a policy that "effectively balances" the goals of helping to keep renters in their homes while not "constraining housing stock in the longterm."

Sens Jesse Salomon (D-Shoreline) and John Lovick (D-Mill Creek) declined to comment. Sens Marko Liias (D-Everett), Steve Conway (D-Tacoma), Drew Hansen (D-Bainbridge Island), Sam Hunt (D-Olympia), and Lisa Wellman (D-Mercer Island) didn't bother to respond to The Stranger's question. 

If three of these people join Sens Mark Mullet (Sort of D-Issaquah) and Annette Cleveland (D-Vancouver), who publicly oppose the bill, then renters lose. 

All of these politicians need to hear from their constituents about how hard it is to enjoy life when you spend most of it simply transferring wealth from your boss to your landlord. Conveniently, this weekend several members of the Washington State Legislature will return to their districts for some good ol' fashioned town halls. You can find the complete list of locations and times here.

Go to those town halls and tell your stories to Sens Shewmake, Liias, and Mullet. Ask them why they think the housing market must allow rent gouging. Ask them to justify capping rent increases at 15% rather than at 7%. And for those of you who live in the 43rd District, consider encouraging Sen. Pedersen to use his powers in Senate leadership to champion this legislation instead of hemming and hawing, if for no one else, than at least for the 33% of the renters in his district who work their asses off just to keep a roof over their heads.