Why try and stop it?

And why are Low Income Housing "Advocates" complaining for? None of their "Clients" can afford to live in those buildings anyways.

What these "Advocates" need to worry/work on, is trying to lower Move-In Fees at buildings Low Income People can actually afford.

FUH, this Hidey person doesn't seem to realize that the buildings in SLU and Pike/Pine Corridor are not for low income-section 8 people. If Low Income, Section 8 people can afford $1,800 to $3,200 a month rent that these places charge. Then they aren't "Low Income". So why complain when a building charges someone who is gonna make 100K+ Less than what they would charge who? What low income people are trying to move into fancy SLU condos? But they can't afford that First-Last, and Security deposit. Not with that $880 SSI Check.

If you're truly concerned with poor people. Then stick to that. And leave rich people alone to do what they want. The way they want. With their hard earned money.

What no one has ever adequately explained to me is why is this practice unfair? Why shouldn't a landlord be able to use incentives to try and attract tenants whose employment makes them more likely to pay their rent in full and on time and leave the apartment in reasonable condition?

Landlords often do credit checks, which probably skews towards renting to higher income people. I would be surprised if that was outlawed.

Why do progressives hate the free market? It's a free county. If someone wants to rent to folks with stable, good jobs.

@3 I'm not aware of it being an issue of fairness. It's of course still possible and totally common to legislate against things that are utterly fair.

Until there is evidence that there is a discriminatory effect going on here, this really feels like more of the same "UGH TECH BROS". In the original pieces, no one bothered to mention that the same thing happens to Boeing employees, and that Boeing hires a ton of veterans, a group that is discriminated against in all sorts of different areas.

If you want lower housing costs, then you need to build up your infrastructure and allow for greater density. Tell the NIMBYs to fuck off and things will get better over time. Or you can continue to blame those who are just moving here for the political decisions of those who have lived here for years and continue to be priced out of your homes and neighborhoods.

Take your pick, but only one of those is going to actually help lower rents.

I dont see how this is unfair at all. I'm not in the tech industry but my job gets me discounts on gym memberships, phone contracts, movie tickets, etc. Why would rent be different?

If they offered the same discounts to people who were just as wealthy, but it did not specify "Microsoft and Amazon," no one at The Stranger would even know it was happening, much less give a shit.

Corporate discounts and perks are common in all sorts of businesses...so what? It is a way of attracting business to Seattle that doesn't cost us anything other than the opportunity to get in line for a particular set of high-rent apartments (no thanks). Sounds like a good deal to me! Let them pay the rent, earn money here, and pay taxes that fund my city. win-win.

At all of these buildings offering preferred employer discounts the tenants still need to pass rental history, income qualification, and background check regardless if they work for Amazon or The Stranger. Also Amazon, Microsoft, Starbucks, and other large companies have internal recruiters and relocation specialists and allow apartments complexes to advertise on their internal servers. Many times the preferred employer discount is offered because the building is receiving free advertising with the internal relocators at these companies. It's not illegal, its fair business practice. There are bigger things to worry about in Seattle than preferred employer discounts. This and the previous article make it out like if you flash your Amazon badge you get bottle service, balloons, and 6 months free rent while all other applicants get kicked to the curb and splashed with garbage gutter water!

But think of the clicks from stupid articles!

After all -- THE STRANGER is a capitalist enterprise and YOU -- as a commenter -- is part of its unpaid workforce.

I don't see evidence in this article that landlords are lowering RENT, just arbitrary fees. Any smart person with a good income and credit history should know they can negotiate those items out of the lease, and are more likely to be successful doing so if they work for a reputable employer. As a landlord myself, the more "known" facts an applicant has, such as a household name employer, the more attractive a tenant they are.

Much ado about nothing; as another poster said, low income people are not competing for the same units as Amazon workers. I gotta say I am impressed with The Stranger's ability to beat this subject to death in new and creative ways.

How about a comparison with Costco. At Costco there are great many products available, some at very reasonable prices. Ah, but you have to be a member requiring an outlay of at least $60.00. Is Costco being unfair to the poor because it charges a membership fee?

Offering incentives for stable, good renters seems perfectly reasonable. Offering incentives to stable, good renters that only work at a handful of the thousands of employers in the region is demented.

Offering discounts is in no way galling, and is a long established practice in business.

Banks have long offered free checking accounts to people with confirmed direct deposits, or who maintain a minimum average balance. Military discounts have been common practice everywhere from the movie theatre to the barbershop for years. And modern interest rates have always varied according to the income and assets of the borrower. Rather than a conspiracy, all this represents is the widely-held belief that individuals and businesses should be able to set their own prices - especially when they are pricing risk.

It's unfortunate that this article buries what the *housing advocates themselves* say is the more pressing issue - expanding protections for renters in general against actual discrimination, including discrimination based on income sources - in favor of twisting the situation into an anti-amazon tirade. I find the techies as distasteful as anyone, but I find this presentation of the situation even more so.

These discounts have been around literally for decades. If you're shopping for a $4,000 a month one bedroom near downtown Seattle or Bellevue, hopefully you have enough cash in the bank for first, last and security deposit, but I'm sure being able to skip that security deposit is a nice treat for the smart investment (i.e. stable renter).

If they were offering cheaper rent, i.e. Microsoft employee $3,000; anyone else, $4,000, that would be wrong - but honestly, it's probably more likely the other way around: "Oh, you say you work at Microsoft, eh? Well, 9/15 if bonus day for Microsoft employees... hmm... actually, this apartment is now $4,900, sorry about the typo in the Craigslist ad."

Would it take any sting out of it if I told you that I can claim special privilege as one of these Microsoft "employees," but only insofar as I work in one of their buildings, and consequently have more than half my paycheck stolen by my bottom-feeding staffing agency, resulting in me making little more than minimum wage, with little chance of promotion and near zero job stability? What if I told you that many (if not most) people that claim these privileges are in exactly the same position that I am?

@20, You are NOT a Microsoft "Employee". You crybaby are a "Vendor". You work at Microsoft. You DON'T work for Microsoft. So it's your fault you signed up with a "Agency" . You're not even good enough to get hired by MS. So don't go saying that you're from there.

Also, half of your paycheck is NOT stolen. You get a FULL check for what YOU signed up for. Don't cry because you Signed On The Dotted Line.

PS: You can't claim JACK SHIT! As you're NOT a "Softie". You're a "V-Card" crybaby.

Outlawing these incentives would remove a tool our local employers use for encouraging top talent to move here. Employers in other cities would still be free to use such incentives.

Wake me up when The Stranger and these City Council candidates are willing to up-zone Capitol Hill to 40-50 stories and kick NIMBYs to the curb. Whining about how employers and landlords encourage more high-income people to live here is cheap, easy, and worse than useless.

According to this page of UW's off campus housing info Radford Court, a private property, prioritizes UW students. Better get on that horrible injustice - how fair is it for students to get priority over someone that might work in the area?

https://www.hfs.washington.edu/housing/D…

@21: How did I know that if anyone was going to screech about my comment, that it would be you? It must have been from the poorly-worded screed dripping with entitlement and condescension that started the comments section, wonderfully proving every negative stereotype in the illustration.

Note that I used quotation marks around the word "employee." That was to imply that everyone but Microsoft sees me as an MS employee. I even explained that I was a vendor when I moved into my previous apartment, but worked on-site at Microsoft, and they considered it the same thing and waived my security deposit entirely. I'm well aware that I'm viewed as disposable "dash trash" (MS reminds us at every available opportunity), so don't get your panties in a twist.

And as far as my rates go, I was already employed in the department when another agency bought exclusive rights to represent everyone in the building, all the way through the management level. Everyone had their pay rate reset to predetermined levels based on their current title, regardless of any other factors. Some of us had our salary cut in half as a result, with insulting benefit packages to match. The only choice given to me was a Hobson's choice. (And no, before you screech about this too, self-employment was not an option, as MS refuses to work with agencies less than a minimum of 100 people in size, and would shut down the entire department at the first whiff of unionization.)

I'm sure Heidi (not "Hidey," you illiterate jackass) and James appreciate you so capably stooping to meet the characterizations of the cavalier, self-important yuppie stereotypes illustrated here.

@13
Its also worth pointing out that The Stranger partners with Amazon through the Amazon Associates program, where The Stranger takes a cut of the revenue generated by purchases made from ads on The Strangers website.

I'd like The Stranger to address why they do this while bashing Amazon (and their employees) on a weekly basis. But maybe it doesn't need to be answered when the obvious reason is that these dumb scapegoating articles gets more clicks, which means more money.

I fucking dare The Stranger's staff to address it, and either stop using Amazon Associates or go a month without bashing Amazon. I'll personally pay any Stranger writer $250 if they write an article posted to the front page on why they partner with Amazon.

As a landlord, I don't care where you work as long as you can pay the rent and treat my property with respect.

Of course Bruce Harrell didn't respond to Heidi's request for comments. His wife is a Director at Microsoft (and a UW Regent) whose employees directly benefit from landlords' preference to rent to affluent corporate employees. It's also worth noting that Bruce and Joanne are multi-millionaires ensconced in a $2,000,000 home with a killer view of Lake Washington in a posh neighborhood. Their kids will probably benefit from these preferences once they graduate from college.

@30: "Landlords will rent to people likely to pay the rent, take reasonable care of the unit, and not leave it expensively damaged."
Don't forget the "exclusively heterosexual" specification, you criminal scum.

holy crap @ these comments. sorry for the vitriol, Heidi (if you read them!)

But I do wonder about the substance of the post. Preferred employer discounts are simply a marketing tool, but capping move-in costs are a terrible idea. I'd be behind it if it was for the inclusionary zone'd units for people at 60% AMI, but for people like me (a programmer, or jingoisticly a 'tech bro'), I shouldn't be getting special treatment from the government by capping fees to an arbitrary limit. I'm not sure why that should even be a government issue: one time fees don't even really affect anyone in the long term. Let's focus our energies for doing something actually constructive, like figuring out how to get more development in SLU, Ballard, Interbay.

Nobody at the Stranger seems to have a solid grasp on how business works.

@32: Whatever, boy.

Nobody at the Stranger seems to have a solid grasp on how moderating comments works.

These “discounts” really do seem like just a marketing tool. Like when Safeway puts giant "GREAT DEAL $3.99!" stickers on products they want to move... for which the regular price is $3.99. It's money they want, they don't really care who you work for. There's no reason for a "move-in fee" at all, except they can get a little more out of you.

It's possible In 7 or 8 years all those "first month's rent half price" signs will be back up in windows, so hold tight. Then the cycle repeats. Or I’m wrong and everything sucks forever. One of the two.

Ms. Groover

As a public service I'll help you understand business basics as they apply to rental housing. No thanks necessary. Just a random act of kindness.

First, people investing in rental units expect to make money on those investments. I know, it's weird, but there it is. They don't buy these units because of their overwhelming concern for affordable housing for delayed adolescents like yourself who wish to live in expensive neighborhoods. Again, they SHOULD be! But oddly enough Heidi Groover and her friends being able to afford the rent doesn't make their analysis parameters for investing in rentals.

Second, it is THEIR property. It isn't the city's. It isn't yours. It belongs to them. If they wish to market that property in a certain way, it's not your business- literally and figuratively.

Third, adding costs to their business model does not reduce rents. It increases them. I realize math wasn't your strong suit. It couldn't be for any lefty. But trust me on this. If you add $50 to the monthly cost of renting an apartment for the landlord it is the tenant who will pay it. Always. Every time. Really.

Fourth, if you can't afford a place in Seattle I have a solution for you! Don't live in Seattle. Alternatively, obtain the skills that get the job that pays enough to afford Seattle. Like an adult would. See how easy that is?

Again, no thanks are needed.

@36

You're certainly proof of that. The sole extent of your contribution is whining about others comments. And yet you're never censored!

@38: "Second, it is THEIR property. It isn't the city's. It isn't yours. It belongs to them. If they wish to market that property in a certain way, it's not your business- literally and figuratively."
Are you back to denying the regulatory authority of all governments everywhere? WE DON'T LIVE IN SOMALIA LOL
@39: I'll take complaints over outright lies any day.

@40

The marketing technique complained about is legal and unlikely to become illegal. Where you got a claim that the city has no regulatory authority from this?Anyone's guess, really.

But as noted before, you argue merely to argue, so making sense is possibly too high a bar for you.

@41: You explicitly said that it's not the place of the city to determine marketing/renting practices. You've expressed this same whackadoodle opinion previously.
What is it with you and never having a counterargument to anything I say? You call me "boy" or "tyke", you accuse me of not calling out the lies of people that I like, you accuse me of liking to argue (which is not a crime), and you very frequently tell me I'm wrong without giving any sort of justification or explanation why. All you've got lately is diversion, argumentum ad lapidem, and argumentum ad hominem

See this just sounds like a bad strategy. One way or another, rents are going to continue going up in the status quo, they were before these special deals and they will after, and the only real way to fix this problem is to get rid of the Growth Management Act and change fiscal and regulatory priorities.

We also need to fire the entire Department of Transportation, get the ideologues and real estate whores out of OIympia, not to mention the idiots who substitute silly asinine stereotypes for reason, fact and numbers, and start designing mass transit AND highway solutions that actually make sense and serve the interests of most people instead of just a few wealthy developers and older homeowners.