One-Third of the City Council May Not Be Able to Vote on Renters’ Rights

Seattle City Council President Sara Nelson seems poised to wield the new conservative majority to claw back tenant protections, but she might not have as strong of an army as it seems. Council Members Maritza Rivera, Tanya Woo, and Joy Hollingsworth potentially carry conflicts of interests when it comes to voting on policies that shrink or boost landlord profits.

Should these council members have to recuse themselves from voting on future legislation, tenant advocates would have to convince fewer council members to break with Nelson in order to protect the rights of renters, who make up the majority of households in Seattle. 

Here’s What We Know

According to a 2010 opinion from the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission (SEEC), landlords do not constitute a “substantial segment of the City’s population.” Therefore, council members “who own Seattle rental property may not participate in matters affecting persons with an interest in rental property.” SEEC Executive Director Wayne Barnett told The Stranger that the opinion still holds. 

There’s only one actual landlord on the city council right now, according to financial affairs disclosures. Council Member Rivera reports $0 to $29,999 in annual rental income from a two-bedroom townhome in Ravenna that she and her husband purchased in 2021 for $754,000, according to Redfin. Rivera’s office did not respond to The Stranger’s request for comment. 

Woo does not report rental income in her financial affairs disclosure, but she reports the Louisa Hotel, a historic hotel-turned-apartment building that her family owns, among the list of business entities for which she “owns 10 percent or more, or serves as an officer, director or general partner.” In her report, Woo calls herself a “governor” of Louisa Hotel LLC, which, according to the Secretary of State’s office, means she has the “authority to make decisions on behalf of the business.” 

Council Member Hollingsworth’s family owns and rents out a home in the Central District that her grandmother, Dorothy Hollingsworth, purchased at a time when redlining policies kept Black people from buying homes, her office said in an email. Hollingsworth’s family converted the place into a triplex, and she rents one of the units with her wife. Hollingsworth does not report any rental income and does not include anything related to the property in the list of business entities in her financial disclosure. 

While Woo and Hollingsworth do not collect rental income themselves, immediate family member’s financial interest in rental property can also be disqualifying, Barnett affirmed in an email to The Stranger. Woo and Hollingsworth did not respond when asked about their thoughts on their potential conflict of interest. 

Council Members Rob Saka, Tammy Morales, Dan Strauss, Bob Kettle, and Nelson do not list any rental income in their financial disclosures. Council Member Cathy Moore reported rental income from a house in Burien, WA, in her disclosures for several years, including in her most recent report, but Moore’s office told The Stranger she stopped renting out the house in June of 2023. Plus, a home in Burien would not be subject to Seattle’s tenant laws. 

Here’s What Could Happen

If a potential conflict of interest came up, Barnett said he would have to first confirm if the council members or their immediate family members still own rental properties and then determine if the policy at hand would financially impact the council member or their family. Clearly, that process will happen on a case by case basis. For example, landlord and former Council Member Mike O’Brien recused himself from a bill that required registration and inspection of all rental property in 2012, but he did not recuse himself in 2016 when the council approved limits on move-in costs. 

Since Nelson did not clarify which policies she wants to “examine” to address the woes of landlords, Barnett can’t weigh in on anything specific just yet. 

Landlords at public comment last week named the recent $10 cap on rental late fees, the First-in-Time ordinance, the 2019 roommate law, and the eviction moratoriums in place during the winter and the school-year as policies that make their job more difficult and less profitable. 

If Nelson reignites her fight against the $10 late fee cap, one could pretty clearly make the case that a rollback or repeal would affect a landlord’s profits. Landlords have argued that changing the winter and school-year eviction moratoriums, though rarely used as defenses in court, could help them financially. 

Due to the number of potential conflicts of interest, these policies may see a similar fate to Nelson’s gig delivery minimum wage repeal. Recently, Barnett advised Woo to recuse herself from a vote on gig delivery driver wages because her father-in-law’s restaurant uses app-based delivery services. Without her vote, it does not seem Nelson can secure a majority and even less likely, a veto-proof majority with rumors that the Mayor may not approve of the rollbacks. The council has delayed the final vote, seemingly doomed to fail, for about a month. 

If Rivera, Woo, and Hollingsworth have to recuse themselves from a vote on tenant issues, then that leaves an interesting balance of power on the dais. 

The council has not voted on many issues, so it is hard to accurately predict the factions that may emerge in relation to tenant protections. So far, Saka, Rivera, Kettle, Woo, and Nelson seem to make up the conservative majority. Morales may be the only staunch progressive, with Strauss, Moore, and Hollingsworth occasionally siding with the left. 

Losing Rivera and Woo jeopardizes the conservative majority, so if someone proposes rollbacks to renter protections, then they would have to pull over two swingers. But Hollingsworth may be the worst of the three swing votes for the left to lose. As the only renter on council (her wife owns a home in Federal Way, but Hollingsworth’s mother-in-law lives in it), she may be the council member with the most sympathy for the plight of tenants.  

For now, with no real bill up for debate and no vote on the calendar, landlord lobbyists shouldn’t sweat about potential conflicts of interest, but when it comes up for real, this lil blog post will be right here waiting.