The Department of Planning and Development (DPD)—which grants
building permits and supposedly safeguards tenants’ rights—is
refusing to offer financial or legal assistance to former tenants of a
University District triplex at Northeast 55th Street and 15th Avenue
Northeast who were wrongly evicted by the property owner. The owner
gave tenants plenty of notice that the building was being demolished;
however, the owner didn’t notify DPD until after the tenants had moved
out, which allowed the developer—and the city—to sidestep
paying for tenant relocation.
Even though DPD is aware of the loophole, they’re not doing much to
get the developer to set things right. “Obviously it’s sending a signal
to these developers that they can give premature notice,” says John Fox
of the Seattle Displacement Coalition. “So long as [tenants] move out
before they apply [for a permit], everything’s hunky-dory.”
The city provides $2,000 to low-income households—or two
months’ rent to tenants with higher incomes—if they’re required
to move due to significant construction or demolition of their rental
units, far more than what’s given to tenants for relocation due to
condo conversion. Tenants have to meet certain income requirements,
but, if they’re eligible, the city and the property owner are
responsible for splitting the relocation costs.
After everyone had moved out of the triplex, the property owner
filed for construction permits. Initially, DPD went to bat for the
tenants—threatening to withhold the developer’s construction
permits—but they backed off when they found out that the tenants
had been out of the building for months.
Because there was no one left in the building, the city’s Tenant
Relocation Assistance Ordinance—designed to protect
renters—wasn’t triggered. After spending nearly a month crashing
on his brother’s couch, Casey Zautke—a former resident of the
triplex—learned that he could’ve been eligible for relocation
assistance.
Even though the city requires property owners to get a “tenant
relocation license” to demolish an occupied building—a regulation
the building owners skirted—DPD is shifting the blame to the
tenants.
“Tenants moved based on a bad notice,” says Elizabeth Fischer of
DPD’s Property Owner and Tenant Assistance unit. Fischer says that if
tenants had called in June when they’d received their eviction notices,
DPD could have done something about it. But, Fischer says, “We didn’t
get a complaint about it until after everyone moved.” Now, the city is
balking at paying for its half of Zautke’s relocation, and they say
they won’t force the developer to pay either. However, Fischer says DPD
has called and “encouraged the owner to pay.” If the owner doesn’t pay
up, tenants will have no other recourse but to take the property owner
to court.
“[DPD] seems to agree that there’s a violation here,” says Fox. “I
don’t get why they aren’t exercising their enforcement authority.” Fox
has been working with Zautke since September in what has so far been a
fruitless attempt to get the city and the developer to cough up some
cash. According to Fox, Zautke isn’t the first person
to get
burned by this loophole in city regulations.
While Zautke says the city hasn’t returned his calls, he has
received an e-mail from the developer, which said they wanted to “give
him information about relocation assistance.” The developer did not
respond to The Stranger‘s request for comment.
Zautke is also trying to figure out if he even qualifies for
assistance. While he may meet the income requirements on his own, the
city would also factor in his former roommate’s income, even though
they no longer live together. Zautke believes he’s eligible, but he’s
having trouble tracking down his former roommate, and he hasn’t been
able to get in touch with any of his neighbors to let them know they
could be eligible to receive relocation assistance.
“Its very disturbing to me that there’s
any way [for
developers] to get away with this,” he says. 
