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.
I suspect many Seattle landlords are like I was, back when I had rental property. I looked for people of color to rent to, and on one occasion turned down a group of white frat boys, first in line, and rented to a mixed-race couple who came along later. I'm glad this ordinance was not in effect back then, to make unlawful my good judgement.
the council are such a bunch of grandstanding busy bodies its almost funny, except its real...
If the Judge were a renter, would that too create a conflict of interest?
If anything owning a rental property gives her additional perspective. She has no doubt been a renter at some point in her life - I don't see anyone arguing that creates a conflict for her (actually, the standard for the request for recusal is whether a party thinks that they can receive a fair trial, not whether someone sees a conflict).
Which rule of judicial conduct do you claim was violated here?
Absolutely! Also, no person of color, woman, or LGBTQ identifying person should be able to make a ruling involving civil rights legislation. Always appreciate your sharp legal mind on these posts.
How a Judge lack of recusal, in an obvious conflict of interest produces a holding ripe for appeal; Stricken First-In-Time Law may be invalid application of constitutional rights.
Isn't owning a rental property, and therefore being a party to the action (if in Seattle), a conflict of interest, for which this judge should have excused herself? Even if her holding doesn't specifically impact her own interests as a rental property owner, this judge's experience and involvement muddles a logical interpretation of the legislative intent.
More specifically, if the rule was incorrect, shouldn't the intent of the law be upheld by tailoring it? In other words, if not the first-in-time, then first-or-second (sequential), with the filing of exemptions for each denial, as to why the applicant/application was inadequate, and proceed to second, etc, third.
While I'm barely familiarizing myself with the legal community in Washington state, I'm already nauseated by the *immaturity and callousness* toward those less fortunate, both from community members in comments on forums regarding the homelessness crisis in Seattle, and more concerning are comments and holdings from self-aggrandized and inherently disproportionate standing of those with access to education, resources and the mechanics of altering functions of government.
Commies are sick.
@33-I am not sure that Communism is what "people" want, but it is certainly what a few of our fine City Council members want.
Limiting my ability to discriminate... to choose...to take seriously the risk of my largest financial asset these last 24 years, opting to protect my retirement, (no growing weed, no meth lab, no smoking, no pets, pay the rent on time, and don't fuck up my hardwood floors) myself, and my neighbors from those who may be 'less than compliant' ought to be my right AND my responsibility.
I have no desire to rent to anyone I would not want as my next door neighbor (meth producers to sex predators). To pretend this benefits the less affluent is F'ing stoopid, as the folks with free time, free wi-fi, and no day job can swoop in much faster than hard working folks who I've found to be the best tenants.
Good for those who stood up for everyone.
I am still getting my ass out of this racket while the getting is good, since some on the city council still thinks this shit storm is a good idea.
Kshama won, it’s not as if she ran against a strong candidate that contrasted her Commie agenda.
Durkan proved Seattle is moderate. Kshama in office is a fluke. I don’t think she’d be re-elected against a moderate.