Why Did Three House Democrats Vote Against Eviction Reform in Washington?

Comments

1

I wonder how many people are actually evicted after three days? Yes they can be but are they?How many landlords are in fact unable to cover their bills if a rent check is late in coming? I dont think its at all unusual for a senior to count on rental income to get by. It was likely part of their retirement plan and why not? How about some communication between tenant and landlord. Maybe the tenant can pay some of the rent on time to keep the landlords auto bill payments from bouncing. Finding new tenants is a hassle, Im sure many landlords would like to find a way

2

Representative Reeves is that type that wants credit for being cool, but also wants to keep the eviction machine at full tilt regardless of the suffering. Many tenants are hit with filed lawsuits on day four, and then have seven years with an eviction on their record.

3

No pay, no stay.

4

$50 may be the difference between her grandmother getting her meds and not getting them? Really? That may be so, but it sounds like a strawman argument that a person on Medicare who is on a fixed income that is so low that $50 makes that big of a difference doesn't have an insurance plan that covers the cost of her drugs. Isn't that what Medicaid is for? Oh, yes it is because I currently have it while my wife is out of work and our income is low enough that we couldn't afford her prescriptions.

Not to also mention the fact that the woman has a grandaughter who is a state representative who makes $48,000+ a year plus $120 per diem while in session and likely has another job as well since state rep in Washington is only a part-time gig. In other words, you can lend your grandma $50 so she can get her meds and her renters don't have to lose their homes.

5

Richie baby, your tortured logic never ceases to amaze me. The law that allows a landlord to evict a non-paying tenant is racist? I'll bet it is homophobic and misogynous in your mind too.

The reason for all the homeless on our streets is because of easy evictions? That's what the homeless industry would love us to believe.

Landlords are people too.....with bills to pay just like the renters. Go re-read @1 above. Evicting someone who is just a little short once in awhile is not cost effective. You can debate how many days late they can pay and how many times they can be late...but to call the law and landlords racist is a huge stretch.

6

It gets tiresome to hear the SJWs constantly demonizing property owners one moment, then bemoaning the lack of affordable housing in Seattle the next. Policies like this push the small landlords out of the market. I used to have rental property, but sold it after my long-time reliable tenant moved out because too many friends of mine had horror stories of tenants who always seemed to be challenged paying rent or left the place a wreck. Not all landlords are big corporations who can absorb losses and cover the costs of late payers and tenants who are pigs. Lots of landlords are folks like me with maybe one or two properties who can't absorb those losses.

Renting homes is a business, not philanthropy. living within your means and paying your bills on time is Adulting 101. Stop making it hard for us landlords to keep a roof over our heads while we provide a roof over yours.

7

@5: Right on! Like so many stories, if you just scratch the surface a little bit, you learn there's more than one side to that story. The tenant who's getting the heave-ho because they were a little short? Trust me, if you get the landlord's side of the story, you'll find this was by no means that tenant's first rodeo.

These days, the SJWs throw out the race card so often, it just becomes pointless and has no power anymore. I heard Kshama Sawant recently called out curbs as being unfair to People of Color because she stubbed her toe on one.

8

The stories of impoverished landlords are dumb. Rents have been skyrocketing for decades now, and that has benefited landlords, big and small. Now, landlords want us to cry about the poverty of some unicorn landlord who will lose everything because her tenant has an extra 11 days to scrape together funds. Every landlord ‘knows someone’ who has had enough and is leaving the market. Balderdash! Renting is especially profitable in this market.

9

I live in the 37th district, and Pettigrew is my rep. He is the absolute worst. We are considering finding someone to primary him.

10

Mr. Smith: You have no idea what you are writing about. Drinking the cool-aide of the tenants union. Very Lazy. An eviction process for a problem tenant can be 6-months or longer. Why should a landlord not get the agreed upon rent for that period of time and have to pay legals fees to get them out? Why are all landlords evil and all tenants the best people around. A real journalist would look at both sides, a poet I guess . . . is lazy.

11

Generally speaking, non-corporate landlords own like 8 unit or smaller apartment buildings or a few single family houses. If they don't have mortgage payments on the property, then they stand to have quite a bit of positive cash flow. If they do have mortgage payments, the cash flow could be de minimis. If you've never been on the landlord side of the equation you probably don't really have a grasp of the finances involved and only think the landlords are rolling in cash from all the rent checks. However, with taxes and maintenance and fees, etc., this isn't always the case. Landlords are in a for-profit business, not a charity. If everyone thinks housing should be a charity, have the state buy the properties and rent them out themselves. Otherwise, stay out of people's business.

12

False accusations about people or things being racist is racist. Disparate impact is an asinine concept that proves nothing, rather it simply describes a result. The causes of those results may or may not be racist. My lengthy experience with our eviction process is there is nothing inherently racist about it. That doesn’t mean there aren’t racists out there that might move to evict at the first minor chance they get, but there is no evidence to support that is the norm in this state.

Just because a study is widely reported doesn’t make it true. Could the Seattle Women’s Commission and the Housing Justice Project possibly have a conflict of interest? You don’t have to be a genius to know the answer is yes. I’m tired of this disingenuous and tired playbook that our politicians in the state and country pull. They want to pass a predetermined agenda, so they hire or collude with a group to complete a study with predetermined results to garner support for the agenda. Those study results are published and lapdogs “widely report” the bogus results without questioning the report, rather they editorialize and amplify. I know it takes a lot of work, but how about we honestly go through the process so we can determine what the real problems and solutions are? Perhaps we should be require ethics starting in 6th grade or so?

People losing their housing is not the cause of homelessness, rather it is an end result of many different causes. In other words, I have lose my housing = homeless… tough concept, I know. Those causes include poor financial management, drugs, bad luck, and mental illness. This is a societal problem, not a landlord problem. I could give a rip if a landlord has a billion dollars in the bank or zero. That is absolutely immaterial to the issue. Go to the checkout counter at a grocery store with a cart full of groceries and try that logic. If you think it is material, you have a lot of room for personal growth.

This lie going around that people are being quickly evicted for small amounts is a national narrative. I’ve had numerous national articles fed to me by Google on my phone for some time now. Locally, I can attest that anyone quickly evicted or evicted for minor amounts is not the norm. It’s almost impossible to evict in under a month. What judge (most likely liberal) is going to evict on a minor amount? Almost none. If they do, there are absolutely other things going on with the residents. Even if there are other things going on or the amounts aren’t small, most judges will still give tenants a chance to make a payment plan via a stipulated judgment. If a tenant doesn’t meet the deadline(s), they will be expeditiously evicted. Those last chances judges give are typically one of many chances given to the residents.

I’m not without compassion for people in tough spots. I’d be all for funding a department that a person facing eviction could call for support. That support might be financial (government or private charity), drug treatment, mental health treatment, or various forms of counseling. It is much cheaper for everyone if we can keep people housed and get them on track to be self-supporting. Even so, some people refuse to help themselves. Unless you find a way to convince them to help themselves or force them to, there is nothing you can do for them.

13

Yes, Rep Pettigrew has a house he rents out...in California.

14

@12 is spreading disinformation. First, no judge gives out a stipulation. A stipulation is between the parties. Second, a judge doesn’t consider the amount in dispute, just that there is a non-payment. Third, you want us to know you are compassionate and interested in service organizations supplying aid to tenants, you just want that process to happen in 3 days. Be realistic, who can get rental assistance in 3 days? 14 days is more realistic. Anyway, thank you for the ethics tutorial, maybe the next report will be written by landlords living under bridges.

15

@14 I've never personally done a stipulation, so I could be wrong. A judge does whatever they want, whether there is a basis for it or not. What else did I write is wrong or misleading?

Where did I write I want things to happen in 3 days? I think I clearly stated the process takes at least a month. Most landlords gladly don't file or stop the process if tenants pay and there aren't other issues. What responsibility do tenants have to pay? Responsible people try to proactively avoid losing housing, which includes not waiting to the last minute to work with their landlord. That doesn't mean there aren't tough choices, such as moving and paying the landlord when possible. That's better than an eviction.

If you want 14, put up your own money or buy your own rental property. Most eviction cost the landlord more than a month.

You question my compassion, but you want rob landlords. You question my ethics, yet you don't respond to the context which I raised ethics. The only digs I gave were to politicians and those that spread their lies, yet you want to attack me over my opinion. Grow up.

16

@15 There are so many nasty tricks to play with a 3 day notice period. I’m glad you don’t know them. Luckily, the people who made the report know, and reporters and politicians are noticing.

17

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING racist about Washington's eviction laws. They are completely neutral as to the characteristics of tenants. The overall result may be that more POC get evicted, but that has to do with a wide variety of social issues, not the laws. This is some lazy fucking journalism (or at least headline writing).

18

@17 Under your logic there is nothing racist about giving all people more time to pay rent. 3 days is a diabolical timeline. Giving all people more time means more work can be done to restore tenancies of people affected by those underlying societal issues.

Let’s look at the garbage reasoning used by landlord apologists. They will say ‘it can take months and months’ to evict a tenant. If that is true, then how big of a deal is an extra 11 days? If you’re a kindly landlord that works with tenants, what’s wrong with adjusting the State’s notice period to reflect your values? The answer is that landlords may lose the ability to easily pick and choose who they evict for a late rent payment, and they resent it.

19

There are so many people a paycheck away from not paying their bills. The government shutdown showed that. The numbers include landlords who are people too. Most Americans wouldn’t cover a $1K emergency with savings https://www.bankrate.com/banking/savings/financial-security-january-2019/

20

"Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City", a fine book by Matthew Desmond.
Should be required reading for every US citizen and "Testament" should be required viewing.