I wonder what Rich will think when he realizes that landlords, and cops as well, are primarily made up of liberal democrats as is most of Seattle.

@3: No dear, housing is not a human right. You can't demand that someone else feeds you, nor can you demand that someone else shelters you.

Pretty sure that was sarcasm @5

How can we disincentivize the act of taking financial risk in this country? By restricting how property owners can manage their assets. So you either drive rents up to compensate for risk of higher loss because generally when you evict someone it's because they are a bad tenant and causing damage or not paying rent. Or, you drive the small property owner/landlord to sell their property to corporations or land developers who will build luxury somethings.

I lived in a city (not in the USA) where it was virtually impossible to kick out a tenant. You heard stories of people not paying rent for months and there was nothing the landlord could do.

You know what the result was?

It was virtually impossible to rent a place.

Keep it up lefties, you're just going to make it harder for yourselves to live in Seattle, as landlords demand higher credit scores, proof of employment and steady income, plus higher rents to cover higher risk. Most Seattle landlords know how to keep out shitty tenants using just credit scores.

@6: Not at all.

This is why mom and pop don't rent anymore. Further consolidating rental properties into the hands of a few out-of-state absentee landlords and REITs driving up the cost of living for everyone.
This is a huge factor in making housing unaffordable. It hurts the people this law was meant to help the most. There are many other ways to help people who get evicted. Punishing landlords is probably the single worst method.

Regardless of the Rich Smith's opinion his writing is bad. Herbold did not introduce a "Bill" which is used to enact law. Herbold put forth a resolution, legislation that is administrative or temporary, or which expresses policy. Resolutions are not binding law. In addition, the Resolution said NOTHING concerning automatic renewing "12 month" leases. But, Smith uses it as a reference to back his assertion. Because who follows cite links, right?

If Smith had a modicum of comprehension on the subject, he would know the "Landlord Solutions" tips are either idiotic and/or incomplete. Also, Smith either mischaracterized Jim Henderson, or Henderson is a moron.

Has anyone noticed (exclusive of Katie Herzog) these SLOG folks rarely if ever defend their work when it is challenged. Thick skinned or they can't?

Ok, I'm done.

Hate to say it, but it's just a fact of life that if you can't pay the mortgage because your tenants can't pay their rent then the property just gets seized by the bank. You need a better argument then the no argument you give to that point.

@3,

I've been living in a reasonably priced ~35 unit building in Northwest Portland for the better part of a decade and am pretty good friends with the building manager. We've seen literally hundreds of tenants move through the building during that time and he's had perhaps one or two tenants do anything even remotely comparable to that which you describe (noone has wantonly destroyed a unit, nor refused to vacate, though he does occasionally have to evict folks for failure to pay rent for whatever reason.) Your scenario describes a tiny fraction of evictions outside of college town party & fratboy life.

@5: Shhh. Screw It is laboring under the impression that he is in possession of a satirical wit. While his posts do amuse, it is because we laugh at them. Not with them.

@14: - I suppose.
@6 - I misread you as saying I was being satirical.

I sure step into these things ...

pay or vacate.

hmmm

pay..

or

vacate

doesnt seem like very good choices either way.

Who made up these rules?

@16,

I especially like that he's all, "fuck these poor people, if they can't afford the rent, they get kicked out on the streets! And what's with all these goddamn homeless people living on the goddamn streets?!?"

The obvious outcome is that one-unit landlords, who are still paying a mortgage and would otherwise keep the rent as low as possible to keep a good, reliable tenant, will now raise the rent 9% per year just to mitigate their risk. How does this help renters, exactly?

@5

Opinions aside, the right to housing is recognized in international human rights law. The relevant document is ECOSOC 1991, "CESCR General Comment No. 4: The Right to Adequate Housing":

https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/47a7079a1.pdf

Say what you will (and yes, there's plenty to say) about the legitimacy of the UN or the adequacy of its enforcement, but there's no question of whether or not housing is regarded as a human right for citizens of its signatories.

@20- the right to housing may well be recognized, and it may be a good idea, but a bunch of knee-jerk laws that place the responsibility for providing housing for people, whether they can pay the rent or not, on a small fraction of the population that owns property is manifestly dumb and unfair. Want to have the state require that everyone gets housing? That seems like a proper function for the state to carry out to me. The fair way is to raise taxes from EVERYONE to pay for socialized housing, if that is what we decide as a society we want to do.

Hey Rich it's okay if you avoid reading the comments because they make you feel stupid.

I don't live in either Seattle or Tacoma, and my rent just went up. I have lived in the same unit for fifteen years and have seen lots of changes. I find this news of landlords' scheming 20-day eviction notices worrisome. It sounds like I'm screwed. I see my old building being razed for luxury condos.
Let us know what updates you find out, Rich. I can't afford to move and have nowhere else to go.