Will be interesting to see the mayhem that occurs on April 1 of each year. Mass latent evictions, rents shooting up throughout the winter and down as units open up, city streets clogged with moving trucks...


@1 - you may be right for the first couple of years. After that, no one without a 750 credit score, four times the rent in income, and a stellar record of paying their rent on time without fail for the last three years will be able to rent an apartment here. Once the deadbeats leave an apartment they'll never get another one.


Does this meet City Council's stated goal of making rentals more affordable?
NO, it does not.
The City Council says it is affordable (missing rent from a magic budget bucket), or at least doesn't cost the tenants anything.
Our elected officials wasted our legislation time, failed to achieve their goal (lower rent), while committing new ta payer expenced (Legal) time when Olympia is forced to sue Seattle.
What a way to govern. I sent email to my/our/the Mayor to veto this errant Ordinance.
I highly recommend you email your thoughts to your Council People, and Mayor.
I did. I do. I recommend that you do it too, and often.
It is within your rights to be part of the process.



Northing like it anywhere. Except for all the other places, mostly college towns.


Or resort towns right before tourist season. Rents jack up to 4 times during that.


the city also needs bear employers


Makes perfect sense. We have a shortage of rental units, so the brilliance of the City Council, put restrictions on landlords so that they are forced to raise rents, or sell their property, to cover the lost winter income. I’m not a residential landlord, so this doesn’t impact me. But this is another example of how well-meaning, yet ignorant politicians try to solve a problem, yet create another one. Yes, property taxes have doubled in the last four years. Those rental unit owners have to pay this increase, yet this law could eliminate three month’s income to pay it. And they say that the tenants will still be held accountable, and will have to eventually pay. Hmmm. So they don’t have the money to pay at the end of each of those three months, but they are suddenly going to have four months of back rent available in the Spring? Not likely. This law will actually hurt those tenants. It will hurt the landlords. And it will take some rental units off the market. Who does it help? It makes a handful of City Council members feel good about “doing something to help poor people.” But it actually does the opposite.


"people who make above the average median income "

Which is it?


Edmund Witter's protest against means testing is quite revealing. Surely we can't require tenants to demonstrate before a court that they actually have a case for claiming financial need. Let's open the door for people with $200K incomes to quit paying their rents if they've got other housing lined up starting in the spring.

As to the 40% of evictions that go uncontested, that's on the tenants. If you have been sued, you have been served. It is your responsibility to take the bus to the courthouse for your hearing, especially if you stand to lose your housing for nonpayment. If you just let life happen to you and refuse to show up in your own defense, why should any of us care what happens after that?

Please wait...

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.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.