Comments

2

What kind of math did The Stranger use to conclude that November 1 through March 31 adds up to three months?

3

@2: The dates on the passed legislation are December 1 to March 1, which is three months.

4

This is not that unusual. How did the urban rumor that Seattle is exceptional get started? Who started it? Why did the Stranger repeat the rumor? Why didn’t the Stranger do some research to find other places where this kind of renter protection is already in place?

6

@3, Ah thanks. I don't know why I assumed The Stranger would link me to the text of the final bill, and not to irrelevant draft language.

7

Since the eviction process takes about a month, you could stop paying rent November 1st and not get evicted until March 1st, correct?

8

If this law is ever challenged in court, it will fall. But at least the council gets to pat themselves on the back for rearranging a few deck chairs.

9

Ok, so this is the first I've heard that a tenant can be evicted in the winter for not paying rent. So who specifically are we protecting with this legislation? Who are these people that are paying rent, not violent or drug addicts, and are getting evicted in the winter? Seems like a small group compared to those other categories, and also a group less likely to end up homeless.

How will they determine how much to pay landlords with that fund? Since the tenants are paying rent, what are the specific damages the landlords can claim?

10

Wait... so three months free rent?!

11

4 - where else is this in place? And how has it worked?

And Nathalie, it is absolutely incorrect to say that landlords will ultimately not be out because "rent is still due." If someone has stopped paying rent in fall/winter, and gets evicted in spring, no chance in hell that they pay up the back rent. Even if you did get a court judgment, it is 110% certain that they would be broke and therefore judgment-proof.

12

I would say to Sawant, "first off thank you for your service. It sounds like this legislation is targeted at helping our vulnerable neighbors, which is why it doesn't make sense in the context of the majority of us who don't suffer from disabling mental illness or poverty. What data do you have on this particular problem and this proposed solution? What feedback have you received from your colleagues around the city, like from the homeless shelters and social services workers?

13

@10;

With an eviction for failure to pay rent, and no doubt a lawsuit following you around on your record. Not saying people won't attempt to exploit and take advantage of the measure, but doing so would absolutely come with some consequences.

15

@13: Only if you care about your credit.

But I would have to imagine that people exploiting this law to ensure free rent for six months of the year (and months more during the eviction process if they want) have less cares for their credit score than people who are not basically thieves.

People do this often in cities with these kinds of protections. You pay the first months rent/security deposit, and you basically get a place to live for free for almost a year by drawing out the eviction process, and then you trash the unit on the way out for fun. Laws that make it difficult to screen people based on history/credit scores then make it so they can find another sucker to run the scam on.

Of course, then rents increase and the people responsible call it injustice. On onward the wheels of good intentions spin.

16

In what world does this not result in stricter rental qualification requirements (income, rent history, job stability, ect) where it doesn’t end up hurting the same “most vulnerable neighbors” it aims to help?

17

Remember, most homeless people were created by being pushed out of rental apartments in the first place, usually after a building jacked up the rents or "renovated".

Build more housing if you want to reduce homelessness.

And, yes, that means restoring the original 1933 zoning of Seattle to 6 story Multi Family Housing zoning (you can build less) and upzoning anywhere with better transit to 40 to 110 story residential apartment buildings.

I told you all this a couple of decades ago, in this very same weekly.

18

I echo @7. A smarmy tenant knows they can't get evicted for 6 months, so they simply stop paying the rent during that time and then either pay it all back or move and stick the landlord with the bill.

19

For all the rental agencies, management companies, and all existing leases...
Do new contract documents need to be drafted that encorporate Seattle's new ordinance?
Are existing leases lacking proper verbage still valid?
IF the Mayor doesn't sign it, does that change to the documents matter?
If the City Council over rides the veto, does it matter even then?
When Olympia sues Seattle and wins, do leases go to 'old' forms needing a new re-signing?
Will this reduce rents?
Will this decrease homelessness?
If history is a measure ~700 evictions take place over "winter", how many evictions per $ are saved?
When that fraction of the not-quite-evicted default on rent arrears, will Seattle prosecute the unlucky ones to recoup lost taxpayor dollars?

20

Lastly, not to let YOU off the hook,
what is Nathalie Graham's opinion on the matter?

Thanks for being so patient.


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
Preview

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