Frivolous Shit Like This Is Why King County Councilmember Kathy Lambert Needs to Hang Up the Keys

Lambert wants to give landlords public defenders to achieve, uh, "equity."



Kathy Lambert has the "I want to speak to the manager!" haircut.


If we're giving landlords public defenders then we need to recoup the costs from them as soon as they turn a profit.


"That's not a high expense for someone who passively extracts income as the property they own rapidly appreciates in value..."
And if that person has not been getting paid rent for months on end? They are to magically come up with money for a lawyer?
The increase or decrease in property value is irrelevant as they cannot tap into that monies immediately, unless you mean that if the owner is hurting for cash they should sell the property to a developer in which case the tenant would be out of a place to live anyway.


That's a hard-looking woman. Probably a landlord, too.


I have no issue with having representation for tenants, but as the Housing Justice Project notes, 87.5% of evictions in 2019 were for non-payment, and less than 200 evictions for expired leases or non-cause reasons. So, sure, give them help, but let’s try to keep some perspective on the 400,000+ non-owner occupied housing units in the County.


The Housing Justice Project suggests that the majority of evictions are initiated by King County Housing Authority and Seattle Housing Authority, but does not seem to provide specific numbers. Anyone have the data on this?


Not surprised someone would take such offense at a politician misspeaking or misusing the word 'equity'. But, then again, "Losing some money from a business investment is considered a lesser problem from tenants losing the roof over their heads." despite the small holding Landlord may have to sell and leave them all to the mercy of the elements.
The comment "...passively extracts income as the property they own rapidly appreciates in value,..." is worthy of note.
Exactly who can extract appreciation? Not sure you get how finance works, but you did seem to have a grasp of it in the past. Keeping on claiming that every Landlord is a latter day Leona Helmsley is doing your readers a disservice. Please get a grip. Editor, that means you, too.


Not gonna lie, that's dumb af. I'm interested to hear her take on the phrase "born on third base."


So equity and fairness only go one way? Got it.

The government comes in and interferes with the ability of two adults to engage in a contract..this is fair according to the stranger and other bleeding hearts.

The government comes in and increases the cost of doing business for the landlord with no benefit accrued to the landlord. How is that fair?

These laws are just going to do the opposite of what was intended. Small landlords are going to jack up the rent, jack up the fees, jack up the deposits so that lower income people who are targeted by these laws can no longer afford to live here.


"passively extracts income"

Something tells me that Rich doesn't know shit about the upkeep required to maintain a property.

The laws that Seattle recently passed and KC is considering are going to make even more Mom and Pop landlords sell. It's becoming so onerous to be a landlord around here that soon the only entities willing to do it will be corporations.

And how will their balance sheets pencil out? Simple. They'll raise rents to the Moon, soaking responsible tenants in order to compensate for the bad apples whom they can no longer hold accountable. If the goal is affordable housing, these initiatives are diametrically opposed to it.


Tenants need amnesty from rental payments until they can get back on their feet, post-COVID-19. The collateral damage from evictions is appalling, with families literally living (if you could call it that) on the streets. I saw a pup-tent in the garden area of the Seattle Library, and another tent pitched in a garden median on Second at Denny, not mention numerous other examples.

Seattle must accommodate financially challenged people who cannot make their rent as an act of simple humanity. Society must have ethical standards, and no family should be forced out of their home and made to live on the streets.

Councilmember Lambert is a horse's ass and a philistine, and should be voted out of office immediately.

It would be more cost-effective to develop public housing to accommodate families who need shelter, rather than abandoning folks to the street, with all the social decay that foretells.

Land owners already have vast financial resources or they wouldn't be renting to tenants, so their financial interests should take a back seat to the greater needs of society, not to mention quality of life issues from living dangerously on the street.


12 pollysexual. Some Land Owners a.k.a. Landlords are as close to the financial edge, as their tenants. Most are not, but those that are might become home-deprived as well. They had the luck in previous years to purchase property and not lose it since, however it is maintained.
You stated ' their financial interests should take a back set to the greater needs of society.' Really?
Let me ask you, how many people who can't afford rent are you willing to house?


13 Listen dear, Pollysexual has a right to her concern about people forced to live in the street.
Like me and others, we are concerned about the fact that there are many at risk and many living on the street right now because the society/wall street has caused the problem. Its systemic. Its a bad economy. So what has that to do with her taking in poor people? Which is a very stupid remark. Most likely she can't take in people to her home and she is not responsible for it. So we are concerned about the welfare of people at risk and the terror of being without a roof over their heads.

Kathy Lambert is a opportunist living off our largesse and should be given the boot. She's been on the council for years and like others like her she is pathetic. What has she done to help people get off the streets? King County needs to work on the Housing First program that is a major success in places that have used it.


We own a home now and we used to be renters. Even though we are relatively poor., we are much better off than renters who never know when they will have to pay more rent or need to move because of abusive landlords. Having a house increases stability and wealth.


13, landlords are in trouble! Many renters would love to trade places with them.

One person can't afford to house a few evicted renters but society as a whole can help all the renters in trouble. Many right wing scumbags wouldn't want to pay even one percent more on taxes for that though.


@9 wants a return to the Lochner Era.

Can't imagine why...


Owning residential real estate in Seattle can be a reasonable (but not wildly profitable) investment in the LONG term, with some really painful experiences to be expected periodically, including kitchen fires, deadbeats, domestic violence, a rock band mistaking their non-soundproof apartment for a 22 hour per day rehearsal space, a tenant on the Sex Offender list terrifying the single mom next door, having to referee how loudly and frequently the upstairs neighbor may have sex. The basic stuff. I have owned a few units for many years. Costs are high and the cash flow is modest. The return is mostly from the property value increasing over time, and depreciation shielding your regular income. I have only done one eviction over the last several decades, and the whole thing cost me about $10,000. I found this quite painful.
All the new regulations from the Seattle City Council make renting riskier for the owner. The most logical response (aside from moving your equity outside of Seattle) is to abandon the lower end of the market and concentrate in the middle or upper ranges of the market. I am working on that strategy now. Right now I have a one bedroom unit for $975 and a two bedroom unit for $1200. They are not deluxe but they are livable and well maintained. These will shortly be gone from the market and replaced with apartments double or triple the rent. The result is tenants looking for lower cost apartment will have fewer choices, and be more subjected to the ravages of the rapacious slumlord out there, and there are some, or the property management companies more adept at dealing with difficult situations.
Why the SCC cannot game out their moves beyond the next election cycle baffles me. These new regulations will not substantially harm me in the long term, because I can abandon the lower rent market and shuffle my equity elsewhere, but they will most certainly harm the tenants looking for modest cost housing. I guess that is why we keep re-electing them? Dunno.