Comments

1

The comparison to I-124 is not valid. I-124 was struck down because an Initiative can address only one topic. City ordinances do not have such a restriction. Therefore, the Council could (and did) pass laws which recreated I-124.

The six-month eviction defense was struck down because it allowed tenants to self-certify they could not pay rent. Once a tenant had so declared his inability to pay rent, the landlord had no recourse. That deprived the landlord of property rights without due process, thus the court's invalidation of the law. It's difficult to see how the City Council would write a law with similar effect, but which did not have this deficiency.

2

Can anyone really still blame the pandemic for financial hardships? Pretty much everything has been open for quite a while…

3

A representative of the Housing Justice Project told the Seattle Times he was not aware of anyone using this defense since the moratorium lapsed. The court ruling makes no difference, because no one was using this defense anyway.

This is all just political theater.

4

Evictions are a part of life. No pay, no stay. The government should stay out of a legally executed and binding contract between two adults.

5

The court struck it down because of the self-certification aspect. Couldn't they fix the ordinance by simply requiring renters to show proof of pandemic-related financial hardship?

6

I've got an idea.

Stop making laws and start building housing.

Like now.

Today.

Pick six (6) different housing types (plats) and make them automatic No Reveiw Just Build permits citywide.

In Magnolia.
In Ballard.
In Crown Hill.
Anywhere in Seattle that is not an "Industrial Zone".

And then FUND THEM.

Now, get to work.

7

@5 Yep, the SCC could just copy and paste from SMC 22.205.100, which preceded the ordinance that was recently struck down.

8

I suppose I should add a link to the opinion: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/824694.pdf

The relevant discussion starts at the bottom of p.31, but the rest is worth a quick read. The court does seem to struggle a bit with all the overlapping bans on evictions (winter ban, school year ban, city bans, state bans, etc.) resulting in a very narrow set of circumstances in which even a tenant in default could be evicted.

9

Financial hardship has never been an affirmative defense for breach of contract... in this case a rental agreement. The courts will not uphold or "reinvent" contract law.

Imagine, If Hannah, sold her car to a person...and they are using it as their home... do any of us imagine Hannah, would you be okay with them keeping the car and stiffing her on the bill.
I think not. its only okay when its somebody else's money...

I put it to the slogger..... Does she actually think, is she naïve enough to believe, that after all the financial assistance, rental subsidies and two years of moratorium that courts will insert themselves in this matter legally.

10

Because rich people make the laws they have little to no sympathy for others.

Housing is a human right which the U.S. signed onto under the United Nations agreements.

Everyone must have decent housing not just the wealthy. Corporations have changed housing into commodities and that is in direct conflict with Human Rights.

We need some serious changes like revolutions?

11

9 You mean all the unpaid labor the super rich get from prisoners and unpaid workers???

12

Oh, yes the rich are oppressing the poor.....The rich get richer and the poor get poorer....even thought the poverty index has been falling for the past 30 years.

Meanwhile in congress, the legislators, all puppets of the wealthy.... are making the laws and we are slipping into a something akin to Dickensian England circa 1850's

Bernie Sanders, Jaypal..and here in Seattle our city council. are all secretly under the sway of Bezos, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates.

How detached from reality have you become?

14

I do appreciate Hannah using objective writing rather than some of the other seattle writers posting click-bate emotionally charged babble. Hopefully the Stranger as a whole can get on track to being a legit blog using critical thinking and objective writing.

15

According to Seattle’s Rental registration inspection ordinance, the city lost 10,000 affordable housing units last year as mom and pop landlords are selling their properties and exiting the market

The risk in complexities of Offering housing in Seattle is just too high. So be careful of your politicians because you’re only going to be left with corporate landlords that rent places for four dollars a square foot

16

@15, EXACTLY why we sold 3 units, 5 beds & parking spaces, now listed for demo into 23 x1bed podz, zero parking.
Had most vacancies due to babies (8), helped 16 tenants into ownership after renting w/ us.
The City Council had a shortsighted view, and required Judicial intervention revoking portions of 'First Come First Served'. Basically, a shitpile of best intentions coalescing into paralyzing ordinances.
It let us retire early, even though we had a different plan. Made our fortune, fuck the rest.
My suggestion, plan to buy anywhere else, esp. if you can take the train in to work.


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.