>>> CAN I CALL THE ROOM TO
ORDER?
CAN I CALL THE ROOM TO ORDER,
PLEASE?
ADAM, CAN WE CLOSE THE ROOM'S
DOOR, PLEASE.
THIS IS A SPECIAL SCHEDULED
MEETING OF THE SUSTAINABILITY
AND RENTERS' RIGHTS COMMITTEE
OF THE SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL.
THE TIME IS 6:03 P.M.
ON JANUARY 23, THURSDAY,
JANUARY 23, 2020.
I'M JOINED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS
MORALES AND LEWIS AND I'M
COUNCIL MEMBER SAWANT OF THE
SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL.
SO FIRST OF ALL I HAVE TO -- IF
THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS APPROVE
THE AGENDA.
>> NO OBJECTION.
>> THANK YOU.
HEARING NO OBJECTION, THE
AGENDA IS APPROVED.
IN TODAY'S MEETING, WE WILL
DISCUSS, CONSIDER AMENDMENTS
AND VOTE ON THE ORDINANCE THAT
MY OFFICE HAS PRODUCED TO BAN
MOST WINTER EVICTIONS IN OUR
CITY.
LAST NOVEMBER THE CITY OF
SEATTLE RENTERS' COMMISSION
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL TAKE UP
THIS URGENT ISSUE.
THEY POINTED OUT THAT WINTER
EVICTIONS ARE ESPECIALLY CRUEL
AND HARMFUL.
IN 2018 THE SEATTLE WOMEN'S
COMMISSION AND THE KING COUNTY
BAR ASSOCIATION JOINTLY ISSUED
A STUDY, LOSING HOME, THE HUMAN
COST OF EVICTION IN SEATTLE.
THIS STUDY FOUND THAT NEARLY
90% OF PEOPLE EVICTED BECOME
HOMELESS AND THAT PEOPLE OF
COLOR WERE DISPROPORTIONATELY
EVICTED.
IN FACT BLACK TENANTS
EXPERIENCED EVICTION AT A RATE
OF 4.5 TIMES BASED ON WHAT WAS
EXPECTED IN THEIR DEMOGRAPHICS
OF SEATTLE ACCORDING TO THE
STUDY.
MOST TENANTS ARE EVICTED FOR
NOT PAYING RENT.
IN MOST CASES THE STUDY FOUND
EVICTED TENANTS OWED ONE MONTH
OR LESS IN RENT.
IN ONE CASE THE TENANT
WASEVICTED FOR OWING $10.
ONE WAS EVICTED FOR FAILING TO
PAY $2 IN OUTSTANDING RENT.
YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS STUFF UP.
THERE IS AN ARTICLE IN THE
SEATTLE TIMES FROM AS PART OF
THEIR PROJECT HOMELESS WHERE
THEY KILL KILANI'S SITUATION
AND BECAUSE SHE HAD LEGAL
REPRESENTATION FROM THE KING
COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION'S
HOUSING JUSTICE PROJECT, THEY
WERE ABLE TO FIGHT HER CASE AND
HAVE THE JUDGE TURN DOWN THE
EVICTION.
BUT THIS IS JUST THE TIP OF THE
ICEBERG.
THERE ARE SO MANY, HUNDREDS, IF
NOT THOUSANDS OF TENANTS
GETTING CAUGHT IN WHAT IS
EVICTION EPIDEMIC IN OUR CITY.
I SHOULD ALSO NOTE AT THIS
POINT THAT IT WAS REALLY
IMPORTANT THAT OUR MOVEMENT,
THE PEOPLE'S BUDGET MOVEMENT
LAST YEAR, MANY OF WHOM YOU
WERE A PART OF THAT WE WERE
ABLE TO WIN FUNDS FOR OUR CITY-
FUNDED LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR
TENANTS FACING EVICTION.
IT HAD IS A CONCRETE EXAMPLE OF
HOW THESE DOLLARS CAN ACTUALLY
HELP PEOPLE TO NOT ALLOW THEIR
LIVES TO FALL APART.
THE MAJORITY OF THE TENANTS WHO
WERE EVICTED REPORTED THEY FELL
BEHIND ON RENT BECAUSE OF LOSS
OF WORK OR MEDICAL OR FAMILY
EMERGENCY.
THE STUDY POINTED OUT THAT
ACCORDING TO THE U.S. BUREAU OF
LABOR STATISTICS, IT TYPICALLY
TAKES A WORKER ONCE OUT OF A
JOB A LITTLE MORE THAN NINE
WEEKS TO FIND A NEW JOB.
THAT'S AN AVERAGE, SO THAT'S
NOT NEARLY FAST ENOUGH TO SAVE
OFF THE EVICTION IF THE
LANDLORD IS UNWILLING TO SHOW
COMPASSION AND FLEXIBILITY.
EVICTION COULD ALSO BE A DEATH
SENTENCE.
THE STUDY REVIEWED 2017
EVICTIONS AND FOUND THAT SIX
SEATTLE TENANTS DIED DURING OR
RIGHT AFTER EVICTION.
FOUR TENANTS COMMITTED SUICIDE.
ONE DIED OF AN ACCIDENTAL
OVERDOSE THE DAY AFTER BEING
EVICTED, AND ONE TENANT DIED
DURING THE EVICTION PROCESS
WHILE RECEIVING HOSPICE CARE.
THE STUDY ALSO FOUND AT LEAST
NINE PEOPLE WHO DIED HOMELESS
ON THE STREET IN 2017 HAD AN
EVICTION FILED AGAINST THEM IN
THE THREE PROCEEDING YEARS.
THESE DATA ARE A BRUTAL
INDICTMENT OF A PRIVATE HOUSING
MARKET THAT IS DOMINATED BY
CORPORATE LANDLORDS WHO TAKE
CARE MORE FOR PROFIT THAN
HOUSING PEOPLE.
OF COURSE WE RECOGNIZE THERE
ARE GOOD LANDLORDS OUT THERE,
FAMILIES WHO OWN A SMALL NUMBER
OF RENTAL HOMES WHO CARE ABOUT
THEIR TENANTS, WHO MAKE TIMELY
REPAIRS, WHO DON'T TRY TO GET
AWAY CHARGING THE HIGHEST
POSSIBLE RENTS.
BOUTONS HAD LANDLORDS AREN'T
WHY WE ARE CONSIDERING A
MORATORIUM ON WINTER EVICTIONS
TONIGHT.
THEY'RE NOT THE PROBLEM.
WE'RE HERE BECAUSE OF THE BIG
CORPORATE LANDLORDS WHO CONTROL
THE BULK OF THE 174,000 RENTAL
HOMES IN OUR CITY.
THEY ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF
MAXIMIZING PROFITS AND THEY DO
SO BY EXPLOITING TENANTS.
AS THE BAR ASSOCIATION REPORT
DEMONSTRATES.
THE REPORT ALSO NOTES THAT
FOLLOWING EVICTION PEOPLE
REPORTED INCREASES IN MENTAL
HEALTH CRISIS, DISPLACEMENT OF
THEIR CHILDREN FROM SCHOOL
BECAUSE THEY HAD TO MOVE, AND
FORCED RELOCATION OUTSIDE
SEATTLE.
AS BAD AS THAT IS, IT GETS
WORSE, MUCH WORSE WHEN THE
WEATHER TURNS BAD.
AS THE RENTERS' COMMISSION
POINTED OUT LAST FALL, AND I
WANTED TO QUOTE SOME OF IT.
"DURING WINTER IN SEATTLE,
TEMPERATURES REGULARLY FALL
INTO THE 30s OVERNIGHT AND
ACCORDING TO ALL HOME KING
COUNTY, A REPORT FROM 2019, 41%
OF HOMELESS NEIGHBORS SLEEP
OUTSIDE EVERY NIGHT WITH AN
ADDITIONAL 19% SLEEPING IN
VEHICLES.
NEITHER OF THESE SITUATIONS
PROVIDE MUCH PROTECTION FROM
THE ELEMENTS AND BOTH COULD BE
DEADLY.
ACCORDING TO THE KING COUNTY
MEDICAL EXAMINER'S OFFICE, 191
HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS DIED LAST
YEAR AND 57% DIED OUTDOORS, IN
A VEHICLE, OR AN ENCAMPMENT.
WHILE EXPOSURE TO THE ELEMENTS
COULD NOT BE BLAMED FOR EVERY
ONE OF ITS DEATHS, IT IS MOST
CERTAINLY A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR
AS EXPOSURE TO HARSH WEATHER
AND LIVING CONDITIONS ONLY
EXACERBATES MANY MEDICAL-
RELATED ISSUES.
ADDITIONAL LIQUORING TO THE
2019 COUNT, 84% OF HOMELESS
NEIGHBORS WERE PREVIOUSLY
HOUSED IN KING COUNTY WITH AN
EVICTION GIVEN AS A DIRECT
CAUSE OF HOMELESSNESS FOR 15%
OF SURVEYOR RESPONDENTS.
IT ISN'T JUST A BELIEF.
WHEN WE SAY AN EVICTION NOTICE
COULD BE A DEATH SENTENCE.
THE RENTERS' COMMISSION IS NOT
EXAGGERATING IN STATING WINTER
EVICTIONS COULD BE A DEATH
SENTENCE.
LIKEWISE OUR MOVEMENT IS NOT
EXAGGERATED IN SAYING THIS
ORDINANCE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
TONIGHT WILL SAVE LIVES.
I CONGRATULATE THE MEMBERS OF
THE SEATTLE RENTERS' COMMISSION
FOR DEMONSTRATING LEADERSHIP ON
THIS ISSUE AND ABSOLUTE ALL THE
PEOPLE WHO SPOKE AT A PUBLIC
HEARING I HELD IN MY COMMITTEE
LAST DECEMBER, WHEN I UNVEILED
THE ORIGINAL LEGISLATION.
SO I JUST WANT TO MENTION
MEMBERS OF THE TENANT UNIONS,
SMALL LANDLORDS, THE TRANSIT
RIDERS UNION, DEMOCRATIC
SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA, AND MANY
MORE.
WHEN I ANNOUNCED WE WERE
INTRODUCING THE BILL IN
DECEMBER, WE GOT A NUMBER OF
CALLS INTO MY OFFICE.
THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY WERE
POSITIVE AND SUPPORTIVE.
ONE I REMEMBER IN PARTICULAR A
GENTLEMAN CALLED OUR OFFICE AND
TOLD MY STAFF, "I DON'T AGREE
WITH SOMEONE ON MOST THINGS,
BUT STOPPING WINTER EVICTIONS,
I AGREE WITH HER, IT'S THE
RIGHT THING TO DO."
AND BEFORE WE GO TO HEAR FROM
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, I WANTED
TO NOTE A FEW THINGS ABOUT WHAT
THIS LEGISLATION DOES AND DOES
NOT DO.
UNDER THIS ORDINANCE, TENANTS
ARE STILL OBLIGED TO PAY THEIR
RENT EVERY MONTH.
IF YOU DO NOT PAY YOUR MONTH IN
WINTER, YOUR LANDLORD COULD
BRING YOU TO EVICTION COURT
AFTERWARDS.
THE ORDERS WOULD NOT BE CARRIED
OUT UNTIL APRIL 1 WHEN THE
COLD, WET WINTER MONTHS ARE
OVER.
THE ARGUMENT THAT RENTERS WOULD
RISK EVICTION BY NON-PAYMENTS
OF RENT IN WINTER MONTHS HAS
BEEN REINSTATED BY SOME
POLITICAL FIGURES AND LANDLORD
LOBBYISTS.
IT IS A LUDACRIS IDEA NOT BASED
ON FACTS OR IDEOLOGY.
SUCH POINTS ARE MADE BY THOSE
COMPLETELY OUT OF TOUCH BY THE
LIVES OF THE RENTERS.
RENTERS DO EVERYTHING IN THEIR
POWERS TO AVOID ANY EVICTION ON
THEIR TENANTS BECAUSE ONCE YOU
HAVE AN EVICTION, IT WILL NEVER
GO AWAY AND CREATES MAJOR
OBSTACLES TO RENTING IN THE
FUTURE.
AND ONE BENEFIT, A REAL BENEFIT
OF THIS MORATORIUM FOR BOTH
TENANTS AND LANDLORDS IS THAT
IT WILL GIVE THEM EXTRA TIME TO
CURE THEIR NON-PAYMENT.
AND THERE ARE TENANT ASSISTANCE
RECORD AVAILABLE, BUT OFTEN
THEY DON'T LEARN ABOUT THESE
RESOURCES ON TIME TO SAVE OFF
THE EVICTION, HAPPENING OVER A
COUPLE OF WEEKS.
WITH THE WINTER MORATORIUM,
RENTERS HAVE A CHANCE TO GET
CONNECTED TO HEALTH.
TENANTS CANNOT SIMPLY AVOID
PAYING RENT.
WE WILL BE DISCUSSING WITH THE
HELP OF THE COUNCIL STAFF.
TENANTS ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL
ACTIVITY WILL NOT GET
PROTECTION FROM EVICTION.
WE ALSO WANT TO PROTECT SMALL
LANDLORDS FOR UNMANAGEABLE
SITUATIONS.
WE HAVE AMENDMENTS AIMED AT
PROTECTING THE NEEDS OF SMALL
LANDLORDS.
THOSE WHO RENT OUT THEIR SINGLE-
FAMILY HOMES CAN STILL SELL
THEIR HOMES AS LONG AS THEY
PROVIDE THE 90-DAY NOTICE
THAT'S REQUIRED FOR THEM FOR
THE REST OF THE YEAR.
AN OWNER WHO WANTS TO STOP
SHARING HIS HOME WITH A TENANT
DOESN'T HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL
APRIL.
WE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT
HOW TO DEFINE THE WINTER
MONTHS.
OBVIOUSLY DAY-TO-DAY WEATHER IS
UNPREDICTABLE.
TO DECIDE WHERE TO DRAW THE
LINE, WE LOOKED AT AVERAGE
TEMPERATURES, AVERAGE
PRECIPITATION, AND ALSO SOME
UNRELATED PRECEDENCE AND, OF
COURSE, THE RECOMMENDATION FROM
THE RENTERS' COMMISSION.
IN WASHINGTON STATE THERE ARE
PROTECTIONS IN EFFECT, SORRY IN
WASHINGTON STATE THERE ARE
PROTECTIONS TO HELP PREVENT
UTILITIES FROM BEING SHUT OFF
DURING THE WINTER.
THOSE PROTECTIONS ARE IN EFFECT
NOVEMBER THROUGH MARCH, SO WE
ALIGNED OUR BILL THROUGH THOSE
MONTHS.
SOME MAY VIEW IT IS NOT REALLY
THAT COLD OR WET IN NOVEMBER,
SO WHY NOT HAVE A SHORTER
MORATORIUM.
THE DATA SHOWS CLEARLY AN
EVICTION COULD BE TRAUMATIC IN
NOVEMBER AS WELL AS IN JANUARY
AND OUR COMMITTEE TABLE.
SHORTLY YOU'LL HEAR FROM A
TENANT WHO WAS EVICTED IN
NOVEMBER WITH CATASTROPHIC
RESULTS FOR HER FAMILY.
THE EXCELLENT BRIEFING
MEMORANDUM NOTES THAT WHILE
THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO KNOWN
U.S. EXAMPLES OF LIMITING
RENTAL EVICTIONS DURING A SET
PERIOD OF WINTER MONTHS THERE,
ARE EXAMPLES OF LOCAL AND STATE
GOVERNMENTS LIMITING OR EVEN
BANNING EVICTIONS UNDER CERTAIN
WEATHER CONVICTIONS.
ALY WILL GO OVER THIS.
THIS IS EVIDENCE SHOWN
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.
INDEED SEATTLE IN WASHINGTON
STATE ACTUALLY HAVE WORSE AND
EVEN RENTERS PROTECTIONS
ACCORDING TO SOME SOUTHERN
STATES AS DATA FROM THE HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES SHOW.
WE'RE IN NO DANGER IN SEATTLE
OF OVERLEGISLATING THE FOR-
PROFIT MARKET.
RENTERS HERE ARE BEING HEAVILY
EXPLOITED.
THESE THINGS HAPPEN IN OTHER
STATES AND THEIR MUNICIPALITY
POINTS TO THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
THAT GOVERNMENT HAS A MORAL AND
ETHICAL DUTY TO PROTECT PEOPLE
FROM THE EXPOSURE TO THE
ELEMENTS.
THIS DUTY TRIUMPHS THE
FINANCIAL INTERESTS.
HELPING THE RESIDENTS
ESPECIALLY FAMILIES WITH
CHILDREN AND ELDERLY FAMILY
MEMBERS FIRST.
TO REDUCE HOMELESSNESS, TO SAVE
LIVES, TO PUT PEOPLE BEFORE
PROFIT.
BEFORE WE BEGIN THE DISCUSSION
ON OUR AGENDA ITEM, WE HAVE
PUBLIC TESTIMONIALS.
I WILL READ THE NAMES OF THE
PEOPLE WHO HAVE SIGNED UP, AND
MY STAFF WILL GIVE ME
ADDITIONAL NAMES THAT ARE BEING
SIGNED UP.
EACH PERSON WILL HAVE TWO
MINUTES TO SPEAK.
AND PLEASE WRAP IT UP AFTER
YOUR TIME ENDS, AND YOU CAN PAY
ATTENTION TO THE DIGITAL TIMER
THERE.
I'LL READ A FEW NAMES.
IF YOU HEAR YOUR NAME BEING
CALLED OUT, PLEASE BE READY.
WE HAVE MARILYN YIM, ANGIE
GERALD, AND DAVID HAINES.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL
MEMBERS OR EVENING.
I'M A SMALL MOM AND POP
LANDLORD AND I HAVE A FEW
COMMENTS ON THE WINTER EVICTION
MORATORIUM.
I WANTED TO START BY SAYING
THIS PROPOSAL LIKELY AMOUNTS TO
A REGULATORY OF TAKING OF A
PRIVATE PROPERTY, DEPRIVING
PRIVATE OWNERS OF ECONOMICAL
USE FOR HALF THE YEAR, WHICH
WOULD VIOLATE U.S.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
THIS FIVE-MONTH MORATORIUM
WOULD STRETCH TO SEVEN, EIGHT,
NINE MONTHS DUE TO COURTROOM
BACKLOG THAT IT CREATES IN
APRIL.
THIS WOULD AMOUNT TO TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OVER THAT
PERIOD OF TIME.
EVICTIONS HAVE BEEN GOING DOWN
IN KING COUNTY FOR THE LAST 14
YEARS.
THERE WERE 1,200 EVICTION
FILINGS IN KING COUNTY, FEWER
THAN HALF RESULTED IN COMPLETED
EVICTIONS.
AND THAT WAS FOR THE WHOLE
YEAR, NOT JUST FOR NOVEMBER
THROUGH APRIL.
IT SEEMS YOU COULD HAVE
ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE MORE
EFFECTIVELY BY PROVIDING
EMERGENCY RENTAL ASSISTANCE
DIRECTLY TO AFFECTED TENANTS
RATHER THAN MAKE THIS SWEEPING
CHANGE TO LAW THAT WOULD SHIFT
A LARGE FINANCIAL BURDEN ONTO
THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER.
EMERGENCY RENTAL ASSISTANCE
WOULD ALSO SPARE THE TENANT
FROM THE TRAUMATIC COURTROOM
EXPERIENCE AND KEEP THEM
RELIABLY IN THEIR HOME.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO
PROVIDE FUNDING TO KEEP PEOPLE
IN THEIR HOMES INSTEAD OF THIS
PROPOSAL.
THIS WILL HIT SMALL LANDLORDS
LIKE ME THE HARDEST.
WE ARE ALREADY STRUGGLING UNDER
A VERY BROAD SWEEP OF CHANGES
THAT THE CITY HAS BEEN MAKING.
MOM AND POP LANDLORDS LIKE ME
ARE HISTORICALLY THE PEOPLE WHO
PROVIDE MORE AFFORDABLE MIDDLE
HOUSING THAT HARD WORKING
PEOPLE RELY ON TO LIVE IN THE
CITY.
WE PROVIDE HANDS-ON LOCAL
MANAGEMENT.
WE HAVE BEEN WILLING TO WORK
WITH PEOPLE, WORK THINGS OUT
WITH THEM, AND LESS LIKELY TO
EVICT.
THESE THINGS SHOULD ALL BE
ENCOURAGED BY THE CITY COUNCIL,
BUT I'M FINDING ORDINANCES LIKE
THIS STRONGLY PUSH ME TO
RECONSIDER WHETHER I WANT TO
CONTINUE RENTING OUT MY HOUSE.
I'M A WORKING PERSON, A YONON
MEMBER, WHO BOUGHT A TRIPLEX TO
LIVE IN, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE
ONLY WAY I COULD FIND LIVING IN
SEATTLE, BY RENTING OUT TWO-
THIRDS OF MY HOUSE.
THIS IS A PART OF MY HOME AND
MY RETIREMENT.
AND I CANNOT ABSORB THIS KIND
OF GREAT LOSS.
IF THIS IS ABOUT CORPORATE
LANDLORDS, THEN I STRONGLY URGE
YOU TO EXEMPT SMALL LANDLORDS
LIKE ME.
THE NEGATIVE SPILLOVER EFFECTS
THAT YOU RECENTLY PASSED, AND
FIND OTHER WAYS TO ADDRESS THE
REAL GOALS THAT YOU'RE TRYING
TO ACCOMPLISH.
I'LL SAY I'M WILLING AND
AVAILABLE TO MEET WITH YOU ANY
TIME.
I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO WORK ONE
ON ONE AND TALK ABOUT THE
ISSUES TAT FACE SMALL
LANDLORDS, SO THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TIME AND FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ANGIE GERALD AND DAVID
HAINES, AND THEN AFTER THAT
SEBASTIAN PASADA.
>> HI, MY NAME IS ANGIE, AND MY
HUSBAND AND I RENT TWO SINGLE-
FAMILY HOUSES IN THE BALLARD
AREA.
SINCE 2003 WE HAVE HOUSED
FAMILIES WITH SMALL CHILDREN,
WORKING PROFESSIONALS, AND
TRADES PEOPLE.
OUR TENANTS HAVE INCLUDED A
UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR, A
PARALEGAL, A KING COUNTY
WORKER, A FEDEX WORKER, A
PLUMBER, A POLICE OFFICER, AND
A CLOTHING DESIGNER.
OUR MOST RECENT TENANTS WHO
SIGNED A LEASE JUST PRIOR TO
THE FIRST ORDINANCE TAKING
EFFECT ARE A GROUP OF
MILLENNIALS INCLUDING A SMALL
BUSINESS CARPENTER, TWO SHOP
WORKERS, AND A GRAD STUDENT WHO
HOPES TO BE A SEATTLE PUBLIC
SCHOOLTEACHER.
OUR ABILITY AND THE ABILITY OF
OTHER SMALL LANDLORDS TO OFFER
NATURALLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS
DWINDLING VERY QUICKLY.
THIS LEGISLATION AND OTHER
RECENT ORDINANCES HAVE
SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED THE
RISK, LIABILITY, AND COST OF
SMALL LANDLORDING IN SEATTLE
WITH HIGHER RENT FOR TENANTS
AND HIGHER QUALIFYING CRITERIA
FOR APPLICANTS.
IT'S A SIGNIFICANT BARRIER TO
NEW LANDLORDS AS WELL.
I HAVE REACHED OUT TO COUNCIL
MEMBERS AND PARTICIPATED IN THE
CITY'S RRIO SURVEYS IN 2017.
I HAVE FOUND NO INDICATION THAT
INDEPENDENT LANDLORDS ARE A
PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
OR HAVE ANY VOICE AT CITY HALL.
THE RESULT IS THE
CORPORATIZATION OF LANDLORDING
IN SEATTLE.
CITY COUNCIL IS CREATING A
RENTAL MARKET THAT'S MORE
EXPENSIVE, LESS FLEXIBLE, AND
LESS BASED ON LOCAL
RELATIONSHIPS.
IT FAVORS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
COMPANIES AND FAVORS LARGE
CORPORATIONS.
PLEASE SHINE A SPOTLIGHT ON
SMALL LANDLORDS AND LOCAL
BUSINESSES TO FULLY CONSIDER
WHAT KIND OF SEATTLE YOU ARE
CREATING TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM
BEING EVICTED IN WINTER, HELP
THEM PAY THEIR RENT, HELP
STABILIZE THEIR LIVES.
I'M OPPOSED TO THIS
LEGISLATION.
>>> GOOD EVENING, EXEMPTIONS
FROM EVICTIONS IS GREAT, SO IS
WINTER RAPID SURVIVABLE FOR
THOSE ALREADY CHEATED BY
LANDLORDS.
WHEN IS COUNCIL GOING TO WRITE
ORDINANCES TO PROTECT WOMEN WHO
HAVE TO BUCKET THEIR WATER TO
THE BATHTUB BECAUSE HER
LANDLORD REFUSES TO FIX THE
PIPES THAT ARE RUINING THE
BATHROOM.
THE LANDLORD ALWAYS TELLS HER
THEY'LL GET AROUND TO IT WHILE
FORCING HER TO BE FRIENDLY
BECAUSE HE LIVES ON SITE.
WHAT ABOUT THE WOMAN WHO HAS TO
LIVE IN A ROOM-SHARED BASEMENT
THAT WAS LEASED FOR A YEAR THAT
IS OVERWHELMED WITH FLOODING
AND BLACK MOLD THAT IS MAKING
HER SICK.
THE LANDLORD THREATENED TO FILE
AN EVICTION NOTICE IF SHE KEPT
ON COMPLAINING AND A COURT
ORDER TO FORCE HER TO PAY THE
REMAINING MONTHS ON THE RENT.
ATTEMPTING TO RUIN HER CREDIT,
CREATING FRICTION AND
INTIMIDATION, WHICH IS DENYING
HER RIGHTS TO LEAVE AND GET HER
MONEY BACK.
WE NEED MORE PROTECTIONS FROM
ABUSIVE LANDLORDS AND THEIR RUN
DOWN HOUSING THAT'S INFLATED,
DILAPIDATED, AND RUINING THE
QUALITY OF THE PURSUIT OF
HAPPINESS.
THIS SEEMS TO JUSTIFY ASKING
THE CITY COUNCIL TO WRITE LAWS
THAT FIND LANDLORDS THE
OVERPRICED RENT.
THEY CHARGE FOR THE PRESS OF
THINGS THAT ARE WRONG WITH
THEIR RENTALS, THAT ARE LESS
THAN THE OFFERING OF HOUSING
AND GO AFTER THE BANKS, OWNING
THE RUN DOWN PROPERTY AND BACK
CHARGED THEM WHAT THEY
OVERCHARGED THE RENTERS.
WE NEED LAWS THAT WILL REQUIRE,
ENCOURAGE, AND FORCE THE BANKS
TO INVEST IN 21st CENTURY,
FIRST WORLD APARTMENT HOUSING.
MAYBE EVEN USING THE EXCUSE
THEIR RUN DOWN 20th CENTURY
HOUSING IS NOT UP TO PAR.
AND ALSO ENCOURAGING
HOMEOWNERSHIP TO ALLEVIATE
RUNDOWN RENTALS AND PLEASE
DON'T MAKE THIS COMMITTEE ABOUT
TAKING NAMES OF RENTERS FOR
ANOTHER REELECTION VOTING BLOCK
AND TRADE OF FAVORS.
WE NEED THE RENTERS REVOLT TO
OFFSET THAT WITH A GREAT
AMERICAN HOUSING BUILD OUT
WITHOUT UNQUALIFIED NON-PROFITS
GETTING IN THE WAY.
>> SEBASTIAN, FOLLOWED BY
SULLIVAN AND THEN ELIZABETH
LYLES.
>> GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS
SEBASTIAN PASADA.
QUITE HONESTLY I'M JUST HERE TO
REMIND EVERYBODY THAT HOUSING
IS A HUMAN RIGHT AND WE'VE BEEN
TRYING TO PERFECT THE HUMAN
CONDITION AND YET HERE WE ARE
IN THE YEAR 2020, STILL
DISCUSSING THE PIE MINUTE
DETAIL AS OPPOSED TO DISCUSSING
TRUE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
TO SOLVING HOMELESSNESS,
WHETHER IT IS SUBSTANCE ABUSE,
EDUCATION,
OR -- OR LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR
THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE A PART OF
THE GENERATION THAT FOR SOME
REASON OR ANOTHER HAVE BEEN
ALLOWED TO TAKE ON
RESPONSIBILITY OF "OWNING" THE
RIGHT TO GIVE PEOPLE SHELTER
AND GIVING THEM TAX PROTECTIONS
OR TAX INCENTIVES TO TRANSITION
OUT OF THOSE INCOME BRACKETS
INTO SOMETHING MORE HUMANE THAT
DOES NOT FORCE THEM TO HAVE TO
DEAL WITH, THIS DEHUMANIZING
RHETORIC ON A CONSISTENT BASIS.
I'M JUST TRYING TO REMIND YOU
GUYS THAT WE ARE HUMAN AND WE
SHOULD BE AIMING TO PROTECT
THOSE RIGHTS AND TO REMIND
OURSELVES OF THE CONSTITUTION
AND HOW IT IS MEANT TO PROTECT
US AS INDIVIDUALS, NOT SEPARATE
US LIKE THEY ARE TRYING TO DO
WITH REGARDS TO HOUSING.
>> GOOD EVENING, COUNCILMAN.
AND ONE OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES
IS TO ADVOCATE FOR THOSE WHO
COULD NOT ADVOCATE FOR
THEMSELVES.
AND PASSING THIS LEGISLATION
WOULD SAVE LIVES.
THANK YOU.
AND ALLEVIATE THE MAJOR CRISIS
OF HOMELESSNESS IN THE CITY,
WHERE WE CONTINUE TO STRUGGLE
WITH THIS ISSUE.
THIS MEASURE WILL HELP EVERYONE
BY PROTECTING FAMILIES AND
KEEPING MORE PEOPLE OFF THE
STREETS.
WE MUST PRIORITIZE TAKING CARE
OF OUR COMMUNITY, SO WE COULD
ALL THRIVE.
TTHANK YOU.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>> CHARLOTTE THISTLE, SALLY
-- SORRY? ROACH.
KATELYN REUBEN.
GO AHEAD.
>> HI, I'M ELIZABETH LYLES.
I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING REALLY
PREPARED.
I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS
WAR ON LANDLORDS.
I THINK MOST OF US ARE THE GOOD
GUYS AND, AGAIN, I'M TALKING
ABOUT THE LITTLE LANDLORDS.
MANY OF WHOM 40% OF US HAVE NOW
ALL SOLD OVER THE LAST TWO
YEARS BECAUSE OF THESE LAWS.
I BARELY GET BY.
I BOUGHT MY HOUSE FOR, YOU
KNOW, 40 YEARS AGO AND THAT'S
THE REASON I WAS ABLE TO RENT
IT BECAUSE I PAY VERY LITTLE
FOR IT, BUT I GO TO THE FOOD
BANK SOMETIMES.
YOU CANNOT TOLL ME IF SOMEONE
KNOWS THEY ARE GOING TO BE
EVICTED THEY COULD KEEP PAYING
RENT.
I THINK THAT'S B.S.
IF I WERE IN HER POSITION WITH
NO MONEY, I WOULD STOP PAYING
RENT TOO.
IF THEY KNOW THEY ARE GOING TO
BE EVICTED.
SO I JUST THINK IT IS
UNREALISTIC OF YOU TO CLAIM
THAT I'M GOING TO GET MY RENT,
AND I'M SCREWED IF I DON'T GET
MY RENT.
SOMEBODY SAID WELL YOU SHOULD
HAVE A SLUSH FUND, WELL, I AM
LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE WHO MAKES
$30,000 A YEAR IN THIS CITY.
I DRIVE A 1996 CAR, YOU KNOW,
WHICH IS IN THE SHOP FOR $3,000
RECENTLY.
WE ALL JUST GET BY, AND WE'RE
NOT THE ENEMY.
SO YOU KNOW SOME OF MY FRIENDS
HAVE LEFT THEIR HOUSES VACANT
FOR TWO YEARS BECAUSE THEY ARE
AFRAID TO RENT UNDER THESE
LAWS.
I'VE BEEN AN ABUSED WOMAN.
I WOULD EXPECT THE LANDLORD TO
PAY FOR THE DAMAGES AND THE
VIOLENCE THAT MY BOYFRIEND
CAUSED, ALL THESE CRAZY THINGS
THAT ARE ANTI THE LANDLORD.
I LOVE MY TENANTS, MY TENANTS
LOVE ME.
I LOWERED MY CRITERIA, SO I
COULD TAKE THEM.
THEY INVITED ME TO THEIR
WEDDING.
WE'RE NOT THESE MONSTERS, THESE
GREEDY MONSTERS THAT YOU GUYS
PORTRAY US TO BE.
AND JUST, YOU KNOW, OR HAVE A
SLUSH FUND, GIVE US A CARROT IN
FRONT OF A STICK INSTEAD OF A
STICK.
GIVE US 20% BACK TO RENTING THE
PEOPLE WITH FELONIES.
BUT AGAIN I'VE HAD A LOT OF
VIOLENCE IN MY LIFE, THESE ARE
BROKEN CHEEKBONES, BROKEN
TEETH, I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO
FEEL SAFE IN MY OWN HOME AND
THE PERSON THAT I'M DEALING
WITH, MANY OF TIMES, YOU KNOW,
I HAVE A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP
WITH MY TENANTS, I LIKE THEM,
THEY LIKE ME, AND THAT'S THE
WAY IT SHOULD BE.
THANK YOU.
>> CHARLOTTE THISTLE AND SALLY
ROACH AND KATELYN REUBEN.
>> THIS ONE HERE?
TESTING.
CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME OKAY?
SO I UNDERSTAND THERE'S BEEN
SOME AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
MADE SINCE I FIRST READ THIS
ORDINANCE.
I'M RESPONDING TO THIS WORDING,
WHICH I QUOTE.
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER JUST
CAUSED FOR EVICTION MAKES, THE
OWNER MAY NOT EVEN EVICT TO
TENANTS FROM THE HOUSING UNIT
FROM NOVEMBER THROUGH MARCH 31.
NOW IF THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE
BEEN PASSED, WHAT I'M ABOUT TO
SAY IS IRRELEVANT, THAT'S
GREAT.
BUT I'M GOING TO MAKE MY POINTS
ANY WAY JUST TO MAKE SURE.
I'M A SINGLE MOM.
I DON'T GET ANY CHILD SUPPORT
FROM MY DAUGHTER'S DAD.
I RENT A HOME, I RENT ROOM TO
SUPPLEMENT MY INCOME TO SUPPORT
MYSELF AND MY DAUGHTER, AND I
ALSO WORK PART TIME AND WORKING
TOWARDS FINISHING MY DEGREE
ONLINE.
MY INCOME IS UNDER $25,000 A
YEAR.
98% OF THE TENANTS THAT HAVE
LIVED IN MY HOUSE OVER THE LAST
TEN YEARS HAVE BEEN TERRIFIC
PEOPLE WHO GOT ALONG WELL WITH
EACH OTHER AND WITH ME IN OUR
SHARED SPACE.
BUT THERE HAVE BEEN SOME
EXEMPTIONS.
ONE EXAMPLE WAS AN ALCOHOLIC
PERSON WHO BECAME ROMANTICALLY
INVOLVED WITH ONE OF THE OTHER
TENANTS.
WHEN THE OTHER PERSON BROKE OFF
THE INVOLVEMENT, THEY BEGAN
HOSTILE, BEGAN THREATENING,
HARASSING THE OTHER TENANT.
THIS SAME PERSON ALSO BROUGHT A
WANTED FELON INTO THE HOUSE AND
BEGAN HARBORING HIM IN THEIR
ROOM.
AND IN ANOTHER INCIDENT TRIED
TO STEAL MY BICYCLE.
THIS PERSON WAS DISRUPTING THE
PEACE, MAKING EVERYONE IN OUR
HOUSE FEEL UNSAFE.
THANKFULLY UNDER THE JUST CAUSE
ORDINANCE, I WAS ABLE TO EVICT
THIS PERSON.
THE JUST CAUSE ORDINANCE IS A
VERY IMPORTANT PROTECTION FOR
HOMEOWNERS AND ANYONE WHO LIVES
IN SHARED HOUSING.
I AM AFRAID THAT THE WORDING AS
I READ IT OF THESE EVICTIONS,
THE WINTER ORDINANCE, WOULD PUT
HOMEOWNERS WHO RENT THEIR HOMES
AT RISK.
MOST PEOPLE THAT I HAVE SPOKEN
TO INCLUDING THOSE WHO SUPPORT
THE BAN ON WINTER EVICTIONS
BELIEVE THAT UNDER THIS
ORDINANCE, A LANDLORD WOULD
STILL BE ABLE TO EVICT IF THEY
HAVE JUST CAUSE AND OBTAIN A
COURT ORDER.
WHEN I TOLD PEOPLE THAT THE
EVICTION IN THE WINTER
ORDINANCE WOULD NOT ALLOW
LANDLORDS TO EVICT THE TENANT
FROM NOVEMBER THROUGH MARCH,
MOST PEOPLE DIDN'T BELIEVE ME.
SOME PEOPLE ACCUSED ME OF
LYING.
>> COULD YOU PLEASE WRAP UP.
>> YES, I COULD.
>> THE OTHERS ARE ALSO GOING TO
SPEAK.
>> OKAY.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY IF A
TENANT CREATES AN UNSAFE
SITUATION ON THE SHARED
HOUSEHOLD, THERE NEEDS TO BE A
WAY TO REMOVE THEM.
THANK YOU.
>> I BELIEVE IT IS NOW SALLY
AND THEN IF I'M READING IT
CORRECTLY.
>> I'M SALLY, I DIDN'T REALLY
COME HERE PREPARED TO SAY
ANYTHING.
BUT I'M ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE
THAT OWNS A HOUSE IN
GEORGETOWN, A LARGE HOUSE.
IT HAS SAT VACANT FOR TWO PLUS
YEARS BECAUSE I'M AFRAID TO
RENT UNDER SEATTLE'S RENTAL
LAWS.
I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO RENT
THE HOUSE, BUT WITH ALL THE
RESTRICTIONS AND ALL THE
HASSLE, THIS JUST ADDS ONE MORE
THING.
THE THING IS I COULD SELL THAT
HOUSE AND MAKE SOME REALLY GOOD
MONEY, BUT WITH MY MOTHER-IN-
LAW'S HOUSE, I'M ATTACHED TO IT
AND WOULD RATHER KEEP IT AND
RENT IT.
BUT I WOULD RATHER SELL IT THAN
LOSE IT BECAUSE I HAVE TO GIVE
SOMEBODY SIX MONTHS FREE RENT.
THAT REALLY REMOVES EVERYTHING
TO BE A LANDLORD.
IN GEORGETOWN THEY ARE SELLING
THE LOT AND THEY BUY THE LOT
FOR $800,000.
THEY PUT UP $3 MILLION TOWN
HOMES ON THAT PIECE OF
PROPERTY.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT
BENEFITS THE HOMELESS PEOPLE AT
ALL.
IF THEY CAN'T AFFORD THE RENT
FOR A MONTH, THEY CERTAINLY
CAN'T AFFORD TO BUY A CONDO OR
A TOWNHOUSE.
SO IT SEEMS TO ME THERE OUGHT
TO BE A MIDDLE WAY.
MAYBE IF YOU'RE GOING TO EXEMPT
PEOPLE, EXEMPT SMALL MOM AND
POP RENTERS, LANDLORDS FROM
HAVING TO DO THE EVICTION.
IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT THAT
SOMEBODY WHO IS LIKE ME, PAYING
MY BILL AND DOING MY THING THAT
I SHOULD HAVE TO SUPPORT PEOPLE
WHO CHOOSE NOT TO PAY THEIR
RENT AND THEN I HAVE NO
RECOURSE.
I HAVE TO SUPPORT THEM AND GIVE
THEM SIX MONTHS A RENT OR FIVE
FREE RENT BECAUSE IT'S COLD
OUTSIDE.
SEATTLE HAS A HUGE HOMELESS
PROBLEM, BUT I DON'T THINK IT
HAD IS THE ANSWER.
THANKS.
>> SORRY, AFTER YOU.
>> AM I SAYING YOUR NAME RIGHT?
>> IT'S KATE.
>> OKAY, KATE.
FOR SOME REASON, YEAH.
>> AND AFTER KATE WE HAVE JANET
VAN FLEET AND THEN TRAVIS
JOHNSON.
GO AHEAD.
>> MY NAME IS KATE, I AM
REPRESENTING BC SEATTLE, AN
ORGANIZATION DEDICATED TO
EMPOWERING OUR HOUSELESS AND
NEIGHBORS.
WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK COUNCIL
MEMBER SAWANT FOR INTRODUCING
THIS ORDINANCE.
WE ARE IN TOTAL SUPPORT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF YOU
WERE OUTSIDE TODAY, BUT IT WAS
MISERABLE.
I WAS OUTSIDE FOR ABOUT AN
HOUR.
I'M SOAKED TO THE BONE, I'M
FREEZING.
THIS IS PUTTING PEOPLE BEFORE
PROFITS.
IT'S IMPORTANT.
SO MANY PEOPLE FACE EVICTIONS,
AND IN THE WINTER MONTHS, IT'S
MISERABLE OUTSIDE AND WE NEED
TO FOCUS ON HUMANITY.
IT'S INHUMANE TO PUT PEOPLE OUT
IN THE COLD.
MOST PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BE
EVICTED.
MOST PEOPLE WILL DO WHATEVER
THEY CAN TO AVOID IT.
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT
MORE THAN A QUARTER OF
EVICTIONS WERE FILED WHEN MOST
RENT IS DUE ON THE FIRST OF THE
MONTH.
THESE LANDLORDS ARE GETTING
PEOPLE OUT AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE, SO THEY ARE BEING PUT
OUT ON THE STREET WITHIN WEEKS.
THAT SEEMS DANGEROUS TO ME.
IT IS IMPORTANT.
[ APPLAUSE ]
I'M SORRY IF I MISPRONOUNCED
YOUR NAME.
MS
JANET.
>> I'M JANET VAN FLEET, THANK
YOU FOR HAVING THIS HEARING
HERE THIS EVENING.
I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS
ORDINANCE.
I STAND WHEN I CAN WITH REAL
WOMEN IN BLACK, A GROUP THAT
STANDS EVERY TIME SOMEONE DIES
OUTSIDE BY VIOLENCE OR IN A
PUBLIC PLACE.
AND HAS NO PLACE PERMANENT TO
LIVE.
WE HAVE ALREADY STOOD THIS YEAR
I BELIEVE TWICE, STILL STANDING
FOR PEOPLE WHO DIED IN
DECEMBER, AND I'M HERE BECAUSE
I WANT TO PREVENT ALL SUCH
DEATHS -- AND HAVING AN
ORDINANCE THAT WOULD PROTECT
PEOPLE FROM BEING EVICTED IN
THE WINTER SEEMS LIKE ONE STEP
TOWARDS THAT GOAL.
I'M VERY SAD TO HEAR THAT
PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO LET A
HOUSE SIT EMPTY WHEN THERE ARE
PEOPLE FREEZING, MISERABLE, AND
LACKING THE PRIVACY THAT THEY
NEED TO BE A HUMAN BEING IN
THIS CITY EVERY SINGLE DAY.
I HOPE THAT WE CAN SOMEHOW
QUICKLY COME, ALL OF US, TO A
BETTER SOLUTION THAN THAT.
AND I HOPE THAT PERHAPS
ASSISTANCE TO KEEP PEOPLE IN
HOMES THAT ARE OWNED BY SMALL
LANDLORDS COULD BE A PART OF
THAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
CONSIDERING THIS.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>> THANK YOU, AFTER TRAVIS
JOHNSON WE HAVE NANCY RENKIN,
JESSICA, ROGER, AND JEFFREY
COOK.
>> GOOD EVENING.
HI, I'M TRAVIS JOHNSON, AND I'M
A NICKELODEON.
WINTER EVICTIONS, THEY ALL
SHOULD REALIZE THAT IT RAINS
60% IN THE GREATER SEATTLE AREA
IN A YEAR.
I THINK IT'S CRUEL TO KICK OUT
PEOPLE IN SEATTLE DURING
WINTER.
IT'S EXTREMELY COLD IN SEATTLE
DURING THE WINTER AND USUALLY
RAINY.
SO PLEASE DON'T KICK OUT
SEATTLE LITES IN THE WINTER,
THANK YOU.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>> NANCY?
>> THANK YOU.
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE PEOPLE
WHO WON THEIR HARD WON
ELECTION.
THAT ELECTION WAS BETWEEN
WHETHER WE WANTED A CITY THAT
WAS RUN BY BIG BUSINESS AND FOR
BIG BUSINESS OR WHETHER WE
WANTED A CITY THAT ADDRESSED
THE WORSE RAVAGES OF BIG
BUSINESS.
AND WE CLEARLY DECIDED WE
WANTED THE LADDER.
I BELIEVE THIS ORDINANCE IS A
MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION TO
PROTECT CITIZENS.
I WANT TO REITERATE SOME OF THE
STATISTICS ABOUT EVICTIONS.
THE BIG GROUP OF PEOPLE FACING
EVICTIONS IS ACTUALLY WOMEN
WITH CHILDREN, A CHILD GETS
INTO TROUBLE IS GETTING ANSI IS
EVICTED.
SO WE ARE ACTUALLY TALKING
ABOUT THROWING KIDS OUT OF
THEIR HOMES AND THE TRAUMA THAT
THAT CAN RESULT IN.
THANK YOU.
>> HELLO, MY NAME IS JESSICA
SCALZO AND I'M A RENTER.
I HAVE NOT STRUGGLED TO PAY MY
RENT UP TO THIS POINT, BUT I'M
DEFINITELY IN FAVOR OF NO
WINTER EVICTIONS WITH I GUESS,
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU CALL
THEM, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S
SOME RULES TO IT WHERE IF
SOMEONE IS CAUSING TOO MUCH OF
AN ISSUE OR I THINK SOMETHING
TO DO WITH MAYBE HAVING CRIMES
CHARGED ON THEM OR FELONIES
THAT THERE COULD BE A REASON TO
EVICT SOMEBODY.
I'M ALSO NOT A SMALL LANDLORD,
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS
LIKE AND ALL THE RULES THAT
THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH TO KEEP
UP THEIR RENTAL PROPERTY.
BUT WHAT I KNOW OF COUNCIL
MEMBERS IS THAT YOU'RE WILLING
TO WORK WITH EVERYBODY, SO I
FEEL LIKE IT REALLY IS JUST
SMALL LANDLORDS THAT ARE HERE,
AND I DON'T HEAR ANY CORPORATE
LANDLORDS YET.
SO SOMETHING COULD EASILY BE
WORKED OUT.
BUT YEAH, I DO THINK IT IS VERY
CRUEL AND UNFORTUNATELY NOT
THAT UNUSUAL TO EVICT PEOPLE
DURING THE WINTER MONTHS.
I THINK IT'S CRUEL TO EVICT
PEOPLE IN GENERAL, BUT
ESPECIALLY DURING THE WINTER
MONTHS, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR THE TIME.
>> AND THEN JEFFREY COOK.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
SAWANT, MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE.
I'VE SENT YOU SOME WRITTEN
COMMENTS THAT I AM SURE YOU
HAVE TAKEN TIME TO LOOK AT.
THIS IS, THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF
GOOD COMMENTS ABOUT -- FROM THE
FOLKS WHO ARE PROPERTY OWNERS
AND HOUSING PROVIDERS.
I THINK ONE PROBLEM COUNCIL
MEMBER SAWANT YOU KEEP
REPEATING THE 90% BECOMES
HOMELESS NUMBER.
THAT'S JUST FALSE, THAT'S NOT
SUBSTANTIATED.
WE ARE CURRENTLY DOING A PUBLIC
DISCLOSURE REQUEST OF THAT
NUMBER.
THAT IS A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF
UNCERTAIN SAMPLE SIZE, SO IT IS
JUST FALSE AND YOU KEEP
REPEATING IT IS NOT TRUE.
AS SOON AS I GET THE
INFORMATION ON WHERE THAT
SURVEY CAME FROM, I'LL SEND IT
TO YOU.
THOSE NUMBERS ARE NOT TRACKED,
SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENS
AFTER PEOPLE GET EVICTED.
YOU COULD SPEND SOME RESOURCES
TRYING TO FIND THAT OUT RATHER
THAN DOING THIS.
SECONDLY YOU CAN'T, I
APPRECIATE YOUR WIN OVER
AMAZON.
I WOULD LOVE TO TALK TO YOU
ABOUT HOW WE TAX AMAZON FOR
HOUSING.
I THINK THAT IS NOT A BAD IDEA.
HOWEVER YOU CAN'T JUST
AGGREGATE THE DECREE OF THE
SUPERIOR COURT BY LEGISLATIVE
FIAT.
IT JUST VIOLATES THE SEPARATION
OF POWERS.
IT IS A BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL
PRINCIPLE.
SO IF YOU WOULD TRY TO DEMAND
DIVORCES FOR FIVE MONTHS OUT OF
THE YEAR, THEN YOU CAN'T DO
THAT.
AND IF YOU WILL HAVE AN IMPACT
ON THE LOW INCOME HOUSING THAT
WILL SHOW YOU THE TREMENDOUS
PROBLEM FOR THE INVESTOR AND IT
IS GOING TO FORCE THOSE
AGENCIES LIKE THE HOUSING GROUP
TO PUT MORE MONEY IN THAT
ESCROW ACCOUNT TO OFFSET THE
RISK, SO THIS IS NOT A WELL
THOUGHT OUT IDEA AND YOUR
AMENDMENTS DON'T FIX ANY OF
THAT.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>> GOOD EVENING, JEFFREY COOK,
I HAVE BEEN A RENTER FOR A LOT
OF MY ADULT LIFE, BUT I NEVER
REMEMBER A TIME WHEN I FELT IT
WAS MY RIGHT TO LIVE FOR FREE.
I ALWAYS FOUND A WAY EVEN WITH
MY NON-PROFIT ARTS JOB TO FIND
A WAY TO PAY MY JOB, SO I KNEW
I WAS DOING THE RIGHT THING.
YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT HOW
THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO BE
HELPING PEOPLE WHO ARE IN
TROUBLE, AND I APPRECIATE THAT,
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS
DOING, THIS IS PUTTING US TO
SOLVE A PROBLEM THAT IS NOT
REALLY BEING SOLVED AT A
GOVERNMENT LEVEL.
YOU ARE ASKING THE INDEPENDENT
LANDLORDS TO FIGURE OUT A WAY
TO COME UP WITH THE MONEY TO
SUPPORT SOMEONE ELSE.
MY HUSBAND AND I RECENTLY
BOUGHT A SMALL FIXER UPPER
HOUSE FROM OUR ELDERLY
NEIGHBORS AND WE HAVE SUNK
EVERYTHING INTO IT.
WE'VE MORTGAGED, BORROWED
MONEY, CASHED OUT OUR
RETIREMENT SAVINGS, AND FIXED
UP THIS HOUSE PERFECT LIQUORING
TO THE HUGE LONG LIST OF THINGS
YOU'RE SUPPOSE TO DO AS A
LANDLORD IN SEATTLE.
AND NOW IF I HAVE SOMEBODY
LIVING THERE WHO CAN'T PAY
THEIR RENT, I CAN'T COVER FOR
THEM.
WE ARE INTENTIONALLY KEEPING
THE RENT LOW.
WE ARE MAKING NO MONEY ON THAT,
ARE YOU LISTENING TO ME?
WE ARE RENTING IT FOR THE SAME
PRICE AS OUR MORTGAGE.
THERE'S NO EXTRA MONEY.
WE DID THAT TO SUPPORT THE
WORKING CLASS PEOPLE OF
SEATTLE.
THAT WAS A PART OF OUR PLAN.
SO I CAN'T JUST PAY FIVE OR SIX
MONTHS WORTH OF SOMEONE ELSE'S
RENT.
THIS IS ONLY GOING TO MAKE THE
PROBLEM WORSE FOR OUR COMMUNITY
BECAUSE WE WILL JUST SELL THE
HOUSE, IT'S NOT WORTH IT.
WE CAN PROBABLY MAKE ENOUGH
MONEY TO COVER WHAT WE PUT INTO
IT SO FAR IF WE JUST DO THAT.
AND THAT IS ONE MORE HOUSE,
LITTLE THREE-BEDROOM HOUSE THAT
SOMEBODY COULD RENT THAT IS NOT
GOING TO BE AROUND ANYMORE.
THAT'S WHAT INDEPENDENT
LANDLORDS ARE JUST GOING TO
KEEP DOING SAY A THIS IS NOT
WORTH IT FOR ME ANYMORE.
SO IF SOMEONE IS BEING EVICTED
FOR $2 OR $10, THAT'S SOMETHING
WE'VE GOT TO FIX, BUT LIVING IN
SOMEONE'S HOUSE FOR FIVE OR SIX
MONTHS AND NOT PAY ANY RENT IS
NOT GOING TO WORK FOR THOSE OF
US WHO ONLY HAVE THAT AS OUR
ONE ASSET.
THANK YOU, GOOD NIGHT.
>> THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO
TESTIFIED IN PUBLIC COMMENT.
AND ON THE RECORD, WE HAVE BEEN
JOINED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN.
I WANTED TO READ THE ITEM,
AGENDA ITEM INTO RECORD.
WE ARE DISCUSSING COUNCIL
MEMBER BILL 119726 AN ORDINANCE
RELATED TO TERMINATION OF
RESIDENTIAL RENTAL TENANTS FOR
EVICTION MONTHS.
AND COULD THE PRESENTERS PLEASE
COME TO THE TABLE?
COULD WE HAVE ONE SENTENCE
INTRODUCTIONS FROM EACH OF YOU
FIRST?
>> JONATHAN ROSENBLOOM.
>> I'M ALICIA ROBERTS FROM
NICKELSVILLE.
>> I'M JOHN MINELLA, A RENTER,
ON THE BOARD OF THE TENANT'S
BOARD OF WASHINGTON STATE.
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
AND ONCE AGAIN I WANTED TO
MENTION THANK YOU TO ALL THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHO AGREED TO
HAVE A 6:00 P.M.
COMMITTEE MEETING.
TO BEGIN OUR DISCUSSION, ALICIA
ROBERTS HAS HAD THE COURAGE TO
SHARE WITH US HER PERSONAL
WINTER EVICTION STORY.
REALLY APPRECIATE THE
WILLINGNESS, ALICIA, TO SHARE
THESE PERSONAL EVENTS WITH US
AND HOPEFULLY AS A RESULT OTHER
PEOPLE WILL BE PROTECTED FROM
GOING THROUGH WHAT YOU HAVE
BEEN THROUGH.
AND SO DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD?
>> THANK YOU.
THIS IS A LITTLE HARD FOR ME TO
SHARE.
>> JUST TAKE YOUR TIME.
YOU ARE GOING TO DO GREAT.
>> LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT MY
WINTER EVICTION AND HOW IT
DEVASTATED MY FAMILY.
A LITTLE OVER FIVE YEARS AGO ME
AND MY 4-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER
MOVED IN WITH MY MOM.
SHE HAD A STROKE AND COULDN'T
LIVE ALONE, AND I COULDN'T
AFFORD WHERE I WAS LIVING
ANYMORE.
WE GOT PUT ON HER SECTION 8
VOUCHER AND FILLED OUT THE
APPLICATION FOR THE APARTMENT
COMPLEX.
THEY KNEW THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
WHY I WAS THERE.
I HAD A WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM
HER DOCTORS SAYING SHE COULDN'T
LIVE ALONE AND THE RENT WAS
NEVER LATE.
THE LANDLORD LEARNED TO APPROVE
MY APPLICATION BECAUSE I STILL
OWED HALF A MONTH'S RENT FROM
THE PLACE I HAD RECENTLY MOVED
FROM.
WE HAD UNTIL THE END OF THE
MONTH TO MOVE.
DURING THIS TIME MY FATHER
PASSED AWAY.
NEEDLESS TO SAY WE DIDN'T MOVE
OUT AT THE END OF THE MONTH.
I STARTED LOOKING FOR PLACES TO
MOVE TO WHICH I WASN'T HAVING
ANY LUCK WITH.
I TALKED TO THE LANDLORD AND
SHE WOULDN'T BUDGE.
SHE STARTED THE EVICTION
PROCESS.
WE WERE PHYSICALLY EVICTED BY
THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT RIGHT
ABOUT HALLOWEEN.
MY MOM WAS 72 YEARS OLD, AND I
COULDN'T HAVE HER SLEEPING
OUTSIDE IN THE WINTER, SO I
COUCH HOPPED HER FROM ONE
FRIEND TO THE NEXT.
ME AND MY DAUGHTER SLEPT IN MY
JEEP THAT WHOLE WINTER.
SHE WAS IN PRESCHOOL, SO THAT
MADE IT A LITTLE MORE
DIFFICULT.
I WAS ABLE TO SIGN UP FOR
MCKINNEY THROUGH THE SCHOOL, SO
THAT HELPED, BUT SHE STILL
MISSED SCHOOL.
AND HAVING MY DAUGHTER IN THE
VEHICLE WITH ME, I ALWAYS TRIED
TO FIND A SAFE PLACE TO PARK AT
NIGHT.
WE PARKED A LOT AT WAL-MART,
GROCERY STORES WITH WELL-LIT
PARKING LOTS AND IN
NEIGHBORHOODS I FELT WERE SAFE.
EVERY NIGHT I WOULD TRY TO GET
TO THE STORE TO USE THE
BATHROOM OR WE WOULD HAVE TO GO
OUTSIDE.
I RAN OUT OF GAS A LOT BECAUSE
I WOULD USE IT UP, KEEPING THE
HEAT ON AT NIGHT.
WE GOT HARASSED BY THE POLICE
CONSTANTLY.
ONE TIME THEY WANTED ME OUT OF
THE CITY AND FOLLOWED ME TO THE
CITY LIMITS AND THIS WAS IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT.
SEVERAL MONTHS LATER I WOULD
EVENTUALLY LOSE MY VEHICLE.
THE ONLY SAFE AND DRY PLACE I
HAD TO SLEEP BECAUSE THE POLICE
WERE SO AGAINST ME SLEEPING IN
MY CAR.
AT ONE POINT MY DAUGHTER GOT
SICK.
SHE HAD A TEMPERATURE OF 103,
104, AND IT WAS BELOW FREEZING
OUTSIDE AT NIGHT AROUND 16
DEGREES.
WE WERE ABLE TO STAY AT A
FRIEND'S HOUSE UNTIL SHE GOT
BETTER.
ALL WINTER LONG WE WENT THROUGH
THIS, SLEEPING IN THE CAR AND
COUCH SURFING.
I COULDN'T TAKE CARE OF HER THE
WAY SHE NEEDED AND DURING THE
WHOLE TIME I CONTINUED TO TRY
TO FIND A PLACE TO RENT.
WE WERE COMING DOWN TO THE
WIRE.
IF I DIDN'T FIND A PLACE SOON,
WE WOULD LOSE OUR VOUCHER.
I FINALLY FOUND A PLACE A WEEK
BEFORE THAT HAPPENED AND IT MET
THEIR CRITERIA, BUT SECTION 8
WOULDN'T APPROVE IT BECAUSE
THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PAY THE
AMOUNT THE MANAGERS WERE ASKING
FOR, I LOST THE VOUCHER.
I HAVE TRIED FIGHTING FOR IT,
GETTING AN EXTENSION, BUT IT
WAS NO.
I COULDN'T LOSE THE ONLY THING
WE HAD, THE ONLY THING TO KEEP
US ALL TOGETHER.
I REFUSED TO TAKE NO FOR AN
ANSWER, SO I START AD CALLING
PLACES IN OLYMPIA TO FIGHT IT.
THAT WAS WHEN I FOUND OUT THERE
WAS A LESS THAN 1% AVAILABILITY
OF THREE-BEDROOM RENTALS IN THE
WHOLE COUNTY AND OUT OF THAT
LESS THAN 1%, HOW MANY OF THEM
WOULD TAKE MY VOUCHER AND FALL
INTO THE PRICE RANGE THAT IT
WAS FOR.
ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE.
I WAS ABLE TO BUILD A CASE I
COULD PRESENT TO THE BOARD AND
THEY WOULD DECIDE FROM THERE.
SO I STARTED GATHERING
DOCUMENTATION NEEDED TO PROVE
MY CASE.
AND THEN I LOST MY DAUGHTER TO
CPS.
LOSING HER BROKE ME.
UP TO THAT POINT I HAD BEEN
BATTLING A DRUG ADDICTION ON
AND OFF FOR THREE YEARS.
I DOVE FIRST IN THAT EVICTION.
TWO MONTHS LATER I WAS ABLE TO
GET INTO TREATMENT AND GOT
SOBER.
A MONTH AFTER I GOT OUT, MY MOM
PASSED AWAY AND I RELAPSED.
IT TOOK ME A LONG TIME TO
RECOVER FROM EVERYTHING THAT
HAPPENED THAT YEAR.
I GOT CLEAN AND STARTED
STAYING.
THEY GAVE ME THE STABILITY AND
THE COMMUNITY SUPPORT I NEEDED
TO STAY SOBER AND START
STANDING ON MY OWN FEET AGAIN.
I CELEBRATED TWO YEARS SOBRIETY
ON THE 11th OF THIS MONTH.
I SEE MY DAUGHTER ALL THE TIME
AND CAN SEE HER FULL TIME WHEN
I GET INTO PERMANENT HOUSING.
THINGS ARE BETTER NOW.
I DON'T KNOW HOW DIFFERENT
THINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN IF WE
WOULD HAVE STAYED WHERE WE WERE
THAT WINTER.
I WOULD NEVER KNOW.
BUT MAYBE BEING ABLE TO HELP
PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING TO
SOMEONE ELSE COULD MAKE A
DIFFERENCE IN THEIR LIFE AND IN
THEIR FUTURE.
COUNCIL MEMBER SAWANT'S
MORATORIUM ON WINTER EVICTIONS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ALICIA.
I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.
>> THANK YOU.
JOHN, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON
BEHALF OF THE TENANT'S UNION?
>> SURE, I CAN SAY A FEW WORDS.
THE TENANTS OF WASHINGTON STATE
IS 100% BEHIND THIS PIECE OF
LEGISLATION BECAUSE IT IS JUST
LIKE -- IT MAKES SENSE.
IT MAKES SENSE TO THROW SOMEONE
OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET
AND WINTER IS BEYOND THE PAIL.
I APPRECIATE SOME OF WHAT THE
SMALL LANDLORDS SAID.
I REALLY DO BECAUSE THERE ARE
SOME GOOD SMALL LANDLORDS THAT
WILL ACTUALLY WORK WITH TENANTS
AND HAVE TRIED TO AVOID THE
EVICTION PROCESS.
BUT THAT IS THE EXCEPTION, NOT
THE RULE.
WHAT TENANTS NEED IS TIME AND
IN ALMOST ALL THE CASES THEY
NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO
COME UP WITH A PLAN OR TO MAKE
ENDS MEET, AND JUST LIKE THE
PERSON FROM SEATTLE SAID, YOUR
RENT IS UP ON THE FIRST AND THE
EVICTION STARTS ON THE SIXTH.
THAT'S CRAZY.
HOW CAN YOU BE EXPECTED TO
BECOME A RENTAL EXPERT IN FIVE
DAYS?
>> THE WHOLE PROBLEM IS THEY
DON'T HAVE MONEY, PEOPLE DON'T
WANT TO LIVE FOR FREE IN SOME
PLACE.
THEY WANT TO PAY RENT.
NOBODY WANTS AN EVICTION ON
THEIR RECORD.
THEY WANT TO PAY RENT.
THEY JUST NEED MORE TIME.
THIS ISN'T ABOUT LETTING PEOPLE
LIVE IN HOUSES FOR FREE, THIS
IS ABOUT BEING HUMANE AND
RATIONAL.
IT IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS TO
SUGGEST THAT PEOPLE WANT TO
JUST FREE LOAD IN YOUR HOUSE OR
YOUR EXTRA HOUSE THAT YOU MIGHT
HAVE LYING AROUND.
IT IS UNBELIEVABLE TO THINK
THAT.
THAT IS NOT WHAT'S GOING ON
HERE.
EPIDEMIC.
WHAT WE NEED IS RATIONAL COMMON
SENSE LEGISLATION LIKE THIS
THAT WILL PREVENT PEOPLE FROM
DYING IN THE STREET.
THAT'S IT.
THAT IS WHAT WE NEED.
IT IS VERY SIMPLE.
COMING UP WITH A PLAN, IT'S
FINE.
THIS PERIOD OF TIME, YOU JUST
NEED TO GIVE YOUR TENANTS TIME.
FRANKLY IN MOST CASES, IT IS
NOT THE SMALL INDEPENDENT MOM
AND POP LANDLORDS.
IT'S OVERWHELMINGLY THESE
CORPORATE LANDLORDS THAT COME
IN AND RAISE THE RENT AND THEN
YOU ALREADY HAVE PROBLEMS
STRUGGLING WITH PAYING YOUR
RENT BECAUSE YOUR WAGES HAVE
NOT GONE UP.
SO YOU ALREADY HAVE THIS
PROBLEM PAYING YOUR RENT AND
THEN THE MINUTE THAT YOU'RE
LATE, BOOM.
THAT'S WHEN THEY GET YOU.
ALL WE NEED, ALL WE NEED IS A
LITTLE BIT MORE TIME AND TO
THROW PEOPLE OUT DURING THE
WINTER, I MEAN I HAD THINGS
PREPARED BEFORE I CAME IN HERE.
BUT IT IS GOING TO BOGGLE MY
MIND TO THINK THAT THIS IS OKAY
TO DO.
AND THAT IT IS OKAY TO THROW
SOMEONE OUT, A FAMILY IN THE
MIDDLE OF WINTER, TO THROW THEM
OUT ONTO THE STREET, IT IS
RIDICULOUS.
AND SO ONCE AGAIN, WE FULLY
SUPPORT THE LEGISLATION.
WE THINK THIS IS A GREAT IDEA,
AND WE SHOULD ABSOLUTELY GO
AHEAD AND DO IT.
>> THANK YOU.
AND SO AS I SAID BEFORE,
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF HAS
PREPARED A MEMO EXPLAINING THE
OVERALL LEGISLATION AND
CONTAINS SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS
OF THE RULES OF REFERENCE,
PUBLIC COMMENT, AND IF COUNCIL
MEMBERS ARE OKAY WITH IT, WE
WILL HAVE HER WALK THROUGH THE
MEMO AND THEN WE CAN START
LOOKING AT THE AMENDMENTS.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR, COUNCIL
MEMBERS, GOOD EVENING.
COUNCIL BILL 119726 WOULD AMEND
THE CITY'S JUST CAUSE EVICTION
ORDINANCE BY PROVIDING A
DEFENSE TO EVICTION BETWEEN
NOVEMBER 1 AND APRIL 1. THE
JUST CAUSE EVICTION ORDINANCE,
EXCUSE ME, REQUIRES LANDLORDS
OR PROPERTY MANAGERS TO STATE
ONE OF 18 APPROVED REASONS
LISTED IN THE ORDINANCE IN
ORDER TO PROCEED WITH AN
EVICTION.
IN ADDITION TO REQUIRING THAT
THE EVICTION MEETS ONE OF THE
APPROVED REASONS, THE JUST
CAUSE EVICTION ORDINANCE
PROVIDES A DEFENSE TO EVICTION
IF THE LANDLORD OR PROPERTY
MANAGER HAS NOT REGISTERED THE
UNIT UNDER THE CITY'S RENTAL
LEGISLATION AND INSPECTION
ORDINANCE.
I WILL NOW BRIEFLY DESCRIBE I'M
GOING THROUGH A LITTLE DETAIL
ON WHAT THE BILL DOES HIGHLIGHT
SOME OF THE INVESTMENTS THAT
THE CITY WILL MAKE TO PREVENT
HOMELESSNESS IN OTHER AREAS AND
WALK THROUGH THE TWO PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS
ALONG THE WAY.
>> AND SORRY, ALI, IN TERMS OF
PROCESS, DO WE HAVE TO MOVE THE
SUBSTITUTE OR ANYTHING LIKE
THAT?
WHEN I READ THE ITEM INTO
RECORD, DO YOU HAVE TO DO
ANYTHING MORE?
>> SO YOU READ THE ITEM INTO
THE RECORD, THEN WE GOT TO THE
AMENDMENTS, AMENDMENT ONE IS
THE SUBSTITUTE BILL, SO THAT
WILL BE PROCEEDED AS AN
AMENDMENT, SO YOU WILL NEED TO
MOVE TO AMEND THE ORDER OR
SUBSTITUTE THE VERSION.
THEN WE WOULD MOVE ON TO THE
NEXT AMENDMENT.
AND I NOTED IN THE FOOTNOTE TO
THE OTHER AMENDMENT THAT TO THE
EXTENT THE LANGUAGE IS SOMEWHAT
INCONSISTENT BETWEEN THE TWO
AMENDMENTS AT THE DIRECTION
FROM THE COMMITTEE, I'LL
RECONCILE THAT IN THE FINAL
BILL IF BOTH AMENDMENTS PROCEED
OR OTHER AMENDMENTS ARE
CONTEMPLATED.
>> OKAY, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> OKAY.
SO AS I DESCRIBED PREVIOUSLY
THE PROPOSAL WOULD ADD A E
DEFENSE TO EVICTION IF THEY
WOULD RESULT IN VACATING THE
HOUSING UNIT ANY TIME BETWEEN
NOVEMBER 1 AND APRIL 1. THIS
DOES NOT PREVENT A LANDLORD OR
APROPERTY MANAGER FROM MOVING
FORWARD WITH THE EVICTION
PROCEEDINGS, BUT INSTEAD
PROVIDES A DEFENSE FOR THE
TENANTS AND IN THE PROCEEDINGS,
PRESUMABLY THE JUDGE WOULD
DELAY THE ENFORCEMENT OF THAT
EVICTION EITHER SETTING A LATER
DATE OR MAY DELAY THE HEARING
UNTIL A TIME UNDER WHICH THE
EVICTION, THE PHYSICAL EVICTION
COULD PROCEED.
AND SO IN THAT SENSE IT'S
RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD,
IT'S JUST THE PHYSICAL EVICTION
COULD NOT OCCUR, BUT THEY WOULD
NOT PREVENT THE TENANT FROM
BEING EVICTED.
CURRENTLY THE CITY INVESTS IN
HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION
PROGRAMS THAT INCLUDE SERVICES
TO QUALIFYING TENANTS FACING
EVICTION.
SO THE DISTINCTION HERE THAT
I'M ABOUT TO DESCRIBE, THESE
ARE INTERVENTIONS THAT ARE
TYPICALLY TRYING TO HELP THE
TENANT PRIOR TO BEING EVICTED.
AND SO IF THEY, FOR EXAMPLE,
ARE ISSUED A PAY OR VACATE
NOTICE, THERE WOULD BE
RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO TENANTS
TO REMEDY THAT SITUATION.
AND WITH THE CHANGES TO STATE
LAW, THE COURTS WILL HAVE MORE
DISCRETION TO CONSIDER PAYMENT
PLANS AND THAT SORT OF THING
AND ACCESS THOSE FUNDS
POTENTIALLY AS THEY ARE MOVING
INTO THOSE PROCEEDINGS.
AND IN 2020 THE CITY INVESTED
$3.3 MILLION.
I WILL JUST NOTE IN THE MEMO I
DISTRIBUTED TO COUNCIL MEMBERS,
I DROPPED THE WORD MILLION, SO
IT IS NOT $3.3, IT'S $3.3
MILLION.
AND SO MY APOLOGY TO SUPPORT
PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE EMERGENCY
RENTAL ASSISTANCE TO QUALIFYING
TENANT HAVE RECEIVED A 14-DAY
NOTICE.
JUST OVER A DOZEN ORGANIZATIONS
IN THE CITY RECEIVE PORTIONS OF
THESE FUNDS THAT ARE MADE
AVAILABLE.
IN ADDITION --
>>
ALI.
MADAM CHAIR.
SO ALI, CAN I FOLLOW UP ON THAT
JUST A LITTLE BIT.
>> SURE.
>> AND BECAUSE I NOTICED ON THE
E-MAIL OR THE MEMO THAT YOU
SENT OUT ON JANUARY 10, THERE
WERE A COUPLE OF POSSIBLE AREAS
OR ALTERCATION OF THE
ORDINANCE.
ONE OF THOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN OR
WAS TARGETED AS CREATING A
MITIGATION FUND.
I'M JUST WONDERING HOW THE $3.3
MILLION IN THE RENTAL
ASSISTANCE KIND OF FILLS THAT
POTENTIAL GAP.
I NOTICED THAT'S ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT ISN'T INCLUDED IN
THE SUBSTITUTE ORDINANCE.
I WANTED TO ASK IF THERE ARE
RESOURCES IN PLAY AND IF THAT
WAS A FACTOR.
>> SO I WAS LAYING OUT OPTIONS
AVAILABLE TO COUNCIL MEMBERS TO
CONSIDER AS YOU ARE MOVING
FORWARD WITH CONSIDERING THIS
LEGISLATION.
SO THE DISTINCTION IN WHAT I
BRIEFLY DESCRIBED IN THAT E-
MAIL VERSES THE MITIGATION
FUNDS, I WAS JUST DESCRIBING AS
THE ORGANIZATION THAT THE CITY
CURRENTLY FUNDS IS TO PROVIDE
EMERGENCY RENTAL ASSISTANCE
ESSENTIALLY TO TENANTS WHO
RECEIVED 14 DAYS.
SO IT WOULD BE THE TENANT WHO
PAID THE LANDLORD.
THIS IS ADDRESSING QUESTIONS I
WAS RECEIVING OR CONCERNS THAT
WE HAD HEARD ABOUT THE
POTENTIAL THAT IF THE TENANT IS
JUDGMENT PROOF AND IF THEY
SUCCESSFULLY WERE ABLE TO USE
THIS DEFENSE, WE ARE NOT
REQUIRED TO VACATE THE PROPERTY
IN THAT FIVE-MONTH PERIOD.
IT WOULD BE A FUND THAT COULD
BE MADE AVAILABLE TO LANDLORDS
UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
I DIDN'T -- UNLESS I'M ASKED TO
SORT OF DEVELOP THAT AMENDMENT
AND PURSUE THAT, I WOULD WORK
WITH YOU OR OTHER COUNCIL
MEMBERS TO DETERMINE SORT OF
WHAT CRITERIA THE CITY MIGHT
RELEASE THOSE FUNDS.
LAST YEAR THE CITY ADOPTED
LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS TO
TENANTS IF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
SITUATIONS, AND A PART OF WHAT
WAS INCLUDED IN THAT BILL WAS A
MITIGATION FUND FOR LANDLORDS
-- ESSENTIALLY FOR THE DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE SURVIVORS WERE NOT
RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING DAMAGES
THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED IN THE
UNIT DUE TO THE DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE INCIDENT.
AND THE MITIGATION FUND WOULD
BE AVAILABLE TO LANDLORDS WHO
ARE UNABLE TO COLLECT THE
DAMAGES FROM THE ABUSER IN THAT
CASE, THE PERSON WHO CREATED
THE DAMAGES.
SO THIS WOULD BE SORT OF ALONG
SIMILAR LINES THAT IN THE EVENT
THAT A TENANT WAS EVICTED ON
APRIL 1, BUT REMAINED IN THE
UNIT FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME
AND DIDN'T FULFILL THEIR
OBLIGATION TO PAY RENT DURING
THAT TIME UNDER CERTAIN
CONDITIONS, THE CITY COULD
CONSIDER SOME SORT OF A
MITIGATION FUND TO HELP BACK
PAY SOME OF THAT RENT TO THE
LANDLORD.
>> AND JUST QUAKE FOLLOW UP ON
THAT.
WOULD THAT INVOLVE A NEW
APPROPRIATION OF MONEY OR COULD
IT POTENTIALLY COME FROM THE
$3.3 MILLION THAT WE'VE ALREADY
KIND OF TALKED ABOUT FOR RENTAL
ASSISTANCE?
>> IT WOULD LIKELY REQUIRE A
NEW APPROPRIATION.
$3.3 MILLION, I WOULD IMAGINE
HAS ALREADY OR IS IN THE
PROCESS OF BEING DISPERSED
THROUGH CONTRACTS WITH THE
HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
LIKE THE BILL I WAS DISCUSSING
REGARDING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
SURVIVORS, THAT BILL SET UP A
FUND, BUT IT WAS SUBJECT TO
APPROPRIATIONS, SO ESSENTIALLY
IT COULD BE ESTABLISHED WITHOUT
YET HAVING IDENTIFIED THE
SOURCE OF FUNDS, AND THEN
THROUGH THE CITY'S SUPPLEMENTAL
OR BUDGET PROCESS IN THE FALL
OF 2020 FOR 2021.
I COULD WORK WITH COUNCIL
MEMBERS TO IDENTIFY WHERE THOSE
RESOURCES MIGHT COME FROM.
>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU SO
MUCH.
>> SURE.
>> JONATHAN?
>> YES, AND JUST TO CLARIFY,
ALI, THAT $3.3 MILLION FUNDS,
EVEN WHEN THEY ARE DISPERSED,
THEY WOULD SHOW THEIR RESOURCE
FOR TENANTS RIGHT NOW TO ACCESS
IF THEY CAN'T MAKE THE RENTS,
RIGHT?
>> CORRECT.
OKAY, SO THE PROGRAM TO SUPPORT
TENANTS FOR EMERGENCY RENTAL
ASSISTANCE AND IN ADDITION THE
CITY EXTENDED FUNDING FOR
SEATTLE RENTAL HOUSING
ASSISTANCE, PILOT PROGRAM.
THAT PROVIDES RENTAL ASSISTANCE
FOR TENANTS WHO ARE ON THE
SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY WAIT
LIST FOR HOUSING CHOICE
VOUCHERS, THAT WILL PROVIDE
LONGER-TERM RENTAL ASSISTANCE.
AND THEN IN ADDITION THE CITY
ALSO HAS A SEVERE WEATHER
RESPONSE PLAN FOR PEOPLE WHO
ARE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS.
SO THESE ARE NOT EXACTLY
RESOURCES TO PREVENT THE
HOMELESSNESS, BUT FOR OUR
PEOPLE WHO ARE EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS, INCLUDING
EXPANDING ACCESS TO SHELTERS
DURING THE SEVERE WEATHER
EVENTS.
THE MEMO ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA
WILL PROVIDE RELATED POLICIES
AND THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS.
I'M NOT PLANNING TO GO INTO
GREAT DETAILS TONIGHT BUT I
WILL SUMMARIZE, I DID NOT FIND
ANY EXAMPLES IN THIS COUNTRY OF
CITIES OR OTHER JURISDICTIONS
THAT WILL PROVIDE A BLANKET,
PROHIBITION ON THE EVICTIONS.
AND WHERE PARIS, FRANCE, IS THE
ONLY EXAMPLE THAT I HAVE FOUND,
AND I DID SOME RESEARCH.
BUT I DON'T READ FRENCH.
A LOT OF THE INFORMATION, IT
WAS IN FRENCH.
SO I DID MY BEST THERE AND I
DID FIND THE EXAMPLES OF SOME
CITIES OR THE COUNTIES THAT
WOULD HAVE REGULATIONS OR
BUSINESS PRACTICES IN PLACE
THAT THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
WHO TYPICALLY ENFORCE THE
EVICTIONS WILL FOLLOW OR IN THE
CASE OF WASHINGTON, D.C., THE
U.S. MARSHAL'S OFFICE, THAT
PREVENT THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
EVICTIONS DURING THE CERTAIN
CONDITION.
AND SO IF THE TEMPERATURES WILL
DROP BELOW A CERTAIN
TEMPERATURE, YOU KNOW, SNOWING,
THAT SORT OF THING, THEN THE
ACTUAL PHYSICAL REMOVAL OF THE
TENANT FROM THE UNIT WILL BE
DELAYED FOR SOME PERIOD OF
TIME.
IN ADDITION THERE ARE SEVERAL
STATES THAT HAVE COLD WEATHER
RULES THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THE
UTILITY SHUTOFFS DURING
NOVEMBER AND APRIL GENERALLY.
AND THEN THERE ARE TWO EXAMPLES
THAT WERE FOUND IN CALIFORNIA
THAT IS NOT RELATED TO WEATHER,
BUT SIMILARLY LIMITS THE
ABILITY FOR THE LANDLORD TO
MOVE FORWARD DURING THE SCHOOL
YEAR IF THE TENANTS HAVE SCHOOL-
AGED CHILDREN OR ARE EDUCATORS,
BUT IMPORTANT TO NOTE THOSE
CASES ARE RELATED THROUGH NO
FAULT EVICTIONS, SO THAT WILL
BE THE CASE UNDER WHICH, LET'S
SAY THE LANDLORD IS INTENDING
TO REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY,
THAT'S NOT THE FAULT OF THE
TENANT OR THE EVICTION COULDN'T
PROCEED.
IF IT WAS DUE TO NON-PAYMENT OF
RENT, THEY COULD PROCEED DURING
THAT CHAIR.
>> YEAH, SO GOING BACK TO THE
COOK COUNTY ORDINANCE, JUST
REAL QUICKLY, THAT WILL BAN THE
EVICTION AND UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THEY DROP
BELOW 15 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT.
I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS.
I'LL ASK THIS ONE FIRST.
SO IF THERE IS A STRING OF DAYS
THAT ARE UNDER 15 DEGREES, AND
THAT PROHIBITION COULD GO
INDEFINITELY UNTIL THE
TEMPERATURES ARE ABOVE 15
DEGREES.
AND FAHRENHEIT IS HOW IT WILL
WORK IN PRACTICE.
>> AND SO IN PRACTICE, THEY
WOULD ISSUE THAT CIRCUIT COURT
OF COOK COUNTY, DURING THE SET
PERIOD OF TIME.
AND SO IN ONE EXAMPLE, IT'S
BETWEEN NOVEMBER AND JANUARY
SECOND, SO I THINK IT WILL SORT
OF DEPEND ON THE STRING OF DAYS
TO OCCUR AS THEY MIGHT ISSUE
THAT OTHER ORDER ON HOW THEY
WOULD PLAY OUT.
AND IN GENERAL WHAT I HAVE
HEARD IN TALKING TO SOME FOLKS,
WHO WORK IN COOK COUNTY, THAT
IN GENERAL THE SHERIFF'S
OFFICE, THEY WAIT UNTIL THE
TEMPERATURES HAVE GONE UP.
>> IT WILL GIVE THE AUTHORITY
TO COURT TO ISSUE THE ORDER TO
SEIZE THE EVICTION?
>> CORRECT.
>> AND I NOTICED THAT LANGUAGE
IS PERMISSIVE THAT SAYS MAY.
SO UNDER THAT ORDINANCE, AGAIN,
THE PARTY WOULD PETITION TO THE
COURT FOR A DELAY IN THAT
POSITION AND THAT THE JUDGE
COULD DENY IT?
IS THAT TRUE?
>> YES, MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, THEY
GENERALLY, AS A BUSINESS
PRACTICE, DOES NOT ENFORCE
DURING THAT TIME.
AND SO IT IS -- I'M NOT AN
ATTORNEY AND I KNOW THAT YOU
ARE.
BUT THAT IT WASN'T CLEAR TO ME
EXACTLY HOW THIS PLAYS OUT ON
THE GROUND IN ALL CASES, BUT I
THINK YOUR INTERPRETATION IS
CORRECT.
>> THANKS.
>> OKAY.
AND IF THERE ARE NO OTHER
QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT, I WILL
MOVE ON AND BEGIN DESCRIBING
THE AMENDMENTS.
AND SO THE AMENDMENT ONE
SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
SAWANT IS A SUBSTITUTE VERSION
OF THE BILL.
IT IS ATTACHED TO THE MEMO.
THIS WOULD DO A COUPLE OF
THINGS, THIS WOULD MAKE
STRUCTURAL CHANGES TO THE BILL
AND MODIFY THE LANGUAGE TO
CLARIFY THAT IT PROVIDES A
DEFENSE THAT THEY WOULD CAUSE
THE DISPLACEMENT IN THE UNIT
BETWEEN NOVEMBER 1 AND APRIL 1.
AND THEN IN ADDITION, IT WILL
ADD, LIMITS ON THE EVICTIONS OF
THE WINTER MONTHS, TO THAT JUST
CAUSE THAT WILL BE LISTED IN
THE JUST CAUSE ORDINANCE.
SO I'M GOING TO QUICKLY
SUMMARIZE THE SITUATIONS IN
WHICH THE EVICTION COULD
PROCEED AT ANY TIME OF THE
YEAR.
AND SO THAT WILL INCLUDE IF YOU
WERE EVICTING A TENANT RESIDING
IN THE SAME HOUSE WITH THE
OWNER OR THE OWNER'S AGENT, AND
SO ESSENTIALLY YOU OWN THE
HOUSE, YOU'RE RENTING OUT ROOMS
IN YOUR HOME, AND YOU WANT TO
MOVE FORWARD, SO YOU COULD
CONTINUE TO DO THAT.
AND IF THE OWNER OR THE OWNERS
IMMEDIATE FAMILY WISHES TO
OCCUPY THE PREMISE AND THEY
HAVE BEEN PROVIDED A MINIMUM OF
A 90-DAY UNIT, REQUIRED BY THE
ORDINANCE.
AND IF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS
SELLING A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME,
THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE THE
CONDOMINIUM UNITS, AFTER GIVING
THEM THE REQUIRED 90-DAY NOTICE
THAT THEY ARE INTENDING TO END
THE TENDENCY.
AND IT WOULD ALLOW THE EVICTION
TO CONTINUE IF THE PROPERTY
OWNER IS PLANNING TO
DISCONTINUE USE OF THE UNIT
THAT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER
THE LAND USE CODE, AND SO
ESSENTIALLY RENTING OUT AN
ILLEGAL UNIT AND THEY HAVE
RECEIVED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION
FROM THE CITY IN THOSE CASES,
THE OWNER MUST PAY RELOCATIONS.
AND THEY WERE FORCED TO LEAVE
BECAUSE OF THAT VIOLATION.
IF THERE IS A VIOLATION RELATED
TO THE NUMBER OF TENANTS
SHARING ON THE DWELLING UNIT
AND THEY HAVE ISSUED ORDERS, IF
THEY WERE TERMINATING A
TENDENCY IN THE HOUSE IN ORDER
TO COMPLY WITH THE ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT AFTER RECEIVING A
NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
OR IF AN EMERGENCY ORDERED TO
VACATE AND CLOSE THE PROPERTY
HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE CITY AND
THE TENANTS HAVE FAILED TO
VACATE BY THE DEADLINE GIVEN IN
THAT ORDER.
AND TYPICALLY IN AN EMERGENCY
ORDER TO VACATE REASSISTANCE
FUNDS AVAILABLE TO LOW INCOME
TENANTS.
AND THEN ALSO IF THE TENANT
WILL ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL
ACTIVITY OR OPERATE IN THAT
ILLEGAL BUSINESS AND THAT
BUILDING ON THE PREMISE IN THE
AREA ADJACENT TO BUILDING OR
THE PREMISE.
OR IF THEY ARE CAUSING A NUANCE
DUE TO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OR
ILLEGAL BUSINESSES.
AND SO IN THOSE CASES, IF THE
CAUSE FOR EVICTION IS BROUGHT
BY THE LANDLORD, IT IS DUE TO
ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS THE
TENANT, EXCUSE ME, THE EVICTION
COULD PROCEED AT ANY TIME OF
THE YEAR.
>> THANK YOU.
AND SO JUST TO ALSO READ FOR A
LITTLE BIT ON YOUR PART OF THE
MEMO, THE JUST CAUSE EVICTION
ORDINANCE, SPECIFIES 18 CAUSES
OR JUST CAUSES UNDER WHICH THEY
COULD TAKE ON THE CITY OF
SEATTLE.
I BELIEVE YOU HAVE LISTED EIGHT
OF THOSE CAUSES WHERE THIS
BILL, IF PASSED, WOULD NOT
PROVIDE ANY DEFENSE FOR THE
EVICTION TO TAKE PLACE.
IN OTHER WORDS ANY OF THESE
OTHER EIGHT CASES THAT THE
EVICTION WOULD STILL PROCEED
UNDER THE EXISTING LAW AND
WOULD NOT PREVENT THEM IN THE
WINTER MONTHS.
>> YES, WHILE I'LL JUST NOTE AS
YOU LISTED EIGHT.
SOME OF THOSE IS WRITTEN IN THE
SUBSTITUTE BILL.
THEY ARE A PORTION OF ONE OF
THE CAUSES, AND SO SORT OF
DEPENDS ON HOW YOU ARE SAYING.
>> THAT IS NOT ACCURATE.
>> AND THE COUNTING.
AND I'M HAPPY TO UPDATE A TABLE
THAT I HAVE CREATED PREVIOUSLY
THAT WILL OUTLINE THE CAUSES
AND TO SHARE WITH THE REST.
IF THERE ARE OTHER CAUSES THAT
MIGHT HAVE PREVENTED THE OTHER
CAUSES UNDER THAT COUNCIL
MEMBER AND I COULD PROVIDE
THAT.
HERE ARE THE ONES THAT CLEARLY
WOULD NO LONGER BE LIMITED FOR
THE EVICTIONS UNDER THIS
ORDINANCE AND THE ONES WHERE
THEY WOULD BE LIMITED IN WINTER
MONTHS, TO DISTRIBUTE THAT
TOMORROW AFTERNOON.
>> AND THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
>> YEAH, OKAY.
>> I WOULD, SO FOR NOW ANY WAY,
YOU KNOW, TO CONTINUE THE
DISCUSSION WITH THE SUBSTITUTE
ON THE NEW BASE, I WOULD LIKE
TO MOVE THE AMENDMENT FOR A
VOTE, BUT JUST TO MAKE SURE
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
UNDERSTANDS THIS IS ONLY THE
VOTE TO AMEND THE LEGISLATION
THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION
BECAUSE WE MAKE CHANGES TO THE
LEGISLATION AS IT WAS WRITTEN
BEFORE.
NOT THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION THAT
IS BEING PASSED.
SO I MOVE THE SUBSTITUTE
VERSION TWO FOR VERSION ONE.
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU ALL IN FAVOR SAY
AYE?
>> AYE.
OKAY, SO WE NOW HAVE THE
SUBSTITUTE VERSION OF THE
LEGISLATION UNDER DISCUSSION.
COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR
AMENDMENT?
>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I DO HAVE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS
TO START WITH, IS THAT OKAY?
>> YES.
>> FIRST TAKING A STEPBACK.
FIRST THANKS TO EVERYONE WHO
CAME TO SPEAK TONIGHT FROM ALL
ANGLES OF THIS LEGISLATION, AND
WANT TO THANK THE WOMEN'S
COMMISSION AND THE KING COUNTY
BAR ASSOCIATION FOR THEIR
REPORT LOSING HOME, AND THANK
THE STATE FOR EXTENDING THE
PERIOD FROM THREE DAYS TO 14
DAYS AND I KNOW THERE IS A LOT
MORE WORK TO DO TO PREVENT
EVICTIONS.
I'M INTERESTED IN THE FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE PIECE.
AND BY TACKLING THIS FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE TO DEAL WITH THE
CRISIS OR A NEED THAT WILL BE
OCCURRING IN THAT TIME.
I AM CONCERNED OVERALL WITH
THIS LEGISLATION THAT IT IS
BOLD AND I ADMIRE THAT I'M JUST
CONCERNED ABOUT THE BIG PICTURE
BECAUSE THERE'S NO OTHER CITY
THAT HAS DONE THIS, IT IS
UNTESTED AND I DON'T BELIEVE
THAT IS THE BEST WAY OF GOING
ABOUT THE PUBLIC POLICY TO CAST
A WIDE NET SO QUICKLY WITH
UNATTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND
WHETHER IT WILL BE A
SUSTAINABLE LAW.
AND A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR
CENTRAL STAFF.
JUST FOR THE PUBLIC TO
UNDERSTAND AND TO ELIMINATE THE
DISCUSSION.
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE LEASES THAT
ARE SIGNED BY THE LANDLORD AND
THE RENTER WHEN THIS IS PASSED?
IS IT TO SHOW THE ELITE
CONTRACT LEASE?
>> I APOLOGIZE.
I OVERLOOKED IN DETAIL.
THE JUST CAUSE EVICTION
ORDINANCE IMPLIES TO THOSE
TENDENCIES THAT ARE MONTH TO
MONTH OR VERBAL CONTRACT AND
DOES NOT APPLY TO TENDENCIES
WHERE THERE IS A LEASE
AGREEMENT THAT DOESN'T HAVE,
YOU KNOW, MANY LEASE AGREEMENTS
THAT HAVE SHIFTED TO A MONTH-TO-
MONTH AGREEMENT OR RENEWED.
BUT IF IT IS A LEASE THAT IS
NOT RENEWED AND SEATTLE DOES
NOT APPLY TO THE SITUATIONS.
THIS WOULD NOT APPLY TO THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES.
>> JUST SO I COULD CLARIFY.
IN CASES WHERE SOMEONE HAS A
YEAR-LONG LEASE, FOR EXAMPLE,
LIKE THIS ORDINANCE THAT WE ARE
DISCUSSING, IT WOULDN'T BE
APPLICABLE?
THEY WOULD STILL BE SUBJECT TO
THE SAME WINTER CURRENT
EVICTION?
>> YEAH, THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT
TO THE WASHINGTON STATE
LANDLORD LAWS AS WELL AS OTHER
REGULATIONS, TYPICALLY THE
LEASE AGREEMENT, THEY WILL HAVE
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO.
AND SO THAT WOULD APPLY AND
THEN LIKE I SAID BEFORE, MANY
OF THEM, THEY DO SHIFT TO A
MONTH-TO-MONTH LEASE AT THE END
OF THE FIRST YEAR PERIOD, BUT
THAT DEPENDS ON YOUR LANDLORD.
>> RIGHT, AS THE ONLY RENTER IN
THIS COMMITTEE, I'M FAMILIAR
WITH THE NUANCES OF THE LEASE.
I WOULD JUST ASK FOR A BRIEF
FOLLOW UP.
IF YOU DON'T KNOW THIS OFF THE
TOP OF YOUR HEAD, THAT'S ALL
RIGHT.
BUT I WONDER WHAT THE RENTAL
HOUSING STOCK ON THE CITY OF
SEATTLE THAT IS ON A MONTH-TO-
MONTH OR VERBAL LEASE AND I
WOULD ACTUALLY BE CURIOUS TO
KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER IS OF
FOLKS THAT ARE NOT ENTERED INTO
A LEASE THAT IS LONGER TERM.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS SMALL OR
LARGE.
I HAVE NEVER ENTERED INTO A
LEASE LIKE THAT, SO I'M JUST
NOT SURE.
>> I DO NOT HAVE AN ANSWER TO
THAT QUESTION AND I'M HAPPY TO
LOOK INTO IT.
I'M NOT SURE IF THAT
INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE, BUT I
WILL SEE WHAT WE HAVE OR WHAT
WE COULD FIND OUT.
>> OKAY.
JUST TO UNDERSTAND THE ORIGIN
OF THIS IDEA, IS IT, IS THERE
SOMETHING THAT TRIGGERED IT TO
BE INTRODUCED THIS YEAR INSTEAD
OF, YOU KNOW, FOUR YEARS AGO OR
THREE YEARS AGO?
IS THERE SOMETHING THAT IS
HAPPENING NOW THAT SORT OF
CAUSED FOR THIS TYPE OF
INTERVENTION OR INTERVENTION?
>> AND I CAN TELL YOU WHAT MY
INTENTION HAS BEEN BECAUSE I
WAS THE ONE WHO INTRODUCED IT.
>> YES.
>> IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY
OTHER PROGRESSIVE LEGISLATION
THAT MY OFFICE HAS FOUGHT FOR
AND NO EXPLANATION FOR WHY.
I MEAN THERE IS NO EXPLANATION
FOR WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR
WHY $15 WAS WANTED IN 2015.
AND WE WERE ELECTED AND THERE
WAS A MOVEMENT BEHIND US THAT
WAS WILLING TO FIGHT FOR IT AND
WE WON.
AND SO DOES THAT MEAN WE DIDN'T
NEED $15 BEFORE THEN?
NO, OF COURSE NOT, WE NEEDED IT
BEFORE THEN AND IN FACT EVEN 15
IS NOT ENOUGH.
BUT THE POINT IS IF THERE ARE
PEOPLE WILLING TO FIGHT FOR
THOSE CAUSES, THEN IT IS MY JOB
TO PUSH FOR IT AND THIS WHOLE
QUESTION ORIGINATED FROM THE
LETTER THAT THE SEATTLE CENTER
RELEASED AND THAT IS THEIR JOB
AND THAT IS WHY I'M NOT SURE
HOW MANY OF YOU ARE AWARE, BUT
THE CREATION OF THE RENTERS
COMMISSION ITSELF WAS A
CONSEQUENCE OF THE RENT CONTROL
RESOLUTION THAT WE FOUGHT FOR
AND WON IN 2015.
AND IN 2016 IN ORDER TO SORT
OF, YOU KNOW, THE RENT, THE
MOVEMENT THAT IT WILL BE
BUILDING UP AT THAT TIME WAS
ABLE TO SHOW YOU THE CONCESSION
FROM THE POLITICAL
ESTABLISHMENT.
AND AT THAT TIME THEY WOULD
FORM IT, HOPING THESE
COMMISSIONS WOULD ACTUALLY DO
MUCH, BUT YOU KNOW JUST SORT OF
BE THERE AND THAT THE MEMBERS
COMMISSION ARE DOING AN
INCREDIBLE JOB OF BEING
INDEPENDENT FROM THE CITY
COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR'S OFFICE
AND MAKING THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
IT WAS BASED ON THEIR
RECOMMENDATION.
THEY MADE THE RECOMMENDATION
SOME TIME IN EARLY NOVEMBER, I
BELIEVE.
I REMEMBER SEEING THE LETTER,
FROM THE SECOND AND THEN AS
SOON AS I GOT A CHANCE IN LATE
NOVEMBER OR EARLY DECEMBER, I
INSTRUCTED STAFF TO BRING IT
FORWARD.
>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
AND SO TO MY AMENDMENT, SO THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE THE
LEGISLATION FOCUSED ON A LOW
INCOME HOUSING HOUSEHOLD THAT
WE KNOW ARE LOW INCOME BECAUSE
THEY ARE BENEFITING FROM SOME
CITY GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE.
AND SO THE LOW INCOME HOUSING
PROJECTS THAT WE FUND THROUGH
THE HOUSING LEVY THROUGH THE
MULTI-FAMILY TAX EXEMPTION
PROGRAM THAT WOULD FOCUS THIS
LEGISLATION ON THAT GROUP
BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE
VERIFIED THE INCOMES AND WE
KNOW THEY ARE LOW INCOME AND IN
NEED AND ALSO IT IS REALLY THE
CITY TO WALK THE TALK.
AND THAT WE WILL APPLY IT TO
OUR PROGRAMS THAT WE ARE
SUPPORTING FINANCIALLY AS A
CITY GOVERNMENT.
WE ARE GOING TO APPLY IT
BECAUSE IT IS NOT THIS EVICTION
BAN THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE
CURRENT SYSTEMS.
SO BECAUSE THIS HAS NEVER BEEN
DONE ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED
STATES TO CAST THE WIDE NET
IMMEDIATELY APPLY IT TO THE
PRIVATE MARKET WITH UNATTENDED
CONSEQUENCES, FOCUSING IT IN ON
WHO WE KNOW TO BE LOW INCOME
AND WHO IS RECEIVING SUPPORT
FROM THE CITY OF SEATTLE
ALREADY, WHICH WE COULD IMPOSE
THIS RESTRICTION.
AND SO THAT'S THE PURPOSE.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
ABOUT IT.
>> DO COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE
ANY COMMENTS?
>> WELL, I MIGHT HAVE A GENERAL
COMMENT ABOUT THIS.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, AS WE THINK
ABOUT WHO IS DISPROPORTIONATELY
IMPACTED BY THE EVICTION IN
GENERAL IN THIS CITY, IT IS
TYPICALLY WOMEN, IT IS
TYPICALLY WOMEN OF COLOR.
WE HEARD ALICIA'S STORY ABOUT
THE IMPACT THAT IT HAS ON
FAMILIES, THE DEVASTATING
IMPACT THAT IT COULD HAVE ON
FAMILIES.
AND SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE
IS NO QUESTION WE ARE IN A
CRISIS IN THIS CITY AND IN A
HOMELESSNESS CRISIS.
I BELIEVE ANYTHING WE COULD DO
TO PREVENT ADDITIONAL PEOPLE
FROM BECOMING HOMELESS, WE
SHOULD DO.
SO AS IT RELATES TO THIS PIECE
OF LEGISLATION, I THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT WE THINK ABOUT
WAYS THAT WE COULD KEEP PEOPLE
FROM GETTING PUSHED OUT.
I THINK THEY ADDRESS MANY OF
THE CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE
WITH REGARDS TO, YOU KNOW,
BEING ABLE TO REMOVE THE TENANT
FROM YOUR HOME, FROM LIVING
INSIDE YOUR HOME, REMOVE THE
TENANT WHO IS ENGAGING IN
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
AND THOSE ARE IMPORTANT THINGS
TO CONSIDER AND I APPRECIATE
THE LANDLORD COMING FORWARD TO
DISCUSS THAT.
AND AS IT RELATES TO THIS
AMENDMENT, I THINK THE
CHALLENGE IS THAT THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD ELIMINATE MANY
OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY
EXPERIENCING EVICTION FROM
BENEFITING FROM THIS BILL.
A PART OF THE CHALLENGE IS THAT
PEOPLE STRUGGLE, THEY DON'T
QUALIFY FOR SOME OF THE HOUSING
ASSISTANCE THAT WE OFFER.
WE KNOW THAT MANY PEOPLE, THEY
ARE ON A WAITING LIST TO GET TO
THE HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
AND SO PEOPLE WHO ARE
EXPERIENCING EVICTION IF WE ARE
ONLY PROTECTING THOSE WHO
QUALIFY, THERE ARE HUGE STEPS
THAT WE ARE MISSING.
WE KNOW THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE
WHO ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE
THEY DON'T QUALIFY FOR THAT
HOUSING OR ARE ON A WAITING
LIST AND THEY ARE STILL
STRUGGLING TO PAY RENT.
AND THAT IS WHY THEY ARE
DEALING WITH THE EVICTION
BECAUSE WE JUST HAVEN'T KEPT
PACE AND PEOPLE ARE UNABLE TO
MAKE A PAYMENT, SOMETIMES A
SMALL PAYMENT, SOMETIMES IT IS
LARGER, GIVING THEM THE
OPPORTUNITY TO CURE THAT
PROBLEM WITHOUT BEING FACED
WITH HAVING TO GO OUT IN THE
STREET IN THE MIDDLE OF WINTER.
AND SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
FOR US TO PROVIDE PROTECTION
FOR PEOPLE TO THE EXTENT THAT
WE CAN AND THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT WE CAN DO TO REALLY MAKE
SURE THE FAMILIES AREN'T
STRUGGLING.
>> I THINK THE MERIT OF THE
AMENDMENT, I THINK IT HAS TO BE
BASED ON WHAT PROPORTION OF
RENTAL HOMES ARE, YOU KNOW,
FULFILLED ON THE CRITERIA AND
THAT YOU HAVE THIS UNIT WITH
THE CITY SUPPORT.
I BELIEVE THE NUMBER, SO THE
OVERALL NUMBER, ALI, YOU SHOULD
CORRECT ME IF YOU HAVE ANYMORE
CONFIRMATION.
BUT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF THE
RENTAL HOMES IS ABOUT 174,000
AND THE CITY AND ABOUT 17,000
RENTAL HOMES FULFILL THE
CRITERIA F BEING IN THE UNITS
WITH THE CITY SUPPORT.
AND SO IN OTHER WORDS IF THIS
AMENDMENT THAT IS BEING BROUGHT
FORWARD BY COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN IS ADOPTED, IT WOULD
LEAVE AND THE LEGISLATION
PASSES, THE LEGISLATION WOULD
NOT DO WHAT IT NEEDS TO DO
BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE LEFT 90%
OF THE TENANTS UNPROTECTED.
I MEAN THE NUMBER, IT IS HUGE.
AND IT WILL GO TO THE POINT
THAT COUNCIL MEMBER MORALES
MADE, WHICH IS AS A MATTER OF
FACT THE PROBLEM, THE PROBLEM
THAT THEY FACE THAT IS RELATED
TO THE INVESTMENTS WE WERE
DISCUSSING LAST NIGHT, WHICH IS
THERE IS NOT ENOUGH AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, SOCIAL HOUSING WITH
CITY-OWNED HOUSING TO GO
AROUND.
IT IS A VERY SMALL FRACTION OF
THE TOTAL HOUSING STOCK.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN, WHY
DON'T YOU GO?
>> SURE, THANK YOU.
JUST TO RESPOND TO THAT.
I GUESS USING THOSE NUMBERS, I
THINK YOU WERE USING THE ENTIRE
RENTAL STOCK?
I GUESS I'M TRYING TO FOCUS
>> I WOULD BE HAPPY FOR SEATTLE
TO DO THE RIGHT THING TO BE THE
CITY TO DO THE RIGHT THING.
WE HAVE DONE MANY THINGS AS THE
CITY.
ONE ONE OF THE FIRST CITIES TO
PASS $15 AN HOUR, AND I'M SURE
THERE ARE OTHER COMMENDABLE
THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED YEARS
BEFORE, WHERE SEATTLE WAS, THE
FIRST CITY TO DO THAT OR
WASHINGTON STATE MIGHT HAVE
BEEN THE FIRST STATE.
I DON'T THINK THAT, I MEAN IF
PEOPLE ARE FREEZING TO DEATH ON
THE STREETS OF PITTSBURGH OR
BOSTON, I DON'T THINK BECAUSE
OTHER CITIES DON'T HAVE THIS
BUYS OUR CITY MORE ABSOLUTION.
WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO DO
WHETHER IT HAD SOLUTION IS
AVAILABLE.
THE RENTERS COMMISSION HAVE
PROVIDED IT, THAT'S WHY WE'RE
HERE.
COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS AND THEN
JOHN.
>> RIGHT, AND THESE ARE ALSO, I
GUESS, SOME QUESTIONS FOR
COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN AND
ALSO POTENTIALLY CENTRAL STAFF.
BUT THIS IS SORT OF IN THE
CONTEXT OF OUR PREVIOUS
DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TYPES OF
RENTAL ARRANGEMENTS THIS
ORDINANC WOULD APPLY TO.
I MEAN I'M LOOKING AT THE
WEBSITE OF THE SEATTLE HOUSING
AUTHORITY RIGHT NOW, RIGHT?
IT LOOKS LIKE THEY TEND TO
ENTER INTO 12-MONTH LEASES WITH
FOLKS.
SO TO EXTEND THE COVERAGE TO
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY WOULD
INVOLVE EXTENDING IT TO 12-
MONTH LEASES, WHICH I THOUGHT
FROM OUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSION
THIS ORDINANCE WOULDN'T COVER.
IS THERE AN EXTRA HOOK BECAUSE
THERE ARE HOUSING DOLLARS
COVERING THE HOUSING UNITS OR
DID I MISUNDERSTOOD
MISUNDERSTAND PREVIOUSLY?
>> TO APPLY THE JUST CAUSE
EVICTION ORDINANCE WOULD
REQUIRE A SEPARATE ORDINANCE
THAT WOULD BE AMENDING THE JUST
CAUSE EVICTION ORDINANCE IN
GENERAL TO THE SEATTLE HOUSING
AUTHORITY SPECIFICALLY, IT
REALLY DEPENDS ON WHAT THAT
LEASE AGREEMENT LOOKS LIKE AND
WHETHER OR NOT IT TERMINATES
EXACTLY AT 12 MONTHS OR IF IT
SWITCHES TO A MONTH TO MONTH.
COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN'S
AMENDMENT IS NOT NECESSARILY
APPLYING TO ALL SEATTLE HOUSING
AUTHORITY PROJECTS.
IT WOULD APPLY TO PROJECTS THAT
HAVE CITY FUNDING, WHICH ARE
OFTEN, YOU KNOW, OFTENTIMES THE
CITY IS INVESTING IN PROJECTS
AND PARTNERING WITH THE SEATTLE
HOUSING AUTHORITY AS WELL AS
OTHER NON-PROFITS.
BUT THIS WOULD ALSO APPLY TO
DEVELOPERS WHO ARE
PARTICIPATING IN THIS CITY'S
MULTI-FAMILY TAX EXEMPTION
PROGRAM OR IF THE HOUSING WAS
DEVELOPED ON CITY-OWNED LAND OR
IF FOR OTHER REASONS THE CITY
HAS PROVIDED SOME FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE IN THE PAST AND
CONTINUES TO MONITOR AND
REGULATE THOSE UNITS.
I CAN'T SPEAK TO HOW ALL OF
THOSE ORGANIZATIONS OPERATE
THEIR BUSINESSES AND WHAT TYPES
OF LEASE AGREEMENTS THEY HAVE.
I WILL CERTAINLY LOOK INTO IT
AND SORT OF TO FOLLOW UP WITH
YOUR QUESTION TO FIGURE OUT HOW
TO ANSWER THAT.
I GUESS IN MY ROLE OF SORT OF
SEEING ALL SIDES OF AN ISSUE,
YOU COULD LOOK AT IT IN ONE WAY
AS THIS WOULD BE A WAY TO TEST
A POLICY AND SEE WHERE IT
APPLIES OR DOES NOT APPLY IN
ANOTHER APPROACH I HAD OUTLINED
IN THE E-MAIL THAT YOU HAD
QUOTED EARLIER.
IT WOULD BE TO APPLY IT TO JUST
LOW INCOME TENANTS GENERALLY.
I THINK THE CONSIDERATIONS HERE
WERE TENANTS WHO HAVE ALREADY
BEEN VETTED, WHO HAVE BEEN
QUALIFIED, INCOME QUALIFIED
VERSES ADDING A STEP THAT THE
CITY WOULD HAVE TO DO IN ORDER
TO INCOME TEST THE TENANTS
BEFORE OR THE COURTS TO
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THIS
PROTECTION OR LIMITATION ON
WHEN IT COULD BE ESCIENCE VICED
COULD BE APPLIED.
NOW CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
>> WELL SAID, THANK YOU, ALI.
>> YES, JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON
THAT TOO BECAUSE ACTUALLY ONE
THING THAT I DO LIKE ABOUT
COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN'S
ORDINANCE, THE MEANS TESTING IS
SORT OF BUILT IN TO IT, LIKE IT
IS ADMINISTERRABLE IN THAT
EFFECT.
BUT I WONDER IF IT WERE TO BE
-- IF THERE WERE TO BE A MEANS
TESTING THAT WAS NOT HOOKED TO
BEING IN A SEATTLE HOUSING
AUTHORITY PROPERTY, WHAT ARE
SOME OF THE TOOLS WE WOULD
HAVE?
LIKE WOULD THE PERSON IN COURT,
IN THE EVICTION PROCEEDING WHEN
THEY ARE TRYING TO ESTABLISH
THEIR DEFENSE, WHAT THEY NEED
TO ESTABLISH THAT THEY ARE IN
AN EARNING POSITION THAT WOULD
PUT THEM IN A LOW INCOME
CATEGORY THAT WE WOULD
ESTABLISH IN THE ORDINANCE?
AND SO WITH THE BURDEN BEYOND
THE PERSON DEFENDING AN
EVICTION TO PROVE IN THE
EVICTION COURT.
IS THAT HOW THAT WOULD BE
ADMINISTERED?
>> IT WOULD BE A DEFENSE FOR
THE TENANT.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE.
IT WOULD REALLY DEPEND ON A
NUMBER OF OPTIONS WE COULD LOOK
úAT OR YOU COULD LOOK AT, I
COULD HAVE WORKED WITH YOU TO
LOOK AT TO DEVELOP IN TERMS OF
HOW YOU MIGHT -- WHAT CRITERIA
YOU MIGHT HAVE.
IT COULD BE AN INCOME
QUALIFICATION.
FOR EXAMPLE FOR THE CITY'S
TENANT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
ORDINANCE, WHICH REQUIRES
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE UNDER
CERTAIN CONDITIONS IF THE
PROPERTY OWNER, FOR EXAMPLE, IS
REDEVELOPING THE PROPERTY, THEY
HAVE TO APPLY FOR A TENANT
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE LICENSE.
AND THAT REQUIRES ESSENTIALLY
DETERMINING WHICH TENANTS
QUALIFY BASED ON THEIR INCOME.
AND THERE IS A PROCESS
UNDERWHICH THE CITY VERIFIES
THAT.
I'M NOT SURE IF THE CITY HAS
REGULATIONS LIKE THIS, BUT I
KNOW OF OTHER AREAS FOR CERTAIN
THINGS AND THE TENANT QUALIFIES
IF THEY RECEIVE OTHER TYPES OF
ASSISTANCE.
SO SORT OF IF THEY ARE ALREADY
RECEIVING LIKE FOOD ASSISTANCE
OR CERTAIN MEDICAL ASSISTANCE,
IF THEY QUALIFY FOR OTHER
COUNTY, STATE, LOCAL PROGRAMS
THAT MIGHT BE THE TEST.
IF YOU QUALIFY FOR THAT, YOU
ARE DETERMINED TO BE LOW INCOME
FOR THE PURPOSES OF WHATEVER
THE REGULATION IS.
SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF WAYS
WE COULD GO HERE.
THIS ONE IS JUST BECAUSE WHEN A
UNIT IS UNDER SORT OF A
REGULATORY AGREEMENT WITH THE
CITY, THEY NOT ONLY HAVE TO BE
QUALIFIED WHEN THEY MOVE IN,
BUT THERE IS A RECERTIFICATION
PROCESS AND THE CITY MONITORS
TO ENSURE THE UNITS THAT THE
CITY INVESTED IN THAT THEY ARE
MEETING THE RENT AND INCOME
RESTRICTIONS AND SURVEYING THE
POPULATIONS THAT WERE INTENDED.
>> AND I HAVE ALICIA WHO ALSO
WANTED TO SPEAK, THEN JOHN, AND
TED WANTED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING
BASED ON THE DISCUSSION.
>> AND SO WE RENTED FROM A
PRIVATELY OWNED CORPORATION
THAT OWNED OUR COMPLEX.
AM I CORRECT TO SAY THAT WE
WOULD NOT BE COVERED UNDER THIS
ORDINANCE?
>> RIGHT NOW THE ORDINANCE
WOULD COVER YOU.
>> THE AMENDMENTS.
>> OKAY.
>> THE AMENDMENT THAT WOULD NOT
COVER US?
>> AND SO ARE WE HAVING OTHERS
AT THE TABLE AS WELL?
>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN?
>> WELL, I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF
ANY SMALL LANDLORD GROUPS WERE
GOING TO JOIN US.
OKAY, JUST CHECKING.
>> BUT THAT DOESN'T CHANGE WHAT
ALICIA IS SAYING ABOUT HER
CASE.
>> YES, I JUST WANTED TO TAKE A
STEP BACK AND UNDERSTAND HOW
YOU ARE RUNNING THIS PARTICULAR
MEETING.
>> THERE IS NOTHING -- I DO
WANT TO SAY I DON'T APPRECIATE
YOU INSINUATING THERE IS
SOMETHING PROBLEMATIC ABOUT
RUNNING THE MEETING.
AND IT IS A RENTER WHO HAS GONE
THROUGH AN ABSOLUTELY
CATASTROPHIC EXPERIENCE BECAUSE
OF EVICTION RENTERS MONTH.
AND I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE
ELECTED OFFICIALS SHOWING SOME
RESPECT FOR OUR CONSTITUENTS,
OUR COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHO HAVE
GONE THROUGH SO MUCH BECAUSE
THE LAWS IN OUR CITY DO NOT
PROTECT RENTERS WHO ARE BEING
EXPLOITED AND WHO ARE BEING
SORT OF THROWN THROUGH THE
CRACKS.
>> THAT WAS NOT THE INTENT,
THAT WAS NOT MY INTENT.
>> WELL, IT DOES COME ACROSS
LIKE THAT.
>> I WANTED TO ADD PEOPLE TO
THE TABLE.
>> I DON'T GO TO OTHER COUNCIL
MEMBER COMMITTEES AND QUESTION
HOW THEY ARE ORGANIZED BECAUSE
IT IS YOUR PREROGATIVE AS
CHAIR.
IF I DON'T POLITICALLY AGREE
WITH SOMETHING, I WILL JUST SAY
IT, BUT THAT'S FINE.
YOU ARE FREE TO BRING YOUR
AMENDMENT.
BUT LET'S HAVE THE COMMITTEE
MEETING.
>> YES, I JUST WANTED TO ADD
PEOPLE TO THE TABLE AND I'M
HAPPY TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS,
SO THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
BUT REALLY MY INTENT WAS TO ADD
PEOPLE TO THE TABLE.
AND SO THAT'S RIGHT.
IT HAD IS FOCUSED, THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD FOCUS ON FOLKS
WHO ARE IN HOMES OR APARTMENTS
FUNDED BY THE SEATTLE HOUSING
LEVY, MFTE PROGRAM, SEATTLE
HOUSING AUTHORITY IF THEY ARE
GETTING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.
AND THE IDEA IS TO START THE
PROCESS, TO HAVE A LAW IN PLACE
THAT WOULD PREVENT THESE
EVICTIONS, SUPPLEMENT THAT WITH
FUNDING THAT WE WOULD PROVIDE
EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE.
AND TO SPEAK TO COUNCIL MEMBER
MORALES' POINT, I AGREE THAT
THIS IS JUST A SUBSET THAT
WOULD BE WITHIN THE EVICTION
RESTRICTIONS, BUT WE ALSO NEED
TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE, SO THAT WE CAN, YOU
KNOW, TARGET THE MONEY, PEOPLE
HAVE A NEED TO GET THAT MONEY
TO YOU.
SO I WOULD WANT TO HELP GROUPS
IN PRIVATE MARKET HOUSING.
>> WELL, I JUST WANTED TO
CLARIFY THAT THE WHOLE IDEA OF
MITIGATION FUNDS, I MEAN IT HAD
ARE FUNDS THAT EXIST AND WE
HAVE HAD A LONG DISCUSSION
ABOUT IT.
BUT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR
US TO RECOGNIZE THAT THIS WHOLE
IDEA OF MITIGATION FUND AS SOME
SORT OF AN ALTERNATIVE TO JUST
LAWS LIKE THIS ONE.
I MEAN THIS LAW ALONE IS NOT
GOING TO PROTECT RENTERS, BUT
IT IS A PART OF THE RENTERS
BILL OF RIGHTS THAT WE NEED.
WE HAVE ALREADY DONE THE LAW
THAT PROTECTS RENTERS FROM
BEING, FROM FACING RENT
INCREASES WHEN THEY HAVE
OUTSTANDING HOUSING CODE
VIOLATIONS.
THERE WAS A LAW PASSED DESPITE
THE TREMENDOUS LANDLORDS AND
THE CAP PLAN.
SO ALL OF THESE INDIVIDUAL
RENTERS' RIGHTS, LEGISLATIONS
WE HAVE BEEN PASSING ARE
HOPEFULLY A PART OF A FULL
FLEDGE RENTERS' BILL OF RIGHTS,
AND SO, YOU KNOW, NO ONE LAW IS
GOING TO ENSURE BY ITSELF.
HOWEVER, THESE LAWS ARE
NECESSARY BECAUSE THIS IDEA OF
MITIGATION FUND IS AN
ALTERNATIVE TO ALL THESE LEGAL
PROTECTIONS FOR RENTERS IS
PREMISED THAT RENTERS ARE
REFUSING TO PAY THEIR RENTS OR,
YOU KNOW, THAT SOMEHOW THERE IS
SOME EPIDEMIC OF RENTERS NOT
PAYING THEIR RENT, AND SOMEHOW
IF WE MAKE SURE WE HAVE SOME
SORT OF OTHER ALTERNATIVE TO
MAKE RENTERS PAY THE RENT, WE
WILL BE ABLE TO SOLVE THIS
PROBLEM.
THE PROBLEM IS NOT THAT RENTERS
DON'T PAY RENT AS JOHN WAS
SAYING.
RENTERS MOVE HEAVEN AND EARTH
TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THE RENT
BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY DON'T
WANT AN EVICTION.
AND WE SHOULD ALSO KEEP IN MIND
THAT IT HAD DOES NOT, YOU KNOW,
RENT-FREE CAR OR ANYTHING.
BUT THIS LEGISLATION MERELY
SAYS YOU CANNOT BE EVICTED
EXCEPT FOR, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN
EXCEPTIONS THAT ALI ALREADY
LAID OUT IN THE WINTER MONTHS.
SO IN OTHER WORDS THIS IS A
QUESTION OF HUMANITY.
IT IS A HUMANE LAW TO MAKE SURE
THAT PEOPLE ESPECIALLY WITH
FAMILIES LIKE NANCY RANKIN
SAID, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE MOST
IMPACTED ARE WOMEN WHO RENT TO
FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN.
AND MITIGATION FUNDS COULD NOT
BE ACCESSED TYPICALLY FOR ONE
OR TWO WEEKS AFTER THE EVICTION
NOTICE LAID OUT.
BY THAT TIME THE FAMILIES ARE
GOING TO BE OUT IN THE STREETS.
SO IT'S NOT AN ALTERNATIVE.
I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD ALLOW
THE PUBLIC TO THINK IT IS AN
ALTERNATIVE, IT'S ACTUALLY NOT.
GO AHEAD, JOHN.
>> YEAH, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT
THE AMENDMENT AND THE PROPOSAL
TO ONLY LIMIT THIS TO CITY-
OWNED PROPERTIES BECAUSE
SOMEHOW WE SHOULD HAVE A MEANS
TEST, SO THAT -- RICH PEOPLE
AREN'T GETTING EVICTED.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY WEALTHY
PEOPLE AT THE TENANT'S UNION
COMING ASKING US FOR HELP.
THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE
ALREADY STRUGGLING.
SO MEANS TESTING IS KIND OF
BUILT IN TO THE EVICTION
PROCESS ALREADY.
IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT BECAUSE
RICH PEOPLE AREN'T GETTING
EVICTED.
WHAT IS THE POINT IN IT IS JUST
ANOTHER LAYER OF BUREAUCRACY
THAT WE DO NOT NEED.
THIS IS COMPLETELY POINTLESS.
WHY?
THERE IS NO POINT TO IT AT ALL.
>> IT'S TRUE AND ALSO THE STUDY
THAT WE ACTUALLY COVERED IN MY
COMMITTEE LAST YEAR AND SOME OF
YOU, ACTUALLY NONE OF YOU WERE
THERE.
JUST VERY QUICKLY, I WILL SHARE
BECAUSE YOU ARE NEW INCOMING
COUNCIL MEMBERS.
BUT A STUDY BY TIM THOMAS, I
THINK, RESEARCH PROFESSOR AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON.
HE DID A SURVEY THAT PROVES
STATISTICALLY WHAT JOHN WAS
JUST SAYING THAT THE PEOPLE WHO
FACE EVICTION ARE ALMOST
ENTIRELY EXTREMELY LOW INCOME
AND VULNERABLE PEOPLE.
AND WITHIN THAT IT'S AFRICAN
AMERICAN WOMEN WHO ARE THE MOST
IMPACTED BY EVICTIONS.
AND SO I DO BELIEVE JOHN IS
MAKING A VERY IMPORTANT POINT
THAT MEANS TESTING IS BUILT IN
TO WHO GETS EVICTED.
I THINK THIS SORT OF ADDRESSES
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS YOU
RAISED, WHICH WAS A GOOD ONE.
>> I CAME OVER TO THE TABLE TO
SPEAK TO A POINT THAT WAS
RAISED EARLIER ABOUT LEASES.
THE QUESTION ABOUT LEASES.
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT
BECAUSE WE HAVE LOOKED INTO
THIS ISSUE IN THE PAST.
AND SO THE JUST CAUSE EVICTION
ORDINANCE DOES NOT HELP OUT
PEOPLE WHO ARE ON A LEASE AT
THE END OF THE LEASE AND THE
LANDLORD DOESN'T WANT TO RENEW
THE LEASE.
BUT IN TERMS OF IF YOU'RE IN
THE MIDDLE OF THE LEASE AND YOU
HAVE A HEALTH EMERGENCY AND YOU
DON'T MAKE YOUR RENT, YOU KNOW,
THEN THIS LAW WOULD APPLY.
LIKE IF YOU'RE GETTING EVICTED
THROUGH, YOU KNOW, ANY OF THOSE
NORMAL THINGS, WHETHER OR NOT
YOU HAVE A LEASE, THIS WOULD
APPLY.
IT IS JUST THAT POINT ABOUT
RENEWING LEASES AT THE END OF
THE LEASE THAT THE WHOLE JUST
CAUSE EVICTION STRUCTURE
DOESN'T JUST.
>> AND JUST TO ADD TO THAT, I
HOPE COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS, THAT
SORT OF ANSWERS ONE OF
QUESTIONS ABOUT LEASED TENANTS?
>> WELL, LET ME CLARIFY A
LITTLE BIT.
MY UNDERSTANDING FROM MY
EXCHANGE EARLIER WITH CENTRAL
STAFF WAS IF YOU WERE KIND OF
LOCKED IN TO A 12-MONTH LEASE,
THE PROCESS THAT WOULD APPLY
WOULD BE THE PROCESS THAT THE
STATE HAS PROVIDED RENT AND THE
JUST CAUSE.
LATELY, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE
ENTERED A LEASE AS A LANDLORD,
RIGHT, YOU CAN'T JUST BREAK THE
LEASE UNLESS THE TENANT IS
VIOLATING SOME TERMS, I MEAN
THE TENANT HAS RIGHTS IF YOU
ENTERED INTO A 12-MONTH LEASE.
I UNDERSTAND HOW IT WOULD APPLY
ON A MONTH TO MONTH OR THAT
SITUATION.
I GUESS I'M JUST A LITTLE
UNCLEAR STILL BECAUSE IT
DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THERE IS
REALLY MUCH DISTINCTION AT ALL
FROM WHAT THE PRESENTATION WE
JUST HEARD.
>> I WAS TRYING TO PULL UP THE
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDINANCE.
I'M HAVING TECHNICAL
DIFFICULTIES, BUT THE SEATTLE
DEPARTMENT CONSTRUCTION
INSPECTION WEBSITE SAYS THE
JUST CAUSE EVICTION ORDINANCE
DOES NOT APRY TO TERMINATING
LEASES THAT END ON A SPECIFIC
DATE WITH NO RIGHT TO HOLD
OVER.
SO I WILL NEED TO CONFIRM WHAT
YOU ARE SAYING, AND I WON'T BE
ABLE TO DO THAT ON THE FLY, BUT
I WILL CONFIRM THAT.
AND SO IF IT IS AN EVICTION DUE
TO SOMETHING THAT IS NOT A
VIOLATION OF THE LEASE TERM,
YOU KNOW, IT ISN'T A MONTH-TO-
MONTH LEASE.
I NEED TO GET SOME
CLARIFICATION, AND SO I WILL
FOLLOW UP WITH YOU TOMORROW.
TO CONFIRM SORT OF EXACTLY
WHERE THE LINE IS UNDER WHAT
TENANCIES THIS DOES APPLY AND
WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES IT WOULD
NOT.
>> OKAY, THANKS.
BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING COMING
IN TO THIS WAS CLEARER THAN
WHERE IT IS RIGHT NOW ON THAT
ISSUE.
BUT I DO HAVE SOME OTHER
COMMENTS IF THAT WOULD BE
APPROPRIATE?
>> YES, ABSOLUTELY.
>> SO I MEAN ONE THING I WANT
TO CLARIFY TO IT I THINK FOR
JOHN AND COUNCIL MEMBER SAWANT
IS, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST MY
INQUIRERS, TO SPEAK FOR COUNCIL
MEMBER PEDERSEN, BUT MY INQUIRY
ON THE MEANS TESTING WERE NOT
NECESSARILY TO IMPLY THAT WE
HAVE THIS EPIDEMIC OF RICH
PEOPLE NOT PAYING RENT.
I THINK GOING BACK TO THE FACT
THAT COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN
MADE EARLIER, YOU KNOW, THE
NATURE OF THIS ORDINANCE AND
BEING ABROAD NEW LAW AND NOT
BEING PRECEDENTED IN THE UNITED
STATES DOES CLUE US TO THINK
ABOUT SOME OF THE POTENTIAL
IMPLICATIONS OF THE ORDINANCE.
I MEAN ONE OF THOSE COULD BE AN
EXCHANGE AND I'M NOT SAYING
THIS WOULD HAPPEN IS THAT
BECAUSE YOU COULD BE IN A
POSITION WHERE YOU ARE NOT AT
RISK OF BEING EVICTED FOR NOT
PAYING RENT.
PEOPLE MAY ELECT TO DO SO.
I DO NOT THINK THEY WOULD.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO ASK SOME
QUESTIONS ABOUT IT TO CENTRAL
STAFF AND ASK THEM QUESTIONS
ABOUT IT TO MY COLLEAGUES TO
ENSURE WE ARE STRUCTURING AN
ORDINANCE TO WITHSTAND THAT
KIND OF SCRUTINY WHERE PEOPLE
OF MEANS ARE FOR WHATEVER
REASON NOT PAYING RENT.
AGAIN I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING
TO HAPPEN, BUT I WANT TO
CLARIFY THAT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T
ANTICIPATE SOMETHING LIKE THAT
HAPPENING.
I DO COMPLETELY RESPECT AND
UNDERSTAND, AGAIN, ALSO AS A
RENTER THAT MEANS TESTING IS
BUILT IN TO THE EVICTION
PROCESS, AND THAT THIS IS A
TOOL THAT IS MUCH MORE BROADLY
USED AGAINST FOLKS THAT ARE ON
THE MARGINS.
THAT DO NOT HAVE OPPORTUNITY
UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM, SO I
WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR AND I
DID APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS ON
THAT.
I THINK I'M READY TO SORT OF
SPEAK MORE BROADLY IN MY
THOUGHTS ON THE AMENDMENT AND
THE RESOLUTION OR THE PROPOSED
ORDINANCE IF THAT WOULD BE
APPROPRIATE NOW.
>> AND ALSO SPEAKING TO THE
AMENDMENT UNDER THE QUESTION?
>> YES.
>> YES, COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN'S AMENDMENT.
GO AHEAD.
FIRST I DO WANT TO THANK
COUNCIL MEMBER SAWANT AND
COUNCIL MEMBER SAWANT'S STAFF
THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS OF
DISCUSSING THIS ORDINANCE.
I THINK THAT YOU HAVE BEEN VERY
DILIGENT IN ANTICIPATING
POSSIBLE CRITICISMS OF THE
ORDINANCE IN ADOPTING IT
CONSIDERABLY TO THE FEEDBACK.
A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT I HAD
SORT OF PREPARED MYSELF TO COME
TO THE COMMITTEE TODAY TO
PROPOSE THIS POTENTIAL
AMENDMENT.
AND NONE WERE ACTUALLY COVERED
BY THE SUBSTITUTE ORDINANCE.
I JUST WANT TO COMMEND, YOU
KNOW, JUST TO CENTRAL STAFF,
EVERYONE ON YOUR TEAM FOR
INCORPORATING THOSE THINGS.
I DO WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR FOR
THE RECORD THAT SOME OF THOSE
AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PASSED
EARLIER IN THE SUBSTITUTE BILL
THAT ARE NOW BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE DID INCLUDE THINGS
LIKE AS A FORMER PROSECUTOR WHO
HAS SEEN A LOT OF EVICTIONS AND
A LOT OF FOLKS WHO HAVE HAD THE
CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES OCCUR.
>> SORRY, CAN YOU SAY THAT
AGAIN?
>> SURE, AS A PROSECUTOR WHO
HAS SEEN A LOT OF CASES WHERE
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OCCURRED IN
THE CONCERN OF THE RENTAL UNIT,
IT WAS CERTAINLY ONE OF MY
CONCERNS THAT POTENTIALLY YOU
COULD HAVE AN ON GOING CRIMINAL
ENTERPRISE IN A UNIT THAT IS IN
EXCELLENT CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE
LANDLORD.
IF SOMEONE IS, YOU KNOW,
COOKING METH IN A UNIT, YOU
CAN'T EVICT THEM FOR SEVERAL
MONTHS.
THAT WOULD BE A BIG CONCERN,
YOU KNOW, UNDER THE CURRENT
ORDINANCES THAT WE HAVE JUST
PROPOSED THAT IT WOULD NOT
HAPPEN.
I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR FOR
EVERYONE WHO IS IN THE AUDIENCE
AND JUST FOR THE RECORD OF THE
COMMITTEE.
I THINK THAT IS A REAL
IMPORTANT CONCESSION.
THERE'S EIGHT TOTAL CONCESSIONS
TO IMPOSING AN EVICTION ON
FOLKS, WELL TO BLOCKING AND
DEFENDING THE EVICTION THAT WE
HAVE JUST APPROVED BY AMENDING
THE ORDINANCE.
SO YOU KNOW, I DO INTEND FOR
THE PURPOSES OF THIS COMMITTEE
HEARING TO VOTE, TO PASS THAT
ORDINANCE OF THE FULL COUNCIL.
I STILL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS AND
SOME CONCERNS BASED ON MY
CONVERSATION WITH CENTRAL STAFF
DURING THIS COMMITTEE, HEARING
FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE WHO I THINK MADE A
GOOD AND STRONG POINT.
I COMMEND COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN WHO HAS SOME GOOD
THOUGHTFUL QUESTIONS ABOUT SOME
THINGS THAT I THINK SOME
VULNERABILITIES OF THE
ORDINANCE THAT I WANT TO LOOK
AT POTENTIALLY WITH CENTRAL
STAFF AND YOUR OFFICE.
I WOULD CERTAINLY LIKE TO LOOK
AT SOME KIND OF A MITIGATION
FUND.
I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT,
NOT AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE
ORDINANCE, BUT AS SOME KIND OF
A MECHANISM IN A CASE WHERE IT
WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO
COMPENSATE A LANDLORD IF THERE
WAS A LONG PERIOD OF TIME
UNDER, WELL WHERE THE EVICTION
IS DELAYED IN APRIL, WHERE IT
WOULD BE A HARDSHIP FOR A SMALL
LANDLORD TO ABSORB THAT COST.
I THINK SOME KIND OF --
>>
DO YOU MEAN BUILT INTO THE
ORDINANCE?
>> YES.
I MEAN BUILT INTO THE
ORDINANCE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T
KNOW WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE
AND I WILL TALK TO ALI ABOUT
HOW SOMETHING LIKE THAT MIGHT
BE APPROACHABLE, BUT IT'S ONE
OF THE THINGS ALI DID HIGHLIGHT
IN THE MEMO SHE SENT TO US ON
JANUARY 10, THE POSSIBILITY OF
LOOKING INTO SOMETHING LIKE
THAT.
BASED ON MY QUESTIONING EARLIER
SOUNDS LIKE IT WOULD REQUIRE
SOME POTENTIAL APPROPRIATION.
BUT AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THE
SCALE OR THE SCOPE OF HOW MANY
EVICTIONS A YEAR THIS ORDINANCE
WOULD BE ANTICIPATED TO PREVENT
AND HOW MANY MONTHS OF RENT
THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY PUT OUT
A LANDLORD FOR.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO LOOK INTO
THAT TO SEE WHAT THE FISCAL
NOTE ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT
MIGHT BE AS THE POTENTIAL
AMENDMENT.
I DEFINITELY WANT TO TAKE A
LOOK AT, I MEAN, MOSTLY THAT.
THE QUESTION ON THE OTHER
ISSUES WERE FAIRLY, HAVE BEEN
FAIRLY RESOLVED, THOUGH I'M
GOING TO TOUCH BASE PROBABLY
ONLINE WITH SOME OF THOSE FOLKS
TO ASK A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS.
I THINK WE DO KNOW.
IT IS CLEAR THAT 78% OF THOSE
AMERICANS WILL LIVE PAYCHECK TO
PAYCHECK AND A LOT OF THOSE
FOLKS ARE RENTERS.
I'M THE ONLY COMMITTEE MEMBER
WHO IS A RENTER.
I HAVE BEEN IN SITUATIONS WHERE
I HAVE FELT RENT BURDENED
EARLIER IN MY CAREER.
NOT AS A PROFESSIONAL, BUT
PREVIOUSLY.
AND 50% OF AMERICANS TODAY
CAN'T ABSORB $500 OR MORE AND
DON'T HAVE THE SAVINGS TO COVER
THAT.
IN A LOT OF CASES THAT
EMERGENCY IS IN RENT AND THEY
DON'T HAVE THAT MONEY TO PAY
FOR IT.
AND SO I DO APPRECIATE THE
SPIRIT IN WHICH THIS ORDINANCE
HAS BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD.
I APPRECIATE A LOT OF THE
PROACTIVE CHANGES THAT WERE
MADE.
THERE'S OTHER AREAS THAT I WANT
TO LOOK TO IMPROVE UPON, BUT I
THINK FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS
HEARING, I AM HAPPY TO VOTE TO
SEND IT FORWARD.
I WOULD ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE TO
SPEAK TO COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN'S AMENDMENT.
I DO THINK HIS AMENDMENT WOULD
PROBABLY WARRANT THE
CONSIDERATION OF THE FULL
COUNCIL AS WELL.
I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE THIS
CONVERSATION WITH THE REST OF
OUR COLLEAGUES POTENTIALLY.
I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN
WOULD BE FULLY WITHIN HIS
RIGHTS TO REINTRODUCE IT WHEN
WE CONVENE AS A FULL COUNCIL
FOR THE CONSIDERATION.
I DO THINK THERE IS SOME VALUE
IN TALKING ABOUT A CHANGE, A
NEW REGULATION, UNPRECEDENTED
TO ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONSE.
I KNOW A LOT OF FOLKS DON'T
LIKE SEEING IT AS A COMPROMISE
OR A RETREAT, BUT TO SPEAK TO
COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN'S
INTENTIONS, I REALLY DO THINK
IT IS ABOUT LAYING THE SOUND
GROUND WORK TO BUILD OVERTIME,
WHERE IT IS WARRANTED, BUT I'M
HAPPY TO CONTINUE TO HAVE THAT
CONVERSATION.
THERE IS STILL A LITTLE MORE
WORK TO BE DONE, BUT THAT'S HOW
I WILL BE VOTING TONIGHT.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH COUNCIL
MEMBER LEWIS FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
ON YOUR LAST POINT, YEAH, THE
REASON I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH
THE AMENDMENT THAT COUNCIL
MEMBER PEDERSEN IS PRESENTED IS
BECAUSE MOST OF THE DATA SHOWS
MOST OF THE EVICTIONS ARE AWARE
THEY ARE HAPPENING WITH THE
PRIVATE LANDLORDS.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANTED TO
ADD ANYTHING, JOHN?
>> DURING THIS DISCUSSION I WAS
ABLE TO GET SOME HELP TO GET
SOME DATA.
WE DON'T HAVE THE CITY WIDE
DATA ON THE EVICTIONS, WHO IS
EVICTING THE PRIVATE LANDLORDS
OR IF THEY ARE OPERATING WITH
THE CITY SUPPORT, BUT I CAN
TELL YOU LAST YEAR OUR COUNCIL
OFFICE PARTNERED WITH SEATTLE
TO DO A WHOLE SCALE AT LEAST
WITH DISTRICT THREE TO LOOK AT
EACH BUILDING, EACH LANDLORD,
EACH APARTMENT EVEN TO SEE
ABOUT CODE VIOLATIONS AND THE
OTHER THINGS INCLUDING
EVICTIONS.
WHAT THEY SHOW IN THE THREE
YEARS BETWEEN DISTRICT THREE IN
2016 THROUGH 2018, THREE OF THE
TOP FOUR EVICTORS THE LANDLORD
WERE PRIVATE DEVELOPERS, THEY
THRIVE WITH THE EVICTIONS AND
WITH 163.
MOSTLY CAPTURED BY YOUR
AMENDMENT, MAYBE.
143, THE OTHER PRIVATE
CORPORATE LANDLORD WITH 117
EVICTIONS.
WHILE I DON'T HAVE THE DATA,
CORNELL AND ASSOCIATES, ANOTHER
NAME THAT CAME UP.
WE WERE DOING A LOT OF HOUSE
VISITS AROUND THAT TIME, AROUND
RENT CONTROL.
SO WE WENT OUT AND TALKED TO
PEOPLE IN THESE BUILDINGS.
I CAN TELL YOU THEY HAD
HORRIFIC STORIES OF JUST
NEIGHBORS WHO HAD BEEN EVICTED
OR THEMSELVES HAVEN'T BEEN
EVICTED IN SIMILAR
CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PREVIOUS
RENTALS.
AND SO IT IS ALL ANONYMOUS THAT
YOU'LL GET THE EVICTION NOTICE
AND PRETTY MUCH A DEATH
SENTENCE THAT YOU NEED TO MOVE.
AND SO THAT WAS AT LEAST OUR
EXPERIENCE IN DATA IN DISTRICT
THREE IN TERMS OF THE DATA, WHO
HAS BEEN DRIVING MOST OF THE
EVICTIONS.
I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT WE DID
HOUSE VISITS ON RENT CONTROL IN
DISTRICT FOUR.
AND THE PRIMARY CULPRIT THERE,
AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE DATA ON
THIS, BUT THE COMMUNITIES,
MAYBE YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THEM
AND BIG CORPORATE LANDLORDS,
ESPECIALLY OF STUDENTS AND
PEOPLE WHO WORK IN THE
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, THEY
ARE BUYING PROPERTIES UP AND
DOWN THAT REGION IN THAT AREA.
AND WE RAN INTO A LOT OF
STORIES OF STUDENTS AND LOW AND
MODERATE INCOME WORKERS AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON WHO
HAD FACED EVICTION WHO HAD
FRIENDS WHO FACED EVICTIONS AND
IN OTHER BUILDINGS.
AND IN THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT.
AND THEY WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT
BUILDINGS THAT WERE PUBLICLY
OWNED OR MFTE.
THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT PURELY
PRIVATE ARRANGEMENTS, WHERE NO
CITY DOLLAR WOULD TOUCH THE
PROPERTY.
AND THESE PEOPLE, THEY
OBVIOUSLY WOULD NOT BE COVERED
UNDER THE AMENDMENT THAT HAS
BEEN PROPOSED.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER SAWANT, JUST
A QUICK COMMENT.
JONATHAN, THANK YOU FOR THAT.
I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT
THOUGH LIKE IN FAIRNESS,
BECAUSE I REMEMBER THIS ARTICLE
FROM SEVERAL YEARS AGO, FROM
SEATTLE'S RECORD, THE STRANGER.
APRIL 25 OF 2019.
AND BY HEIDI THAT DETAILED
THIS.
I JUST REMEMBER IT BECAUSE OF
OUR CONVERSATION TODAY THAT
SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY, AT
LEAST IN THAT ARTICLE, AND I'M
HAPPY TO CIRCULATE THIS.
THEY DID HAVE A VERY HIGH, I
MEAN THAT'S JUST ONE PROVIDER
OF PUBLIC HOUSING, BUT THEY DID
HAVE A PRETTY SENSATIONAL
EVICTION RECORD.
IT LOOKS LIKE IN THE FIVE YEARS
PRIOR TO THE ARTICLE, 473
EVICTIONS INITIATED IN THE
AVERAGE OF TWO EVICTION CASES
FILED PER WEEK, SOMETIMES FOR
AMOUNTS OF MONEY AS $49, $155.
I DID JUST WANT TO PUT THAT
INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD.
AND I KNOW THAT IN THE
AGGREGATE THAT THE PRIVATE
MARKET IS MUCH BIGGER.
OBVIOUSLY THE PRIVATE MARKET IS
GOING TO HAVE FAR MORE
EVICTIONS.
I THINK DEFINITELY IT IS
APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER
REGULATION THAT WOULD COVER THE
PRIVATE MARKET, BUT I DID JUST
WANT TO PUT OUT THERE THAT FOR
A MATTER OF THE PUBLIC RECORD
TODAY THAT THERE IS A
CONSIDERABLE DOCUMENT AND
FRANKLY EGREGIOUS RECORD FROM
THE SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY
OF INITIATING EVICTIONS AGAINST
FOLKS THAT ARE COMPLETELY
INDIGENT, SO I JUST WANTED TO
SHARE THAT.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
LEWIS AND COUNCIL MEMBER
MORALES?
>> YES, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT
IN MY MIND IT REALLY DOESN'T
EVICTION BY PRIVATE KING ABOUT
CORPORATIONS OR IF WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT EVICTION OF
PEOPLE FROM PUBLIC HOUSING OR
SOME PUBLIC ENTITY OR SOME
APARTMENT BUILDING THAT HAS
SOME SMALL DEGREE OF PUBLIC
FUNDING IN IT.
THE POINT IS THAT PEOPLE ARE
GETTING PUT OUT ON THE STREET,
INDIVIDUALS, CHILDREN, WOMEN,
PEOPLE OF COLOR, AND THAT IS
THE ISSUE THAT WE ARE DEALING
WITH HERE.
I THINK WE HAVE TO REMEMBER
THAT THESE AREN'T JUST
STATISTICS, THESE AREN'T JUST
PERCENTAGES AND, YOU KNOW, THE
ISSUE ISN'T WHO IS EVICTED
MORE, BUT THE ISSUE IS PEOPLE
ARE GETTING EVICTED DURING THE
WINTER MONTHS, WE'RE TRYING TO
PROTECT THEM FROM THAT REALITY.
AND I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO
CENTER THE EXPERIENCE OF PEOPLE
WHO HAVE BEEN EVICTED AND WHO
ARE TELLING US THAT THIS IS A
TRAUMATIC EXPERIENCE THAT IS
VERY HARD TO RECOVER FROM.
IF WE CAN PREVENT SOMETHING
LIKE THAT FROM HAPPENING, THEN
WE COULD POTENTIALLY KEEP
PEOPLE INTO STABLE HOUSING,
REPAIR A RELATIONSHIP HOPEFULLY
BETWEEN A TENANT AND A
LANDLORD, AND KEEP A FAMILY
FROM GETTING TOSSED OUT ONTO
THE STREETS.
I APPRECIATE THAT THERE IS MORE
DATA THAT WE NEED PERHAPS TO
UNDERSTAND THE SCOPE OF WHAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BETTER, TO
UNDERSTAND THE COST OF WHAT
OTHER PROGRAMMING, OTHER
FUNDING WE MIGHT NEED TO BE
THINKING ABOUT, AND THAT SHOULD
ALSO COME WITH SOME REAL
STRATEGIES FOR HOW WE'RE GOING
TO FIND THAT MONEY AND HOW
WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE IT.
BUT I DON'T WANT US TO LOSE
SIGHT OF THE FACTS THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUALS WHOSE
LIVES ARE RUINED FOR BEING
TOSSED OUT ONTO THE STREETS.
THAT'S NOT TO SAY WE ALSO NEED
TO PROTECT SMALL LANDLORDS.
BUT WHETHER IT IS PUBLIC OR
PRIVATE CORPORATIONS, WHAT WE
REALLY NEED TO BE FOCUSED ON IS
KEEPING PEOPLE SAFE.
>> I REALLY APPRECIATE THE
POINTS, COUNCIL MEMBER MORALES.
AND YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
IT'S ABOUT PEOPLE, THESE ARE
NOT JUST OBJECTS WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT.
AND IN RESPONSE TO COUNCIL
MEMBER LEWIS, THANK YOU FOR
SHARING ACTUALLY, AND THE
STRANGER DID DO SOME GOOD
REPORTING ON THAT.
I'M JUST LAUGHING BECAUSE YOU
SAID PAPER RECORD.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>> YES.
AND IN MANY WAYS IT PROBABLY
IS.
BUT WELL YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY
RIGHT.
I MEAN FIRST OF ALL JUST TO
COUNCIL MEMBER MORALES, IT
DOESN'T MATTER WHAT KIND OF
LANDLORD WE ARE TALKING ABOUT,
WE NEED TO PROTECT FAMILIES
FROM BEING EVICTED IN THE
WINTER MONTHS.
AND AGAIN THAT'S ALL THIS
LEGISLATION WILL DO AND IT DOES
NOT PROVIDE EVERY SINGLE
PROTECTION RIGHTS.
BUT ON COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS'
POINT, IT IS ABSOLUTELY
ACCURATE WHAT YOU JUST
REPORTED.
AND IN FACT THERE HAS BEEN A
LONG TRACK RECORDS OF THE
SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY BEING
A VERY SORT OF CRUEL LANDLORD
AND IN FACT SOME OF YOU MIGHT
REMEMBER, I DON'T KNOW IF ALI,
YOU WERE HERE THAT TIME, BUT IN
SEPTEMBER OF 2014 BECAUSE I
MEAN THE SEATTLE HOUSING
AUTHORITY IS NOT A CITY
AUTHORITY, BUT IT IS HARD
FUNDED, SO IT WILL BE A FEDERAL
MANDATE.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
INSTITUTED A PROGRAM CALLED
STEPPING FORWARD, GOING TO
INCREASE THE RENT BY 400%.
AND PROBABLY MORE THAN THAT.
SOME PEOPLE SAID 500%.
BUT ANY WAY THIS IS YET ANOTHER
EGREGIOUS EXAMPLE OF HOW THE
CITY HAS BEEN AS A LANDLORD,
AND ACTUALLY WE ROUTINELY GET
PHONECALLS FROM TENANTS OF
SEATTLE WHO TELL US THEY ARE
BEING EVICTED, AND I DON'T KNOW
IF YOU ARE ABLE TO ADDRESS
EVERY SINGLE THING THAT WE SENT
THEM TO THE TENANT'S UNIT, OF
COURSE, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE
ARE MANY CASES IN WHICH THEY
SHOULD NOT BE EVICTED.
AND SO IT IS TRUE.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT
THAT I THINK THEY POINTED OUT
THAT TENANTS WOULD NOT BE
COVERED UNDER THIS AMENDMENT IF
IT PASSES, RIGHT?
BECAUSE IT IS NOT A CITY-FUNDED
PUBLIC HOUSING?
>> IT MAY AND MAYBE NOT TO
EVERY UNIVERSITY, BUT
OFTENTIMES THERE IS THE CITY
MONEY IN THE PROJECTS WITH THE
HOUSING AUTHORITY AND THE
VARIETY OF WAYS.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY THIS
AMENDMENT, IT WOULD APPLY TO
HOUSING UNITS THAT WOULD HAVE
EITHER IN THE DEVELOPMENT OR IF
THEY ARE CONTINUING TO RECEIVE
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE
CITY.
AND SO THAT COULD INCLUDE
HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE
FUNDED, THAT ARE BUILT BY NON-
PROFITS, AND THEN IN SOME CASES
FOR THE PROFIT DEVELOPERS AS
WELL AS MFTE UNITS THAT ARE IN
PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS.
AND SO IT IS NOT JUST -- THE
CITY DOESN'T REALLY OWN HOUSING
IN AND OF ITSELF, SO IT IS SORT
OF A -- THERE IS A VARIETY OF
DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING
DEVELOPMENTS THAT IT WOULD
APPLY TO.
>> AND TO EXCLUDE, THE
AMENDMENT WOULD STILL EXCLUDE
PRIVATELY-OWNED?
>> IT WOULD EXCLUDE PRIVATELY-
OWNED HOUSING THAT ISN'T
PARTICIPATING IN THE MFTE.
THE UNITS ARE NOT MFTE UNITS,
THOSE ARE TYPICALLY IN PRIVATE
DEVELOPMENTS.
SO YOU KNOW, I WOULD SAY THE
MAJORITY OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
THAT RECEIVES FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE FROM THE CITY IS
PROBABLY OWNED BY NON-PROFITS
IN THE SEATTLE HOUSING
AUTHORITY, BUT IT IS NOT A
BRIGHT LINE THAT THERE WOULD BE
NO HOUSING UNITS THAT ARE OWNED
BY FOR-PROFIT DEVELOPERS FOR,
YOU KNOW, PRIVATE OWNERS THAT
WOULDN'T BE REGULATED BY THIS.
>> OKAY.
LET'S PUT IT VERY PRECISELY.
IT WOULD EXCLUDE ALL RENTAL
UNITS THAT DON'T HAVE ANY KIND
OF CITY FUNDING OR ANY OTHER
CITY CONNECTIONS, OR ANYTHING
YOU MENTIONED?
>> YEAH, THEY ARE UNITS THAT
HAVE RECEIVED FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE AND GENERALLY HAD
SOME SORT OF A REGULATORY
AGREEMENT.
SO MFTE THERE IS A REGULATORY
AGREEMENT ON THOSE, EXCUSE ME
MULTI-FAMILY TAX EXEMPTION
UNITS AS WELL AS WHEN THE CITY
INVESTS IN PROJECTS.
THERE IS A REGULATORY AGREEMENT
WITH CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH
THOSE UNITS COULD BE RENTED,
WHICH TYPICALLY INCLUDES BOTH
THE RENT AND INCOME
RESTRICTION.
>> BUT I DON'T -- I MEAN THE
WAY YOU'RE SAYING IT THOUGH, IT
GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT IT IS
PROBABLY A SIGNIFICANT MINORITY
OR MAJORITY OF RENTAL UNITS
THAT COME UNDER THIS CATEGORY.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY DON'T
BECAUSE FOR THE MOST PART THE
CITY FUNDING, I MEAN THERE'S SO
LITTLE FUNDING THAT YOU HAVE A
SMATTERING OF TENANTS THAT
FULFILL THE CATEGORY YOU SAID.
I DON'T WANT IT TO BE
MISLEADING THAT IT IS LIKE LOTS
OF UNITS.
MY CONCERN IS WE HAVE TO BE
VERY CLEAR THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
LEAVE OUT A MAJORITY OF RENTERS
OUT OF THIS PROTECTION.
>> SO YEAH, I WASN'T TRYING TO
MAKE IT MORE VAGUE OR ANYTHING
LIKE THAT.
>> NO, NO, ABSOLUTELY.
>> I'M TRYING TO CLARIFY THERE
IS NOT SORT OF A CLEAR LINE
LIKE NON-PROFIT, FOR PROFIT,
WHO THE OWNER IS NECESSARILY,
BUT IT IS THE NUMBERS YOU WERE
QUOTING PREVIOUSLY.
IT IS ROUGHLY ABOUT 17,000
UNITS THAT WOULD FALL UNDER
THIS CATEGORY, WHICH IS ABOUT
10% OF THE RENTAL UNITS.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR COMING BACK TO
THAT POINT.
AND THAT IS AT THE CORRECTION,
NINE TIMES OUT OF TEN YOU
WOULDN'T BE COVERED WITH THIS
LEGISLATION IF THIS AMENDMENT
PASSES.
GO AHEAD.
>> I FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE GIVEN
LOTS OF AIR TIME TO MY
AMENDMENT, I APPRECIATE IT.
I THINK IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED
WELL FROM DIFFERENT ANGLES.
I'M HAPPY TO JUST MOVE IT, AND
WE COULD JUST DECIDE.
>> SURE.
>> YES, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE
THIS AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO.
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ALL IN FAVOR OF THE
AMENDMENT SAY AYE?
>> AYE.
>> ALL OPPOSED SAY NO?
SO THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT PASS.
I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY AMENDMENTS
AT THIS POINT, SO I WOULD LIKE
TO MOVE -- SO SORRY BEFORE I
SAY THAT, BEFORE I CALL THE
QUESTION, COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS,
YOU MENTIONED SEVERAL THINGS
THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT.
WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH MY
OFFICE AND YOURS WITH THE HELP
OF CENTRAL STAFF SORT OF
WORKING ON THOSE THINGS BEFORE
WE COME TO THE FULL COUNCIL
VOTE BY VOTING IT?
I'M ABOUT TO CALL IT FOR VOTE
IN THE COMMITTEE?
>> YES, AS I SAID IN MY
COMMENTS EARLIER, I THINK THAT
WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE, GIVEN A
LOT OF THE CHANGES THAT WERE
MADE IN THE SUBSTITUTE
ORDINANCE.
AND SO YEAH, BUT MY INTENT,
ESPECIALLY SINCE WE HAVE -- MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THE PREFERRED
SCHEDULE FROM THE CHAIR THAT
WOULD BE TWO WEEKS INSTEAD OF
REFERRING IT ON FOR NEXT
MONDAY.
GIVEN THAT THERE IS THE TWO
WEEKS.
IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A LITTLE
DIFFERENT IF THE TURNAROUND WAS
QUICKER, BUT GIVEN THERE IS TWO
WEEKS, I DON'T HAVE AN
OBJECTION TO THAT AND IT GIVES
A CHANCE FOR ALL OF OUR
COLLEAGUES ON THE FULL COUNCIL
TO KIND OF LET THIS SINK IN A
LITTLE BIT TOO.
I WOULD VOTE TO MOVE IT FORWARD
TODAY.
>> OKAY.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE
CLARIFICATION.
AND SO LET ME KNOW IF I'M NOT
DOING THIS RIGHT.
BUT I MOVE COUNCIL BILL 119276
VERSION TWO FOR A VOTE BY
COMMITTEE TO COME TO --
ACTUALLY I DON'T HAVE TO SAY
THAT PART RIGHT NOW, RIGHT?
>> CORRECT.
SO YOU ARE MOVING THE BILL AS
AMENDED FOR CONSIDERATION OF
THE FULL COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 3.
>> CAN I GET A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE BILL AS
AMENDED AND COMING TO FULL
COUNCIL, SAY AYE.
>> AYE.
>> ALL OPPOSED?
>> SUSTAIN.
>> OKAY, WE HAVE THREE AYES AND
ONE SUSTAINED.
SO THE WINTER MORATORIUM BILL
WILL PASS TO COMMITTEE.
WE WILL BE WORKING WITH ALL
YOUR OFFICES TO SEE WHAT
ADDITIONS YOU WANT TO MAKE.
I THANK ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR
THEIR FULL PARTICIPATION AND
ONCE AGAIN FOR COMING AT AN
EVENING TIME.
I KNOW IT'S 8:00, SO I WANT TO
THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN.
AND THANK YOU PRESENTERS,
ALICIA, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
SHARING YOUR PERSONAL STORY,
AND JOHN, AND PLEASE SAY THANK
YOU TO EVERYONE IN THE TENANT'S
UNION.
THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR WORK.
I APOLOGIZE IF I WAS TRYING TO
GET IT IN A WAY THAT MAKES
SENSE TO ME.
BUT I APPRECIATE YOU HAVE TO BE
VERY PRECISE AND DETAILED,
THAT'S YOUR JOB.
THAT IS VERY MUCH APPRECIATED.
THANKS TO MY STAFF AS WELL AND
EVERYBODY WHO CAME FOR PUBLIC
COMMENT.
UNLESS THERE ARE ANY OTHER
COMMENTS, MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.