>>> GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY,
THIS IS THE IRREGULARLY
SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE
SUSTAINABILITY AND RENTERS'
RIGHTS COMMITTEE OF THE SEATTLE
CITY COUNCIL, TODAY IS TUESDAY
MAY 25th 2021 AND THE TIME IS
201 P.M.
WILL THE KIRK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL.
>> [ ROLL CALL ] FOUR PRESENT.
>>> I WILL ALSO CHAIR THAT
COUNCILMMBER JUAREZ WILL NOT
BE ABLE TO ATTEND TODAY AND HAS
BEEN EXCUSED.
IN TODAY'S COMMITTEE MEETING
COUNCILMEMBERS WILL DISCUSS AND
HOPEFULLY VOTE ON THREE RENTERS
RIGHTS BILLS.
FIRST WE WILL DISCUSS THE
LEGISLATION FROM MY OFFICE
BENDING THE SCHOOL YEAR
EVICTIONS OF SCHOOLCHILDREN,
THERE EMILY'S AND EDUCATORS.
AS I'VE SAID IN PREVIOUS
MEETINGS, HOUSING HAS HAD A
DEVASTATING IMPACT ON THE
EDUCATION, DEVELOPMENT, MENTAL
HEALTH OF YOUNG PEOPLE.
THE FACT THAT CHILDREN ARE
EVICTED IN A CITY WITH SO MUCH
WEALTH IS AN INDICTMENT OF
CAPITALISM.
BUT AT THE VERY LEAST CITY
COUNCIL HAS THE POWER TO STOP
CHILDREN FROM BEING EVICTED FOR
THE SCHOOL YEAR AND MUST
ABSOLUTELY USE THE ABILITY TO
STOP THE SCHOOL YEAR EVICTIONS.
THAT IS WHAT THIS LEGISLATION
WILL DO.
AS I HAVE INFORMED COMMITTEE
MEMBERS AND MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC, THE THEATRICAL
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION VOTED ON
A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THIS
LEGISLATION.
THAT RESOLUTION PASSED WITH THE
OVERWHELMING MAJORITY.
THIS MORNING COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON SENT THE AMENDMENTS TO
THE BILL.
THEY WILL EACH SHOW THE SCOPE
OF HAVING FEWER CHILDREN
EVICTED.
UNFORTUNATELY IT WAS NOT UNTIL
THIS MORNING THAT THEY SENT OUT
THOSE AMENDMENTS.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC
IS AWARE OF THAT.
ANY TIMES AMENDMENTS COME OUT
LATE, BUT THERE IS NO
OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP THEM
SOONER BECAUSE OF THE WAY
DISCUSSIONS GO.
HOWEVER IN THIS CASE THE BILL
HAS BEEN DISCUSSED FOR OVER A
MONTH AND I REPEATEDLY ASKED
ALL COUNCILMEMBERS FOR SEVERAL
WEEKS INCLUDING AT THE BRIEFING
YESTERDAY MORNING TO LET MY
OFFICE KNOW WHAT COMMITMENTS
THEY ARE BRINGING SO THEY CAN
MAKE THEM AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS
OF THE PUBLIC, ESPECIALLY
STRUGGLING RENTERS.
WHILE MY OFFICE HAS BEEN ABLE
TO REVIEW THESE AMENDMENTS THIS
MORNING, I AM EXTREMELY
CONCERNED THAT COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN HAS EFFECTIVELY HIDDEN
THEM FROM THE PUBLIC BY
HOLDING THEM UNTIL THE LAST
MINUTE.
I DID POST THEM TO MY BLOG AND
MY FACEBOOK PAGE THIS MORNING
AFTER WE RECEIVE THEM TO TRY TO
MAKE THEM AS ACCESSIBLE AS
POSSIBLE UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE
FOLLOWING ALONG WITH THIS
COMMITTEE AT HOME AND WANT TO
SEE THEM THAT COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN HAS PROPOSED YOU CAN
SEE THEM ON THE WEBSITE INFO.
WE WILL DISCUSS FOR UP POSSIBLE
LOAD FROM MY OFFICE IN
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES'S OFFICE
AND COSPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS CREATING
THE RIGHT OF REFUSAL SO
LANDLORDS MUST OFFER THEIR
CURRENT RENTERS A NEW LEASE
BEFORE LOOKING FOR A NEW TENANT
UNLESS THERE IS A JUST CAUSE,
LEGALLY APPROVED JUST CAUSE TO
DO SO.
AS I MENTIONED IN THE BRIEFING
MEETING YESTERDAY THIS IS BEING
JOINTLY PROPOSED BY MY OFFICE
AND COUNCILMEMBER MORALES'S
OFFICE AND WE HAVE HAD FROM
PREVIOUS DRAFTS OF THE
MINISTRATION AND I REPEATEDLY
REQUESTED IN PUBLIC MEETINGS
THAT OUR OFFICE JOINS IN ONE
UNITED BILL AND AM PLEASED THAT
THIS BILL REPRESENTS THE UNITED
EFFORT.
I AM HOPING WE ARE ABLE TO VOTE
ON THIS BILL AS WELL, THIS IS A
LONG TIME COMING.
I KNOW FROM MY OWN OFFICE
EXPERIENCE OVER THE LAST 7 1/2
YEARS, AND I KNOW PREVIOUS
COUNCILMEMBERS THAT ARE NO
LONGER IN OFFICE WERE
INTERESTED IN DOING THEM.
I KNOW MANY COMMUNITY MEMBERS
AND ORGANIZATIONS HAVE WANTED
TO CLOSE THIS LOOPHOLE.
THIS DRAFT OF THE LEGISLATION
HAS A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL
FOR RENTERS TO SIGN A NEW LEASE
SO THEIR LANDLORDS CANNOT KICK
THEM OUT FOR NO REASON.
60 TO 90 DAYS BEFORE THE END OF
THE LEASE THE LANDLORD WOULD
HAVE TO OFFER A NEW LEASE TO
THE TENANT OR PRESENT A LEGALLY
ALLOWED JUST CAUSE FOR REFUSING
TO DO SO.
THE SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
INSPECTIONS IS REQUIRED TO
ENFORCE THAT REQUIREMENT.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC ARE FOLLOWING
BECAUSE JUST CAUSE CAN BE QUITE
MISLEADING.
WHEN IT SAYS JUST CAUSE IT
MEANS THE LANDLORD HAS THE
RIGHT TO BRING EVICTION NOTICES
ON A TENANT ONLY FOR APPROVED
CAUSES.
APPROVED REASONS, APPROVED BY
LAW AND THIS HAS BEEN ON THE
BOOKS FOR DECADES.
AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT JUST
CAUSES, EXPANDING THE NUMBER OF
JUST CAUSES IS NOT WHAT OUR
GOAL IS.
OUR GOAL IS TO MAKE SURE WE
MINIMIZE THE EXCUSES THAT
LANDLORDS USE TO EVICT RENTERS
AND TENANTS AND THEREFORE WHAT
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE, HERE IN
THIS CASE WE WANT TO CLOSE THE
LOOPHOLE THAT ALLOWS CORPORATE
LANDLORDS AND LANDLORDS IN
GENERAL THAT HAVE TENANTS ON
FIXED TERM LEASES.
THE GOAL IS FOR RENTERS TO HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO
RESOLVE ANY ISSUES AND GET A
NEW LEASE FAR IN ADVANCE BEFORE
THEIR OLDIES.
RENTERS SHOULD NEVER NEED TO
HAVE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES OR
FORCE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN
EVICTION COURT AGAINST AN
UNJUST INTO THEIR LEASE.
DISCUSS YOUR POSSIBLE VOTE FROM
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES'S OFFICE
WHICH I SUPPORT, CREATING
EVICION DEFENSE FOR RENTERS
FACING RENTAL DEBTS THAT ARE
RISING DURING THE COBIT
EMERGENCY.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES WILL
SPEAK MORE TO THAT ITEM ON THE
AGENDA.
TODAY IS THIS COMMITTEE MEETS,
TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SEATTLE
RENTERS ARE ON THE EDGE FACING
THE PROSPECT OF ECONOMIC
EVICTION AS WRENS RESUME THEIR
UPWARD SWING AND CORPORATE
LANDLORDS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO ASSERT
THEIR POWER OVER TENANTS IN OUR
CITY.
ALL OF US KNOW WRENS AND
NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE BEEN PUSHED
OUT OF THE CITY IN RECENT
YEARS.
THAT IS WHY WE URGENTLY NEED TO
STRENGTHEN RENTERS RIGHTS.
JUST TWO MONTHS AGO THERE WAS A
HISTORIC BREAKTHROUGH WITH THE
COUNCILS APPROVAL TO THE RIGHT
TO TRAIN ONE REPRESENTATION
WHEN THEIR LANDLORD SEEKS TO
EVICT THEM.
THE RANKED TO COUNCIL WAS
BUILT ON THE FOUNDATION OF
OTHER GRASSROOTS IN OUR YEARS
LONG MOVEMENT TO PROVIDE RIGHTS
FOR RENTERS.
THAT IS HOW MY OFFICE, ORGANIZE
RENTERS AND COMMUNITY AND LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS COMING TOGETHER
HAVE WON MANY RENTERS RIGHTS
FOR THE LAST YEARS INCLUDING
THE FEE GAP AND PAYMENT PLAN,
THE BAND ON LANDLORDS RAISING
RENTS, WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN
NAMED AFTER THE NOTORIOUS
LANDLORD.
EASIER VOTER REGISTRATION FOR
TENANTS AND THE EVICTION MAP.
EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE
TOOK BUILDING A MOVEMENT OF
RENTERS, ACTIVISTS AND
SOCIALISTS.
AS I NOTED SIX WEEKS AGO IN THE
SOUTH SEATTLE EMERALD, RENTERS
MUST GET ORGANIZED TO WIN JUST
CAUSE ANOTHER PROTECTION
AGAINST EVICTION.
AS OF THIS MORNING I AM GLAD TO
REPORT THAT ACCENT 85 COMMUNITY
MEMBERS HAVE SIGNED THE
COMMUNITY PETITION DEMANDING
ACTION TO SECURE THE RIGHTS OF
RENTERS, WHICH IS NOW THE
UNIFIED BILL THAT COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES AND I ARE JOINTLY
SPONSORING IN WHICH
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS HAS AGREED
TO SPONSOR.
WE WILL NEED A SIMILAR MOVEMENT
TO WIN THE FULL BILL OF RIGHTS
FOR RENTERS INCLUDING
LEGISLATION THAT IS BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE TODAY.
LET'S BE CLEAR THAT WHILE ALL
THESE BILLS ADDRESS DIFFERENT
PARTS OF THE MISCIBLE COURT,
THEY ARE ALL POINTED IN THE
SAME DIRECTION.
PUTTING RENTERS RIGHTS BEFORE
THE PROFIT-SEEKING INTEREST OF
CORPORATE LANDLORDS AND
PRIORITIZING HOUSING STABILITY
OVER GENTRIFICATION.
IN GENERAL, IT IS ALONG THE
LINES OF PUTTING PEOPLE BEFORE
PROFIT.
LET'S ALSO BE CLEAR THAT THESE
BILLS ARE NOT MEANT AS FIXES TO
PATCH OVER TEMPORARY CHALLENGES
THAT HAVE EMERGED DURING COBIT.
FOR SEATTLE'S RENTERS WHO
CONTRIBUTE HALF OF THE CITY,
THE HOUSING CRISIS WAS THAT
EVEN BEFORE COVID.
FOUR BUT 46% OF DENTAL RENTERS
WERE OFFICIALLY PAYING MORE
THAN 30% OF THEIR INCOME IN
RENT AND ONE OUT OF EVERY FIVE
RENTERS WERE SEVERELY RENT
FOUR.
MEANING THEY WERE PAYING MORE
THAN HALF OF THEIR INCOME IN
MONTHLY RENT.
MORE THAN HALF OF SEATTLE
RENTERS WERE HIT WITH EVICTION
NOTICES, OWED ONE MONTHS RENT
OR LESS.
IN OTHER WORDS, PEOPLE AND
FINANCIAL DIRE STRAITS THAT ARE
BEING TARGETED FOR EVICTIONS.
NEARLY NINE OUT OF 10 TENANTS
WERE EVICTED WIND UP HOMELESS.
AND WE KNOW THAT THE ENTIRE
EVICTION SYSTEM IS
FUNDAMENTALLY RACIST.
IT IS DISPROPORTIONATELY ON
WOMEN, PEOPLE OF COLOR, LACK
RENTERS THREE TIMES MORE LIKELY
TO BE SERVED IN EVICTION NOTICE
COMPARED TO OTHER RENTERS
ACCORDING TO THE DATA FROM THE
HOUSING JUSTICE PROJECT.
AS SEATTLE RESIDENTS BEGIN TO
RECOVER FROM THE PANDEMIC AND
RECESSION, THEY ARE
EXPERIENCING LANDLORDS ONCE
AGAIN RAISING RATES WELL ABOVE
INFLATION.
THE ANALYSIS FOUND THAT BETWEEN
JANUARY AND APRIL 2021, WRENS
ACROSS THE BOARD IN SEATTLE FOR
APARTMENTS OF ALL SIZES
INCREASED BY 9%, AND ANNUALIZED
RATE OF MORE THAN 40%, PUTTING
RENT ON TRACK TO MORE THAN
REBOUND IN A VERY FEW MONTHS
FROM THE 2020 DROP.
AND CONTINUE DURING A PRE-
PANDEMIC PRICES LEVELS.
THE LANDLORDS IN 2021 "SEATTLE
REAL ESTATE INVESTORS ARE
CONTINUING TO ENJOY A GOOD
INVESTMENT ON RENTAL PROPERTIES
ALTHOUGH AFFORDABILITY
CONTINUES TO BE AN ISSUE FOR
LOCAL RESIDENTS.
IT DOES HAVE A POSITIVE ASPECT
FOR INVESTORS.
OWNING PROPERTY IN SEATTLE
NEEDS HIGH DEMAND AND HIGH
OCCUPANCY RATES."
THEY ARE OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGING
THE INVESTORS THAT ARE NOT IN
LINE WITH THE INTEREST OF
RENTERS.
IT DOES CORPORATE LANDLORD
PROFIT-SEEKING PRACTICE THAT IS
PART OF THE FOR-PROFIT MARKET
IS WHAT IS DRIVING THIS
PLACEMENT OF SEATTLE RENTERS.
WE HOPE TO STABILIZE HOUSING BY
PROTECTING SCHOOLCHILDREN,
THEIR FAMILIES AND EDUCATORS
AND ENSURING THAT PEOPLE HAVE A
FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO RENEW THEIR
LEASES AND STAY IN THEIR HOMES.
AND THAT RENTERS THAT HAVE LOST
INCOME DUE TO COVID WILL NOT
FIND THEMSELVES EVICTED.
THEY NEED TO CONTINUE TO FIGHT
FOR THESE BILLS AND ALSO THE
ENTIRE RENTERS BILL OF RIGHTS
THAT WE HAVE BEEN ALL THESE
YEARS.
IT'S ALL PART OF THE NEW BILL
WE ANNOUNCED IN OUR RENT
CONTROL PRESS CONFERENCE A FEW
WEEKS AGO.
INCLUDING THE RESOLUTION THAT
IS COMING TO CITY COUNCIL FOR
MY OFFICE ON JUNE 7 CALLING ON
THE MAYOR AND GOVERNOR TO
EXTEND THE MORATORIUMS UNTIL AT
LEAST THE END OF THIS YEAR.
WE KNOW WE ARE NOT THE ONLY
ONES, WE KNOW THAT OTHER
COMMUNITIES AS THAT THEY BE
BANNED UNTIL THE END OF THE
YEAR.
WE ALSO NEED TO BAR LANDLORDS
FROM USING CREDIT CHECKS TO
ABUSE THE LEASE TERMS.
WE ALSO NEED TO ALLOW THEM TO
BE TRANSFERABLE FROM ONE TO THE
NEXT AND WE NEED TO EXTEND
ASSISTANCE TO THOSE WHO HAVE
BEEN EFFECTIVELY AND
ECONOMICALLY EVICTED BY RENT
INCREASES.
WE NEED TO PROTECT RENTERS,
CANCEL RENT, MORTGAGE AND
UTILITY DEBT FOR PEOPLE WHO
LOST INCOME DUE TO COVID.
AND THE MOST PROMINENT THING,
WE NEED TO BUILD OUR MOVEMENT
TO PROVIDE RENT CONTROL WITHOUT
LOOPHOLES.
SO WE WILL BE DISCUSSING MANY
OF THESE BILLS IN OUR UPCOMING
MEETINGS.
BUT BEFORE WE BEGIN OUR ITEMS
OF TODAY WE WILL HAVE PUBLIC
COMMENT.
I WILL READ THE NAMES BECAUSE
WE HAVE 42 PEOPLE SIGNED UP FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT.
WE WILL HAVE PEOPLE SPEAK FOR
ONE MINUTE EACH.
I KNOW THAT IS NOT VERY LONG
BUT PLEASE TRY TO STICK TO TIME
SO WE CAN GET THROUGH EVERYBODY
WHO HAS SIGNED UP AND THEN GO
ON TO OUR AGENDA ITEMS.
I WILL READ THE NAMES.
OUR FIRST PERSON SIGNED UP HIS
LIFE SERRANO.
>> I, I'M CALLING TO URGE THE
LEGISLATIVE MANY TO VOTE YES ON
BANNING GOAL CHILDREN EVICTIONS
WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS PUT
FORWARD BY COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN THIS MORNING.
I WANT TO DRAW ATTENTION TO
EXCLUDING SCHOOL WORKERS THAT
DON'T HOLD PROFESSIONAL, THIS
INSINUATES THAT TEACHER'S
AIDE'S, AND BUS DRIVERS ARE NOT
ESSENTIAL TO CHILDREN'S
EDUCATION AND THEREFORE NOT
DESERVING OF EVICTION
PROTECTIONS.
THE OTHER THREE AMENDMENTS,
ADDING A CLOSE, ALLOWING FOR
LANDLORDS TO CONTINUE TO EVICT
CHILDREN AS THEY PLEASE AND
LIMITING THE TYPES OF EVICTIONS
THESE PREVENTER ALSO SHAMEFUL.
HERE IS A NOTE AS TO WHY HE
TRIED TO HIDE THESE AMENDMENTS.
I URGE YOU ALL TO VOTE YES,
THANK YOU.
>> LAURA FOLLOWED BY GRAYSON.
>> I, AND THE FOUNDER OF THE
ACTION SIGN PART OF THE STATE
HEALTHY COALITION, WE SUPPORT
THE INCREDIBLE ADVOCACY FOR
TENANTS THAT IS LONG OVERDUE IN
SEATTLE.
IF WE HAD THE PROTECTIONS THEY
ARE PUTTING FORWARD 10 YEARS
AGO WE WOULD HAVE LESS
DISPLACEMENT, HOMELESSNESS AND
WARRANT EQUITABLE CITY.
THESE RENTER PROTECTIONS ARE
LONG OVERDUE, WE FULLY SUPPORT
THE WORK THEY ARE DOING AND DO
NOT SUPPORT PEDERSEN'S
AMENDMENTS AND CAN'T WAIT TO
SEE WHAT IS NEXT FOR THE
TENANTS BILL OF RIGHTS IN
SEATTLE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH TO ALL OF YOU
FOR BEING TENANT CHAMPIONS WE
NEED MORE OF YOU AROUND THE
COUNTRY, SO THANKS FOR YOUR
WORK AND I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE
ALL OF THESE PROTECTIONS PASS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> GRAYSON, GO AHEAD.
>> HI, I'M A GRAYSON AND I'M A
RENTER SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF
COUNCILMEMBER SO ONCE
LEGISLATION.
I AM ALSO THE SON OF TWO
EDUCATORS, THAT NEEDED THIS 10
YEARS AGO.
THESE EVICTIONS ARE HUGE
BURDENS FOR STUDENTS AND THEIR
FAMILIES AND FOLLOW STUDENTS
THEIR WHOLE LIVES THEY ALSO
WANT TO SAY THAT THE AMENDMENTS
FROM COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN,
THEY WOULD BE UNABLE TO ATTACK
THOSE WHO NEED IT MOST.
AS PART OF A REALLY WEIRD
PATTERN FROM PEDERSEN, HE
INTRODUCES AMENDMENTS.
THIS PROHIBITION MANEUVERING IS
NOT SLICK OR CLEVER.
THESE ARE TRANSPARENTLY CRUEL
AND THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE
SHOULD VOTE THEM DOWN HARSHLY.
I AM IN FULL SUPPORT OF THE
UNIFIED LEGISLATION FROM
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT AND
MIRELES , SEATTLE NEEDS A
STRONG AND UNIFIED HOUSING
MOVEMENT TO FIGHT THROUGH THIS
AFFORDABILITY CRISIS.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, AND THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF C
SEATTLE, I'M CALLING IN SUPPORT
OF THE SOUND HOME DEFENSE, THIS
DEFENSE IS ABSOLUTELY VITAL TO
RENTERS WHO FACED PRESSURE
AFTER THE EVICTION MORATORIUM.
IT WAS RECENTLY PASSED AND DOES
NOTHING TO REQUIRE THE
LANDLORD'S WORK OF THEIR
TENANTS TO OBTAIN RENTAL
ASSISTANCE.
RENTERS NEED MORE TIME TO GET
CAUGHT UP.
I'D ALSO VOICE MY SUPPORT IN
THE JUST CAUSE TENANT
PROTECTION AND COSPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
ENDING IS CLEAR EVICTIONS OF
SCHOOLCHILDREN AND THEIR
FAMILIES AND EDUCATORS.
THANK YOU.
>> EMILY FOLLOWED BY MARGO'S.
>> I, I'VE BEEN A RENTER MY
WHOLE LIFE, I'M A MEMBER OF THE
STATE HOUSE STAY HEALTHY
COALITION.
I'M CALLING IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL TODAY.
I'M TOTALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS
JOINT WORK BETWEEN
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT AND
MIRELES.
IT CLOSES THE LOOPHOLE IN
FIXED TERM LEASES AND THIS IS
TOTALLY ESSENTIAL AND I LOOK
FORWARD TO WINNING IT.
ALSO CALLING IN SUPPORT OF THE
ORIGINAL VERSION OF
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT'S ABILITY
AND THE SCHOOL YEAR EVICTIONS.
I THINK THIS IS A PROBLEM, THE
ISSUE OF STUDENTS FACING
HOMELESSNESS, EVEN BEFORE COVID
HIT.
IT WAS REALLY SHOCKING TO HEAR
THAT SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOL
STUDENTS FACE HOMELESSNESS
THROUGHOUT THE SCHOOL YEAR
BEFORE COVID HIT.
BUT THROUGH COVID OF COURSE
WE'VE SEEN STUDENTS FACE
AMOUNTS OF MENTAL HEALTH
PRESSURES AND ITS
UNCONSCIONABLE PLEASE SO REJECT
THE NASTY AMENDMENT FROM ALEX
PEDERSEN.
>> MARGO, GO AHEAD.
>> MY NAME IS MARGO I RAN TO
WORK IN THE CENTRAL DISTRICT
AND I'M ALSO CALLING TO URGE
COUNCILMEMBERS TO SUPPORT
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT'S BILL
WITHOUT ANY LOOPHOLES.
COUNCIL MEMBER SHOULD ALSO
SUPPORT THE UNIFIED BILL FROM
SAWANT AND MIRELES TO CLOSE
JUST CAUSE EVICTION LOOPHOLES.
WHILE THE EVICTION MORATORIUM
IS ENDING NEXT MONTH, COVID AND
THE ECONOMIC CRISIS IS NOT JUST
ENDING MAGICALLY.
AND SO I THINK THESE ANTI-
RENTER AMENDMENTS PUT FORWARD
BY COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN ARE
ALL SHAMEFUL, APPLYING THAT ALL
SCHOOL RECRUITS ARE NOT
ESSENTIAL FOR TAKING CARE OF
THE STUDENTS THROUGHOUT THE
SCHOOL YEAR.
IN POVERTY FOR FAMILIES ALREADY
HAVING A HARD TIME PAYING RENT,
THIS IS LOOKING TO MITIGATE THE
DRAMATIC EFFECTS ON CHILDREN.
SO, WE NEED THIS AND WE NEED A
FULL RENTERS BILL OF RIGHTS AND
WE NEED OF MOVEMENT OF RENTERS
WORKERS TO WIN THAT.
THANK YOU.
>> NEXT IS BRETT.
>> I'M A THIRD-GENERATION
MINORITY HOUSING PROVIDER.
BY MERGING THE COUNCIL TO
BETTER PROVIDE HOUSING, I'VE
RECENTLY BEEN ABLE TO MEET WITH
THE BOARD'S LEGISLATION AND I'M
NOT AWARE OF ANY SMALL HOUSING
PROVIDERS BEFORE THESE DRAFTS
WERE INTRODUCED.
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT ALL
STAKEHOLDERS DO SWEEPING
HOUSING MEASURES.
WE LIKE TO COLLABORATE
SOLUTIONS THAT INCREASE HOUSING
ACCESS FOR ALL.
THIS OFTEN IMPACTS THE SMALL
PROVIDERS THAT ARE STILL
OPERATING IN SEATTLE.
THE END OF LEASE LOOPHOLE IS A
MISNOMER.
WE TALK ABOUT KNOWING THERE
WILL BE AN EXPIRATION,
ADDITIONALLY THE STATE JUST
PASSED ROBUST JUST CAUSE
PROTECTIONS.
THESE BILLS WILL ONLY CONTINUE
TO DECREASE AND ENCOURAGING A
NO VOTE ON THE DELAY OF THE
BILLS.
>> COREY FOLLOWED BY ANGIE.
>> I'VE SPOKEN TO YOU ALL
BEFORE ABOUT THE ALARMING RATES
AT WHICH SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES,
RENTAL HOUSES ARE DISAPPEARING
FROM SEATTLE.
WE SAW 48 PERCENT INCREASE FROM
2019 TO 2020.
THIS LEADS TO INSTABILITY AND
GENTRIFICATION.
I'M CONCERNED TODAY ABOUT YOUR
LACK OF AWARENESS REGARDING
WASHINGTON HOUSE BILL 1236
WHICH PASSED EARLIER THIS MONTH
GRANTING JUST CAUSE PROTECTION
TO TENANTS STATEWIDE.
AN ADDITIONAL LAYER IN SEATTLE
WOULD BE REDUNDANT AND
CONFUSING.
SPEAKING AS A CONCERNED
CITIZEN, ISN'T IT ADJUSTING
THAT THE VERY PEOPLE YOU ARE
TRYING TO HELP WITH THE SCHOOL
YEAR PROPOSAL, FAMILIES WITH
CHILDREN, ARE THE VERY PEOPLE
YOU ARE HURTING WITH THIS
LEGISLATION BY PUSHING SINGLE-
FAMILY RENTAL HOUSES OUT OF THE
RENTAL MARKET.
THERE ARE LONG-TERM HOUSING
SHORTING ISSUES YOU NEED TO
CONSIDER.
I'M ASKING YOU TO DELAY ANY
VOTE ON THESE MEASURES TODAY SO
YOU CAN PROPERLY ENGAGE ALL
STAKEHOLDERS.
WE NEED AT LEAST A FULL DAY
HOUSING SUMMIT WITH THE ENTIRE
CITY COUNCIL AND EVERY
STAKEHOLDER IS OWED A SEAT AT
THE TABLE.
I BELIEVE WE ALL SHARE A COMMON
GOAL FOR A THRIVING HOUSING
COMMUNITY IN SEATTLE.
WE NEED TO COLLABORATE TOWARDS
EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS, THANK YOU.
>> ANGIE FOLLOWED BY CHARLOTTE.
>> MY NAME IS ANGIE AND I'M A
SMALL HOUSING PROVIDER, I'M
CALLING TO ASK THAT THE
COMMITTEE POSTPONE VOTING ON
ANY LANDLORD-TENANT
LEGISLATION.
IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS WE'VE
CREATED A SYNONYMY OF NEW
REGULATIONS WITHOUT ANY
FRAMEWORK FOR INCLUDING SMALL
LANDLORDS IN THE PROCESS.
YOUR POLICIES ARE CREATING BIG
ADVANTAGES FOR DEEP POCKETED
CORPORATE INVESTORS MANY
UNINENDED IMPACTS FOR RENTERS.
THE CITY COUNCIL IS ACTIVELY
STOKING A MORE RESTRICTIVE
RENTAL MARKET WHILE EXCLUDING
MAJOR STAKEHOLDERS IN SMALL
HOUSING PROVIDERS.
THE EARLY IMPACT OF THAT CITY
LEGISLATION WERE NOTED IN THE
20 18th RENTAL HOUSING STUDY.
THE COUNSELOR HAS FULLY IGNORED
THE PRIMARY RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THAT WITH NO FOLLOW-UP OUTREACH
OR ANALYSIS.
I RE-WATCHED VIDEO OF THE 2018
COUNCIL MEETING AND WAS
FOCUSED ENTIRELY ON HOW TO
DISREGARD THE COMMENTS OF 4000
SMALL PROVIDERS, NONE OF WHOM
HAVE BEEN INVITED TO ANY
MEETINGS.
YOU NEED TO COLLABORAT WITH
PEOPLE WHO PROVIDE HOUSING, YOU
NEED REGULAR REPORTING ON THE
IMPACTS OF YOUR LEGISLATION,
THANK YOU.
>> GO AHEAD CHARLOTTE.
>> CHARLOTTE, HIT STAR SIX.
YOU ARE STILL SHOWING UP AS
MUTED.
YOU STILL NEED TO HIT STAR SIX.
CHARLOTTE IS STILL MUTED.
>> MAYBE WE SHOULD GO TO HANNA
AND THEN COME BACK.
>> MY NAME IS HANA AND I'M A
RENTER IN DISTRICT 3. I'M
CALLING TO URGE OUT ALL
COUNCILMEMBERS TO VOTE YES ON
SEVERAL URGENTLY NEEDED OF
RENTERS LEGISLATION.
FIRST BROAD LOWERED BY
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT AND
MIRELES TO CLOSE THE LOOPHOLE
IN THE JUST CAUSE PROTECTIONS
FOR RENTERS AGAINST EVICTIONS.
SECOND, COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT'S
BILL FOR FAMILIES AND SCHOOL-
AGE CHILDREN AND FINALLY THE
BILL FROM COUNCILMEMBER MORALE
IS TO DEFEND RENTERS FROM
FACING DEBT OR EVICTION.
UNFORTUNATELY, AS JUST WAS SAID
THIS MORNING, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN BROUGHT FORWARD FOUR
AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD SERIOUSLY
WEAKEN THE LEGISLATION.
ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS IS
TOWARDS SCHOOL WORKERS THAT
DON'T HOLD CERTIFIED
PROFESSION, TALKING ABOUT
A.I.D.S., BUS DRIVERS,
JANITORS.
LAST I CHECKED, THE PEOPLE WHO
MAKE OUR SCHOOL RUN.
ALSO I MERGING ALL
COUNCILMEMBERS TO VOTE NO ON
THOSE DANGEROUS AMENDMENTS.
>> CHARLOTTE, ARE YOU ABLE TO
UNMUTE?
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?
BE MY GUESS.
>> THIS IS CHARLOTTE, IN THE
LAST FIVE YEARS HOUSING
PROVIDERS IN SEATTLE WERE
IMPACTED BY NO LESS THAN 15
SIGNIFICANT PIECES OF NEW
LEGISLATION.
IN OUR GROUP, THE GRASSROOT
LANDLORDS, WE HAVE A FAMILY
WITH CHILDREN THAT CAN PAY THE
MORTGAGE ON HOUSE SALE BECAUSE
THE TENANT IS NOT PAYING RENT.
AND THERE IS A 40% INCREASE OF
THE SALE OF RENTAL PROPERTIES
IN SEATTLE BELONGING TO SMALL
HOUSING PROVIDERS LIKE THIS
FAMILY DUE TO SIMILAR
CIRCUMSTANCES.
YET HOUSING PROVIDERS HAVE BEEN
EXCLUDED FROM THE POLITICAL
PROCESS.
THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE,
THERE ARE THREE PIECES OF
FAMILY SIGNIFICANT LEGISLATION
ON THE DOCKET WITH ONLY ONE
MINUTE FOR US TO SPEAK ON ALL
THREE.
WE HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED
WITH COMMITTEE MEMBERS THIS
WEEK AND NEXT TO SHARE STORIES,
DATA AND LEGAL OPINIONS AND WE
CALL FOR VOTES ON ALL THREE OF
THESE PROPOSALS TO BE DELAYED
AT LEAST 30 DAYS SO WE CAN
ENGAGE IN THE DEMOCRATIC
PROCESS AND FOR EACH ITEM TO BE
CONSIDERED AT A SEPARATE
MEETING TO ALLOW PUBLIC
DISCUSSION ON EACH ISSUE.
TO DO OTHERWISE IS
UNDEMOCRATIC.
THANK YOU.
>> WE HAVE MATTHEW NEXT
FOLLOWED BY JEFFREY.
GO AHEAD MATTHEW.
>> MY NAME IS MATT SMITH AND
I'M A RENTER IN DISTRICT 2. I'M
VERY HAPPY TO SEE THIS UNITED
BILL FROM COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT
AN MIRELES TO CLOSE THE JUST
CAUSE LOOPHOLES.
THIS IS ONE OF A WHOLE LIST OF
RENTERS LEGISLATION THAT IS
CRITICAL TO PASS IN SEATTLE.
I'M REALLY HAPPY TO SEE
COUNCILMEMBERS CONTINUE TO
THRIVE IN LEADERSHIP ON THIS,
I'M ALSO REALLY HAPPY TO SEE
THIS BILL TO BAN SCHOOL YEAR
EVICTIONS, AND I AGREE WITH
PREVIOUS SPEAKERS THAT THIS IS
SOMETHING WE NEEDED 10 YEARS
AGO.
SO THE COUNCIL SHOULD NOT DELAY
ON THIS.
THEY SHOULD PASS IT WITH THE
ORIGINAL LEGISLATION WITHOUT
THE AMENDMENTS BY COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
AND WE NEED TO FIGHT FOR MORE
RENT CONTROL AND CANCELLATION
CAUSED BY COVID.
IT IS GREAT BUT THE SEATTLE
ASSOCIATION EDUCATION HAS
ABANDONED THIS SCHOOL YEAR
EVICTIONS.
SO PLEASE PASS THIS URGENTLY,
THANK YOU.
>> JEFFREY FOLLOWED BY MAX.
GO AHEAD JEFFREY.
>> JEFFREY, YOU ARE STILL
MUTED.
HIT STAR SIX TO UNMUTE
YOURSELF.
>> SORRY ABOUT THAT.
MY NAME IS JEFFREY I'M A
RESIDENT OF DISTRICT 3 AND
SMALL HOUSING PROVIDER.
I'M SPEAKING ABOUT LEGISLATION
12090.
FIRST I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT
NO ONE WANTS TO EVICT TENANTS
BUT IT IS TIME-CONSUMING AND
COSTLY.
LANDLORDS SIMPLY WANT TENANTS
TO PAY ON TIME AND RESPECT
PROPERTY.
LIMITING A LANDLORD TO ENDING
TENANCY WOULD LEAD TO OR JUST
CAUSE EVICTION.
THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MOMENT.
THIS LEGISLATION REMOVES ALL
MOTIVATION TO WORK WITH TENANTS
TO RESOLVE DISPUTES. LANDLORDS
WILL SIMPLY MOVE TO EVICT ENTER
JUST CAUSE AND WITH NO POINT IN
WAITING FOR THE END OF THE
LEASE BUT MUCH SOONER THAN THEY
DO NOW.
THOSE OF US IN THE INDUSTRY
KNOW THAT PROBLEM TENANTS ARE
IN CONSTANT VIOLATION OF
TENANTS.
IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE HOW
EARLIER EVICTIONS ARE GOOD
OUTCOMES FOR ANYONE'S, TENANTS,
LANDLORDS OR THE CITY.
I ASKED THE COMMITTEE TO DELAY
VOTING UNTIL ALL STAKEHOLDERS
ARE BROUGHT TO THE TABLE FOR
MORE THAN ONE MINUTE AT A TIME,
THANK YOU.
>> MAX HUDSON FOLLOWED BY SONJA.
DO WE HAVE MAX HERE?
>> MAX IS NO LONGER PRESENT.
>> MAX AND SONJA ARE SHOWN AS
NOT PRESENT.
WE WILL GO AHEAD WITH MINDY
FOLLOWED BY LESLIE.
>> HI, I AM A MEMBER OF SEVERAL
ORGANIZATIONS AND I AM HERE TO
TALK IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSALS.
I WAS AT FORUM THE OTHER DAY
AND THEY ASKED ALL THE PEOPLE
THAT WERE THERE WHERE THEY
LIVE.
WHEN THEY GOT TO THE PRESIDENT
GONZALES SHE LOOKED REALLY SAD.
AT THIS TIME SHE DOESN'T REALLY
HAVE A PLACE TO LIVE.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS A REALLY
GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHAT IT IS LIKE
TO BE IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU
HAVE TO MOVE.
YOU MAY HAVE BEEN IN THAT SAME
PLACE FOR A LONG TIME.
KIDS THAT ARE IN SCHOOL WILL
HAVE TO MOVE.
IT IS A REALLY DIFFICULT THING
TO DO.
AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT THESE
SMALL RENTER ORGANIZATIONS ARE
TALKING ABOUT HAVING A MEETING
SO WE CAN ALL DISCUSS IT.
BUT WE ONLY HAVE 30 DAYS LEFT
HEARD AND I DON'T THINK IN 30
DAYS ANYMORE RESOLUTIONS WILL
COME UP.
I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL
HAPPENING NOW, THANK YOU.
>> LESLIE FOLLOWED BY MAX.
GO AHEAD LESLIE.
DO WE HAVE LESLIE?
>> HELLO?
SORRY, IT WAS NOT WORKING.
MY NAME IS LESLIE, MY HUSBAND
AND I WENT OUT OF FOUR
APARTMENTS IN DISTRICT 6. WE
ARE ASKING YOU TO POSTPONE THE
VOTE ON THE LEASE BAND AND THE
SCHOOL YEAR EVICTIONS BAN.
SMALL HOUSING PROVIDERS PROVIDE
CLOSE TO HALF THE RENTAL
HOUSING, OFTEN AT WAY BELOW
MARKET RATES LIKE WE DO AND
WE'VE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM INPUT
INTO POLICY.
WE ARE ACTUALLY ALLIES, WE ARE
NOT GREEDY PROFIT MONGERS.
IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE WITH
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PLEASE
INCLUDE US.
YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW WE OPERATE
OR THE OBSTACLES WE FACE.
OUTSIDE PUBLIC HOUSING,
LANDLORDS ARE ABOUT THE ONLY
GROUPS STILL OFFERING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
YOUR LAWS CREATE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES LIKE THE ACTUAL
LOSS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WE ARE OLDER, SEMI RETIRED AND
DEPEND ON THE RENTAL INCOME.
WE LOVE BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN OUR
TENANTS ARE OUR FRIENDS.
BUT THE CIRCUIT LEGISLATION IS
FORCING US TO RECONSIDER OWNING
RENTAL PROPERTIES AND OFFERING
THESE WELL-MAINTAINED
PROPERTIES AND VERY, VERY LOW
RENTS, THANK YOU.
>> SONJA IS NOW SHOWING AS
PRESENT, SONJA, GO AHEAD.
AND THEN MAX.
>> THIS IS SONJA, MY MOM IN
DISTRICT 3 AND I AM A SMALL
LANDLORD AND I SUPPORT
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT'S
EVICTION BAND.
I STRONGLY SUPPORT
COUNCILMEMBER MIRELES'S BILL AS
WELL.
AND I AM SPEAKING AGAINST THIS
AMENDMENT FROM COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN CALLING ON LANDLORDS
THAT CAN BE EXEMPT IF THEY ARE
FEWER THAN FIVE.
I DON'T THINK THAT TRULY
PROTECTS SMALL LANDLORDS FOR
THE ONES WHO ARE REALLY
STRUGGLING.
IN FACT MANY CORPORATE
LANDLORDS OWN SEPARATE
COMPANIES AND THEY PRETEND THEY
ARE ACTUALLY SEPARATE
LANDLORDS.
SO WE CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH
THAT AND IT ONLY ENDS UP TAKING
CARE OF THE BIG LANDLORDS.
I URGE YOU, IF YOU ARE A SMALL
LANDLORD, YOU CAN CONTACT
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT'S OFFICE
AND GET INVOLVED.
SO RATHER THAN BLAMING OTHERS
YOU SHOULD GET YOURSELF
INVOLVED IN START WORKING WITH
OTHERS.
>> I AM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OF WASHINGTON PHYSICIANS OF
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
REPRESETING HUNDREDS OF HEALTH
PROFESSIONALS ALL ACROSS THE
STATE AND ENCOURAGE YOU TO
PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH BY
CLOSING THE SIX TERM LEASE
LOOPHOLE AND SUPPORTING THE
HOME DEFENSE LEGISLATION.
OUR MEMBERS HAVE BEEN IMPACTED
BY INSTABILITY AND HOMELESSNESS
EVERY DAY AND CLINICAL
HOSPITALS ALL ACROSS OUR STATE
MANY OF OUR MEMBERS WORK ON THE
FRONT LINES OF THE COVID-19
PANDEMIC AND ARE DEEPLY
CONCERNED ABOUT THE PUBLIC
HEALTH CONSEQUENCES THAT WILL
FOLLOW THE EVICTION MORATORIUM
IF PROTECTIONS ARE NOT ENACTED
RIGHT NOW.
HOUSING AND THE THREAT OF
EVICTION ALSO THREATENS
CRITICAL LIFE-SAVING EMERGENCY
CARE.
THIS ALSO COMMONLY RESULTS FROM
THE SPECTRA OF FINANCIAL
HARDSHIP AND HOMELESSNESS.
THE WAVE OF EVICTIONS WILL NOT
ONLY THREATEN THE HEALTH OF
THOUSANDS OF RENTERS ON THE
PRECIPICE OF HOMELESSNESS BUT
ALSO STYMIE HEALTH EFFORTS TO
CONTROL COVID.
WE KNOW FROM RECENT RESEARCH
THAT THERE IS A DECK DIRECT
CONNECTION BETWEEN INCREASED
EVICTIONS AND INCREASED
CORONAVIRUS CASES.
>> SORRY MAX, PLEASE SEND US
YOUR FULL COMMENT.
PLEASE EMAIL IT TO US.
WE HAVE LOGAN NOW.
GO AHEAD.
>> I'M IRONWORKER IN A RANTING
DISTRICT TWO.
I'M JUST REALLY SURPRISED
HEARING ALL THESE LANDLORDS
CALLING IN.
I DID NOT KNOW THEY CARED SO
MUCH, USUALLY THEY JUST GIVE
THEM THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS EVERY
MONTH AND HOPE NOTHING BREAKS.
BUT I'M CALLING IN SUPPORT OF
OUNCILMEMBER SAWANT'S
LEGISLATION AND SUPPORT THE
BILL THAT PARALYSIS
COLLABORATING WITH HER ON TO
PROTECT RENTERS FROM EVICTION.
WE NEED THESE BILLS TO PASS.
I CANNOT BELIEVE WE ARE HAVING
TO FIGHT TO STOP THE EVICTION
OF TEACHERS AND SCHOOL STAFF
AND CHILDREN AND THAT PEDERSEN
IS TRYING TO INTRODUCE AN
ALLOWANCE TO DO IT A YEAR FROM
NOW.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, I'M THE
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MANAGER
WITH THE HOUSING JUSTICE
PROJECT THAT I'M CALLING IN
SUPPORT OF COUNCIL BUILT 12
0057 AND 12 0077 TO PROTECT
RENTERS FROM LOSING THEIR
HOMES.
IN A CITY THAT IS HOME TO
BILLIONAIRES WE SHOULD NOT HAVE
A HOUSING CRISIS.
ALTHOUGH THE WEALTH HAS A
CUMULATIVE MORE WEALTH DURING
THE PANDEMIC, OUR FRONT-LINE
WORKERS AND MOST MARGINALIZED
RENTERS HAVE EXPERIENCED A HIGH
RATE OF CONTRACTING COVID AND
RECEIVING INCOME.
LANDLORDS HAVING TO LEARN NEW
LAWS IS INCONVENIENCE BUT WOULD
LIMIT HOMELESSNESS AND
SOMETIMES DEATH.
LET'S NOT DISCARD THE FRONT-
LINE WORKERS WE APPLAUDED AND
PROVIDE PERMANENT RENTER
PROTECTION.
ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN
WORDS.
OUR COURT SYSTEMS CANNOT HANDLE
THE AMOUNT INCREASING BY EVEN
DOUBLE.
CONTRARY TO WHAT HAS BEEN SAID,
1236 DID NOT SOLVE THE
LOOPHOLES.
>> HI, I'M ESTHER AND I'M IN
DISTRICT 2. I'M CALLING TO BE
IN SUPPORT OF SAWANT'S AND
COUNCILMEMBER MIRELES'S BILL.
I WANT TO SAY THAT BLACK,
INDIGENOUS AND CHILDREN OF
COLOR NEED PROTECTION, EXTRA
PROTECTION.
BECAUSE, THEY HAVE THE SHAKE
USED SCHOOL PERFORMANCE AND
THEY NEED TO MAINTAIN THEIR
PERFORMANCE INTO BETTER.
SO, I WOULD SAY THAT YOU HAVE
TO PROTECT THOSE CHILDREN,
ESPECIALLY FROM EVICTION, THANK
YOU VERY MUCH.
>> WE HAVE SEBASTIAN NEXT
FOLLOWED BY KEVIN.
IT'S BEEN A GOOD AFTERNOON, MY
NAME IS SEBASTIAN ENEMA STAFF
ATTORNEY WITH THE HOUSING
JUSTICE PROJECT.
I'M CALLING IN SUPPORT OF BILLS
12 0057 AND 12 0077 TO PROTECT
RENTERS IN OUR CITY FROM
CONTINUING TO LOSE THEIR HOMES
TO A NO CAUSE EVICTION BASED ON
THE EXISTING LOOPHOLE.
SEATTLE IS HOME TO CONTINUAL
ECONOMIC GROWTH AND SHOULD NOT
HAVE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CRISIS WITH THOUSANDS OF
UNHOUSED INDIVIDUALS.
THROUGHOUT THE PANDEMIC,
MARGINALIZED RENTERS HAVE
EXPERIENCED THE HIGHEST RATES
OF CONTRACTING COVID, LOSS OF
INCOME AND EVEN HOUSING.
WHILE SOME PROTECTIONS PROVIDED
SOME TEMPORARY PROTECTIONS FOR
RENTERS, THEY ARE GOING TO
EXPIRE AND THERE IS NO
CANCELLATION OR FORGIVENESS OF
RENT.
THE RECOVERY OF RENTAL HEALTH
IN SEATTLE WILL NOT BE
IMMEDIATE BUT THESE COUNCIL
BILLS WILL PROVIDE RENTERS
LONG NEEDED IMPORTANT
PROTECTINS THAT INCREASE THE
LIKELIHOOD THAT THEY
CONTINUOUSLY STAY HOUSED.
I SUPPORT AND RECOMMEND PASSAGE
OF THESE BILLS.
WE NEED RENTER PROTECTIONS THAT
GO HAND-IN-HAND WITH RENTERS
AND GIVEN A FIGHTING CHANCE TO
STAY HOUSED IN SEATTLE.
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY IN
REFERENCE TO ONE OF THE
PREVIOUS SPEAKERS THAT IT IS
TOTALLY FINE AND CORRECT FOR
SPEAKERS TO BE PASSIONATE ABOUT
SOCIAL JUSTICE BUT PLEASE LET'S
REFRAIN FROM USING ANY PERSONAL
NAME-CALLING OF ANY OF THE
ELECTED OFFICIALS.
>> I AM A RENTER AND A MEMBER
OF THE SEATTLE EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION WHICH VOTED
OVERWHELMINGLY IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL FOR PROTECTION OF
EVICTIONS.
IT IS CLEAR HOW STUDENTS HAD TO
MOVE UNEXPECTEDLY STRUGGLED THE
HARDEST.
ACADEMICALLY, YOUR MENTAL AND
PHYSICAL HEALTH ARE SHOCKED.
AND COUNCILMEMBERS KNOW THE
FAMILIES OF COLOR ARE EVICTED
AT MUCH HIGHER RATES AND NINE
OUT OF 10 EVICTIONS RESULT IN
HOMELESSNESS.
SO, THIS IS ALL TO SAY THAT THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WERE INTRODUCED
THIS MORNING BY COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, ARE RELATED POISON
BILL WHICH IS A VERY CYNICAL
MOVE THAT FLIES IN THE FACE OF
THIS ELECTION.
WHY MAKE TEACHERS A PROTECTED
CLASS AND LEAVE NEARLY EVERYONE
OF THEIR COWORKERS VULNERABLE.
AND ALL THIS TALK OF
STAKEHOLDERS IS REALLY
SOMETHING.
THE PUBLIC COMMENT HAPPENS IN
THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY AND IS
THERE STAKEHOLDER MORE IMPACTED
THAN WORKING RENTERS THAT FACE
HARDSHIP OVER THIS PAST YEAR, I
REALLY DON'T THINK SO.
>> JORDAN QUINN FOLLOWED BY
DANIEL.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES.
>> GREAT.
I NAME IS JORDAN, I'M A RENTER
AND DISTRICT TWO AND A MEMBER
OF THE SOCIALIST ALTERNATIVE
I'M CALLING TO URGE THE
DEMOCRATIC COUNCILMEMBERS TO
PASS THE UNIFIED PROPOSAL FROM
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT AND MORALE
IS , TO PASS THIS BILL TO
DEFEND RENTERS FACING COVID
DEBT.
AND ALSO TO BAN SCHOOL YEAR
EVICTIONS WITHOUT ANY OF THE
ANTI-RENTER, ANTI-STUDENT
LOOPHOLES BEING PROPOSED BY
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
LIKE THE SUNSET CLAUSE.
CORPORATE LANDLORDS ARE ALREADY
GEARING UP FOR AN EVICTION
TSUNAMI.
ONCE THESE EVICTION MORATORIUMS
AND.
AND SOME IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT
EVEN MADE SIMILAR THREATS THAT
IF THESE DETECTIONS PASS,
THAT'S BECAUSE THE PRIVATE
HOUSING MARKET REQUIRES THEM TO
DEFEND THEIR PROFITS.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE
TO KICK US OUT.
THANKS.
>> I MET MEMBER OF SOCIALIST
ALTERNATIVE AND A RENTER, I
WANT TO STRONGLY SUPPORT THE
UNITED JUST CAUSE BILL PUT
FORWARD BY COUNCILMEMBERS
SAWANT AND MIRELES AND THE BILL
PROTECTING SCHOOLCHILDREN.
AND TO THE SMALL LANDLORDS
CALLING IN, EVICTIONS ARE
OVERWHELMINGLY CORPORATE
LANDLORDS.
SO IF YOU WOULD IN EFFECT
CHILDREN DURING THE SCHOOL
YEAR, YOU SHOULDN'T BE
CONCERNED ABOUT THIS, YOU
SHOULD JOIN OUR MOVEMENT TO
DEFEND YOUR NEIGHBORS AGAINST
THESE CORPORATIONS.
FAMILIES BEING PUT OUT ON THE
STREET IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
BUT THAT WOULD ALSO BE A PART
OF THE SHAMEFUL PEDERSEN
AMENDMENT.
FOR STAFF WHO HAVE RISKED THEIR
HEALTH DURING COVID, APPARENTLY
PEDERSEN WANTS TO LEAVE THESE
WORKERS AND FAMILIES OUT ON THE
STREET.
SMALL LEONARD SHOULD REJECT
THESE AMENDMENTS FROM PEDERSEN.
IS MICHELLE HERE?
>> MICHELLE, YOU APPEAR TO BE
MUTED.
PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX.
>> HELLO I AM A PUBLIC SCHOOL
TEACHER AND I'M CALLING TO SAY
I OPPOSE THIS LEGISLATION AND
IN ADDITION TO TEACHING HIGH
SCHOOL I AM IN A FAMILY
PROPERTY.
THE NEED FOR SMALL HOUSING
PROVIDERS TO BE ABLE TO
TERMINATE THE LEASE AT THE END
OF A FIXED TERM, I CAN NO
LONGER PAY MY MORTGAGE DUE TO
ON PAYING TENANTS.
I AM NOT VERY RICH.
LIKE OTHER HOUSING PROVIDERS I
CANNOT CONTINUE TO CARRY THIS
FINANCIAL BURDEN.
MANY FAMILIES LIKE MINE SUFFER
THE SAME AND I SUPPORT HELPING
FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN THAT ARE
MOST IN NEED.
SMALL HOUSING PROVIDERS HAVE
BEEN CRUSHED BY THE COMBINATION
OF HOUSING POLICIES.
THIS FOLLOWS A PATTERN OF CITY
COUNCIL WHICH IS CREATING
POLICY WITHOUT CONSIDERING
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
>> HI, MY NAME IS JAMES AND I'M
A STAFF ATTORNEY FOR THE
HOUSING JUSTICE PROJECT AND
CURRENTLY A RENTER IN DISTRICT
4. CALLING IN SUPPORT OF THESE
BILLS TODAY INCLUDING
COUNCILMEMBER MIRELES'S AND
SAWANT'S BILL THAT CLOSES
LOOPHOLES.
IN A COUNTRY MOST PEOPLE CANNOT
AFFORD TO PAY A $500 PRIZE
BILL, ASKING TENDS TO CHOOSE
BETWEEN PAYING THOUSANDS AND
UNEXPECTED MOVING COSTS MERELY
BECAUSE THEIR LANDLORD WON'T
RENEW THEIR LEASE IS AN
IMPOSSIBLE SITUATION FOR
TENANTS.
IT MAKES IT INCREDIBLY
DIFFICULT FOR OUR ORGANIZATION
TO DO OUR PART TO KEEP
RESIDENTS HOUSED.
THROUGHOUT THE PANDEMIC I'VE
SEEN LANDLORDS USED NO CAUSE
BASIS FOR EVICTIONS SUCH AS
WORKAROUNDS WHICH WOULD
OTHERWISE BE UNLAWFUL REASONS.
AT THE SAME WAY THIS LOOPHOLE
PUTS TENANTS A GREAT RISK OF
EVICTION.
I ALSO SUPPORT THE SOUND OF
HOPE DEFENSE TO PROTECT RENTERS
FROM LOSING THEIR HOUSING AS
THE CITY BEGINS TO RECOVER.
WITHOUT THESE BILLS MANY
NEIGHBORS WILL SUFFER FOR NO
GOOD REASON.
>> WE HAVE KATIE WILSON.
GO AHEAD KATIE.
>> HELLO, KATIE WILSON, I'M A
RENTER IN DISTRICT 3. SPEAKING
ON BEHALF OF THE TRANSIT RIDERS
A UNION.
WE STRONGLY SUPPORT COUNSEL
BILL 120077, PASSING THIS
LEGISLATION WOULD HELP TO
ENSURE LANDLORDS WORK WITH
THEIR RENTERS TO ACCESS THE
AVAILABLE RENTERS ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM INSTEAD OF EVICTIN
THEM.
WE ALSO STRONGLY SUPPORT THE
LEGISLATION TO CLOSE THE
LOOPHOLE AND PROVIDE JUST CAUSE
PROTECTIONS TO ALL RENTERS
CURRENTLY SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBERS SAWANT AND
MIRELES.
LOSS OF RENTERS PUTTING ME ARE
ON FIXED TERM BASIS.
AT THE END OF THE LEASE THE
LANDLORD JUST HAS TO FIND THE
NEW TENANT.
WHEN THEY TERMINATE FOR NO
CAUSE THE RENTER LOSES THEIR
HOME.
THIS LEGISLATION WILL HELP TO
ADDRESS THAT BALANCE OF POWER
AND BRING SEATTLE UP TO THE
STANDARDS ALREADY SET.
WE ALSO SUPPORT THE SCHOOL YEAR
FIXED BAND.
I RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF ALL OF
THEM TO THE FULL CITY COUNCIL.
THANK YOU.
>>
HI, I AM A RENTER IN DISTRICT
3. AS AN ATTORNEY WORKING TO
PROTECT TENANTS DAY IN AND DAY
OUT, I SEE THE SIGNIFICANT
EFFECT THAT IT HAS ON
INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES.
NOW IS THE TIME TO CLOSE THE
JUST CAUSE ORDINANCE LOOPHOLE.
STUDIES HAVE FOUND THAT THEY
STILL HAVE THE SECOND HIGHEST
NUMBER OF NO CAUSE EVICTIONS IN
KING COUNTY.
AS SOMEONE WHO WORKS CLOSELY
WITH INDIVIDUALS FACING
EVICTION, I STRONGLY URGE YOUR
SUPPORT OF THESE NECESSARY
STEPS TO HELP THE ONSLAUGHT OF
EVICTIONS THAT WILL HAPPEN ONCE
THE MORATORIUM IS LIFTED.
>> NEXT WE HAVE ELIZABETH
FOLLOWED BY MARILYN.
>> HI MY NAME IS ELIZABETH, I
OWN A DUPLEX ON CAPITOL HILL.
I JUST WANT TO KNOW, WHAT THE
PROVISIONS ARE IF YOU WANT TO
PREVENT PEOPLE FROM BEING
EVICTED DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR.
IS THE CITY GOING TO STEP UP
AND PAY ANY SMALL LANDLORD
MORTGAGE, UTILITIES, REPAIRS,
MAINTENANCE AND ALL THAT.
OTHERWISE YOU ARE SHIFTING THE
BURDEN ONTO PRIVATE CITIZENS,
WHICH IS NOT RIGHT.
NOT ONLY THAT, AS SMALL
LANDLORDS WE DO NOT HAVE DEEP
POCKETS, WE DO NOT HAVE THE
RESOURCES THAT CORPORATE
LANDLORDS DO.
IF THAT HAPPENED TO ME I WOULD
GO INTO FORECLOSURE, I WOULD
LOSE THE HOUSE, SO YOU REALLY
NEED TO UNDERSTAND BASIC
ECONOMICS BEFORE ADDRESSING
THAT IF YOU WANT TO PUT THAT IN
ACTION.
YOU NEED TO HAVE A FUND THAT
PAYS FOR THEM.
>> HI THERE, MY NAME IS MARILYN
AND I'M A SMALL MOM-AND-POP
HOUSING PROVIDER IN DISTRICT 6.
THIS LEGISLATION HAS PROCEEDED
WITHOUT ANY DATA ON CURRENT
TRENDS.
WE ARE SEEING AN ALARMING
REDUCTION IN LOCALLY MANAGED
FAMILY SIZE RENTAL HOUSING, AND
THIS OUTCOME WAS PREDICTED IN
THE 2018 STUDY THAT FOUND 40%
OF LANDLORDS WERE CONSIDERING
SELLING AS A RESULT OF THAT
SEATTLE HARSH ANTI-LANDLORD
LEGISLATION.
THE CITY COUNCIL NEEDS TO PAUSE
THIS LEGISLATION TO COLLECT
DATA ON THE RENTAL HOUSING
STOCK AND PROFILE AND UPDATE
THE 2018 STUDY TO ACCOUNT FOR
ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION AND
COVID.
WE ALSO NEED TO BE INCLUDED AS
A STAKEHOLDER AFTER BEING
EXCLUDED FROM SIGNIFICANT
LEGISLATION LIKE THIS FOR THE
LAST FIVE YEARS.
AS AN EXAMPLE, ALL OF THE
RENTERS CALLING IN TODAY IS
AGAINST COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN'S AMENDMENTS.
SMALL HOUSING PROVIDERS HAVE
BEEN CRIPPLED BY THE PANDEMIC.
STOP THE LEGISLATION, COLLECT
DATA AND INCLUDE US, THANK YOU.
>> BEFORE I CALL ON THE NEXT
PERSON I WANT TO READ THE NAMES
OF THOSE SHOWING IS NOT PRESENT.
MAX HUDSON, GLENN McDONALD,
MICHAEL, KATE MARTENS,
CHANDLER, BARBARA FINNEY AND
JACK FRANCIS.
NEXT WE HAVE IAN RANDALL
FOLLOWED BY RENEE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS IAN RANDALL AND I'M
A HEALTHCARE ADVOCATE AT U DUB
AND ALSO IT SMALL, NONCORPORATE
LANDLORD.
I'M ASKING THAT YOU POSTPONE
THE VOTE AND RETURN TO THE
DEMOCRATIC PROCESS AND LISTEN
TO THE VERY PROVIDERS THAT
PROVIDE HOUSING TO KEEP RENTS
LOWER THAN OTHERWISE WOULD BE
IF YOU PASS THIS MISGUIDED
LEGISLATION.
IF YOU DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD
THEN I WOULD URGE YOU TO PLEASE
ACCEPT COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN'S
AMENDMENT TO LIMIT THE SHORT
AND LONG-TERM DAMAGE OF THIS
LEGISLATION.
AS A POLITICAL AGGRESSIVE, I
SHARE THE CONCERN MANY OF YOU
HAVE ON THE SHORT AND LONG TERM
EFFECTS, BUT IN YOUR ZEAL TO
DRIVE US OUT OF THE MARKET YOU
WILL BE REDUCING THE NUMBER OF
RENTALS AVAILABLE.
AS CURRENT HOUSING PROVIDERS
ARE FORCED TO SELL.
AND AS UNITS ARE DEVELOPED,
PLEASE LET'S RETURN TO THE
DEMOCRATIC PROCESS AND AVOID
THE IMPENDING SHORTAGE IN
HOUSING THAT THIS LEGISLATION
WOULD CAUSE.
WE WILL RUN OUT OF HOUSING AND
IT WILL BE YOUR FAULT, THANK
YOU.
>> RENEE IS NEXT.
>> MY NAME IS RENEE AND I'M AN
EVICTION DEFENSE ATTORNEY WITH
THE HOUSING JUSTICE PROJECT AS
WELL IS A RENTER IN DISTRICT 6.
I'M GOING TO EXPRESS MY SUPPORT
FOR BILLS 12 0057 AND 77 AS
DRAFTED.
IT'S ONE OF THE LEAST REGULATED
MARKETS DESPITE THE FACT THAT
SHELTER IS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT.
THERE IS NOTHING UNJUST OR
UNFAIR ABOUT PROVIDING
PROTECTIONS FOR BASIC HUMAN
RIGHTS, ESPECIALLY WHERE THERE
IS SOAP YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I HEAR LENDERS TALKING ABOUT
PROBLEM TENANTS ABOUT WHAT WE
AS A SOCIETY FEEL TO REALIZE IS
THAT WE CONDEMN PROBLEM
TENANTS, THROUGH VIOLENT
EVICTION PROCESS AND THAT A
SEVERE PUNISHMENT FOR NOT BEING
ABLE TO PAY RENT ON TIME.
OR FOR ANY OF THE OTHER REASONS
LANDLORDS EVICT TENANTS.
THE TENANT PROTECTIONS WILL
MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR
LANDLORDS TO EVICT.
I'VE SAID IT MULTIPLE TIMES AND
WILL SAVE FOREVER UNTIL I SEE
IT TRANSLATED INTO POLICY, THE
PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE LANDLORD
SHOULD NOT SUPERSEDE THE RIGHTS
OF THE TENANT.
>> I'M A MEMBER OF THE LGBT
BOARD, AND I'M ON THE SENIOR
HOUSING COMMITTEE.
DECADES AGO I CAME TO SEATTLE
TO FOLLOW AND WRITE ABOUT A
LITTLE STARTUP COMPANY CALLED
MICROSOFT.
I WAS SUCCESSFUL FOR A WHILE IN
THE ECONOMY UNTIL I APPARENTLY
SHUTTERED, ACCEPTED MYSELF AS A
WOMAN.
SUDDENLY THEY DID NOT WANT TO
ACCEPT ME.
SOCIETY KEPT ME AT A DISTANCE,
I LOST MY JOB, MY FAMILY, I
LOST ALL OPPORTUNITY.
THE MOST DEVASTATING LOSS FOR
ME WAS WINDING UP WITH NO ROOF
OVER MY HEAD.
WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE A JOB OR
FRIEND WITH BENEFITS, HOUSING
STABILITY BREAKS OUT AND YOU
LOSE YOUR WILL TO RECOVER.
MORE IMPORTANTLY YOU LOSE YOUR
WILL TO LIVE.
I SUPPORT THE STAY HEALTHY
COALITION OF COUNCILMEMBER MORE
ALICE.
>> CHRIS HILL FOLLOWED BY
KATHLEEN MYERS.
>> I'M CHRIS HILL, CHILD MUSIC
EDUCATOR.
I URGE YOU ALL TO SUPPORT NO
EVICTION FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN,
FAMILIES AND SCHOOL WORKERS.
PEDERSEN'S AMENDMENT IS
ESPECIALLY BAD, IT UNDERCUTS
THE WHOLE POINT OF THE HEALTH
PROVIDED BY MAKING IT ABOUT NO-
FAULT EVICTIONS SUCH AS
RENOVATIONS OR MAKING THE
TENANT SIGN A DECLARATION OF
POVERTY WHEN WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT THE CHILDREN BEING
PROTECTED, NOT THE ADULTS, THAT
TAKES THE FOCUS AWAY.
I WAS ONCE AWARDED BIG BROTHER
OF THE YEAR IN 2001 BY THE
BELLINGHAM BIG BROTHERS/BIG
SISTERS.
I DID A LOT OF BEHIND-THE-
SCENES WORK ADVOCATING FOR
YOUNG BOY IN THE EDUCATION
SYSTEM.
HOWEVER, HE HAD BECOME HOMELESS
AND I DO NOT THINK HE WOULD
HAVE REMAINED IN SCHOOL, LET
ALONE SUCCEEDED.
CHILDREN ARE OUR FUTURE, FOR
GOOD OR BAD.
>> THIS IS KATHLEEN MYERS, I'M
IN SUPPORT OF SAWANT'S BILL TO
PREVENT EVICTIONS OF CHILDREN
AND THER EDUCATORS AND
FAMILIES.
EDUCATION IS NECESSARY AND OF
FUNDAMENTAL ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
ASPIRING TO DEMOCRACY.
IT IS A CHALLENGE IN AN UNEQUAL
SOCIETY SUCH AS OURS AND IT HAS
HAMPERED AND BEEN MADE MORE
UNEQUAL BY THE PANDEMIC.
WE CAN'T LET THE DIFFICULTIES
ALREADY EXPERIENCED UNEQUALLY
BE COMPOUNDED BY A LACK OF
PROTECTION FROM EVICTIONS.
DON'T LET THE EDUCATION OF THE
LEAST ADVANTAGED BE SACRIFICED
OR FURTHER CHALLENGED.
I SUPPORT THE BILL TO PROTECT.
>> THANK YOU, AND THANK YOU TO
ALL WHO SPOKE IN TODAY'S PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD.
I REALLY APPRECIATE
COUNCILMEMBERS ALLOWING ME THE
TIME SO WE COULD COVER ALL
SPEAKERS EVEN THOUGH IT WAS
JUST ONE MINUTE FOR EACH.
I WANT TO REITERATE THAT MY
OFFICE HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS IS
OPEN TO MEET WITH LANDLORDS.
AND IN FACT WE'VE BEEN IN TOUCH
WITH A NUMBER OF LENDERS,
INCLUDING AT LEAST ONE THAT
SPOKE IN PUBLIC COMMENT AND
SAID WE HAVE NOT BEEN MEETING.
SO THAT IS ACTUALLY NOT A FACT.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, MY OFFICE
HAS SOLICITED FEEDBACK FROM
SMALL ALERTS IN DEVELOPING THE
VARIOUS LEGISLATION OVER THE
MANY YEARS, INCLUDING THE
LEGISLATION BEFORE TODAY.
SOME OF THOSE WHO TESTIFIED OUR
TRULY SMALL LANDLORDS AND ARE
STRUGGLING AND I REALLY
APPRECIATE SONJA FROM PUBLIC
COMMENT SAYING THAT SMALL
LANDLORDS WHO ARE STRUGGLING
SHOULD ACTUALLY GET INVOLVED
TRYING TO BUILD FOR RENTERS
RIGHTS AND FOR THOSE STRUGGLING
TO PAY MORTGAGE.
BUT SOME WHO CALLED IN AND SAID
THAT THEY ARE SMALL LANDLORDS
LIKE THE WINDEMERE VICE
PRESIDENT, I DON'T THINK THAT
WOULD BE CONSIDERED A SMALL
LANDLORD.
SO WE NEED TO BE CLEAR THAT THE
CRISIS FACING RENTERS DEMAND
ACTION.
ONE THAT DESCRIBES HIMSELF AS A
LANDLORD SAID THEY DID NOT KNOW
ABOUT COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN'S
AMENDMENT.
I AGREE THAT IS DISAPPOINTING,
BUT THAT IS NOT SOMETHING MY
OFFICE WAS ABLE TO DECIDE THE
TIMING ON.
THEY DON'T APPEAR ON THE
OFFICIAL AGENDA BECAUSE THEY
WERE NOT SUBMITTED IN TIME.
BUT IN FACT, THAT IS WHY I
POSTED THEM ON MY BLOG WHICH IS
AVAILABLE FOR EVERYONE TO SEE.
SO YOU CAN SEE FOR YOURSELF, AS
I MENTIONED.
AND I WANT TO RECALL WHAT RENEE
SAID JUST NOW, AND NOW WE WILL
BEGIN OUR FIRST AMENDMENT ON
THE AGENDA.
ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE
TERMINATION OF RESIDENTIAL
RENTAL TENDENCIES PROVIDING
DEFENSE TO CERTAIN EVICTIONS OF
CHILDREN, THEIR FAMILIES AND
EDUCATORS DURING THE SCHOOL
YEAR AND AMENDING SECTION 22
.26 POINT 160.
THIS IS THE LEGISLATION FROM MY
OFFICE, BANNING THE EVICTION OF
SCHOOLCHILDREN, THEIR FAMILIES
AND EDUCATORS, IT IS COMMON
SENSE BUT THERE IS ALSO
RESEARCH EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT
WHEN CHILDREN ARE EVICTED IT
HAS A DEVASTATING IMPACT ON
THEIR ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT,
DEVELOPMENTAL AND MENTAL
HEALTH.
IMAGINE AS A CHILD TRYING TO
FOCUS ON YOUR SCHOOLWORK WHILE
LOSING YOUR HOME.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE APTLY NAMED
LOSING HOME REPORT FOUND THAT
OF THE RESPONDENTS OF SCHOOL-
AGE CHILDREN, 85.7% SAID THEIR
CHILDREN HAD TO MOVE SCHOOLS
AND 87.5 REPORTED THEIR
CHILDREN'S SCHOOL PERFORMANCE
AFFECTED VERY MUCH.
IN 2018 THE STATE FOUND THAT
NEARLY 4200 SEATTLE PUBLIC
SCHOOL CHILDREN WERE HOMELESS
AT SOME POINT DURING THE SCHOOL
YEAR.
THAT IS A STAGGERING NUMBER OF
SCHOOLCHILDREN.
IN PRACTICAL TERMS THAT MEANS
IN AN AVERAGE CLASS OF 30
STUDENTS, TOO WILL BE HOMELESS.
THIS IS A RACIAL JUSTICE AND
BLACK LIVES MATTER ISSUE.
BLACK TENANTS ARE EVICTED AT
MUCH HIGHER RATES THAN OTHERS
AND WE ALSO SEE THE BLACK
STUDENTS AND OTHER STUDENTS OF
COLOR DISPROPORTIONATELY FACE
HOMELESSNESS.
THE 2018 STATE DATA FOUND THAT
40% OF HOMELESS STUDENTS WERE
BLACK AND 23% WERE LATINX, EVEN
THOUGH THEY CONSTITUTE FOR A
MUCH SMALLER PROPORTION OF
SALES OVERALL POPULATIONS.
FOR THE HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATING
CLASS THAT YEAR, THE SEATTLE PI
FOUND FOR THE CLASS OF 2018,
55.2% OF HOMELESS STUDENTS
GRADUATE ON TIME COMPARED TO
85.4 PERCENT OF STUDENTS THAT
WERE HOUSED.
THIS IS STAGGERING DATA AND OF
COURSE AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, THE
REASON WE ARE BANNING EVICTIONS
DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR IS
BECAUSE OF THE ENORMOUS LINK
BETWEEN EVICTIONS AND
HOMELESSNESS WE FOUND IN
STUDIES THAT NINE OUT OF 10
EVICTIONS RESULT IN
HOMELESSNESS.
WHICH IS ALSO STAGGERING DATA.
WE KNOW THAT HOUSING STABILITY
HAS A DEVASTATING IMPACT ON
EDUCATION, DEVELOPMENTAL AND
MENTAL HEALTH.
WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT
THIS, AND AT THE VERY LEAST THE
COUNCIL HAS THE POWER TO STOP
CHILDREN FROM BEING EVICTED
WHICH IS WHAT THIS LEGISLATION
DOES.
I AM REALLY THANKFUL THAT WE
HAVE THE CITY COUNCIL CENTRAL
STAFF HERE TO WALK US THROUGH A
MEMO DETAILING THE LEGISLATION.
JEFF, WILL YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE
YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD AND
THEN BEGIN, THANK YOU.
>> FOR THE RECORD, JEFF,
COUNSEL SUCH A STEP.
BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY HAS
ALREADY HEARD SOME OF THE HILLS
IN THE PRAYER MEETING, I WON'T
GO INTO EXTENSIVE DETAIL.
I WILL AT THE END BRIEFLY
DESCRIBE EACH OF THE AMENDMENT
SPIRITS OF COUNCIL BILL 1200
56, A COVERS WHO WILL BE
COVERED BY THIS, ALL CHILDREN
UNDER THE AGE OF 18, AND THEN
ANYONE THAT WAS A STUDENT AS
DEFINED IN THE BILL.
FURTHERMORE, ANYONE THAT HAS
LEGAL CUSTODY OF A CHILD AND
FINALLY, EDUCATORS WHICH IS
DEFINED BROADLY AS ANYONE THAT
IS AN EMPLOYEE OR CONTRACTOR OF
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE
TIMEFRAME THAT THIS DEFENSE
AGAINST EVICTIONS WOULD APPLY
IS THE CALENDAR THAT IS SET BY
THE SALE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
CURRENTLY THAT WILL BEGIN THE
FIRST WEDNESDAY OF SEPTEMBER
AND EXTENDED UNTIL MID-JUNE.
SO YOU YOU ARE LOOKING AT A
DEFENSIVE AGAINST EVICTION THAT
WOULD APPLY TO THE ENTIRE YEAR
EXCEPT FOR 10 TO 11 WEEKS PER
YEAR, OVER THE SUMMER.
FOR COMPARISON IF YOU LOOK AT
THE WINTER EVICTIONS BILL, THAT
WAS LIMITED TO ABOUT 12 TO 13
WEEKS.
SO WHO WOULD BE IN WHEN THE
DEFENSE AGAINST EVICTION WOULD
PROBABLY.
THERE IS A LIMITED NUMBER OF
APPLY.
THERE IS A LIMITED NUMBER OF
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH IT WOULD
BE ABLE TO PROCEED.
THE FIRST IS ANYTIME A CODE
VIOLATION OCCURRED.
SO OUR REQUIREMENT TO REMEDIATE
CONDITIONS.
SO THE UNIT IS NOT UP TO
STANDARDS.
IF THERE WAS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
BY THE TENANTS SUCH AS
OPERATING UNLAWFUL BUSINESS,
THEN THE DEFENSE AGAINST
EVICTION WOULD NOT APPLY.
FINALLY, JUST COVERING AGAIN.
>> AS A POINT OF INFORMATION, I
THINK THE RECORDING STOPPED.
>> OKAY, GO AHEAD JEFF.
>> I WILL GO BACK ONE POINT,
JUST TO MAKE SURE IT CAPTURED
EVERYTHING.
I WAS COVERING THE
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE
DEFENSE AGAINST CONVICTION
EVICTION WOULD NOT APPLY.
THE FIRST WOULD BE ANYTIME
THERE IS A CODE VIOLATION, SO A
DWELLING THAT HAD TOO MANY
INHABITANTS WERE NOT SUITABLE
FOR LIVING.
THE SECOND WOULD BE IF THE
TENANT WAS ENGAGING IN CRIMINAL
ACTIVITY.
THE THIRD WOULD BE IF IT WASN'T
OWNER SHARED DWELLING, IN THAT
CASE THE OWNER ACTUALLY IS
OCCUPYING IT.
FOR COMPARISON BECAUSE THERE
HAS BEEN A LOT OF PARALLELS ARE
DRAWN, THERE ARE TWO PRIMARY
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE BILL
PRESENTED TO THIS COMMITTEE
TODAY AND THAT THAT WAS PASSED
IN SAN FRANCISCO.
THE SAN FRANCISCO BILL ONLY
APPLIES TO NO-FAULT SITUATIONS.
SO A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE A
LANDLORD WOULD BE ABLE TO PLAN
AROUND THE RENOVATION OF THE
UNIT OR SELLING OR SOMETHING
ALONG THOSE LINES.
SIMILARLY IN SAN FRANCISCO, THE
PROTECTION AGAINST EVICTIONS
DOES NOT KICK IN UNLESS IT'S A
TENANT THAT HAS OCCUPIED FOR AT
LEAST 12 MONTHS.
THAT IS A MINIMUM
QUALIFICATION.
SO THAT BROADLY, AS THE
COMMITTEE ALREADY KNOWS I WANT
TO BRIEFLY GO THROUGH A
DESCRIPTION OF THE FOUR
AMENDMENTS.
>> JEFF, JUST TO ORGANIZE THE
DISCUSSION IF I MIGHT JUST MOVE
THE BILL BEFORE YOU, BEFORE YOU
START TALKING ABOUT THE
AMENDMENTS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I MOVE COUNCIL BILL ONE
20046 FOR A VOTE.
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU, GO AHEAD JEFF.
>> SO THE AMENDMENTS, ONE WOULD
ESTABLISH A TIME LIMIT SO THAT
18 MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE ORDINANCE, THE
DEFENSE OF EVICTION WOULD NO
LONGER APPLY.
SO ESSENTIALLY, ACTION WOULD BE
TAKEN TO RESTORE IT AT THAT
POINT.
THE SECOND WOULD ALIGN WITH THE
DILATORY CODE.
SIMILAR TO TEACHER CLASSROOM
INSTRUCTION THROUGH THE
AMENDMENT WOULD USE THE
PHRASING, A PERSON WHO HOLDS A
PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION AND
WHO IS APPLIED IN A POSITION
WHERE SUCH A CERTIFICATE IS
REQUIRED WHOSE PRIMARY DUTY IS
THE EDUCATIONAL INSTRUCTION OF
STUDENTS.
THAT IS ZONING IN ON THE
IMPACTS OF THE STUDENTS WELL-
BEING.
THE THIRD WOULD ESTABLISH AN
EXEMPTION FOR SMALL LANDLORDS,
ANY LANDLORD OPERATING FOUR OR
LESS UNITS.
IN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WOULD
LARGELY MOVE TO WHAT SAN
FRANCISCO HAS IN PLACE SO THAT
NO-FAULT CIRCUMSTNCES WOULD BE
PROTECTED.
HOWEVER, AN EVICTION COULD
PROCEED IF THERE WAS FAILURE TO
PAY RENT WAS NOT COMPLYING WITH
THE TERMS FOR LEASE AGREEMENT
OR HAD TO BE GIVEN NOTICE THAT
THOSE CONDITIONS OR PAYMENT OF
RENT HAD TO BE MADE.
THERE IS A NUANCE TO THIS BILL
I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT.
FOR EDUCATORS, THEY WOULD NOT
HAVE A HARDSHIP PROTECTION.
IT WOULD ONLY BE IF IT WAS NO-
FAULT PROTECTION.
HOWEVER, FOR CHILDREN AND THEIR
LEGAL CUSTODIANS.
PRAYER OF REGULAR PROBLEM
RECEIVER AND, THEY COULD SELF
DECLARE OURSELVES CERTIFIED
THAT THERE HAD BEEN HARDSHIP
SITUATIONS THAT PREVENTED THEM
FROM BEING ABLE TO PAY THE
RENT.
THEREFORE THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO
RAISE AND DEFENSE AGAINST
EVICTION.
I HOPE THAT WAS HELPFUL AND I'M
AVAILABLE FOR FURTHER COMMENTS
OR QUESTIONS.
>> FIRST I'D LIKE TO ASK
COUNCILMEMBERS OR COMMUNITY
MEMBERS, IF YOU HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BASE
LEGISLATION, PLEASE FEEL FREE
TO ASK.
AFTER THAT WE WILL MOVE INTO
THE AMENDMENTS.
SO, ANY QUESTIONS?
I DON'T SEE ANY, SO LET'S MOVE
TO THE AMENDMENTS.
SO, ALL THE AMENDMENTS ARE FOR
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
I WILL HAND IT OVER TO YOU
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN TO TALK
ABOUT IT.
I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I'M IN
AGREEMENT WITH YOU GENERALLY
THAT THESE EVICTIONS RESENT
HARDSHIPS FOR CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES AND NO ONE WANTS TO
HAVE THIS DISRUPTION TO
LEARNING LOSS AND DISABILITY
FOR CHILDREN.
I LIKE TO SEE MORE INVENTION OF
EVICTIONS, ESPECIALLY DURING
NONPAYMENT OF RENT DURING THE
COVID PANDEMIC.
I HAVE VOTED IN FAVOR OF
NUMEROUS TENANT PROTECTIONS
DURING THE PAST YEAR INCLUDING
THE WINTER BAND FOR EVICTIONS
OF RESIDENTS, FREE LEGAL
COUNSEL FOR THOSE IN NEED IN
THE PAYMENT PLANS FOR THOSE
IMPACTED BY THE COVID PANDEMIC.
BEFORE JOINING CITY COUNCIL I
HELPED WITH A BILL THAT
SUPPORTED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
UNITS OF HOUSING.
I BELIEVE PROVIDING A MORE
TARGETED, DIRECT AND EFFICIENT
SOLUTION WOULD BE FUNDING THE
TENANT ASSISTANCE FOR THOSE IN
NEED RATHER THAN ADDING
ADDITIONAL REGULATION AT THIS
TIME THAT COULD BE LEGALLY
CHALLENGED.
BECAUSE, IT LEAVES ONE PARTY
BEARING THE COST.
SO FUNDING RATHER THAN
REGULATING WOULD BE MY
PREFERRED APPROACH.
HOWEVER I SEE THE IMPORTANCE OF
THIS LEGISLATION.
SO MY AMENDMENTS ARE MEANT FOR
DISCUSSION PURPOSE.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE
AMENDMENTS AT THE CITY STAGE TO
ALLOW TO CRAFT A COUPLE OF
THESE.
IF IT IS OKAY WITH YOU, I WILL
TRY TO MOVE EACH ONE AND THEN
WE CAN DISCUSS EACH ONE OR HAVE
PEOPLE ASK QUESTIONS, I CAN
TAKE IT ONE BY ONE IF YOU'D
LIKE MADAM CHAIR.
>> YES, LET'S DO ONE BY ONE.
DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND
MOVE IT?
>> IS, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO
AMEND COUNCIL BILL 10046 AS
PRESENTED IN AMENDMENT ONE.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU.
AND SO I FEEL THAT JEFF
DESCRIBED IT VERY WELL.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS OR DIRECT YOU ARE
QUESTIONS TO JEFF.
>> COUNCILMEMBERS, I HAVE SOME
COMMENTS BUT I WILL WAIT ON
OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS TO SPEAK.
>> I'M SORRY JEFF, CAN YOU
REMIND US ON WHICH WHEN THE
FIRST AMENDMENT IS THAT
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN IS
BRINGING.
>> THIS WOULD OPPOSE AN 18
MONTH LIMIT AFTER THE DATE OF
ENACTMENT.
SO 18 MONTHS AFTER GOING INTO
EFFECT IT WOULD END.
>> ALL RIGHT THANK YOU, I DON'T
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MORALES, DO
YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS?
>> NO, THANK YOU.
>> I JUST FIND THIS AMENDMENT
COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE.
THE FACT IS, IF YOU JUST LOOK
AT THE FACTS, CORPORATE
LANDLORDS ARE ALL GEARING UP TO
CARRY OUT WHAT ECONOMISTS
PREDICT WILL BE A TSUNAMI OF
EVICTIONS ONCE THE MORATORIUM
ZEN.
THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF
OPINION.
AND WE JUST DON'T BELIEVE THAT
ANY SCHOOL KID OR EDUCATOR
SHOULD FACE AN EVICTION AT
ANYTIME NOW OR IN THE FUTURE.
AND BY INSERTING THIS SUNSET
CLAUSE, ESSENTIALLY, ANY
POLITICIAN WOULD SAY IT IS OKAY
FOR CORPORATE LANDLORDS TO
RESUME WAITING CHILDREN, THEIR
FAMILIES AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO
HAVE BEGINNING IN 2023.
WHY SHOULD IT AND THEN, IT
SHOULD CONTINUE.
AND COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, YOU
PRESENTED THIS AS A BENIGN
QUESTION BUT THE REALITY IS
THAT THE COUNCIL CAN ALWAYS
REVIEW A LEGISLATION.
THAT IS THE NATURE OF THE
LEGISLATION.
A FUTURE LEGISLATIVE BODY IN
THE CITY CAN DECIDE WHAT IT
WANTS TO DO.
AND COUNCIL CAN ALWAYS PASS
NEW AMENDMENTS CHANGING THE
LAWS.
AND, IF YOU JUST WANTED THIS
REVIEWED YOU WOULD HAVE
PROPOSED ADDING A WHEREAS
CLAUSE.
BUT THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT
REQUIRE THE COUNCIL REVIEW, IT
JUST MAKES THE PROTECTIONS FOR
CHILDREN AND AFTER 18 MONTHS.
REVIEWING IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT
THAN ENDING PROTECTIONS IN 18
MONTHS.
AND IT IS BY NO MEANS MUTUAL.
BECAUSE IF WE DO WIN, THEY
WOULD HAVE REQUIRED A COMMUNITY
ORGANIZING AND REAL MOMENTUM BY
RENTERS AND UNIONS AND THAT
MEANS WE WOULD NEED TO WAGE THE
SAME BATTLES AGAIN AND AGAIN
JUST TO KEEP FROM LOSING WHAT
WE HAD WON IN THE PAST.
AND IN THE NEXT 18 MONTHS I
WANT RENTERS AND LABOR UNIONS
TO BE BUILDING THE MOVEMENT FOR
ECONOMIC DISPLACEMENT
RELOCATION AND WHAT IS LOOMING
LARGE IS THE NEED TO CANCEL
COVID DEBT FOR STRUGGLING
HOMEOWNERS AND STRUGGLING
LANDLORDS AND SMALL BUSINESSES.
SO, WE NEED ALL OF THAT, WE
NEED A GREEN NEW DEAL.
SO WE FACED SO MANY CRISES
INCLUDING THE NEED FOR
UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE.
IT JUST SEEMS GRATUITOUS THAT
COUNCILMEMBERS WOULD WANT
PEOPLE TO HAVE TO WAGE THE SAME
BATTLE OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
I WILL BE VOTING NO ON THIS
AMENDMENT WHICH IS A PRO
EVICTION AMENDMENT.
>> CHAIR, MAY I INTERRUPT?
IF IT'S OKAY, I CAN SHARE MY
SCREEN SO THE PUBLIC CAN SEE
THE AMENDMENTS AS THEY COME UP.
>> THAT IS A REALLY GOOD IDEA.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
AND OF COURSE, COUNCILMEMBERS,
IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK, LET ME
KNOW.
>> YOU MAKE YOUR POINTS VERY
WELL AND I WANTED US HERE FOR
DISCUSSION PURPOSES.
WE'VE HAD A DISCUSSION, WE'VE
HEARD FROM ESSENTIAL STAFF ON
IT.
THAT WAS THE INTENT TO SET IT
UP AS A PILOT. I
PERSONALLY USE THESE AS
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE
REGULATORY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
HOUSING PROVIDERS AND TENANTS.
IF THIS BILL ADVANCES OUT OF
COMMITTEE, PERHAPS MY OFFICE
COULD WORK WITH YOURS TO INSERT
THE WHEREAS CLAUSE YOU ARE
TALKING ABOUT.
JUST CIRCLING BACK AND
REPORTING ON HOW THE ORDINANCE
IS GOING, WHAT IS THE
IMPLEMENTATION, ARE THERE ANY
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
I AGREE THESE ARE SUBSTANTIAL
CHANGES BUT I THINK IT IS A
POLITICAL QUESTION AND THINK
THE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES ARE
NEEDED AND URGENTLY.
IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THEY HAVE
NOT BEEN PUT IN PLACE.
AS SOMEONE IN THEIR PUBLIC
COMMENT SAID, THEY WOULD HAVE
BEEN ABLE TO USE THESE WHEN
THEY WERE YOUNG.
AS FAR AS THE WHEREAS CLAUSE,
IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT, MY
OFFICE WILL BE HAPPY TO WORK
WITH YOU AS INSERTING A WHEREAS
CLAUSE.
I THINK IT IS A GOOD PRACTICE
TO REVIEW THE BACKUP CLAUSE IN
GENERAL.
IN TERMS OF THE AMENDMENT, I
THINK THE MOTION HAS ALREADY
BEEN MADE.
SO I BELIEVE WE HAVE TO VOTE.
SO, AS CLERK OF THE COMMITTEE
CAN YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
>> [ ROLL CALL ] ONE IN FAVOR
AND THREE OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU FOR DESCRIBING THE
AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO,
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, GO
AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR SAWANT.
I LIKE TO MOVE TO AMEND CANCEL
BILL 10046 AS PRESENTED IN
AMENDMENT TWO WHICH IS THE
DEFINITION OF EDUCATOR.
CAN I GET A SECOND?
THANK YOU.
>> AS JEFF DESCRIBED THIS
AMENDMENT, IT IS TO DEFINE, AS
I UNDERSTOOD, ONE OF THE
INTENTS OF THIS BILL WAS TO
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS
FOR EDUCATORS.
SO THIS DEFINES THAT AS A
SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS AND
CURRICULUM SPECIALISTS AS
DEFINED IN THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON STATE LAW.
IT'S TO TARGET THIS TOWARD
TEACHERS.
THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS
AMENDMENT.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> JEFF, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING
TO ADD?
>> NO MADAM CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBERS,
GO AHEAD COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
>> SO, I AM REALIZING, YOU JUST
STATED THIS WAS IN ALIGNMENT
WITH WASHINGTON STATE LAW.
I THINK PART OF MY CONFUSION IS
THAT SOME OF THIS SEEMS, I
THOUGHT THESE WERE BOTH
INTENDING TO BE A IN ALIGNMENT
WITH THE SAN FRANCISCO
ORDINANCE, AND THAT IS A
RELATES TO THE DEFINITION OF
EDUCATOR IS VERY DIFFERENT.
IT IS VERY BROAD, TO INCLUDE
NURSES, ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF,
EVEN CUSTODIANS, TEACHERS
AIDES.
I THINK THAT IS THE WAY WE
SHOULD BE THINKING OF EDUCATORS
IN THIS PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE
BECAUSE WHO WE ARE REALLY
TALKING ABOUT ARE THOSE WHO
SUPPORT STUDENTS AND THEIR
ABILITY TO LEARN, AND KEEPING
THEIR HOUSING STABLE IS ALSO
IMPORTANT FOR THE BENEFIT OF
OUR YOUNG PEOPLE IN THEIR
EDUCATION.
I DON'T THINK A SPECIALIZED
DEGREE OR DIPLOMA SHOULD BE A
MEANS TEST FOR HAVING
PROTECTION FROM POSSIBLE
EVICTION.
SO, I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THIS
AMENDMENT, AND I JUST WANTED TO
GET THAT ON THE RECORD.
>> THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.
I APPRECIATE THIS AMENDMENT
COMING FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES.
FOR SOME OF THE SAME REASONS
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES JUST
INDICATED, WHICH IS THAT THERE
ARE SOME SCOPE DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN WHAT WE ARE CONSIDERING
HERE AND WHAT, I WOULDN'T SAY
MODEL LEGISLATION BUT THE
PRECEDENT LEGISLATION FROM SAN
FRANCISCO INCLUDED.
I THINK IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO
CONVERSATIONS AROUND HOW WE
STRUCTURE THIS ORDINANCE TO
SURVIVE ULTIMATE LEGAL
SCRUTINY, AND THERE ARE
CONCERNS AROUND SCOPING.
I STILL THINK THAT THIS
AMENDMENT AS PRESENTED BY
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN IS TOO
NARROW.
I THINK IT NARROWS IT MORE THAN
WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED.
AND AS COUNCILMEMBER MORALES
IMPLIED, THIS IS NARROWER THAN
THAT THAT SAN FRANCISCO
ORDINANCE WHILE THE BASE
ORDINANCE IS PERHAPS SLIGHTLY
MORE EXPENSIVE FOR WORDS THINGS
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY.
SO, I THINK THIS IS A PRIME
AREA TO EXAMINE AS WE ARE GOING
FORWARD TO DISCUSSING THIS AT
FULL COUNSEL.
BUT I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT TODAY GIVEN THAT I
THINK IT NARROWS THE SCOPE TOO
MUCH.
AND I DO THINK THERE IS A LOT
OF REALLY CRITICAL SCHOOL
EMPLOYEES HEARD I CAN THINK OF
LIKE COUNSELORS FOR EXAMPLE,
WHERE IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THAT
COUNSELOR TO NOT BE DISPLACED
AND BE IN A POSITION WHERE THE
KIDS THAT ARE ON THE CASELOAD
FOR THAT COUNSELOR DON'T HAVE
TO SWITCH OUT MULTIPLE
COUNSELORS IN A GIVEN YEAR OR
LOSE A COUNSELOR THEY HAVE A
GOOD RAPPORT WITH, AND OTHER
SUPPORT STAFF.
SO, I WON'T BE VOTING IN FAVOR
OF THIS AMENDMENT, BUT I DO
THINK THAT IT IS STILL AN AREA
WHERE I WOULD ANTICIPATE SOME
DISCUSSION AT FULL COUNSEL, AND
I THINK THIS IS A CONVERSATION
TO HAVE.
>> AS COUNCILMEMBER MORALES
SAID, THE LANGUAGE THAT WE
DEVELOPED FOR THIS LEGISLATION,
WE OBVIOUSLY TOOK THE SAN
FRANCISCO BILL AS THE STARTING
POINT.
AND IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT THAT
PRECEDENT WAS SET TO REBUT THE
POINT IS TO PICK THE BEST
EXAMPLE BY WHATEVER IS EXISTING
AND MAKE IT BETTER WHEREVER
POSSIBLE.
SO IF THERE IS A PLACE WHERE
THE SAN FRANCISCO BILL EFFECTS
RENTERS, OBVIOUSLY WE ARE NOT
LOOKING TO MAKE THINGS WORSE.
IT'S ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE TO TRY
TO MAKE IT BETTER.
SO, WE WANT TO TAKE THE BEST
EXAMPLES AND MAKE IT BETTER
WHERE POSSIBLE.
AND, IN THIS CASE, WE TOOK THE
SAN FRANCISCO EXAMPLE AND RE-
EXAMINE IT FOR OURSELVES WITH
TOP EDUCATORS AND TEACHERS.
AND THEY, THEMSELVES WERE VERY
CLEAR, 100% CLEAR, THAT YOU
CANNOT EXCLUDE ANY OF THE
SCHOOL WORKERS FROM THE
PROTECTIONS THIS BILL OFFERS.
SO IT THERE IS NOTHING BENIGN
ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT.
AND WE HAVE SEEN A LOT OF
EXAMPLES OF THIS KIND OF DIVIDE
AND CONQUER WHERE SOME WORKERS
GET PROTECTION AND OTHERS
DON'T.
BUT IT IS RIGHT IN THE DEMISE
OF THE BILL OF PUBLIC
ASSISTANCE ITSELF, AND I DO NOT
ACCEPT THAT.
AND SO THIS TRIES TO DIVIDE
TEACHERS OR OTHER WORKERS AND
INSINUATE THAT OTHER WORKERS
LIKE TEACHERS AIDES, CAFETERIA
WORKERS, BUS DRIVERS ARE NOT
ESSENTIAL TO THE EDUCATION OF
OUR CHILDREN AND WORTHY OF
PROTECTION.
FOR EXAMPLE, THIS INCLUDES
SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS THAT
PROVIDE A RELATIONSHIP TO THE
STUDENTS.
AND WE KNOW THEY ARE ALREADY
CUT TO THE BONE, AND THEY NEED
TO HAVE THE SUPPORT STAFF ON
CALL, AND THEY ARE ALREADY
STRUGGLING AND THEY ARE NOT
PAID ADEQUATELY.
ON TOP OF THAT TO DENY THEM
THIS PROTECTION THAT OTHER
WORKERS AND TEACHERS WILL HAVE
IS JUST UNCONSCIONABLE.
IT ALSO EXCLUDES TRANSLATORS
FOR EXAMPLE WHO ARE
OVERWHELMINGLY EDUCATORS OF
COLOR AND ALSO HAVE FAMILIES
THAT ARE STRUGGLING TO PAY
RENT.
I'M NOT AT ALL CLEAR WHAT
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS MEANS IN
EXAMINING THIS.
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD COME
UP WITH AN AMENDMEN WHERE YOU
EXCLUDE SOME AND INCLUDE SOME
FOR PROTECTION, WHAT BASIS WILL
COUNCILMEMBERS DECIDE WHICH ARE
DESERVING OF THIS PROTECTION
WHICH ARE NOT.
WE KNOW THEY ARE STRUGGLING AND
WE KNOW PUBLIC EDUCATION
WORKERS ARE STRUGGLING TO PAY
THEIR RENT.
IN FACT, IN THE 2015 TEACHERS
STRIKE, AND THIS WAS TEACHERS
WHO ARE PAID BETTER THAN OTHER
WORKERS IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM,
THE THING I HEARD THE MOST WAS
NOT EVEN ABOUT THE CONTRACT
THEY WERE ON STRIKE FOR.
BUT THE FACT THAT THEY ARE NOT
ABLE TO PAY THEIR RENT AND THEY
ARE GETTING PUSHED OUT OF
SEATTLE AND ARE FACING
EVICTIONS.
SO I THINK THAT GIVEN HOW BIG
OF AN ISSUE THIS IS IN THE
OVERWHELMINGLY STRONG SUPPORT
FROM THE EDUCATION SYSTEM, I
THINK THIS IS EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT THAT WE DON'T ACCEPT
THIS AMENDMENT.
AND I THINK AS COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES WAS ALLUDING TO,
EDUCATION IS A WRAPAROUND, AND
IT ACTUALLY TAKES THE WHOLE
SUPPORT STRUCTURE IN THE SCHOOL
SYSTEM TO EDUCATE CHILDREN AND
PROVIDE THEM WITH WHAT THEY
NEED.
THIS IS INCLUDING THE BUS
DRIVERS GET THEM TO AND FROM
SCHOOL SAFELY.
IN FACT WE HAVE HEARD SO MUCH
ABOUT WHAT BUS DRIVERS DO.
THEY WENT ON STRIKE A FEW YEARS
AGO, SO, ULTIMATELY, HOW DO YOU
DECIDE WHO WILL NOT BE
CONSIDERED A PART OF THE
VILLAGE THAT EDUCATES OUR
SCHOOLCHILDREN.
IN MY VIEW, NONE.
I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE
AMENDMENT.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, IF YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE IT OUT.
>> I JUST APPRECIATE THE
DISCUSSION AND I'M GLAD WE
HAVE THIS ON THE TABLE TO
DISCUSS, READY TO VOTE WHEN YOU
ARE.
>> THANK YOU.
CAN YOU CALL THE ROLL?
>> [ ROLL CALL ] THREE OPPOSED,
ONE IN FAVOR.
>> THANK YOU, WE MOVED TO
AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE,
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, PLEASE
GO AHEAD.
>> I WOULD MOVE TO AMEND
COUNSEL BILL 100 246 WITH
AMENDMENT THREE, AMENDMENT
THREE IS THE ONE THAT WOULD
ACCEPT SMALL LANDLORDS.
AND I CAN SPEAK TO THIS FOR A
MOMENT.
SO WE HEARD A LOT FROM THOSE
WHO OWN FOUR OR FEWER UNITS.
AND THOSE ARE EXEMPTED, I
SUPPORTED THE WINTER BAND ON
EVICTIONS.
WE EXEMPTED SMALL LANDLORDS
FROM THAT.
THEY HAVE EXPERIENCED AN ARRAY
OF REGULATORY CHANGES.
I DO NOT SEE THEM AS CORPORATE
LANDLORDS, I SEE THEM AS THOSE
PROVIDING HOUSING, PROVIDES A
DIVERSITY OF HOUSING OPTIONS
FOR RENTERS AND WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT, AS THESE CHANGES ARE
LAYERED IN, THAT SMALL
LANDLORDS DON'T END UP TAKING
THEIR RENTAL HOUSING OFF THE
MARKET HEARD SO THIS WOULD
EXEMPT THOSE OWNING FOUR OR
FEWER UNITS.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
DID WE GET A SECOND, I'M NOT
SURE.
TO MAKE I WILL SECOND IN
CONSIDERATION OF THE AMENDMENT.
>> DO COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE ANY
COMMENTS?
I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER COMMITTEE
MEMBERS WANTED TO COME IN.
I WILL COMMENT THAT I WILL NOT
BE SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT.
THIS BILL IS ABOUT DETECTION
CHILDREN, THEIR EDUCATION AND
MENTAL HEALTH.
CHILDREN, PARTICULARLY DURING
THE FISCAL YEAR, REGARDLESS OF
WHO THEIR LORD IS.
THIS AMENDMENT ESPECIALLY
BRINGS TO LIGHT WHAT RENEE SAID
IN PUBLIC COMMENT WHERE THE
HUMAN RIGHTS OF RENTERS HAVE TO
BE PARAMOUNT.
SO EFFECTIVELY BY SUPPORTING
THIS AMENDMENT, COUNCILMEMBERS
WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS FOR
SMALL MOM-AND-POP LANDLORDS.
BUT THERE IS A REAL PROBLEM
WITH THAT BECAUSE MANY SET UP
COMPANIES FOR EACH OF THEIR
BUILDINGS AND FALSELY CLAIMED
THAT EACH BUILDING HAS THEIR
OWN SEPARATE LANDLORD.
WE'VE SEEN THIS HAPPEN OVER AND
OVER AGAIN.
IN FACT, MY OFFICE GETS CALLS
FROM RENTERS ALL THE TIME WITH
SAY THEY CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHO
THE ACTUAL OWNER IS.
BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY
LAYERS TO THE OWNERSHIP PAPERS.
IT'S BASICALLY A CORPORATE
SHELL GAME AND WILL BE
DELIVERED AS AN UNDERHANDED
MECHANISM TO EVADE
RESPONSIBILITIES.
WE HAVE TO PROTECT ALL CHILDREN
EDUCATORS AGAINST EVICTION, NOT
JUST SOME.
IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT OTHER
COUNCILMEMBERS SUPPORTED IT, I
DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE
REPLICATING WHAT I CONSIDER BAD
PRECEDENTS.
JUST BECAUSE THE PAST WINTER
EVICTION BAND, IF YOU VOTED YES
ON THAT, IT'S PERFECTLY FINE
AND CORRECT TO VOTE NO THIS
TIME.
SO, IF COUNCILMEMBERS DON'T
HAVE ANY COMMENTS, AND I'M
WATCHING THE SCREENS, THEN I
WILL, I'M SORRY, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, YOU SHOULD CLOSE IT
OUT.
>> I HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENT ON
THIS.
>> OKAY.
SO TED, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL?
>> [ ROLL CALL ] THREE OPPOSED
AND ONE IN FAVOR.
>> OKAY, NOW WE HAVE AMENDMENT
FOUR, COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN,
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU.
I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO AMEND
COUNSEL BILL 120046 WITH
AMENDMENT FOUR.
AMENDMENT FOUR WOULD BE, AND
JEFF WILL HELP ME OUT HERE, IT
ESSENTIALLY WOULD MAKE THIS
PROPOSED NEW LAW SIMILAR TO SAN
FRANCISCO WHEN APPLYING IT TO
THE EDUCATORS.
BUT IT WOULD BE MORE EXPENSIVE
THAN THE SAN FRANCISCO LAW,
REMAIN MORE EXPENSIVE FOR THE
CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES.
THOSE WHO ARE STUDENTS.
SO I'D LIKE TO ASK FOR A SECOND
TO DISCUSS THIS.
>> I MEANT LITERALLY TO GET A
SECOND ON MY MOTION TO CONTINUE
DISCUSSION.
BUT IF THAT IS NOT THERE THEN
I'M HAPPY THAT WE WERE AT LEAST
ABLE TO GET THIS ON THE TABLE.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, FOR LACK OF A SECOND
WE WILL HAVE TO MOVE ON.
I HAVE MOTIVATED THIS BILL, AND
GENERALLY MADE ALL THE COMMENTS
I WANTED TO MAKE.
ARE THERE GENERAL COMMENTS FROM
COUNCILMEMBERS ON THE BILL AS A
WHOLE BEFORE WE HOLD THE
QUESTION FOR FINAL VOTE?
I DON'T SEE ANY COUNCILMEMBER
SHOWING INTEREST IN SPEAKING
AGAIN.
SO, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THE
PASSAGE OF THE BILL.
WILL IT BE INVALID IF I DON'T
READ THE COUNCIL BILL?
>> IT WAS WRITTEN INTO THE
RECORD AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS
DISCUSSION.
[ ROLL CALL ] THREE IN FAVOR,
ONE OPPOSED.
SO THIS WOULD BE SCHEDULED TO
GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ON JUNE 7th.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBERS FOR
ENGAGING IN THAT DISCUSSION.
AND THANK YOU JEFF FOR THE VERY
WELL LAID OUT INFORMATION.
I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE WORK
OF THE STAFF AS ALWAYS.
AND AS TED INDICATED, THIS BILL
WAS JUST PASS THROUGH COMMITTEE
AND WILL HEAD TO THE CITY
COUNCIL FOR A FINAL VOTE ON
MONDAY JUNE 7th.
OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS THE
RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL FOR
RENTERS FACING EVICTION.
I WILL BEGIN BY READING IT INTO
THE RECORD.
IT IS COUNCIL BILL 120090 ,
ORDINANCE RELATING TO
RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES GIVING
THE TENANT THE RIGHT OF REFUSAL
OVER NEW TENANCY AFTER THE
EXPIRATION OF TENANCY FOR A
SPECIFIED TIME, REQUIRING THE
LANDLORD TO HAVE JUST CAUSE FOR
DECLINING TO GIVE THE TENANT
THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL.
REQUIRING JUST CAUSE AND
CREATING A PRIVATE ACTION BY
THE TENANT AND PROVIDING THE
DEFENSE OF EVICTION WHEN THE
LANDLORD FAILS TO GIVE THE
TENANT THE RIGHT OF FIRST
REFUSAL, ALLOWING A TENANT TO
RESCIND A TERMINATION AGREEMENT
AND AMENDING SECTION 7.24 AND
24.2 6.160.
THIS IS GENTLY SPONSORED BY MY
OFFICE AND COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES.
I WILL SAY A FEW WORDS, THIS
HAS BEEN DISCUSSED FOR THE LAST
THREE MEETINGS OF THIS
COMMITTEE AND THROUGH THOSE
DISCUSSIONS IT HAS BECOME CLEAR
THAT WHAT RENTERS REALLY NEED
IN THESE SITUATIONS IS THE
RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL WHERE A
LANDLORD IS REQUIRED TO GIVE
THE CURRENT TENANT THE FIRST
CHANCE TO SIGN A NEW LEASE
BEFORE OFFERING THE LEASE TO
ANY OTHER TENANT, PROSPECTIVE
TENANTS UNLESS THERE IS A JUST
CAUSE FOR EVICTION.
RENTERS NEED A NEW LEASE LONG
BEFORE THERE IS ANY QUESTION OF
EVICTION.
FOR RENTERS THIS IS JUST
REALITY, FEW RENTERS ARE TOLD
BY THEIR LANDLORD THAT THEY
WILL NOT HAVE THEIR LEASE
RENEWED AND THEY REFUSED TO
LEAVE JUST BECAUSE THEY CANNOT
BE EVICTED IN THAT SITUATION.
IN REAL LIFE, RENTERS ARE
WORKING PEOPLE WHO ARE
STRUGGLING AND THEY WILL START
LOOKING FOR A NEW PLACE TO LIVE
AND THEY WILL START EVEN THOUGH
THEY KNOW IT IS UNJUST.
BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTANDABLY DO
NOT FEEL CONFIDENT TO FIGHT IT
OUT IN COURT.
THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL IS
READ INTO THE PART OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE THAT THE SEATTLE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND
INSPECTIONS HAS THE POWER TO
ENFORCE.
THAT MEANS IF THE LANDLORD DOES
NOT OFFER A NEW LEASE AND DOES
NOT HAVE A JUST CAUSE, 60 TO 90
DAYS BEFORE THE END OF THE
LEASE, THEN THE DEPARTMENT OF
INSPECTION HAS THE POWER TO
FOLLOW-UP, INVESTIGATE AND TELL
THE LANDLORD THAT THEY EITHER
NEED TO OFFER A NEW LEASE OR
RESENT I'D JUST CAUSE.
IF A LANDLORD REFUSES TO FOLLOW
THE LAW AND ALL OF THIS CAN
HAPPEN BEFORE THE LEASE ENDS,
SO IDEALLY THESE ISSUES CAN BE
RESOLVED AND THE RENTER CAN GET
A NEW LEASE WITHOUT ANYONE
GOING TO EVICTION COURT.
A FEW OTHER DETAILS, THE BILL
ALSO INCLUDES A PRIVATE RIGHT
OF ACTION SO THAT LANDLORDS CAN
ENFORCE THEIR RIGHTS.
A LANDLORD MAY NOT BRING THE
TENANT TO EVICTION COURT IF THE
LEONARD HAS FAILED TO FOLLOW
THIS RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL
LAW.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE LANDLORD
DOES NOT FOLLOW THE RIGHT OF
FIRST REFUSAL LAW, THEN THEY
CANNOT EVICT SOMEONE.
IT IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER
PARTS OF SEATTLE'S JUST CAUSE,
FOR EXAMPLE A LANDLORD MAY NOT
EVICT THE RENTER FROM A UNIT
THAT IS NOT REGISTERED AS A
RENTAL HOUSING UNIT.
IT IS ALSO FOR STRUCTURES OF
RENT AND HOW A MUTUAL
TERMINATION AGREEMENT CAN BE
RESCINDED.
THE FIRST IN TIME PROVISIONS
ARE LEGALLY SEARCHING FOR A NEW
TENANT ONLY IF THE PERSON DOES
NOT AGREE TO THE NEW OR CURRENT
LEASE.
I REALLY APPRECIATE THE WORK OF
FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE AND THE CITY COUNCIL
THAT IS ALSO HERE WITH US TODAY
TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
AND DEVON FROM MY OFFICE AND
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES'S OFFICE
WERE WORKING TO GET THIS READY
OVER THE WEEKEND.
SO I WILL OPEN IT UP FOR
COUNCILMEMBER MIRELES.
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU.
I REALLY WANT TO START BY ALSO
APPRECIATING EVERYBODY WHO HAS
WORKED SO HARD TO BRING THIS
FORWARD AND MAKE THIS
LEGISLATION POSSIBLE,
ESPECIALLY THE STAY HEALTHY
COALITION WE'VE BEEN WORKING
WITH TO FORM THIS SINCE EARLIER
IN THE YEAR.
I SPECIFICALLY WANT TO THINK
REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE
HOUSING JUSTICE PROJECT, THE
LGBTQ ALLY SHIP, THE UNION OF
WASHINGTON, AND LOTS OF
LANDLORDS WITH SOLID GROUND AND
LEHI, AND SO MANY OTHERS WHO
HAVE HELPED REALLY PULL THIS
TOGETHER.
I ALSO WANT TO THINK MY STAFF
MEMBERS WHO HAVE REALLY BEEN A
ROCK STAR SHEPHERDING ALL OF
THIS THROUGH.
THANK YOU TO COUNCILMEMBER
LEWIS FOR ALWAYS SUPPORTING
THIS PUSH TO EXPAND PROTECTIONS
AND TO COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT FOR
AGREEING TO JOINTLY SPONSOR
THIS.
I THINK WE ARE REALLY PULLING
THE BEST ELEMENTS OF OUR TWO
BILLS TOGETHER.
TO CREATE SOME IMPORTANT
LEGISLATION THAT CAN REALLY
PROVIDE A POWERFUL FIXED TO THE
CITIES JUST CAUSE ORDINANCE.
AND TO ENSURE THAT ALL TENANTS,
REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEY ARE,
OR WHAT KIND OF CONTRACTS THEY
HAVE, THAT THEY WILL BE
PROTECTED FROM THE THREAT OF
THAT NO FAULT, NO CAUSE REMOVAL
FROM THEIR HOME.
AS COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT NOTED,
THE NEW BILL PROVIDES TENANTS
WITH THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL
TO EITHER STAY IN THEIR HOME ON
A NEW LEASE OR FOR A NEW MONTH-
TO-MONTH AGREEMENT, OR TO
VOLUNTARILY LEAVE ON THEIR OWN.
IT ALSO ALLOWS LANDLORDS TO
PURSUIT OF REMOVAL.
I WANT TO SAY THAT AGAIN,
ALLOWS UP LANDLORD TO PURSUE A
REMOVAL IF THEY HAVE A JUST
CAUSE REASON TO DO SO.
ENDLESSLY, THIS LEGISLATION
STRENGTHENS THE TENANT'S
BARGAINING POWER BY ALLOWING
THEM TO RESCIND A MUTUAL LEASE
TERMINATION IN THE CASE THAT
THEY WERE PRESSURED INTO
SIGNING SOMETHING, IF IT WAS
NOT SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF
AN ATTORNEY, CASEWORKER OR
MEDIATOR.
AS THE RECOVERY IS NEAR AND OUR
EMERGENCY TENANT PROTECTIONS
ARE LIFTED, AS IS PLANNED AT
THIS POINT AT THE END OF JUNE,
TENANTS DESERVE SOME STABILITY
AND THEY DESERVE TO LIVE THEIR
LIVES WITHOUT THE THREAT OF
LOSING THEIR HOMES OVER
SITUATIONS THAT THEY CANNOT
CONTROL.
THINK OF SOMETHING AS COLOSSAL
AS A PANDEMIC OR SOMETHING AS
SIMPLE AS A LANDLORD NOT LIKING
THEM.
I'M REALLY PROUD OF THIS
LEGISLATION.
WE'VE SPENT NEARLY FIVE MONTHS
WORKING WITH COMMUNITY
STAKEHOLDERS, OUR LAW
DEPARTMENT AND CENTRAL STAFF,
COUNSEL COLLEAGUES AND OUR
DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND
INSPECTION.
BRINGING THE STRONGEST BILL
POSSIBLE.
AND I JUST WANT TO SAY AGAIN
THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO HAS
HELPED US GET THIS FAR AND I'M
REALLY EAGER TO GET THIS
LEGISLATION ONTO THE FULL
COUNCIL.
>> THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.
I WILL BE BRIEF IN MY COMMENTS.
I APPRECIATE THE CHANCE TO
COSPONSOR THIS SUCCESSOR
LEGISLATION TO THE EARLIER PAIR
OF BILLS DEALING WITH
FUNCTIONALLY THE SAME ISSUE IN
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WAYS.
AND I APPRECIATE THIS NEW
COMPOSITE BILL RESPONSE TO
RECENT CHANGES IN THE STATE LAW
AND EXTENSIVE ADVICE FROM OUR
LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SURE
THIS PROTECTION WILL TANGIBLY
AND EFFECTIVELY ATTACKED
RENTERS FROM FACING WHAT WE
KNOW IS COMING AND HAS BEEN
CHARACTERIZED BY MADAM CHAIR AS
A TSUNAMI OF COMING EVICTIONS.
AND REALLY MAKING SURE WE HAVE
ALL THE PROTECTIONS OF THE
GHESQUIERE JUST CAUSE ORDINANCE
PROTECTIONS IN PLACE, NOT THAT
JUST CARE IS NOT ALSO IMPORTANT
AND RELATED ISSUES IN HOUSING
SECURITY AND HOMELESSNESS.
BUT ALSO MAKING SURE WE HAVE
ALL THE PROTECTIONS OF OUR JUST
CAUSE ORDINANCE.
BUT IN THE EVENT RIGHT NOW THAT
THE TERMINATION OF THE LEASE
AND THE GAP BETWEEN THAT AND
THE ENTRY OF A NEW ONE.
I WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS A COUPLE
OF CONCERNS THAT MY OFFICE
HEARD FROM A GROUP OF SMALL
LANDLORDS THAT WE HAD TIME TO
TALK TO YESTERDAY.
TO HEAR A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT
ISSUES THEY HAD WITH THE
LEGISLATION IN A NUMBER OF
POTENTIAL CONCERNS.
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO AGREE
TO DISAGREE ON A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT AREAS INCLUDING THE
PASSAGE OF THE UNDERLYING BILL.
BUT I DID WANT TO AT LEAST
CLARIFY SOME OF THE CONCERNS
THAT WERE AIRED, AND DO IT ON
RECORD HERE.
MY STAFF WILL ALSO BE
DISTRIBUTING THOSE COMMENTS OR
THIS RESPONSE IN BRAIDING.
RIGHTING.
THE FIRST ONE WAS IN CONCERNED
THAT WE WERE PASSING A
REGULATION THAT WAS IMPACTING
LANDLORDS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR
BUT EXEMPTING LANDLORDS WHO ARE
BASED IN SOCIAL HOUSING OR LOW-
INCOME HOUSING.
CENTRAL STAFF CAN CORRECT ME IF
I'M WRONG BUT THERE IS NO SUCH
CARVEOUT, THESE JUST
PROTECTIONS IMPACT PEOPLE
REGARDLESS OF THE TYPE OF
HOUSING, THE NATURE OF THE
HOUSING PROVIDERS.
SO IF YOU ARE LOW INCOME
HOUSING PROVIDER YOU ARE STILL
COVERED BY THE JUST CAUSE
EVICTION.
YOU ARE STILL COVERED BY THIS
NEW COUNSEL BILL, SO THIS IS
NOT JUST TARGETING FOLKS ON THE
PRIVATE RENTAL MARKET.
AND CAN YOU MAYBE CONFIRM THAT?
>> MAYBE I SHOULD JUST MOVE THE
BILL.
BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE MOVED
RIGHT INTO DISCUSSION.
NO, JUST FOR THE RECORD LET ME
DO IT AND THEN WE CAN START THE
DISCUSSION.
I MOVED COUNSEL BILL 120090.
>> SECOND.
>> PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> I'M WITH YOUR COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFF.
YES, THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING
OF THIS BILL, THERE ARE NOT ANY
CARVEOUTS FOR ANY SPECIFIC
TYPES OF LANDLORDS INCLUDING
SOCIAL SERVICE PROVIDERS OR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DIVIDERS.
>> I JUST DO WANT TO MAKE THAT
CLEAR, WE ARE HOLDING THE
PRIVATE SECTOR TO THE SAME
STANDARDS THAT WE HOLD
PROVIDERS THAT RECEIVE PUBLIC
SUBSIDY.
THE IMPORTANT THING IS TO MAKE
SURE EVERYONE CAN BE A RENTER
WITH DIGNITY.
OF COURSE WE KNOW THAT
SUBSIDIZED LANDLORDS CAN BE
PROBLEMATIC, TOO, IN SOME
CASES.
SO I CERTAINLY DO WANT TO MAKE
THAT CLEAR.
THERE ARE ALSO CONCERNS ON HOW
THIS INTERACTS WITH HOUSE BILL
1236.
KATIE WILL SEND A FROM THE
TRANS WRITERS UNION DID A GOOD
JOB IN EXPLAINING THIS.
BUT JUST TO ECHO THOSE
STATEMENTS, THIS DEALS WITH THE
PERSPECTIVE SUCCESSOR TENANCY
RATHER THAN DEALS WITH
CONTINUING TO PROVIDE JUST
RIGHT PROTECTIONS.
I DID JUST WANT TO STATE THAT
ON RECORD THAT IT CATEGORICALLY
DISTINCT AND LOOKING FORWARD TO
OVERS OF ENTRY INTO SUCCESSFUL
TENANCY AND THE RIGHT OF FIRST
REFUSAL TO START THAT NEW
SUCCESSOR.
FINALLY COUNSEL BILL 12 0090
DOES ALLOW LANDLORDS THAT ARE
OCCUPYING THE PREMISES, AS FOR
THE CURRENT JUST CAUSE
ORDINANCE CLAUSE, TO STATE THAT
AS A REASON TO DECLINE TO OFFER
A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL NEW
TENANCY.
SO IF YOU LIVE IN THE SAME UNIT
IF YOU ARE RENTING THE BEDROOM
NEXT TO YOUR OWN BEDROOM IN
YOUR OWN HOUSE, YOU WOULD STILL
BE ABLE, UNDER THIS ORDINANCE,
TO STATE THAT CAUSE AND NOT
MAKING THE FIRST REFUSAL OFFER.
SO IN ESSENCE THAT DOES MEAN
THAT THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE YOU ARE
ESSENTIALLY ROOMMATES WITH
SOMEONE AND YOU ARE LIKE RENTING
THE BEDROOM BECAUSE IT'S AN
OWNER-OCCUPIED KIND OF
SITUATION.
BECAUSE THAT IS ONE OF THE
EXISTING JUST CAUSES.
AND IT LOOKS LIKE YOU MAYBE
WANTED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING
THERE?
>> YES, THE BILL ITSELF DOES
APPLY TO THAT NOTICE
REQUIREMENTS.
BUT YOU CAN ASSERT THE JUST
CAUSE.
>> EXACTLY.
SO I THINK LIKE FUNCTIONALLY
AND PEOPLE THAT EXPRESSED THIS
CONCERN CAN REACH OUT, BUT
FUNCTIONALLY I THINK THAT
CONCERNS THE ISSUE THAT THAT
PARTICULAR CONSTITUENT WAS
CONCERNED ABOUT.
SO I DID WANT TO PUT THOSE ON
THE RECORD.
SO FINALLY I WILL JUST SAY,
HAVING PUT ON THE RECORD THOSE
CONCERNS THAT I DID HEAR FROM
FOLKS YESTERDAY, I AM
COMFORTABLE VOTING FOR THIS
BILL WITHOUT ANY FURTHER
ADDITIONS TO IT.
I'M PROUD TO COSPONSOR THIS
LEGISLATION AND I WILL REST MY
COMMENTS THERE.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
LEWIS.
AND ALSO, IF IT MAKES SENSE
STILL, WE SHOULD GO THROUGH
EACH MEMBER MAKE WHATEVER
COMMENTS YOU FEEL WILL BE
USEFUL.
GO AHEAD COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR SAWANT.
I APPRECIATE THE HARD WORK THE
SPONSORS HAVE DONE ON THE TWO
BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN COMBINED.
THEY APPEARED ON OUR
INTRODUCTORY CALENDAR YESTERDAY
AND WE ARE HEARING THEM TODAY.
I THINK THAT BECAUSE WE HEARD
THE OTHER TWO BILLS PREVIOUSLY,
A KIND OF MAKES SENSE.
BUT THE PUBLIC THAT IS TRACKING
THIS, EITHER THE TWO SEPARATE
BILLS THAT COMBINED INTO THIS
ONE, I KNOW THIS HARD WORK WAS
GOING ON AT THE TIME THAT THE
STATE LEGISLATURE WAS ALSO
WORKING ON HOUSE BILL 1236
WHICH THE GOVERNOR SIGNED INTO
LAW.
IT IS MY VIEW THAT THE STATE
LAW PREEMPTS THIS, AND I
PERSONALLY THINK THAT IT'S
PRETTY CLEAR.
I DO ALSO WANT TO THINK THE
STATE REPS WHO WORKED ON HOUSE
BILL 1236.
BUT I BELIEVE THAT PREEMPTS
THIS AND I WILL BE VOTING NO ON
THIS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.
I WANT TO STATE THAT I DO
APPRECIATE COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN'S COMMENTS RIGHT NOW
IN JUST ABOUT THE NATURE OF
WHEN THIS COUNSEL TREADS INTO
AREAS OF PROTECTING AREAS AND
EXPANDING TENANT PROTECTIONS.
I CERTAINLY THINK NOTHING IS
EVER SLAMDUNK WHEN WE DO IT IN
THIS AREA.
CERTAINLY THE ORIGINAL JUST
CAUSE ORDINANCE WAS NOT A
SLAMDUNK, CERTAINLY ANY OTHER
NUMBER OF TENANT PROTECTIONS
TEST FORWARD, HAVE NOT BEEN.
BUT I DO WANT TO SAY THAT THE
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THE
LITIGATION TEAM THERE AND THAT
LEADERSHIP THAT HAS BEEN SHOWN
DURING HIS TIME AS CITY
ATTORNEY AND FOCUSING ON THIS
AREA, HAS LED TO TENANTS
STATEWIDE BENEFITING FROM THE
TRAIL WE BLAZED BYPASSING
THINGS THAT WERE SOMETIMES ON
THE EDGE.
BY QUEUING THINGS UP AS LONG AS
WE ARE CAREFUL.
IN PLANNING HOW WE POSITION AND
BUILD OUR ORDINANCE.
AND IN SOME CASES MAKING IT
LANDMARK STATE LAW.
I PERSONALLY THINK THAT BASED
ON THE WORK WE'VE DONE, I'M
SURE THEY WILL STILL BE
QUESTIONS AND CHALLENGES.
THAT THIS CAN BE A VEHICLE
AGAIN TO TRY TO CARVEOUT OF
BIGGER VEHICLE OF SPACE THIS
WILL REPRESENT A LOT OF HARD
WORK AND I'M SURE THE
LITIGATORS AND TEAM THAT HAS
BEEN ASSEMBLED FOR THESE KINDS
OF CASES WILL
WITH THINGS THAT ARE CLOSE ON
THE MARGIN AND SOMETIMES THAT
IS THE ONLY WAY TO GET PROGRESS.
SO I APPRECIATE THAT THERE IS
ALWAYS A BALANCE AND ENVELOPE
PUSHING AND RISK AVERSION AND I
AM CERTAINLY ONE OF THOSE
MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL WHO
WANTS TO MAKE SURE WE ARE IN A
PLACE WHERE WE ARE STRUCTURING
THINGS SO THAT WE ARE NOT JUST
GOING OUT THERE COMPLETELY
FOOLHARDY BUT THAT WE ARE ALL
CRAFTING IT [ INDISCERNIBLE ]
BUT I THINK THIS FALLS IN WITH
ANOTHER GOOD EXAMPLE BEING THE
RIGHT TO ATTORNEYS WHERE WE DID
A SIMILAR PROCESS, AND I THINK
IT IS CERTAINLY WORTH A TRY TO
EXPAND OUR SOCIAL CONTRACT AND
THE RIGHTS THAT PEOPLE WHO RENT
HAVE, AND FOR MOST OF MY LIFE
HAS BEEN A RENTER, AND IT IS
IMPORTANT TO DO.
>> I WANT TO JUST FIRST REFLECT
AND REACT TO THE NOTION OF 1236
PREEMPTING THIS, OUR
UNDERSTANDING AND WE HAVE HAD
LOTS OF CONVERSATIONS I HAD A
CONVERSATION WITH -- LAST WEEK
THAT THE INTENTION WAS TO ALLOW
FOR MUNICIPALITIES NOT TO BE
PREEMPTED WITH THAT LANGUAGE,
THEY WERE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT
TRYING TO CRAFT IT IN SUCH A
WAY THAT MUNICIPALITIES WOULD
NOT BE PREEMPTED, AND AS
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS SAID, WE
HAVE TO BALANCE OUR OWN RISK
AVERSION WITH SOME OF THE RISK
AVERSION COMING FROM OUR
LANDLORDS AS WELL, AND IN
PUBLIC COMMENT WE HEARD A LOT
FROM LANDLORDS REFERENCING THE
U DUB STUDY FROM 2018 FOR
EXAMPLE AND ONE OF THOSE THINGS
THAT THE STUDY REVEALED IS THAT
THERE IS A GENERAL REJECTION
FROM THE LANDLORD COMMUNITY OF
ORDINANCES THAT ARE INTENDED TO
PROVIDE PROTECTIONS.
I THINK THE STUDY FOUND OVER
80%, ABOUT 89% OF THE LANDLORDS
WHO WERE SURVEYED WHEN OFFERED A
MENU OF POTENTIAL POLICY OPTIONS
REJECTED ALL OF THEM WHETHER
THEY WERE INTENDED TO INCREASE
AFFORDABILITY OR INCREASE
HOUSING SUPPLY OR INCREASE
PROTECTIONS FOR RENTERS, AND WE
KNOW THAT WE ARE STILL IN A
HOUSING CRISIS SO WE HAVE TO DO
THESE THINGS BECAUSE WE HAVE A
LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE AT RISK
OF EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
WHO CANNOT AFFORD TO FIND A
PLACE TO LIVE IN THIS CITY
WHOSE COMMUNITIES ARE BEING
DISRUPTED BECAUSE THEY ARE
GETTING PUSHED OUT STILL.
I THINK ON BALANCE WE HAVE TO
UNDERSTAND THAT SOME PEOPLE
JUST DO NOT LIKE CHANGE, SOME
PEOPLE ARE FEARFUL, AND WE CAN
CERTAINLY HAVE THE
ONVERSATION, IT SOUNDS LIKE
ALL OF US HAVE HAD
CONVERSATIONS WITH SMALL
LANDLORDS AND UNDERSTAND THAT
THERE IS SOME RESISTANCE, BUT
WE ALSO KNOW THAT PEOPLE NEED
TO BE SAFE IN THEIR HOMES AND
TO BE PROTECTED AGAINST GETTING
PUSHED OUT, SO I FEEL VERY
CONFIDENT AND COMFORTABLE
MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS, AND I
LOOK FORWARD TO VOTING YES.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES AND COUNCILMEMBER
LEWIS, I WILL JUST ADD MY
POINTS AND JUST TO CONCUR WITH
WHAT COUNCILMEMBER MORALES
SAID, WHEN THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS
PASSED NUMBER 36 -- TOLD US
THAT HOUSE BILL 36 DID NOT --
IN BOTH THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE
REJECTED AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD
HAVE MADE PREEMPTION EXPLICIT
SO THAT -- IS CLEAR.
DAYS AFTER IT WAS SIGNED INTO
LAW BY THE GOVERNOR THE COURT
RULED THAT IT HAS PREEMPTED --
THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW
MANY OBSTACLES WORKING-CLASS
PEOPLE HAVE TO FACE TO GET THE
BARE MINIMUM -- AND WE HAVE HAD
TWO OFFICES DOING THIS
OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE NEVER ANY
GUARANTEES.
THE QUESTION IS ARE WE PREPARED
TO FIGHT AND IT IS NOT A
NEUTRAL QUESTION BY ANY MEANS.
-- THINK ABOUT THE ENORMOUS
FINANCIAL PRECIPICE THAT
WORKING PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS
UNDER, ESPECIALLY THE VAST
MAJORITY OF RENTERS WHO ARE
STRUGGLING, EVERY MONTH IS
FILLED WITH AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT
OF RISK AND IT IS NOT OF THEIR
OWN AMAZING THEIR OWN MAKING.
-- AND ALSO OUR JOB TO
UNDERSTAND THAT ACTUALLY NOT
ALL THE LANDLORDS WHO ARE
SAYING THEY ARE FACING PROBLEMS
AND WE SAW THIS TODAY -- ARE
ACTUALLY REPRESENTATIVES OF
LARGE REAL ESTATE CORPORATIONS
BUT AS COUNCILMEMBER MORALES
SAID WE HAVE SPOKEN TO SOME
SMALL LANDLORDS, AND SOME OF
THEM HAVE SIGNED OUR PETITIONS
FOR RENTERS RIGHTS BECAUSE THEY
AGREE THAT THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF
RENTERS ESPECIALLY -- COMES
FIST SO I ALSO FEEL
COMFORTABLE MOVING AHEAD WITH
THE VOTE UNLESS -- OKAY I AM
NOT SEEING ANY COUNCILMEMBERS
WANTING TO SPEAK, SO I WILL
HAVE -- FROM MY OFFICE CALL THE
ROLL ON THE PASSAGE OF THE
BILL.
BUT WE HAVE NOT HAD -- MEMO.
DID YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD?
ú>> I WAS NOT ABLE TO PREPARE A
MEMO IN TIME FOR COMMITTEE
TODAY, SO YOU JUST HAVE THE
TEXT OF THE BILL IN FRONT OF
YOU.
I THINK CHAIR SAWANT YOU HAD
TALKED THROUGH THE MAIN
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL SO I DO
NOT THINK THERE IS ANYTHING YOU
MISSED IN TERMS OF THE MAIN
PROVISIONS SO UNLESS THERE ARE
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER
I WILL NOT REPEAT WHAT YOU HAVE
ALREADY DESCRIBED.
>> OKAY THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE THAT.
TED, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON THIS BILL?
>> [ ROLL BEING CALLED ] THREE
IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED, THAT IS
A DIVIDED REPORT AND IT WILL GO
TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON
JUNE 7.
>> THANK YOU TED, AND THANK YOU
COUNCILMEMBERS.
BEFORE WE CLOSE OUT THIS AGENDA
ITEM AND GO TO THE NEXT ONE I
WANTED TO ESPECIALLY
ACKNOWLEDGE THE COMMUNITY
MEMBERS WHO ARE PART OF OUR
GROWING RENTERS RIGHTS MOVEMENT
WHO HAVE BEGUN DISCUSSIONS WITH
US -- WITH THE LEADERSHIP OF
ORGANIZATIONS LIKE -- BEGAN
WORKING WITH -- TO BRING THIS
BILL TO BEAR, IT IS TODAY ALSO
BACK IN 2019 SOME WHO ARE
WATCHING THIS MIGHT RECALL OUR
OFFICE WORKED WITH TENANTS WHO
ARE FACING EVICTION IN EXACTLY
THIS KIND OF SITUATION, WE
ORGANIZED A VERY PROMINENT
PRESS CONFERENCE AND A
COMMUNITY PETITION TO REVERSE
THE LANDLORDS ATTEMPTS TO
RENDER THOSE TENANTS HOMELESS.
-- IT HELPED REIGNITE THE
MOVEMENT ABOUT CLOSING THE JUST
CAUSE LOOPHOLE -- RIGHT AFTER
WE DID THAT PRESS CONFERENCE,
THE LANDLORD RESCINDED THEIR
ATTEMPTS TO EVICT THEIR TENANTS.
-- I WANTED TO NOTE THE 685
COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO SIGNED OUR
JUST CAUSE PETITION IN RECENT
WEEKS AND THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS
WHO SPOKE OUT IN OUR TWO
PREVIOUS MEETINGS, --
THESE ARE SOME OF THE MANY
PEOPLE WHO WORKED TO BRING THIS
LEGISLATION TO FRUITION AND I AM
GLAD WE WILL BE ABLE TO VOTE ON
THIS IN COMMITTEE.
OUR FINAL AGENDA ITEM IS
COUNCIL BILL 120077, THE
LEGISLATION FROM COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES'S OFFICE WHICH I
SUPPORT AND HAVE COSPONSORED TO
-- I WILL JUST READ IT INTO THE
RECORD AND THEN TURN IT OVER TO
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
THIS IS COUNCIL BILL 120077, AN
ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE
TERMINATION OF RESIDENTIAL
RENTAL TENANCIES; PROVIDING A
DEFENSE TO EVICTION FOR RENT
DUE DURING THE CITY
CIVIL EMERGENCY; AND AMENDING
SECTION 22.206.160 OF THE
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES PLEASE GO
AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I WANT TO JUST START AGAIN BY
THINKING AGAIN ALL THE
ORGANIZERS AND MEMBERS OF THE
STATEHOUSE STAY HEALTHY
COALITION FOR CONTINUING TO
PUSH US TO INCREASE TENANT
PROTECTION AND FOR HOLDING US
ALL ACCOUNTABLE TO THE RENTERS
IN OUR CITY.
ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL
EQUITY ATLAS COVID-19 RENT DEBT
STUDY FOR KING COUNTY, KING
COUNTY RENTERS OWE AN AVERAGE
OF $4900 IN BACK RENT AND THAT
IS THE HIGHEST IN WASHINGTON
STATE.
AND IN KING COUNTY WE HAVE AN
ESTIMATED 44,000 HOUSEHOLDS WHO
ARE FACING FINANCIAL HARDSHIP
THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON BY
COVID-19, THAT IS MORE THAN
DOUBLE ANY OTHER COUNTY IN THE
STATE.
HERE IS WHAT WE KNOW.
WE KNOW THAT OVER A THIRD OF
BLACK, LATINO, AND NATIVE
COMMUNITIES ARE BURDENED WITH
RENT.
WE KNOW THAT THESE HOUSEHOLDS
WHOSE WORK OFTEN REQUIRES THEM
INCREASED EXPOSURE TO COVID-19
ARE ALSO DISPROPORTIONATELY
UNINSURED AND WE KNOW THAT
MEDICAL EMERGENCY DURING A
PANDEMIC IS GOING TO
SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT PEOPLE'S
ABILITY TO PAY RENT, PAY FOR
FOOD AND CHILDCARE AND OTHER
BILLS, THESE ARE THE ESSENTIAL
WORKERS WHO HAVE KEPT OUR CITY
GOING OVER THE LAST YEAR.
SO FOLLOWING AN EXTREME PUBLIC
HEALTH CRISIS AND THE CLOSURES
OF ALL OF OUR WORKPLACES THAT
HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON BY THE
PANDEMIC, WE SAW THOSE NUMBERS
SKYROCKET, 55% OF ALL PEOPLE
FACING A PANDEMIC RELATED
FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, HAVE A LOW
INCOME ALREADY.
62% ARE PEOPLE OF COLOR, 71%
LOST THEIR EMPLOYMENT RELATED
INCOME IN THE LAST YEAR.
WHEN YOU COUPLE THIS WITH THE
FACT THAT IN JUST OVER 30 DAYS
THE EVICTION MORATORIUM WILL
END, YOU UNDERSTAND THE URGENCY
TO PROVIDE A DEFENSE FOR
EVICTION FOR RENTERS WHO HAVE
FALLEN BEHIND ON RENT BECAUSE
OF A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
THIS AVALANCHE OF EVICTIONS
THAT IS LOOMING IS MORE THAN
JUST AN ISSUE OF MONEY, THIS IS
A SYSTEMIC ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN
BROUGHT ON BY GENERATIONS OF
DISINVESTMENT IN COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR BY RACIST HOUSING
POLICIES THAT CONTINUE TO HAUNT
US TO THIS DAY AND IT IS AN
ISSUE OF EQUITY THAT HAS DEEP
CLASSIST AND GREATEST RACIST
ROOTS AND WE HAVE TO TAKE BOLD
MEASURES.
-- WOULD ALLOW -- AFTER BEING
SIGNED INTO LAW, IF YOU ARE A
RENTER WHO HAS FACED OR WILL
FACE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP DURING
THE CIVIL EMERGENCY YOU WILL BE
PROTECTED.
IF A LANDLORD DOES SERVE AN
EVICTION NOTICE BASED ON
NONPAYMENT OF RENT THEY HAVE TO
INCLUDE A STATEMENT THAT
NOTIFIES THE TENANT OF -- AT
THAT POINT RENTERS MYSELF
CERTIFY AND THEY CAN DO THAT BY
ATTESTING TO FINANCIAL HARDSHIP
AND THAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN THEY
ARE ACCESSING THEIR FREE LEGAL
COUNSEL WHICH THEY ARE NOW
AFFORDED THANKS TO THE RIGHT TO
COUNSEL LEGISLATION.
I DO WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT
LANDLORDS HAVE RESOURCES
AVAILABLE AS WELL.
A KING COUNTY EXECUTIVE
RECENTLY ANNOUNCED THAT KING
COUNTY WILL BE OFFERING $150
MILLION IN ASSISTANCE TO
TENANTS AND LANDLORDS AND WE
ARE OFFERING OVER $20 MILLION
WITH POTENTIALLY MILLIONS MORE
COMING WITH FEDERAL ARPA
FUNDING.
I DO WANT TO ENCOURAGE
LANDLORDS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
THESE RESOURCES, ALMOST $200
MILLION WORTH OF RENTAL
ASSISTANCE IS AVAILABLE RIGHT
NOW SO IT IS IMPORTANT THAT
LANDLORDS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
THAT BEFORE GOING THE EVICTION
ROUTE.
I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT THIS
BILL DIRECTLY ADDRESSES THE
ISSUE AT HAND WHICH IS THAT
NEARLY 44,000 PEOPLE IN KING
COUNTY CANNOT PAY RENT BECAUSE
THEY SUFFERED A FINANCIAL
HARDSHIP ON THE COVID-19
PANDEMIC.
OUR NEIGHBORS FIND THEMSELVES
CAUGHT WITH A GROWING MOUNTAIN
OF DEBT AND A LOOMING DEADLINE
FOR WHEN THAT DEBT WILL COME
DUE.
IF WE DO NOT DO SOMETHING TO
PROTECT VULNERABLE RENTERS NOW
WE WILL FACE DEPRESSION ERA
LEVELS OF HOMELESSNESS IN THE
CITY.
THE CITY IS ALREADY
OVERBURDENED AND UNDERFUNDED
AND IF EVEN A QUARTER OF THE
RENTERS WHO CURRENTLY OWE RENT
FALL INTO HOMELESSNESS, OUR
ENTIRE SYSTEM WILL COLLAPSE.
WE HAVE TO RESPOND TO THIS
IMPENDING HUMANITARIAN AND
SOCIAL JUSTICE CRISIS WITH THE
GRAVITY IT DESERVES, WE HAVE TO
TAKE ACTION NOW SO THAT RENTERS
WHO HAVE FACED A FINANCIAL
HARDSHIP DURING THE PANDEMIC DO
NOT FACE EVICTION, TOO.
AND I AM EAGER TO HAVE THIS
DISCUSSION AND LOOK FORWARD TO
MY COLLEAGUES SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
>> AISHA, DID YOU WANT -- TO
ASK A QUESTION -- IF YOU WANT
TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE THE BILL.
>> I MOVE THAT WE PASS COUNCIL
BILL 120077.
>> SECOND.
>> MAYBE WE SHOULD TAKE
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN'S
QUESTION IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING
THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO ANSWER.
>> THANK YOU, I WOULD LOVE TO
HEAR FROM OSHER FIRST AND THEN
I WILL PROBABLY DIRECT MY
QUESTION TO -- IF SHE DOES NOT
ANSWER IT ALREADY IN HER
PRESENTATION.
>> -- I WILL JUST GO BRIEFLY
THROUGH THE MEMO ON COUNCIL
BILL 120077.
AS COUNCILMEMBER MIRELES --
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES
MENTIONED -- BECAUSE THEY
SUFFERED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP AND
THE BASIS FOR THE EVICTION IS
THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
14 DAY NOTICE TO PAY OR VACATE
AND THE TENANT FAILED TO PAY
RENT AND THAT RESULTED IN --
WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD, IT
WOULD REQUIRE THAT ANY NOTICE
TO TERMINATE THE TENANCY -- AND
IT ALSO REQUIRES THAT AS LONG AS
, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT, BUT
THE EFFECT OF THE DEFENSE IS
THAT AS LONG AS THE TENANT
REMAINS IN THE RENTAL UNIT
DURING THE EMERGENCY, THEIR
DEFENSE TO EVICTION BASED ON
NONPAYMENT OF RENT APPLIES SO
IF IT TURNS OUT, IF THE TENANT
FAILED TO PAY RENT AT ANY OTHER
TIME, SO OUTSIDE OF THE COVID-
19 EMERGENCY THEY COULD STILL
BE LIABLE FOR THE EVICTION ON
FAILURE TO PAY RENT DURING THAT
TIME PERIOD JUST NOT DURING THE
COVID-19 EMERGENCY.
I NOTE THAT THIS BILL DOES
PROVIDE A DEFENSE BUT THAT DOES
NOT MEAN THAT THE TENANT IS NOT
LIABLE FOR THE RENT DUE, JUST
THAT THEY CANNOT BE EVICTED
BASED ON THAT SO A LANDLORD
WOULD BE ABLE TO SUE THEM TO
COLLECT RENT IN A SEPARATE
CIVIL PROCEEDING JUST NOT
THROUGH THE EVICTION PROCEEDING.
IN COMPARING THIS WITH THE
CURRENT EVICTION PROTECTIONS A
QUESTION THAT HAS COME UP IS
HOW THIS WAS DIFFERENT FROM
WHAT THE CURRENT EVICTION
PROTECTIONS DO GIVEN THAT WE
HAVE BOTH A STATE AND CITY
LEVEL MORATORIUM ON EVICTIONS
AT THE MOMENT BASED ON A
VARIETY OF REASONS FOR EVICTION
BUT ALSO THE FAILURE TO PAY
RENT AS WELL AS A BILL THAT
THIS COUNCIL PASSED LAST YEAR
THAT PROVIDES A DEFENSE TO
EVICTION FOR SIX MONTHS AFTER
THE END OF THE CIVIL EMERGENCY
AND THE DISTINCTION HERE IS
REALLY ABOUT WHAT IT IS THAT
THE BILLS ARE PREVENTING, SO
THE MORATORIUM, THE SIX MONTH
DEFENSE AFTER THE CIVIL
EMERGENCY BILL, THOSE ARE ALL
ABOUT THE TIMING OF THE
PHYSICAL RULE OF THE TENANT.
-- THEY DO NOT ELIMINATE THE
BASIS UPON WHICH THE LANDLORD
IS ABLE TO FILE FOR EVICTION SO
IN OTHER WORDS THE LANDLORD HAS
TO WAIT TO FILE THE EVICTION
UNTIL THE OPERATIVE TIME OF THE
MORATORIUM OR THE BILL IS OVER,
AND AT THAT POINT THE LANDLORD
CAN THEN FILE FOR EVICTION AND
REMOVE THE TENANT.
IN THIS CASE IT IS NOT THE
UPLINK ABILITY OF THE TIMING OF
THE DEFENSE THAT IS THE ISSUE
BUT THAT BASIS OF THE EVICTION
ITSELF.
-- THAT FAILURE TO PAY RENT IS
STILL THE BASIS OF EVICTION AT
THE END WHEN THOSE PROTECTIONS
EXPIRE.
FOR THIS BILL THERE IS NO TIME
AT WHICH THE ABILITY TO ASSERT
THE DEFENSE ITSELF EXPIRES.
INSTEAD THE DEFENSE IS ALWAYS
AVAILABLE THAT THE TENANT WAS
UNABLE TO PAY RENT DURING THE
CIVIL EMERGENCY.
SO WHEN THE MORATORIUM AND THE
SIX MONTH DEFENSE BILL EXPIRE,
A LANDLORD WOULD BE ABLE TO
FILE FOR EVICTION ON ANY OTHER
BASIS, BUT WITH THE PROTECTIONS
IN THIS BILL, THE TENANT WOULD
ALWAYS BE ABLE TO ASSERT A
DEFENSE.
SO IN ESSENCE IT IS NOT ABOUT
WHEN THE PHYSICAL REMOVAL WILL
HAPPEN BUT WHEN THE FAILURE TO
PAY RENT HAPPENS, AND SO THAT
IS THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THIS BILL AND THE PROTECTIONS
THAT ARE SET UP IN THE
MORATORIUM AND THE OTHER SIX
MONTH DEFENSE BILL.
AND SO IF THERE ARE ANY
QUESTIONS I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER
THEM AT THIS POINT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN GO
AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE
PRESENTATION.
I WANTED TO FOLLOW-UP ON ONE OF
THE THINGS YOU SAID ABOUT THE
TIMING.
SO THE LEGISLATION BEFORE US
SEEMS VERY TIED TO THE COVID-19
PANDEMIC AND HARDSHIP EMANATING
FROM THAT, AND I KNOW WITH SOME
OF OUR RECENT LEGISLATION WHICH
I HAVE SUPPORTED SUCH AS THE
PAYMENT PLANS, THEY APPLIED SIX
MONTHS AFTER THE CIVIL
EMERGENCY IS LIFTED, WITH THIS
LEGISLATION COULD YOU CLARIFY
úTHERE IS NO TIME LIMIT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT, THE TIME
LIMIT DOES NOT AFFECT THE
ABILITY TO ASSERT THE DEFENSE,
IT ONLY AFFECTS WHEN THE
PAYMENT OF RENT WAS DUE, SO THE
LIMITATION IS AROUND THE TIME
AT WHICH THE RENT CAME DUE, SO
IF IT WAS DURING THE COVID-19
EMERGENCY THE PERSON WAS NOT
ABLE TO PAY RENT DUE TO
FINANCIAL HARDSHIP THAT IS
ALWAYS GOING TO BE A DEFENSE
AGAINST EVICTION SO IN THREE
YEARS FROM NOW ASSUMING THAT
THERE ARE NOT OTHERS OTHER
LIMITATIONS ON -- IN THREE
YEARS FROM NOW IF A LANDLORD
WERE TO FILE AN EVICTION AND
SAY IT IS BECAUSE THE TENANT
DID NOT PAY RENT DURING THE
COVID-19 EMERGENCY, THE TENANT
WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO ASSERT
THE DEFENSE THAT BECAUSE THEY
HD FINANCIAL HARDSHIP THEY
WERE NOT ABLE TO PAY THAT RENT.
AGAIN IT IS NOT SAYING THAT THE
TENANT THEMSELVES DO NOT OWE
THE RENT, IT IS JUST THAT THEY
WOULD NOT LOSE THEIR HOUSING
BECAUSE THEY STILL OWED THE
RENT.
>> MAY I FOLLOW-UP?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> SO TO PLAY OUT A DIFFERENT
SCENARIO, IF SOMEBODY IS -- IF
THE COVID-19 EMERGENCY HAS BEEN
LIFTED AND WE ARE PAST THE SIX
MONTHS OF THE PAYMENT PLAN
LEGISLATION WHICH I SUPPORTED,
IF SOMEBODY HAS PAID UP ALL
THEIR RENT, BUT THEN THEY HAVE
A HARDSHIP THAT IS TIED TO
COVID-19 IN SOME WAY, ARE THEY
ABLE TO ASSERT THIS DEFENSE
FIVE YEARS FROM NOW AND SAY
THAT IT WAS COVID-19 RELATED?
>> MOSTLY NO.
AND THAT IS BECAUSE IT IS FOR
AS LONG AS THE CIVIL EMERGENCY
LASTS, AND SO IF THE PERSON
ENDED UP HAVING ISSUES THAT ARE
RELATED TO COVID-19 THAT
OCCURRED AFTER THE END OF THE
CIVIL EMERGENCY AND WAS NOT
ABLE TO PAY THEIR RENT THIS
DEFENSE WOULD NOT APPLY.
THE DEFENSE IS SPECIFIC TO THE
PERIOD OF TIME DURING WHICH THE
CIVIL EMERGENCY BECAUSE OF
COVID-19 IS IN PLACE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS?
--
>> JUST THE REPOSED AMENDMENTS
IF YOU ALL ARE READY TO MOVE ON
TO THAT DISCUSSION.
>> I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE TO
THAT.
>> I WILL SHARE MY SCREEN --
THERE ARE TWO PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS, BOTH PROPOSED BY
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
IT FIRST WOULD LIMIT THE
APPLICABILITY OF THE BILL TO
LANDLORDS WHO HAVE OWNERSHIP
INTEREST IN MORE THAN FOUR
UNITS -- -- CAN YOU ALL SEE
THAT?
I CANNOT TELL IF IT SHARED.
--
>> IS IT OKAY IF I SPEAK TO
THIS AMENDMENT?
>> THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE
AMENDMENT PREVIOUSLY ALSO
SIMILAR TO THE AMENDMENT WE HAD
APPROVED -- AGAIN THE MAIN
POINT HERE IS THESE HOUSING
DIVIDERS ARE ALSO STRUGGLING IN
A BETTER WAY TO ADDRESS THIS
WOULD BE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
RENTAL ASSISTANCE AS NEEDED
RATHER THAN A REGULATORY CHANGE
HERE I AM CONCERNED THAT THE
FACT THAT THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT
ON THIS AND SO I WILL ADDRESS
THIS IN A SECOND AMENDMENT --
>> IT SEEMS LIKE WE ARE NOT
GETTING A SECOND, ARE YOU OKAY
MOVING TO YOUR SECOND
AMENDMENT?
>> YES.
THANK YOU FOR SHOWING THE
SECOND ONE.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE A
TIME LIMIT OF 18 MONTHS AND
WHILE IT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY
TIED TO THE ENDING OF THE COVID-
19 PANDEMIC AND A GRACE PERIOD,
A LONG GRACE PERIOD AFTER THE
ENDING OF THIS EMERGENCY IT
DOES ENABLE US TO BE MORE
CLOSELY TIED TO THE TIME PERIOD
OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND
NOT HAVE IT GO ON IN PERPETUITY
AS THE LEGISLATION IS WRITTEN
AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT WITHIN
18 MONTHS WE CAN REVISIT IT AND
EXTEND IT IF THE DATA WAS
SHOWING THAT WE NEED TO DO
THAT, BUT THIS IS PUTTING A
TIME LIMIT ON THE LEGISLATION
WHICH WOULD PRESUMABLY BE
SIMILAR TO THE TIMING OF THE
END OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
WITH A GRACE PERIOD BEYOND
THAT.
AND SO I WILL ATTEMPT TO MOVE
THIS, TO MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL
BILL 120077 WITH AMENDMENT TO
WHICH WOULD HAVE A TIME LIMIT
OF 18 MONTHS.
CAN I GET A SECOND?
THAT WAS QUICK, I APPRECIATE
THE CHAIR AT LEAST LETTING US
TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS TODAY.
>> ABSOLUTELY, WE HAVE NOT
GOTTEN ANY, FOR LACK OF THE
SECOND WE HAVE TO STOP THE
DISCUSSION.
SO I WILL JUST OPEN IT UP AGAIN
FOR ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON THE
BILL AS A WHOLE.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES, GO
AHEAD.
>> I WANTED TO REITERATE ONE OF
THE THINGS I SAID BEFORE WHICH
WAS THAT THERE IS RENTAL
ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE FOR
LANDLORDS, $150 MILLION FROM
THE COUNTY, $20 MILLION FROM
THE CITY FOR NOW, WITH THE
POTENTIAL FOR MORE COMING, SO I
THINK THAT THE CHALLENGE HERE IS
, AND WE DO RISK PEOPLE
ATTEMPTING TO EVICT INSTEAD OF
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THAT
ASSISTANCE THAT IS AVAILABLE,
AND SO I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE
SURE THE FOLKS ARE PROTECTED
AND EVEN IF THE TENANT HAS LOST
THEIR JOB OR BECAUSE OF COVID-
19 IS NOT ABLE TO PAY THEIR
RENT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT
THE LANDLORD DOES NOT HAVE AN
OPTION FOR GETTING THEIR RENT
PAID.
SO I JUST WANT TO REMIND PEOPLE
OF THAT, AND AGAIN, THE
PREFERENCE IS FOR FOLKS TO GO
THAT ROUTE RATHER THAN TRYING
TO EVICT PEOPLE, BUT IF THEY DO
THAT, THEN THERE NEEDS TO BE AN
EVICTION DEFENSE, A DEFENSE TO
THAT KIND OF EVICTION THAT IS
BASED ON THE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP
THAT THE PEOPLE IN THE CITY ARE
EXPERIENCING.
>> AND I WILL JUST ADD A FEW
POINTS IN CLOSING BEFORE WE HAVE
-- I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT
THIS IS BOTH AN ECONOMIC
JUSTICE AND A RACIAL JUSTICE
BILL.
BECAUSE OF -- UNSURPRISINGLY
FACE FAR GREATER COVID-19
RELATED DEBT BURDENS ON TOP OF
THE PRE-EXISTING DEBT BURDEN
THAT COMES FROM THE ENDEMIC
DISCRIMINATION AND THEREFORE
ARE AT FAR GREATER RISK OF -- I
APPRECIATE COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES BRINGING THIS FORWARD
AND AS I SAID BEFORE -- LAST
SEPTEMBER JUST ON THE QUESTION
OF THE RACIAL JUSTICE ISSUE,
LAST SEPTEMBER -- REPORTED THAT
31% OF RENTERS HAD UNPAID RENT,
AND THE REPORT WENT ON, THE
SHARE OF WHITE RENTERS IS WELL
BELOW THE OVERALL RATE AT 24%
MEANWHILE -- THIS IS A REAL
ESTATE WEBSITE ANALYST WHO HAS
CONDUCTED THIS STUDY AND -- 31%
OF RENTERS WITH UNPAID RENT AND
ON TOP OF THAT IF YOU LOOK AT
IT BROKEN DOWN BY THE RACIAL
DEMOGRAPHIC, HOW ACUTELY THE
BLACK AND LATINO COMMUNITIES
ARE FACING THIS CRISIS OF
UNPAID RENT WHICH IS BASICALLY
RENTAL DEBT, IT IS JUST
STUNNING.
AND WHILE SUPPORTING THIS
LEGISLATION WE ALSO HAVE TO BE
CLEAR THAT AS -- EXPLAINED --
WE ALL KNOW THAT IT IS
HAPPENING AND THAT IS WHERE THE
TSUNAMI OF EVICTIONS IS GOING
TO COME FROM, I THINK COMMUNITY
MEMBERS WILL AGREE WITH ME THAT
WE HAVE TO BUILD ON THIS BY
ACTUALLY ALSO GOING AHEAD AND
FIGHTING FOR DEBT CANCELLATION
AND RENT CONTROL, AND BY THAT I
MEAN CANCELLATION OF RENTAL
MORTGAGE AND UTILITY DEBTS FOR
HOUSEHOLDS THAT HAVE LOST MONEY
AND BEEN FINANCIALLY DEVASTATED
DUE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND
BY MORTGAGE DEBT CANCELLATION I
AM INCLUDING MORTGAGE DEBT OF
STRUGGLING LANDLORDS AND THAT
INCLUDES STRUGGLING HOMEOWNERS
IN THE MIDDLE-CLASS AND WORKING-
CLASS WHO WE KNOW IN THE GREAT
RECESSION AND THE FALLOUT FROM
THE GREAT RECESSION IN 2011,
AMERICA HAD JUST A STUNNING
FORECLOSURE CRISIS WITH AT
LEAST 6 MILLION FORECLOSURES
HAPPENING, AND IT WAS WORKING-
CLASS PEOPLE, MIDDLE-CLASS
PEOPLE WHO LOST THEIR HOMES AND
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED, THE
CAPITALISTS AND THE BANKS, THE
BANKS GOT BAILED OUT AND
ORDINARY PEOPLE GOT SOLD OUT,
AND I THINK THAT PRINCIPLE
APPLIES TO THE QUESTION OF
CANCELING DEBT THIS TIME AROUND
BECAUSE WHEN YOU SAY CANCEL
DEBT, WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR
THAT DEBT?
IT HAS TO BE NOT WORKING PEOPLE
AND RENTERS, BUT IT HAS TO BE
THE REAL ESTATE CORPORATIONS,
IT HAS TO BE BIG BANKS THAT
UNDERWRITE REAL ESTATE DEALS
AND -- AND BIG LANDLORDS, SO IT
IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE
COMMITTEE TO BE CONSIDERING
THIS BILL AND I WOULD INVITE
YOU TO --
>> -- [ ROLL BEING CALLED ]
THREE IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED, --
>> OKAY, THANK YOU
COUNCILMEMBERS FOR ENGAGING THE
COMMITTEE AND I WILL -- GOING
TO THE FULL COUNCIL ON JUNE 7?
>> YES.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I
APPRECIATE ALL COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, ALL COMMUNITY MEMBERS
WHO HAVE ENGAGED TODAY AND --
THANK YOU FROM CENTRAL STAFF,
REALLY APPRECIATE -- FROM MY
OFFICE FOR HELPING THROUGH THIS
COMMITTEE.
IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER
COMMENTS, I WILL GO AHEAD AND
ADJOURN.
I DO NOT SEE ANY, SO I WILL
ADJOURN THE MEETING, THANK YOU
COUNCILMEMBERS.