I’m exhausted from trying to track all the profoundly wrong writing (is it reporting?) about eviction going in in Washington and across the country. For example, we have the Crosscut headline from awhile back about the new report that details Seattle’s eviction epidemic. Well, if David Kroman had considered his use of the word, “epidemic,” he’d have thought to ask the authors of the report, “What is the endemic rate?” How many evictions should we have? He didn’t ask that, and what the report really showed is a tiny and yet undefined problem: about 600 people out of some 168,000 rental units in Seattle were evicted, about .3 percent. Hard to define that as an epidemic, and Kroman’s story didn’t illuminate anything for his readers but their outrage. Now Matt Driscoll at the Tacoma News Tribune has his latest effort to play to legislators and his angry tenant advocate audience with new text book example of how not to write about housing legislation.

First, let’s consider his headline, something that reporters and editors alike always say they don’t write. That’s irrelevant and a completely craven excuse to make. Perhaps we should visit the headline writing room; maybe it’s filled with Bartleby types who, when asked to help explain the news say, “I prefer not to.” His headline is: Landlords hammering tenants with new eviction laws that were supposed to protect them. What constitutes hammering for Driscoll? Giving people (in his case here, one person), a notice letting them know their rent is late. Is that an eviction notice? No it is not. But if I’m Driscoll why would I waste time talking to landlords or people who manage rental housing for a living, let’s use the description of the eviction process described by the Tenants Union.

In order to win in court against an eviction for non-payment of rent, the tenant must be able to establish that they do not owe the rent the landlord is trying to collect. A 14-day pay or vacate notice does not mean that you have to vacate the premises within fourteen days. Eviction is a court process and your landlord cannot have you removed from the premises until a court order has been issued. There are very few ways to stop an eviction for non-payment of rent, if you actually owe the money, besides paying your rent in full within the fourteen day timeframe.

Let’s look at this for a moment. The notice received by the aggrieved tenant in Driscoll’s story is not an eviction notice. And had Driscoll bothered to put any balance in his story at all, he’d use the description above to explain that the tenant in his story has a long way to go before she can be evicted for non-payment of rent. Let that last phrase, “non-payment of rent” sink in. In Washington state you can not pay your rent and have an expectation of staying in your unit for at least a month. Why? Because Democrats in the legislature led by State Senator Patti Kuderer have extended the amount of time a tenant has to pay to 14 days.

Giving this notice, required by the new law is what Driscoll characterizes as: “landlords and property management companies are using laws meant to soften the threat of eviction as a hammer.”

Let’s say Driscoll’s tenant doesn’t pay after the 14 days. Then, and only then, the landlord could initiate court proceedings to remove the tenant from the unit. How does the landlord do this? Again, from the Tenant’s Union:

After the initial notice has expired and you are still in the unit the landlord must have a neutral third party such as a process server or the Sheriff serve you the eviction lawsuit. The landlord cannot serve the lawsuit directly themselves. The lawsuit is made up of two documents served together called the “Summons and Complaint.”

How long doest this process take? It depends. But, again from the Tenant’s Union, “the deadline for your response will generally be one week from the date you received the Summons and Complaint” And as their site points out, receiving the complaint doesn’t mean it has been filed. If all this goes like clockwork and the tenant does respond, the tenant has now not paid in 21 days. Usually all of this takes longer, and if it does (maybe Driscoll could have called more than one landlord) the next due date for rent has arrived. If there is a contested legal process because the lawyers who pushed for this legislation get involved, the tenant may still be in the unit 60 days after the initial failure to pay.

What does this and every other landlord want? The rent to be paid on time. This is what the tenant agreed to do when they signed the lease. Investors and the bank that finance rental housing need to say payments on loans, counties want their taxes paid, and maintenance workers need their paycheck to feed their families. This landlord, I can promise Driscoll, does not want to evict this person. Does Driscoll think that the legal representation to file the eviction is free? It isn’t. Even if the tenant doesn’t respond, the order has to be filed and lawyers aren’t cheap.

Then, guess what? A Sheriff’s deputy has to show up and remove the tenant. I wonder if Driscoll or Senator Kuderer has ever been to an eviction. I have. When I was a non-profit landlord we had a woman who suffered a serious set of problems that I won’t characterize. We tried to keep her in the unit and get help. When she finally agreed to leave, she left everything behind. We had to remove everything from the unit, store it for weeks, and make repairs. Add that to the 60 days along with the emotional pain of having to remove another human being who is already suffering from a unit. It costs money for lawyers and lost rent. It costs time. And it is a painful experience for everyone.

The 14 day notice called “a hammer” isn’t a hammer at all. Its simply what the Senator incentivized when she took dictation from her lawyer friends who told her what to do. She, like Driscoll has probably never managed a rental unit or evicted anyone or, maybe, even managed a small business. Driscoll’s pearl clutching story about a 14 day notice for a person who didn’t pay their rent on time and has 14 days to pay (which is what the #%@$ notice tells the tenant!) is pure hyperbole. And what is absurd and worse is that the story, and the Senator’s legislation, does nothing for this person or for any other tenant who, like the tenant in my eviction story, may have some serious issues.

Journalists these days have declared themselves to be the keepers of the democratic flame. Fine. However, Donald Trump doesn’t mean that journalists don’t have to earn that self-designation by actually doing the work of reporting. Democratic legislators trying to make a name for themselves by being progressive and looking out for the “little guy” should actually do the work of figuring out what the business of managing rental housing is, and what the real problems of tenant are,  before they use their power to ram bad legislation through a one party system. Again, nothing Driscoll or Kuderer has done here helps anyone but their own reputations among a group of people who want to gain more power and donations for their organizations. In truth, they are making things worse for everyone. They ought to be ashamed, not defensive and go back and write the story and the legislation over again.