Yesterday the Planning Land Use and Sustainability (PLUS) Committee discussed renter protection legislation that was offered to try and stop supposed abuses of the City’s Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance (TRAO) requirements. The claim, only anecdotal, is that land lords are trying to get rid of tenants by boosting their rents dramatically — it’s called economic eviction. But there isn’t anything other than a few anecdotes in a few news stories. It’s hard to tell if these kinds of “evictions” are even happening in large numbers, or in numbers worthy of new legislation.

The proposed renter protection would actually allow the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) decide whether a rent increase is “reasonable” when a tenant complained. You can see where this is going. Every rent increase in town, and rents do change, would be subject to review by someone at DPD.

The City Council is once again playing with the edge of the law in an effort to  appease some angry people in the community. If the City starts to decide whether rents are “reasonable” they would likely be in plain violation of State law; it’s called rent control and it isn’t legal. 

Even more important: it doesn’t work. 

The Council needs to stop playing games with the law (linkage taxes would be illegal too), and start making policies that will increase supply, the best way to lower prices.

Here’s a letter the Washington Rental Housing Association sent to the Council.

———————-

April 21, 2015

Councilmember Mike O’Brien

RE: Draft changes to rental agreements and the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance

Dear Councilmember O’Brien,

We appreciate the attention City Council is giving to the issues of housing affordability in Seattle, and are eager to continue engaging with the City to find policy solutions where problems exist and city intervention is appropriate.

The proposed legislation your committee will be hearing offers two legislative solutions, one of which is much more pertinent to affordability than the other.

What RHA can agree on is that it is irresponsible and negligent for any rental housing owner to bypass any legal obligation of providing tenant relocation assistance by using a rent increase as a form of “economic eviction.”

RHA agrees that such practices require attention to ensure that the most vulnerable population of renters are afforded the time and ability to find and pay for new housing when required to vacate as allowed by the City’s Just Cause Eviction Ordinance.

Without hitting on specific nuances of proposed new Section 22.210.136 of the Seattle Municipal Code, we are generally supportive of this idea, but believe there are details which require more refinement.

However, as the legislation pertains to rental agreements and the Just Cause Eviction ordinance (SMC 7.24.030, Section C), this is not a demonstration of appropriate policy measure, and RHA strongly opposes any consideration of adoption.

Mandating that rental owners offer term lease renewals for any fixed‐term lease which is expiring, or allow an expiring fixed‐term lease to become month‐to‐month, will only further reduce housing supply, opportunities, and housing predictability for tenants in Seattle.

In many circumstances, a rental owner only wants to rent their property for a finite period of time in anticipation of planned maintenance or development. Under this proposal, those properties which may have been available for a 9 or 12 month period – often at a lower rate to attract a tenant knowing the tenancy is not eligible for long‐term occupancy – would now sit vacant to avoid any risk of having a tenant in perpetuity, or which requires additional expenses to allow for said planning to occur.

If fixed‐term leases offer no benefits to a rental owner they will simply choose to no longer offer them.

This is a detriment to tenants who look forward to signing term leases for the security and predictability of knowing that rules and rents can’t change for a longer period of time, something which Council should be especially sensitive to as it discusses how to increase housing affordability in Seattle.

What are not detrimental to tenants are the protections against discrimination, retaliation, and source of income, to name a few, which are already granted under Seattle law. There is no need for additional layers which provide no added benefit to the landlord – tenant relationship.

We would also point out that many other unintended consequences would come of this legislation, two of which are that long‐term vacation rentals, and subleases could no longer function at risk of those fixed term arrangements being forced to become ongoing tenancies.

Lastly, RHA believes the rental agreement regulation proposal to be in direct conflict with RCW 59.18.220,and therefore preempted by the State Residential Landlord Tenant Act. Any local legislation which prohibits landlords and tenants from mutually agreeing to a fixed term tenancy will be challenged in court and, we believe, invalidated.

Thank you for your consideration, and we look forward to continuing to work with the city in finding creative and appropriate solutions to the housing affordability and supply issues currently faced by
Seattle.

Sincerely,
Bill Hinkle
Executive Director,
Washington Rental Housing Association