The Stranger and others have raised more hue and cry about the City’s failing Rental Registration and Inspection Ordinance (RRIO) is, as we pointed out a year ago, failing. The pattern has been consistent: both the press, tenant activists, and Councilmember Sawant and her colleagues that blindly follow her on Council pass legislation and write stories without ever talking to or engaging with the people who actually rent and manage housing in the city. Last year when the punitive (and perhaps defamatory) “Carl Hagland’ ordinance enhancing RRIO passed we said it wouldn’t work. Nobody listened. We said that the City’s existing program didn’t work because the City staff was already overwhelmed. We also said the program would create, “big disincentives to take on improvements to older, more affordable rental properties.”

Slap your forehead! Here’s what Heidi Groover at The Stranger reports in that story. 

[C]ity staff don’t actually know details about the conditions of the vast majority of buildings . . . [and landlords have] little incentive to fix code violations until they get caught

When I was a landlord, at a non-profit, we had the same kind of inspections. And small fix it violations were always found. Like anything else, rental properties aren’t perfect. I don’t know what it would take to address the issues in the specific case in the article, but as I’ve pointed out before, the City and some in the press are obsessed with specific cases rather than as we suggest, working to “refine and improve this program” of inspections that would surface real issues and get them fixed. 

Inspections are nothing new. Neither are mechanisms to complain to the City. But as we pointed out a year ago, nobody talks to landlords. The Council simply speculates, the press shares horror stories, and then actions are taken that don’t fix the program nor do they address the underlying issue. So here’s what we wrote a year ago. Will anyone listen now? Can we actually work together to find the worst cases and get them repaired? 

——————–

New legislation will be proposed this week on controlling when landlords can raise rents. This is a joint statement prepared by Smart Growth Seattle and the Rental Housing Association of Washington. 

At a time when there is deep concern about housing prices in Seattle, the City Council and Mayor should use every available existing tool and new ones to address rising rents. Unfortunately, the recently proposed Tenant Protection Ordinance (the so called “Carl Haglund” law) does neither, creating a new bureaucracy, costs, and confusion for renters and landlords. And the proposal was crafted with absolutely no communication with or advice from landlords or developers.

Existing Tools Need Improvement 

The existing Rental Registration and Inspections Ordinance (RRIO) Program allows for inspection of units in any building for substandard conditions and creates an avenue for tenant complaints – and holding building owners accountable for substandard conditions. However, only a third of rental properties have been registered for the program. The City should continue to refine and improve this program.

It’s worth noting that the apartments in the building that spurred this legislation actually passed an RRIO inspection before it was sold.

Creating New Problems 

The new program would,

• Create a parallel reporting process for tenants along side the existing programs;
• Involve the City in legally allowed and even small rent changes all across the city;
• Disincentivize repairs and improvements, ensuring some lower rents but at the expense of making the unit or building better;
• Dramatically increase the work load of already thinly stretched City staff; and
• Expose the City to legal action for violating the State’s preemption on rent control.

Taken together, this legislation will simply add confusion for tenants and housing providers, more costs for the City, and big disincentives to take on improvements to older, more affordable rental properties. This proposal has been made with no data to support it, only anecdotes, and without the involvement of people who own and operate rental housing in the city.

Solutions

A real solution would be to provide help with financing improvements to older buildings; this would lower costs and the savings could be passed on to renters. This solution would both incentivize improvements and preserve existing affordable housing. This proposal made by Smart Growth Seattle has tentative public support from the Tenants Union. Even better, it’s an idea in the Mayor’s Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA) Committee recommendations. Recommendation P4 reads, in part

As part of expanding its preservation efforts, the City should develop and market a low-cost rehab loan program to complement its existing weatherization grants. This program would provide a compelling incentive for existing owners to improve their properties in exchange for an affordability covenant. Effective outreach, marketing and technical support will be critical components to the success of the program. The City should build on the success of its weatherization program by helping owners through the contracting process and with ongoing program compliance (page 32).

The Rental Housing Association of Washington and Smart Growth Seattle would like to work with the City on solutions, but oppose this ordinance; it is unnecessary and doesn’t solve a problem but makes things worse.