Two State Supreme Court rulings handed down Thursday will help efforts to strengthen renter protections in Seattle.
Both decisions came down to the court’s interpretation of property rights and the government’s right to restrict them.
The first ruling clears the way for Seattle’s “first-in-time,” “First-Come, First-Served Screening Practice” legislation that requires landlords to, as it was described by the Seattle City Council, “review applications one at a time, on a first-come, first-served basis” in order to prevent “housing providers from giving applicants with alternative sources of income a lower priority.”
PLEASE HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE!
Subscribe to CHS to help us pay writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for as little as $5 a month.
The law was one of the key elements in a legislative package of renter protections passed in Seattle in the summer of 2016 that had been struck down last year in King County Superior Court.
Thanks to the successful appeal at the state court, that law can now go back on the books.
The second ruling answered a similar question about another protection ordinance — Seattle’s “Fair Chance Housing” law designed to prevent landlords from denying renters based on criminal history. Thursday’s ruling set a higher standard for landlords challenging the law. The ordinance is currently being challenged in federal court.
While Seattle’s tenant protections are seen as important for the city’s huge population of renters struggling with expensive leases and limited supply, recent changes are hugely unpopular with landlords. A 2018 study found only 1 in 10 supported ordinances to limit move-in fees, the First-in-Time ordinance, and the ordinance to limit criminal background checks.
And how exactly will these pieces of legislation solve the problems you say plague renters, those being expensive leases and limited supply? Does requiring a landlord to accept the first qualified applicant expand supply or lower rents? How about preventing criminal background checks? Will that expand supply or lower rents?
You’re missing the point. The New Woke doesn’t focus on overall benefits for the larger group of people in need: the idea is to focus on a narrow demographic (in this case, people who have criminal records and/or are prone to destroy stuff and/or not pay their rent) and declare them victims worthy of extraordinary protection. Crazy, right? Here are some revolutionary ideas for those who may want to be future renters (or employees): don’t prey upon other humans, don’t commit serious crimes, don’t start using or selling highly addictive drugs, don’t destroy or vandalize rental units, don’t harass other tenants, and don’t purposely avoid paying rent. Problem solved!
How likely is it that the first-in-line applicant is someone who has a good job that allow them the flexibility to rush out when they see the apartment or house posted online, rather than the person who works a less flexible job, maybe has a kid and child care to consider and can’t be trawling the internet all day long for apartments while they are at work? A landlord who wants to game the system can easily post their units at a time when more “Affluent” renters are likely to see them, and can require an in-person application which would be easier for that affluent renter to submit. No?
During the brief time this was enforced, the steps I took were to:
– advertise a rental through word of mouth (keeping housing off the market for a month during that process)
– jack up the rents ~30% (and wait for the highest-paid renter), rather than just put it at the market at a below-market rent and pick the most qualified applicant.
– hand my property over to a paid professional manager (since it was too scary to do it on my own any more) who naturally now is setting (and obtaining) significantly higher rents to help warrant their expense.
Bad laws have real ramifications.
Because you couldn’t handle clearly posting your rental criteria and renting to someone who met that criteria? Weird. Sounds like your greed has gotten the best of you. I feel sorry for all tenants that have to deal with people like yourself who literally hold the strings to their HOUSING and pull them as you wish. You really don’t seem to care at all. Bad landlords seem to think their financial greed is more important than anything else. Landlords are profiting in Seattle, not losing money.
Also, the fact you publicly post how you broke the law while the law was still in effect just speaks to how shamelessly far landlords are willing to go for profit on the backs of renters and why these regulations and enforcement of the regulations are absolutely necessary here. I don’t know how you sleep at night caphilllandlord.
Uh, the law was invalidated in King County court, and was unenforceable until this week’s Supreme Court decision.
Maybe chill out a bit on the emotions and focus that energy on getting the facts straight first?
I’m sorry…what law did this person break?
Uh, you said….During the brief time this was enforced, the steps I took were to:
– advertise a rental through word of mouth (keeping housing off the market for a month during that process)
Sorry, what specific law are you asserting was violating by that — and how exactly?
Yup Stupid policy/law just raises rents. Thank Sawant. Stupid opposite effect. No longer can I choose to rent to a lower income person. Also my other tenants will be upset to have me forced to rent to known criminals. Thanks again Sawant.
I am not against these laws. I just don’t think they will work because greedy landlords will find ways to get around them. If you want lower rent and home prices, you need companies like Amazon to move out of WA or at least expand elsewhere instead of here.
Imagine if we had a system like the MLS for real estate. With lots of public records.
It’s okay everyone, soon it’ll be so expensive you’ll need a broker to get a $2500 studio like in NY. Stupid laws give you stupid results.
Yep. 100% guaranteed. Another not smart move by Sea City Council.