As 75,000 District 3 voters prepare to weigh in on her political future, representative Kshama Sawant says she is standing up for the residents of 34 apartment units on First Hill.
The veteran Seattle City Council member has targeted 9th Ave’s Terrace Crest building with claims of landlord negligence including a lack of heating and hot water and is demanding a “rent refund” for residents.
Sawant gathered with residents from Terrace Crest Wednesday to demand the building owner Breier-Scheetz Properties “fix the boiler which has been broken since mid-September, leaving tenants almost entirely without hot water and/or heating for the last two months.”
“After being ignored by their landlord for over a month, tenants began organizing, including contacting Councilmember Sawant’s office and putting together a petition signed by a large majority, which includes the demand for tenants’ rent to be refunded,” a statement on the rally reads.
UPDATE: We’ve fixed the misspelling of Breier-Scheetz Properties from the Sawant press release and are reaching out to the property owner to learn more.
The effort is the latest small, surgical strike by Sawant who has continued to champion tenant causes this fall on a building by building and sometimes tenant by tenant basis.
In October, CHS reported on Sawant’s involvement calling for improved conditions for residents at Rainier Valley affordable senior housing complexes.
The actions come as the campaign to fight a recall of the longest sitting member of the city council begins what it has promised will be a massive get out the vote effort.
Ballots in the December 7th recall vote are being mailed to District 3 voters this week. Check with King County Elections to learn more and check the status of your ballot.
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.
Oh wow! Sawant actually took the time to visit First Hill for once! It’s such a shame that it took the threat of a Recall to get her to visit the neighborhood. I’m still voting YES.
Classic Sawant. She only shows up before an election. She is MIA the rest of the time.
Demonstrably false
Who would you like to see City Council appoint to Sawant’s council seat when she is removed from office?
A caretaker. District #3 deserves an open seat and someone concerned with filling the potholes in the interim.
The recall effort according to the local Democratic party is sexist, racist and undemocratic. I believe them.
The local Democratic Party seems to have been overrun by radical bullies. I can’t support their intimidations tactics.
The local Democratic party should rename themselves.
Democratic party in Seattle is going so far to the right quick….scary level bad
“We have stood behind Councilmember Sawant before, and there is no reason for us to stop now—in fact, quite the opposite,”
43rd Democrats Chair Scott Alspach says.
“It is shameful to see such an undemocratic and retaliatory effort led by the same upper-class in Seattle who perpetuated racist and misogynistic attacks against Sawant for years. As a Council District 3 resident myself, I call on fellow Democrats to join me in opposition to the Recall effort.”
I wonder if Alspach found the impeachment of Trump to be “undemocratic” as well.
Here’s their official statement on the matter, urging our senators and reps to go through with impeachment:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a3993300abd04ae23f41290/t/5ff8b93f95ad1c15203c24eb/1610135871605/43rdDems-Support-Impeachment-And-Removal.pdf
Hi. Impeachment isn’t the same as a recall. Impeachment doesn’t even remove you from office, as Trump was actually impeached. Twice even.
The “undemocratic” part of this is that the people that want to recall Sawant are doing so not due to “ethics (in game journalism?),” but because they want a do-over on a fair election. Their pretense is some ethical issues that the city itself didn’t feel warranted any significant penalties. But since the recall folks have a very loud microphone (I mean, this entire thread seems scripted from their talking points; good job, whoever is orchestrating this operation), here we are.
I mean, I think Sawant is generally not a good elected official but I don’t think she should be recalled; she was fairly elected. You can vote her out at the next election. That’s the democratic process.
If this proves successful, it will be a model for every future election. When your candidate loses, start fundraising for your recall campaign. And instead of governing, our leaders will be dealing with recalls instead.
It’s the standard conservative playbook: Break the government to prove that the government is broken. They do this by underfunding services to prove they’re useless and not worthy of funding, and they’re doing it to elections. First it’s they’re always illegitimate if/when they lose; second, that you should immediately use any systems in place to remove that victor.
A few points.
You’re mincing words. Impeachment is the equivalent of a recall for the president (as there’s no recall process for president). Impeachment does indeed remove a sitting president if they are convicted in the senate trial.
Recalls are pursued by both liberals and conservatives. The two I can think of off hand are the recall of Gavin Newsom, and Scott Walker. The later recall was initiated by democrats. To say it’s part of the “standard conservative playbook” is inaccurate, and tells me you’re only looking at part of the picture and ignoring facts that don’t suit you.
Recalls have been happening forever, and Sawant’s recall is not initiating a slippery slope after which every election will result in a recall.
However, your comment about delegitimizing elections before they happen is quite apt. Sawant has been trying to do this to the recall for months now – in the unlikely event she loses the recall, she will claim that it was undemocratic and only succeeded because of voter suppression. She’s been setting up these arguments for months, just like Trump and his cronies began to sow the seeds of doubt about the presidential election well before it took place. And you will have convinced yourself it was true because you’ve been hearing the message non stop.
An election by the people and trials in the house and senate aren’t remotely similar, though I guess that line is somewhat blurred in our extremely partisan environment. Impeachment can actually defy the will of the people, for example, though god knows there was no way most Republicans would’ve dared vote to impeach Trump, since they’re scared of their people.
Recalls have not been “happening forever.” In fact, there have literally been three governor recalls, ever.
California has simple recall rules (as does Wisconsin), which is why I’d expect it to happen even more now that the Newsom one went forward. (California successfully recalled Gray Davis and replaced him with Arnold, and that was much more dubious in that people just didn’t like Davis.) The recall of Newsom was due to things unrelated to the actual purpose of a recall, like for fraud or some other issues that don’t automatically force removal from office. If you can’t win at the ballot, you might be able to get the minimum number of signatures to force a recall election and put us in a perpetual cycle of election/recall/election. The more recent ability to mobilize bases of people via social media is unprecedented in history.
I do like that people like you seem to think Sawant can suppress voter turnout. But for who exactly? Those who hate her will vote (definitely), those who love her will vote (maybe; if lefties always voted, we’d barely have elected Republicans in most parts of the country), and the people who sit in the middle will, as always, remain apathetic and not be bothered to vote, even when it’s so simple here.
Just because they say that, it doesn’t make it true. It’s just the bogeyman they wave in front of her supporters to fearmonger (in my opinion). She is up for recall for misusing funds, leading a group protestors to Mayor Durkan’s protected address and endangering people by letting a crowd into city hall after hours.
Why do they think recalling Sawant is undemocratic, but impeaching Trump was democratic?
Of course these are the same Democratic organizations which endorsed all the losing candidates in our recent election (Mosqueda excepted). I think they might be just a little out of touch with prevailing voter sentiments.
Well said.
Unfortunately, these are the same group of Democrats who are very caught up in their own underwear and not tuned in to the sentiment of the residents. This stuff isn’t partisan. It’s about working to better the city for all residents, not shouting bumpersticker slogans. These are the same Democrats who were for a City Attorney and a City Council member who wanted to defund the police and abolish enforcing the laws. By the way, these two candidates lost by a wide margin. And while some seem to think that Sawant’s actions were nothing serious, the Supreme Court seemed to think otherwise. And claims by these same folks that this recall effort isn’t “democratic” is laughable. When politicians do bad things, we shouldn’t have to wait years to remove them from office. And we don’t. There is a pretty high bar to have a recall in this State, and we cleared it.
Just one of those candidates lost by a wide margin, the other one lost by 4%.
Tom, that 4% equals just under 10,000 votes. It may not look like much as a percent, but 10,000 people is a pretty good crowd.
Anything less than 20% isn’t considered a wide margin.
Tom, In today’s divided political climate a five percent margin is considered a very comfortable victory. A twenty percent margin is rare for truly contested seats. Although Harrell didn’t achieve that, he came close, which is an extraordinary rebuke of Lorena Gonzalez. Mosqueda also won convincingly, but she had a very weal opponent who raised less than 100k for his campaign. The other two races were hotly contested and resulted in comfortable margins for both victors.
These results are a mandate for a different approach to policing, homelessness, and political discourse, in my opinion. That said, progressives still control the Council and will set the legislative agenda even if Sawant is recalled. So it is too early to blame the newly elected if we don’t get the change their supporters want. That kind of change will depend on people like Mosqueda listening to voters and tempering her approach to numerous issues. I am not confident she will listen, so I don’t expect a whole lot until Council elections in 2023.
Seattle isn’t divided the way America itself is. It is funny to see you people hating Sawant and anybody a little too far left so much that you would tell yourselves a 4% is a landslide victory. You’re fighting against Nicole Thomas-Kennedy’s unusual ideas and she lost by only less than 4%. Think about that.
America and the world aren’t moving backwards in the long run even if you don’t like it. Maybe in a few decades, after the current batch of old people die off, more progressive ideas and those similar to Nicole Thomas-Kennedy’s will win out.
Ah, Tom. It seems that you are wishing for the day when us “old-timers” move along and make room for “more progressive” ideas. Of course you are right about the mortality, unfortunately you may be assuming that those younger than you are going to just agree with your every wish. Make it a great day, Sir.
I’m interested to hear what Brier-Scheetz has to say about this. I’m sure boiler repairs in that old building must be difficult/expensive, but that’s not really an excuse. I’m a long-time tenant in a different Brier-Scheetz building on the hill and they’ve always responded quickly and professionally to my maintenance issues.
I noticed the article said “almost entirely without hot water”. Sounds like the landlord has installed an emergency system to suffice while in que for boiler repair/replacement. But its close enough to an outrage worthy of her picket signs for Ms. Sawant to be right there!
I live in the building. We had no hot water and no heat for over 40 days. Half the building had intermittent heat for that time. Ya he boiler has been partially fixed and some of the tenants have reliable heat and hot water and others don’t yet
So it sounds like the landlord is actively working to fix the problem, that it is not a question of neglect, and the protest centers on the financial definition of “uninhabitable”. These situations suck for landlord and tenant alike — the landlord in sorting out a failure within an active system, the tenants for having to think about where to shower. But it isn’t a political situation.
My other half lives in one of their buildings elsewhere on Capitol Hill, and they’ve appeared to be quick as well.
If she cared she’s be delivering space heaters.
I’ve heard it thrown around for months now, but have yet to see someone stand up any evidence that this recall is “racist”. Any Sawant supports care to enlighten me?
This recall has been blown so out of proportion and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand the real motive – just look at the donors. Since when are landlords and corporate real estate so concerned about ethics? Renters have to beg to get anything fixed in their apartments – it’s just laughable.
There are processes and consequences for ethics violations and Sawant paid her dues two-fold. Where was Herbold’s recall when she violated codes of ethics? Or all the others that have violated ethics in the past?
Did you all have this same energy when protesters were dancing outside of Mike Pence’s residence? Any teenager can sleuth the internet and find someone’s address – it’s not private. And how is occupying public space any worse than allowing the teargassing of a neighborhood? Since when has direct action activism become offensive enough to require a recall?
Sure, the recall petition passed all the legal barriers but let’s be honest – it’s built on technicalities in order to seize on the opportunity to take her down.
Clearly wealthy interests and landlords are terrified of the movement that elected her three times. There’s room for policy debates, but this is not the proper channel for that. And don’t act like “No” supporters are the uncivilized ones… most Recall supporters in the comments on any article about her treat progressives and socialists like radical boogeyman scum when all we want is a politician that actually wants to make this city affordable for working-class people and protect vulnerable people from trash landlords.
It’s the anti-Sawant folks that have torn this district apart because they haven’t been able to win the last three D3 elections. Working-class people are seriously hurting in this city, but by all means keep playing politics. As long as you got yours, right? I’m voting no.
“ when all we want is a politician that actually wants to make this city affordable for working-class people and protect vulnerable people from trash landlords”
She’s been in power for 8 years now. How has the cost of rent in D3 done in that time? Has life in the neighborhood improved?
The way you describe it, D3 is full of evil landlords and corporate interests (boogeymen, anyone?). The truth is, many of us just want someone sane, who doesn’t lie all the time, and who will focus on actually solving problems.
What kind of power has she had? She’s one socialist on a city council with eight democrats, half of which are conservative/moderate and the last two mayors have been conservative/moderate. And yes, in a city of mostly democrats – there’s a distinction between conservatives and progressives. Conservatives do sneak into the democratic party because they know it’s very difficult to win with an R by their name.
I will admit, the biggest accomplishment of moderates is some how convincing people that radical progressives have caused all the issues in this city when it has literally been moderate democrats in power for the last 8 years. Lorena somehow got blamed for all of Jenny Durkan’s failures as mayor even though she was president of the council for less than two years and Harrell served as president for FOUR years before that. Honestly, it’s gaslighting if I ever heard it and moderates are really good at it.
You say that nothing has been done, but continue to elect the same ineffective moderates that do the bare minimum and anything more progressive than that is considered “insane.” My last apartment (also in D3) had a leak in the ceiling for at least a month before it was fixed and by the time they opened it up it was filled with mold, but go off – I’m glad you haven’t experienced anything like that.
I would say Sawant’s advocacy for the $15 minimum wage and the recent relocation assistance bill that deters landlords from increasing rent more than 10% are good examples of progress, though, since you’re asking. But for some reason I get the feeling that your question was rhetorical and that you really don’t care.
It’s such an odd feeling when ardent Sawant supporters attempt to describe me, ascribing motivations and opinions to me that I don’t have (that I think anything progressive is insane, etc… I did vote for Sawant the first time around, when she won the at-large position).
When this happens, what I’m thinking is something along the lines of “Wow, this person is so sure of themselves that they refuse to listen to anyone else, or understand all the reasons people might dislike Sawant.”. I don’t fit into the box you have constructed for me.
It’s such an odd feeling when someone attempts to describe me as an ardent Sawant supporter. I’m an anti-recall supporter. If someone as progressive comes along (or even a little less for that matter) during a general election then I will vote for them over Sawant. Believe me, I’m exhausted by people using Sawant’s radical character as an excuse to vote against poor and working-class people, but I’m not going to let a moderate city council pick my representative.
I feel so much better now that you’ve sat me down and explained everything to me. Nothing gives me greater pleasure than when someone is so sure of themselves that they can’t imagine anyone not agreeing with them. But you assuming that the only people who find the actions of Ms Sawant to be worthy of recall are limited to a few donors listed on a document—is so, so, blind. There are a half dozen or so of them. But thanks again for letting me know that all of those violations really aren’t violations, just some silly things that people dreamed up to strike down your valiant warrior.
Good. Thanks for coming to my TedTalk. I’m sorry you were forced to read my comment and I’m also sorry you were forced to respond to it. I must have hit a nerve.
I never said that it’s only a few donors that agree with the recall, so please sit all the way down with that. There’s clearly a lot of resentment against Sawant. It just seems like anti-Sawant folks have become so craven because they haven’t been able to get her out of office for three election cycles now. It must feel very frustrating to be represented by someone you loathe, even though the a majority of district voters elected her three times, but that’s beside the point. I said that the fact that landlords and corporate real estate (those who are not known to be especially ethical) are donating to the Recall campaign shows the ulterior motive.
I also never said the ethics violation wasn’t a violation, or even that I didn’t agree with it. I said that ethics violations have recourse, which were resolved, and also pointed out the hypocrisy of moderates to force a recall for it when several other politicians in this city have committed ethics violations without the threat of a recall. That’s why I think it’s disingenuous and that there are ulterior motives.
Can we also just acknowledge the irony of me commenting an alternative viewpoint on a post with 95% of the same views, yet I’m being told that I can’t imagine anyone not agreeing with me?
How about commenting on the issue at hand:
“Sawant gathered with residents from Terrace Crest Wednesday to demand the building owner Breier-Scheetz Properties “fix the boiler which has been broken since mid-September, leaving tenants almost entirely without hot water and/or heating for the last two months.”
How would you like to be without hot water and/or heating for the better part of two months?
I think, based on the limited facts available to me, that the landlord has done a poor job with this issue. They should have managed to repair the issue more quickly, provided alternatives for heat and hot water, and issued a rent discount (not free rent because residents are still housed) for the period of time in which tenants did not have heat and hot water. And I am a landlord.
I hope they get their boiler fixed. Then I hope Sawant gets recalled, those cops win their lawsuit, and she goes bankrupt after being forced to give them everything she owns.
It seems like that could be a significant amount. Like Morales she is a Prada socialist. They talk the talk but don’t walk the walk. I remember when she first ran that she promissed to take only $40k of her council salary and give the rest to social causes. Instead she took the money for herself and funneled taxpayer dollars to her husband.
I wonder what the other side of the story is here. I suppose I’ll have to wait for the actual journalists to contact Breier-Scheetz and find out. In the meantime, thanks for informing us of Sawant’s talking points.
These attacks on rental property owners are basically the only way that Sawant ever engages with D3. If she wants to be a professional anti-landlord agitator she doesn’t need her D3 council seat to do that. We should Recall her, so she can go follow her dreams, while we replace her with a progressive who cares about the district and will take care of our myriad issues.
Thanks for reading
Would you be able to follow up on this story to find out what’s the hold up? Is it getting parts, a replacement boiler, costs, landlord issue? This is one of those stories that is worth fleshing out and perhaps provides more context to the problems of renting from different perspectives and affordability issue then just the political angle.
Thank you.
I’m left wondering where in all of this are the city’s rental housing inspectors. Landlords, and ultimately, tenants, are required to pay a $175 registration fee every 5 years to fund this new city department that was set up to replace the old system of city officers responding only to active complaints. Landlords and tenants across the board are now compelled to pay for periodic inspections of all rental premises to ensure they meet city codes. Where then, are the city officers, whose job it is to enforce these ordinances? How is it that a council member is (apparently) the only representative of the city acting on behalf of the tenants? Where is all the money from the registration fees and inspections going?
Well Sawant has the power to answer these questions. It’s interesting that less a month before election day, questions are asked.
Landlords pay all those fees you just referred to. Tenants pay rent. Don’t confuse one with the other.
Still interested in an update from the landlord on this. Did they respond to CHS?
No reply to email or phone messages. Yet to reach a human.
Why does Seattle hate tenants so much?