Newly reelected District 3 representative Kshama Sawant is embracing a call from the Seattle Renters’ Commission to place a moratorium on evictions in Seattle this winter.
“I am grateful to the Renters’ Commission for recommending an emergency moratorium on winter eviction,” said Sawant said in an announcement of the proposal. “I strongly agree that Council needs to put this into effect immediately. My office will bring forward legislation next week, amending the City’s Just Cause Eviction Ordinance, in coordination with City Council staff and the City Attorney’s office.”
HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE
Subscribe to CHS to help us hire writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. To stay that way, we need you.
Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for as little as $5 a month.
Sawant’s proposed amendment would add an emergency moratorium “effective immediately” to Seattle’s Just Cause Eviction Ordinance, a roster of “16 just causes” Seattle landlords are allowed to use to end month-by-month rental agreements.
“If we are truly in a Homelessness State of Emergency, it is time for our City to start acting like it and a moratorium on winter eviction is one way to address this emergency,” the commission wrote in calling for the moratorium. “Please immediately open emergency shelters for neighbors currently living outdoors, pass a moratorium on evictions for this winter, and put in place regulations for eviction protection during subsequent winters.”
It’s not clear what the appetite for taking on such a broad amendment might be with Sawant’s cohorts on the council. But the District 3 rep is celebrating another success pushing back against a plan to shutter a Tiny House Village in North Seattle that was earmarked for closure over “performance and compliance concerns.” The village is now hoped to be able to remain open through March 2020.
Due to the pressure and unity of our community campaign, in just 30 hours, we've successfully forced the mayor to back down from evicting Northlake Tiny House Village in the winter, rejecting the anti-homeless logic of the right wing and Chamber of Commerce. When we fight, we win
— Kshama Sawant (@cmkshama) December 6, 2019
So glad to see the Renter’s Commission busy and hard at work promoting idiotic policies such as this, and our Councilmember, well, posturing, as usual.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Hmm, let’s see. Tenants would be able to refuse to pay rent from November to March (about 1/2 the year) and landlords won’t be able to do anything about it. That ought to encourage housing development… No unintended consequences expected. This is a brilliant plan.
Sounds great – the City of Seattle is offering to comp landlords on the rent for these months, too, right?
Oh, no… so I’d just be required to provide free housing to a non-paying client for 4 extra months?
In reality, that means I would just be more likely to:
1. Aggressively litigate the tenant (more money at stake), rather than write it off.
2. Use every legal action available to get rid of the tenant the moment the spring arrived (rather than “being nice”).
3. Refrain from taking any risk on that category of tenant again.
But hey, if someone wants propose populist laws that look nice on paper, you be you.
P.S. Maybe also apply this rule to resort hotels or restaurants where credit cards max out? I mean, everyone deserves free stuff in the winter without paying, right?
This law would also be great at clothing stores – everyone deserves free clothing whether you can pay or not.
Nobody should go cold in the winter.
Someone get Kshama on that, perhaps?
Anti-homeless logic? Now I’m confused. Is the Sawant position advocating for people living on the streets or against people living on the streets?
All landlords are bad, all renters are angels. Thanks voters. This is what we got, a nutbag.
In all seriousness, I am glad to see there is some common sense in this thread. How is this legal? Sawant is a communist and fascist who would love nothing more than to turn Seattle into Soviet Russia.
I can see that there may be ways to make the proposal work. Most would not want a ding on credit history or future references. Likely those in financial trouble would be served by this. Amendments could add some subsidy for the landlord for unpaid rent until housing could be found for the renter. In the long run this would be less expensive to all of us than to let someone begin living on the streets.
And how are you going to pay for the “subsidy”? An additional tax on the taxpayers of Seattle? Sorry, but I don’t want to pay rent for someone who is being irresponsible.
The city and state already have some funding for such items as vouchers etc. We already pay for subsidized housing. Some of those funds could be utilized here and would be more economical than all the supports necessary for bringing who has become homeless into housing again.
Wouldn’t it be better for the city to just take over all the private apartments through eminent domain?
No.
I most certainly hope that Catlyn was being facetious…
I agree that this is a looks good on paper rule… but that in the long run will it will more than likely simply mean that landlords impose more stringent qualification requirements on any new tenants, making it even more difficult for anyone with less a less than stellar credit history and less than boundless income to ever get an apartment in the city again. It it unlikely to hurt the landlords much, but will hurt the people it purports that it is helping…
Thank you Catlyn for recognizing the obvious here, namely that the city is intent upon confiscating private property one pieçe of legislation at a time. Their countless legislative initiatives lead one logically to conclude that the end result will be tantamount to confiscation by eminent domain. So why not just get right down to it?
They have no concern for property rights so anything goes when it comes to advancing tenant rights. Don’t want to pay rent in December? No worries, the city has your back. You are good until April. And don’t for a minute believe that they will consider possible financial harm to the aggrieved landlord. After all, landlords are here to privately absorb the costs of misguided public policies.
Good for Sawant to be able to keep the Tiny House Village in North Seattle for the cold months. US needs more public housing for low income like other countries do.
Until that happens, if you want lower rents (and home prices), you need to hope for a recession and big companies like Amazon to move out of Seattle or at least stop coming here.
Yes, let’s all hope for a recession. Unemployment will rise to 10% like other countries, wages will fall, people will lose their homes and you think Amazon will leave Seattle and solve all your problems. Wow. This is a huge country and if you can’t afford to live here maybe a move to a cheaper location is part of the answer. There is a reason we don’t live in Manhattan.
What’s wrong? A capitalist would love to have a crash to buy and take advantage of the situation. It is the fault of those who lost their homes to not be prepared for rainy days, no?
Do you realize Washington state is already bigger than many countries? Even without having any other difficulties, just getting up and leaving is not cheap. But it is always the same line of thinking with right wingers. If you can’t afford a car, walk; if you can’t afford to eat, don’t eat.
In its letter to the Council recommending a moratorium on winter evictions, the Renter’s Commission cites a policy in Paris, France that pauses winter evictions (Article L 613-3 of the Code of Construction and Habitation for the City of Paris, known for short as the trêve hivernale, or “winter truce”). Neither the Commission nor Councilperson Sawant mention in their letters that in Paris, landlords can be reimbursed for unpaid rent during the truce (which lasts from Nov 1 to the end of March, by the way) from a city fund drawn from a tax on landlords and tenants. Not sure how well this works or doesn’t in Paris, just wanted to point out that the Commission’s recommendation leaves out a key component of the plan they use as their example.
They also fail to mention that the rules create a volume problem, when in the spring evictions can once again occur and there is a flood of newly evicted people needing rehousing all at once, if they are to not end up on the streets, that puts a strain on social services.
From the time the moratorium begins, there should be a concerted effort to bring new shelter to those who are sheltered under the moratorium. That is, there would not be a large number being evicted at the end of the moratorium. Hopefully, most would have been moved by that time or some negotiation with the landlord reached that allowed them to stay,
Except that it fails to happen in real life…. my comment was directly based on Paris’ experiences. They end up with a rush of around 40,000 people evicted at the end of each pause. Considering the population there is double that of Seattle, and Paris’ pause is long – 5 months! we likely wouldn’t experience quite that volume, but to even add 1/4 of that to our system would more than overwhelm it…
Perhaps there is a way to make it happen or encourage permanent housing to be identified more often in a more timely manner. I am always one to think that because it hasn’t happened, doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
Another 4 years of this. So depressing.
God I wouldn’t be a land lord here. I think we need to protect people and make sure they have homes. But landlords can’t get their tenants out that aren’t paying?
I grew up with my grandmother having a tenant that wouldn’t leave for years. Once we finally got ahold of the property a tree had fallen into the house previous years and we had to bull doze the house.
EEEK!
Oh new solution! Seattle nixes putting values on homes. Everything is free!! No one pays for any housing, you live where you want.