The Seattle City Council is poised to put Kshama Sawant’s proposed cap on rental late fees into place — but with a compromise the socialist District 3 representative calls “regressive and gratuitous to the landlord lobby” would place the limit on those fees at $50, not the $10 ceiling Sawant originally proposed.
“On April 7, Councilmembers Nelson, Juarez, and Lewis chose to prioritize the profits of landlords, disregarding all the data and the overwhelming testimony of their constituents,” Sawant said in a call for support for the original $10 cap. “I urge them to support our amendment reversing this terrible vote, particularly Councilmember Lewis, who was elected as a ‘labor Democrat,’ and should be representing the interests of working-class renters.”
CHS reported on the proposal here. Under Sawant’s proposal, the rules would cap late rent fees at $10 per month, the amount put in place for tenants in unincorporated King County in 2021.
A council staff report on the legislative proposal concludes the change won’t cost the city but “potential costs of outreach and enforcement” by the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections were not reflected in the analysis.
Sawant’s office, meanwhile, says, some Seattle renters “have leases that charge an additional $40 or $50 every day the rent is late” and some landlords hit late paying tenants with additional late fee notice delivery fees. The proposed legislation would also ban those delivery fees. The Stay Housed Stay Healthy coalition of 30 community organizations including Real Change supported the proposal. ”All large late fees accomplish is punishing the most vulnerable members of our community even when they’ve gotten caught up on rent,” the coalition wrote in support of the legislation.
But the Andrew Lewis amendment approved at committee modified the legislation to allow landlords to charge a late fee of 1.5% of the monthly rent up to $50. CORRECTION: The amendment was introduced by Councilmember Sara Nelson — Lewis added his vote to help it pass.
Sawant is urging constituents to tell councilmembers to support her proposed amendment restoring the $10 cap.
“Forcing conservative Councilmembers to even a $50 cap would be a victory for Seattle’s renters, who are currently paying hundreds of dollars a month in late fees,” Sawant’s call for support reads. “But we refuse to accept that poor and working-class renters should be nickel-and-dimed for $40, which they desperately need in order to put food on the table…. We urge Councilmembers to stand with renters, not the landlord lobby, and vote ‘Yes’ on a $10 cap.”
The full council is scheduled to vote on the legislation Tuesday.
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.
The $50 amendment is called a reasonable compromise. As a housing provider, I think the fee limit is too low and unnecessary. I also don’t like that Council seems unable to ignore lame duck Sawant and her endless policy proposals in this realm. So, I’m not happy with the outcome. But I am happy that some of our Councilmembers are grownups who understand that compromise is not a bad thing in politics, or anywhere else for that matter. I hope to see more of it as Sawant departs Council.
Well, of course Council, and especially members Lewis and Juarez, displayed their usual to their usual spinelessness and reversed their committee support for the $50 compromise measure. I retract my comment above and condemn all but Sarah Nelson and Petersen.
“Conservative” Seattle council members? Where are they? Who are they? Everything looks conservative when you’re falling off the side of the table. If Seattle continues to take contract enforcement rights away from landlords, we’ll continue to see small landlords (who almost exclusively provide affordable housing units) leave the Seattle area. Moderation in everything.
I wish the council would look into tenants being able to charge fines for delays on repairs that would be paid directly to the impacted tenants. It’s unfair for renters to be stuck in year long leases in buildings that refuse to do basic repairs until you go through the painful process of involving government intervention. Additionally, I would make it so that if a landlord receives a certain amount of complaints for missed or delayed repairs, that they would face more drastic punishments.
The outcome will be that the landlord sells the building or switches to Airbnb.
Why would a landlord who refuses to properly maintain their building be any more successful as an Airbnb host? On the other hand, if such an owner decided to sell to a presumably more responsible party, that would be a plus. One intended effect of tenant-friendly regulation is to encourage slumlords to get out of the business.
Only like 7 or 8 more months of her. I think I have the stamina to make it.
Not sure I do…
She can’t go soon enough. Hopefully, she will be replaced by a more moderate council member, who knows that compromise is often necessary to get things done. For Sawant, it’s “my way or the highway.”
Not sure how it’s even legal for the council to impose any sorts of rules like this on a contract between two willing parties. Weird.
Agreed
Yet another useless distractions from Sewant — how many renters get skyhigh late fees per year?
While thousands of people die of fentanyl on the streets and billions of dollars lost over wastes from Homeless Industrial Complex, economic atrophy from crimes and downtown decay.
She picks easy, trendy targets. Not the tough stuff.
This seems so simple. Two parties sign a contract that basically says; a) one signer provides housing, and b) the other signer pays for a share of it. Why does the City Council say that contract is not valid or fair, when it is entered into willingly, voluntarily and with time to reconsider? $10 late fees basically mean, “pay when you feel like it, and if you feel like it.” Why would a landlord agree to that? Cell phone providers don’t. Banks don’t. Comcast doesn’t. Credit cards don’t.
Another factor that could drive housing providers out of business.