>>> WE ARE RECORDING.
>> THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
EVERYONE. THIS IS THE REGULARL
SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE
SUSTAINABILITY AND RENTERS'
RIGHTS COMMITTEE. TODAY IS
FRIDAY, APRIL 7, 2023 ON THE
TIME IS 9:32 A.M. I AM THE
CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE,
COUNCILMEMBER KSHAMA SAWANT.
WITH THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ. I SEE
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ, ALTHOUGH
YOU ARE MUTED.
>> SORRY, I SAID PRESENT.
SORRY, I AM HERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON.
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
>> HERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> PRESENT.
>> FIVE PRESENT.
>> THANK YOU AND WELCOME TO
TODAY'S COMMITTEE. WE HAVE ONE
ITEM ON THE AGENDA, THE
LEGISLATION TO CAP LATE FEES FO
RENTERS AT $10 PER MONTH, WHICH
MY OFFICE HAS BROUGHT FORWARD
ALONGSIDE RENTERS RIGHTS
ACTIVISTS, UNION MEMBERS, THE
COALITION AND SOCIALIST
ALTERNATIVE. TODAY IS THE THIRD
DISCUSSION ON THIS SO AFTER
HEARING FROM THE COMMUNITY PANE
I PLAN TO MOVE THE BILL FOR A
VOTE. AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED IN
PAST MEETINGS, THERE ARE
CURRENTLY NO LIMITS TO THE C
SEATTLE LANDLORDS CAN CHARGE
RENTERS FOR OVERDUE RENT AND
OTHER SO-CALLED JUNK FEES. SOM
RENTERS HAVE TOLD US THEY ARE
CHARGED UPWARDS OF $250 AS SOON
AS RENT IS OVERDUE AND MANY
LEASES HAVE CLAUSES WHERE
LANDLORDS CAN CHARGE AN
ADDITIONAL $40 OR $50 EVERY DAY
THE RENT IS LATE. AND I WANT TO
BE CLEAR. WE HAVE RECEIVED
EMAILS FROM LANDLORD LOBBY DA
SURE WE HAVE HEARD MENTIONS IN
THE NEWS FROM THE LANDLORD LOBB
THAT SOMEHOW THESE ARE OUTLIER
CASES. THEY ARE NOT OUTLIER
CASES. WE HAVE HEARD FROM MANY
RENTERS THAT THIS IS A TYPICAL
SITUATION, BEING CHARGED $250
FOR BEING ONE DAY LATE. OTHER
RENTERS HAVE FACED LATE FEES
AND LATE FEE NOTICE DELIVERY
FEES, WHICH IS AN ADDITIONAL FE
FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF GETTING A
LATE FEE. FOR WORKING-CLASS
RENTERS, THIS IS A PUNCH IN THE
GUT FOR BEING A COUPLE OF DAYS
LATE ON RENT AND FOR PEOPLE WHO
ARE UNABLE TO PAY RENT, LATE
FEES CAN SPIRAL OUT OF CONTROL
INTO DEBT. RENTERS DO NOT GET
PAID LATE FEES WHEN THEIR
LANDLORD DELAYS FIXING BROKEN
APPLIANCES, HEATING, OR MOLD
INFESTATIONS, WHICH IS ALSO A
VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION. YET
RENTERS HAVE TO PAY ON TIME,
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT TH
LANDLORD COMPLETED REPAIRS.
COUNCILMEMBERS RECEIVED OVER 60
EMAILS FROM SEATTLE RENTERS,
URGING THEM TO SUPPORT THE BILL
TO LIMIT LATE FEES AT $10 PER
MONTH, WITHOUT LOOPHOLES,
WITHOUT WEAKENING AMENDMENTS
AND 1000 PEOPLE HAVE SIGNED THE
COMMITTEE PETITION RELEASED
FROM MY OFFICE. AS RENTERS
SIGNED THE PETITION, MANY, OVE
150 RENTERS, CHOSE TO TELL THEI
PERSONAL LATE FEE STORIES, WHIC
MY OFFICE HAS RENTED OUT AND
ATTACHED TO TODAY'S AGENDA. THE
STORIES FOCUS ON LATE FEES,
BECAUSE THAT IS THE TOPIC OF TH
LEGISLATION, BUT THEY ALSO TAL
ABOUT RENT, WHICH CONTINUES TO
RISE OUT OF CONTROL AND NOW
ESPECIALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF
THE OVERALL COST OF LIVING
CRISIS. I HOPE COUNCILMEMBERS
WILL SUPPORT THE LEGISLATION
LIMITING LATE FEES AND SUPPORT
THE RENT CONTROL LEGISLAION
FROM MY OFFICE LATER THIS MONTH
THERE HAVE BEEN MANY QUESTIONS
ABOUT CONDITIONS FACED BY
RENTERS AND LANDLORDS AND HOW
THIS LEGISLATION WILL IMPACT TO
THAT. MY OFFICE HAS PREPARED A
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
DOCUMENT ABOUT CAPPING LATE
FEES. WE HAVE COPIES ON THE
TABLE IN FRONT FOR PEOPLE TO
SEE THEM, IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
AND ALSO INCLUDED ON TODAY'S
AGENDA AND OF COURSE SHARED
WITH MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND
THE CITY COUNCIL EARLIER AS
WELL. FOR TODAY'S DISCUSSION W
WILL FIRST HEAR FROM THE
COMMUNITY PANEL AND THEN ASHA
VENKATARAMAN FROM COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFF WILL BE AVAILABLE
TO ANSWER COUNCILMEMBER
QUESTIONS AS WE MOVE THE
LEGISLATION AND THEN VOTE.
BEFORE WE BEGIN THE DISCUSSION,
WE WILL HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT. HO
MANY PEOPLE DO WE HAVE SIGNED U
FOR PUBLIC COMMENT?
>> THERE ARE 14 REMOTE AND, I
BELIEVE, EIGHT IN PERSON.
>> OKAY, SO SPEAKERS WILL HAVE
ONE MINUTE EACH. I WILL READ OU
THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE IN
PERSON AND THEN THE NAMES OF
PEOPLE WHO ARE SPEAKING REMOTEL
AND FOR THOSE SPEAKING REMOTELY
WHEN YOUR NAME IS CALLED, YOU
WILL BE PROMPT TO UNMUTE
YOURSELF. WHEN YOU HEAR THAT,
PLEASE HIT STAR SIX TO UNMUTE
YOURSELF AND BEGIN. I WILL CALL
SPEAKERS IN ORDER, SO IF YOU
HEAR YOUR NAME, PLEASE BE READY
TO SPEAK AFTER THE SPEAKER
BEFORE YOU. SO WE HAVE
MARSHALL -- I AM SORRY IF I AM
SAYING THAT WRONG, BUT FIRST IS
MARSHALL. SECOND IS MEGAN MURPH
AND THIRD IS ALISHA. GO AHEAD,
MARSHALL.
>> HELLO, COMMITTEE. THANK YOU
FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK TODAY.
COUNCILMEMBERS YOU HAVE A
SIMPLE CHOICE TODAY. YOU CAN
SIDE WITH YOUR CONSTITUENTS AND
THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE LIVING I
SEATTLE. 55% OF THEM AND SUPPOR
CAPPING LATE FEES AT $10 PER
MONTH, ELIMINATING ARBITRARY AN
EXPLOITATIVE DELIVERY FEES AND
REJECT THE SHAMEFUL AMENDMENT
THAT NICKEL-AND-DIME STRUGGLING
WORKING-CLASS FAMILIES. DON'T
FALL FOR THE LANDLORDS TRICKS.
THEY WILL SAY THAT THESE LATE
FEES HELP THEM GET RENT ON TIME
RENTERS DON'T NOT PAY THE RENT
BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY
THE FEE. THEY PAY THE RENT
BECAUSE THEY ARE LEGALLY OBLIGE
TO. THEY HAVE TO SO THEY CAN
LIVE HERE, WORK HERE, LIVE THEI
LIVES HERE. THIS IS A SIMPLE
STEP TO PROTECT PEOPLE IN THE
CITY FROM UNCHECKED
EXPLOITATION. OUR CITY IS
EXPENSIVE ENOUGH AND HOUSING IS
SUPERTIGHT. DON'T BURDEN THE
RENTER ANYMORE. STOP THE
LANDLORDS, CAPITAL LATE FEES AN
VOTE YES ON COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT'S AMENDMENT.
>> MEGAN MURPHY. AND THEN --
GO AHEAD, MEGAN.
>> I AM MEGAN MURPHY --
>> PLEASE TAKE THE MICROPHONE
CLOSE TO YOU.
>> I URGE ALL DEMOCRATS ON THE
SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL TO VOTE YE
ON THE LEGISLATION FROM
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT'S OFFICE T
CAP LATE FEES FOR OVERDUE RENT
AT $10 PER MONTH. NELSON HAS
BEEN FORCED TO KEEP THE LIMIT O
$50 ENTIRELY BECAUSE OF THE
PRESSURE FROM OWNERS FIGHTING
BACK AND SPEAKING UP AND
RELENTLESS ORGANIZING FROM
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT'S OFFICE.
WE NEED PROTECTIONS LIKE THIS
ORDINANCE, IN ADDITION TO THE
ONES THAT RENTERS MOVEMENTS AND
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT'S OFFICE
OF ALREADY ONE INCLUDING AMAZON
DEFUNDING THE EXPANSION OF
PUBLICLY OWNED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. SEATTLE RENTERS ALSO
NEED CITYWIDE RENT CONTROL
WITHOUT CORPORATE LOOPHOLES.
THE MOST COMMON REASON FOR
DELAYED LATE PAYMENTS IS
FINANCIAL DISTRESS. IT IS
EXPLOITATIVE TO MAKE RENTERS
PAY MORE WHEN THEY ARE ALREADY
STRUGGLING TO PAY THEIR RENT IN
THE FIRST PLACE. LATE FEES FOR
OVERDUE RENTER LIKE A PENALTY
FOR THE CRIME OF BEING POOR AND
SHORT ON MONEY AND IT DOES NOT
MOTIVATE PEOPLE TO PAY RENT ON
TIME, BY ADDING LATE FEES. IT
ACTUALLY ADDS TO THE STRESS.
ACCORDING TO MAJOR LENDERS, MOS
MORTGAGES HAVE A 15 DAY GRACE
PERIOD FOR PAYMENT. THIS PROVE
LANDLORDS CHARGING $250 ON THE
FIFTH OF THE MONTH AND $50 PER
DAY UNTIL RENT IS PAID ARE
ENGAGING IN BLATANT EXPLOITATIO
TO SQUEEZE RENTERS OF EXTRA
PROFIT AND EVEN A $50 LATE FEE
IS 400% GREATER THAN $10. AND
THEN ON A SIDE NOTE, I FEEL
LIKE I AM PAYING MY OWN LATE
FEES. TERESA MOSQUEDA SAID
SOMEONE WOULD CONTACT ME BECAUS
I FEEL LIKE I AM BEING STALKED,
FOR VARIOUS REASONS BY THE
BILLIONAIRE CLASS AND IF ANYONE
ELSE IS AN ACTIVIST AND HAS FEL
THIS WAY, I WANT YOU TO KNOW
THAT I CONTINUE TO REACH OUT AN
DEMAND THAT IT STOPS AND IF
ANYBODY KNOWS OF IT HAPPENING
WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, TO ALSO
DEMAND THAT IT STOPS AND THAT
THEY STOP ABUSING THEIR POWER.
>> CHAIR SAWANT, I APOLOGIZE.
SET THE TIMER TO TWO MINUTES,
INSTEAD OF ONE MINUTE AS YOU
SAID, SO I AM FIXING IT NOW.
>> OKAY, AND TED, YOU ALSO NEED
TO HOLD THE MICROPHONE CLOSER
WHEN YOU ARE SPEAKING. IT'S VER
HARD TO HEAR. SO NEXT WE HAVE
ALISHA. GO AHEAD.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS ALISHA AN
I AM FROM CENTRAL DISTRICT. I
SUPPORT THE LEGISLATION KEPT FO
$10 FEES. SEATTLE RENTERS ARE
STRUGGLING TO STAY FOCUSED AND
STAY HOUSED. MORE AND MORE
PEOPLE ARE BECOMING HOMELESS. W
CAN'T KEEP ADDRESSING THE
SYMPTOMS OF HOMELESSNESS. WE
NEED TO ADDRESS THE ROOT CAUSE.
WHEN A BATHTUB IS OVERFLOWING,
YOU DON'T JUST GRAB THEM UP, YO
TURN THE FAUCET OFF FIRST AND
THEN GRAB THEM UP. MORE THAN
HALF OF SEATTLE RESIDENTS ARE
LIVING PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK OR
ARE ONE PAYCHECK AWAY FROM AN
EMERGENCY SITUATION. ASKING
RENTERS TO PAY MORE THAN THEY
ARE ALREADY STRUGGLING IS ADDIN
INSULT TO INJURY. THANK YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT FOR PUTTIN
FORWARD THIS LEGISLATION.
REJECT COUNCILMEMBER NELSON'S
AMENDMENT. NO WATERING DOWN.
THANK YOU.
>> AND THEN JOSIE AND THEN
MADDIE. GO AHEAD.
>> GOOD MORNING, COUNCILMEMBERS
I AM A HOMEOWNER IN DISTRICT 6
I AM AN ORGANIZER AND ALSO A
LANDLORD OF A TWO BEDROOM CONDO
PLEASE VOTE YES ON THE
LEGISLATION TO CAP LATE FEES AT
$10 PER MONTH AND REJECT THE
AMENDMENT TO RAISE THE CAP TO
1.5%. THIS PAST YEAR I
VOLUNTEERED WITH THE HOUSING
PROJECT FOR SEVERAL MONTHS,
CONDUCTING INTAKE INTERVIEWS.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF TENANTS AR
BEING EVICTED FOR UNPAID RENT,
OFTEN THE RESULT OF LOST WAGES
DUE TO CARETAKING NEEDS AND
LOST JOBS. MOSTLY UNEXPECTED
LIFE EVENTS. I HEAR ARGUMENTS
THAT THE LATE FEE WILL
DISINCENTIVIZE RENTERS TO PAY O
TIME, BUT THOSE WERE LATE TRULY
DON'T HAVE MEANS TO PAY AT THA
TIME AND NO INCENTIVE TO CHANGE
THIS. LATE FEES THAT PILE UP
ONLY WORK AGAINST PAYING BACK
RENT. AS SOMEONE WHO IS WEALTHY
ENOUGH TO OWN MY PRIMARY HOME
PLUS A RENTAL, COLLECTING THESE
FEES DOES NOT MAKE AN IMPACT ON
MY DAY-TO-DAY LIFE. THERE IS A
TINY SLIVER OF LANDLORDS WHO
FACE TROUBLE WITHOUT ON-TIME
INCOME. BUT THAT IS NOT A REASO
TO CONTINUE THIS PREDATORY
PRACTICE. THANK YOU.
>> JOSIE, FOLLOWED BY MADDIE AN
THEN -- GO AHEAD.
>> HI, MY NAME IS JOSIE. I'M A
STATE SOCIAL WORKER AND A MEMBE
OF THE WASHINGTON STATE
EMPLOYEES. I'M SPEAKING IN FAVO
OF THE $10 CAP ON LATE FEES
WITHOUT COUNCILMEMBER NELSON'S
$50 LATE FEE AMENDMENT. THIS
AMENDMENT WILL FURTHER BURDEN
WORKING PEOPLE AND ALONG WITH
HER PREVIOUS VOTE, SHOWS WHERE
HER PRIORITIES LIE. WHEN I
STARTED MY JOB FOR THE STATE MY
PAYCHECK GOT LOST IN THE MAIL
AND I WAS NOT ABLE TO PAY MY
RENT FOR ALMOST A MONTH.
LUCKILY MY LANDLORD DOES NOT
HAVE OUTLANDISH FEES AND WAS
UNDERSTANDING AND WAIVED FEES
ALTOGETHER. THROUGH THEIR
ACTION, MY SMALL LANDLORD SHOWE
THEY DO NOT NEED THE POSSIBLE
EXTRA PROFIT IF I MISS A
PAYMENT. THE IDEA THAT LANDLORD
RELY ON THESE PAYMENTS IS A
NECESSARY PART OF THEIR INCOME
IS RIDICULOUS. THEY ARE A
BUSINESS. IF YOUR BUSINESS CAN
ONLY BE SUCCESSFUL BY PREYING O
THE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP OF OTHERS
THIS IS NOT A SUCCESSFUL
BUSINESS. THEY SHOULD NOT
DETERMINE THE SAFETY AND
SECURITY OF FAMILIES -- THIS
AMENDMENT IS SHAMEFUL. A $50 CA
ON THE FEES ONLY HURTS WORKING
PEOPLE AND FAMILIES. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING ON THE
PANEL AT THE PREVIOUS COMMITTEE
MADDIE, GO AHEAD.
>> I AM A RENTER IN DISTRICT
THREE. I URGE ALL DEMOCRATS ON
THE COUNCIL TO VOTE YES ON
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT'S
LEGISLATION AND REJECT YET
ANOTHER WATERED-DOWN AMENDMENT
FROM COUNCILMEMBER NELSON THAT
PRIORITIZES THE WANTS OF THE
WEALTHY OVER THE NEEDS OF
WORKING PEOPLE, JUST LIKE HER
RECENT VOTE. AS THE COUNCIL HAS
BEEN PULLED, A LATE CAP FEE OF
1.5% OF RENTAL RESULT IN A
GREATER FEE THAN $10 PER MONTH
UNLESS YOUR RENT IS LESS THAN
$667. ACCORDING TO DATA FROM
PROPERTY MANAGERS, THERE ARE N
APARTMENTS AVAILABLE IN SEATTLE
LOWER THAN $700 AND ONLY 2% OF
APARTMENTS ARE LESS THAN $1000
THE MAJORITY OF SEATTLE'S
APARTMENT SENT OUT AT MORE THAN
$2000. A CAP AT $50 PER MONTH
MEANS WORKING FAMILIES HAVE $5
LESS FOR GROCERIES AND GAS, WHE
THEY ARE ALREADY EXPERIENCING
FINANCIAL CRISIS, WHICH IS THE
MOST COMMON CAUSE -- THIS IS A
PUNISHMENT ON WORKING PEOPLE TO
PAD THE POCKETS OF THE WEALTHY.
THANK YOU.
>> AND THEN KATIE WILSON AND
AFTER KATIE, D POWERS.
>> GOOD MORNING. I AM WITH
WHEEL, GRASSROOTS ORGANIZING
EFFORT OF HOMELESS AND FORMERLY
HOMELESS WOMEN THAT AMONG OTHE
THINGS DOES A WOMEN IN BLACK
VIGIL WHENEVER SOMEBODY HOMELES
DIES OUTSIDE OR BY VIOLENCE IN
KING COUNTY AND WE ARE DOING
ANOTHER VIGIL, NEXT WEDNESDAY A
NOON, ON THE STEPS OF CITY HALL
432 MORE PEOPLE. THERE WAS
RECENTLY NEWS OF A HORRIBLE
EXAMPLE OF THE TRAGEDY OF
EVICTION. THERE WAS A SHOOTOUT
AND A SUICIDE AT THE SITE OF AN
EVICTION. THERE WAS ALSO A
REPORT THAT THERE IS A DIRECT
CORRELATION BETWEEN THE NAMES
OF EVICTED PEOPLE AND THE NAME
ON THE HOMELESS DEATH LIST. YO
CAN HELP SAVE LIVES. CAP LATE
FEES AT $10 PER MONTH AND DO
NOT RAISE IT TO $50. THANK YOU.
>> HI, COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME
IS KATIE WILSON. I AM WITH THE
TRANSIT RIDERS UNION AND I AM
ALSO A RENTER IN DISTRICT 3. WE
SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION AND AS
THAT IT BE PASSED IN A STRONG
FORM. I WANT TO BRIEFLY ADDRESS
THE SUGGESTION FLOATING AROUND
THAT A PERCENTAGE CAP SOMEHOW
MAKES MORE SENSE OR IS SOMEHOW
MORE FAIR THAN A FLAT, $10 CAP
ON LATE FEES. I THINK THAT KIN
OF SUPPOSES THAT PEOPLE PAYING
MORE IN RENT HAVE HIGHER INCOME
AND MORE DISPOSABLE INCOME AND
UNFORTUNATELY IN OUR HOUSING
MARKET THAT IS NOT THE CASE.
VERY OFTEN IF YOU HAVE HIGHER
RENT, IT JUST MEANS YOU ARE
PAYING A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF
YOUR INCOME IN RENT AND YOU
ACTUALLY HAVE LESS DISPOSABLE
INCOME AND YOU ARE MORE LIKELY
TO FALL BEHIND. SO WE ASK YOU T
KEEP THE LEGISLATION STRONG. TH
CITIES OF AUBURN AND BURIEN,
HOPEFULLY NEXT WEEK, SEATAC,
WILL ALSO HAVE A $10 CAP ON
LATE FEES, SO WE WANT SEATTLE T
BE IN LINE WITH THESE OTHER
CITIES IN KING COUNTY AND WE
STRONGLY SUPPORT THE CAP ON
NOTICE DELIVERY FEES THAT IS
PART OF THIS LEGISLATION. THAN
YOU.
>> OUR LAST IN-PERSON SPEAKERS
--
>> HELLO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I AM A
PROGRAM COORDINATOR IN EAST
SEATTLE. AT THIS TIME LAST YEAR
I WAS MOVING INTO AN APARTMENT
AFTER SEVEN YEARS OF
HOMELESSNESS THAT WAS DRAGGED
OUT BECAUSE I HAD LATE FEES
PENDING FROM MY PREVIOUS
HOUSING. THEY LEFT THEM IN
COLLECTIONS AND BOUNCED THEM
FOR YEARS AND ALMOST PREVENTED
ME FROM MOVING BACK INDOORS A
SECOND TIME. DON'T WATER IT
DOWN. YOU CAN'T. $10 IS ALL W
CAN HANDLE. $50 IS A WEEKS
WORTH OF GROCERY BUDGET FOR AN
EBT USER. THAT IS AN
EXCRUCIATING, EXCRUCIATING
DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR LOW INCOME
INDIVIDUALS. DON'T WATER IT
DOWN. KEEP IT AT $10. THANK YOU
>> HELLO, MY NAME [ INAUDIBLE
] YOU CAN'T HEAR ME?
>> NO.
>> DO I HAVE TO PRESS THIS
BUTTON?
>> NO.
>> [ INAUDIBLE ]
>> NO, YOU HAVE TO SPEAK TO THE
MICROPHONE. BETTER. PLEASE, W
HAVE TO DO THE COMMITTEE,
PLEASE.
>> [ INAUDIBLE ]
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>> THANK YOU TO ALL OF THE
IN-PERSON SPEAKERS. NOW TED
WILL GO TO THE ONLINE SPEAKERS.
>> OUR FIRST THREE ONLINE
SPEAKERS ARE -- AND COREY
BREWER.
>> GO AHEAD.
>> WE CAN HEAR YOU.
>> OKAY, MY NAME IS MARCO. I AM
CALLING TO DEMAND DEMOCRATS ON
CITY COUNCIL VOTE YES ON
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT'S BILL TO
CAP LATE FEES AT $10 PER MONTH.
NO WATERING DOWN. WE SHOULD
REJECT COUNCILMEMBER NELSON'S
AMENDMENT. IT IS AN OPENING FOR
LANDLORDS TO CONTINUE TO
NICKEL-AND-DIME STRUGGLING
WINTERS. WITH RENT CONTINUING
TO SKYROCKET. LATE FEES FOR
WORKING CLASS RENTERS WOULD
INCREASE EVERY YEAR. I KNOW MY
RENT HAS GONE UP BY MORE THAN
$100 EVERY YEAR AND AS OTHER
SPEAKERS HAVE SAID, THIS
AMENDMENT, THE FAT FACT IT
WOULD CAP FEES AT $10 PER MONTH
IS BECAUSE OF THE PRESSURE OF
THE WORKERS MOVEMENT THAT
ORGANIZED ALONGSIDE
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT'S OFFICE.
THAT IS STILL A SUBSTANTIAL FEE
IT IS A TANK OF GAS OR A
GROCERY BILL AND AUBURN AND
BURIEN HAVE WORING CAPS AT $10.
THERE IS NO REASON TO GO HIGHE
THAN THAT OTHER THAN TO FURTHER
ENRICH CORPORATE LANDLORDS. I
THINK IT IS SHAMEFUL WITH
SOARING COSTS, COUNCIL DEMOCRAT
WOULD PUT THIS AMENDMENT
FORWARD. I REALLY THINK YOU
SHOULD VOTE NO ON THIS AND YES
ON THE ORIGINAL BILL, WITH NO
WATERING DOWN.
>> BARBARA FINNEY, FOLLOWED BY
COREY BREWER, FOLLOWED BY JUSTI
BAER.
>> MY NAME IS BARBARA FINNEY,
FORMER RENTER, CURRENT HOMEOWNE
IN DISTRICT 5. DELEGATE TO THE
COUNCIL FOR AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES LOCAL 3
-- THAT REPRESENTS HEALTHCARE
WORKERS AT THE SEATTLE MEDICAL
CENTER, MANY OF WHOM ARE SEATTL
RENTERS, AS ARE MANY OF OUR
PATIENTS AND VETERANS. I URGE
DEMOCRATS ON THE SEATTLE CITY
COUNCIL TO VOTE YES ON
LEGISLATION FROM COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT'S OFFICE TO CAP LATE FEE
FOR OVERDUE RENT AT $10 PER
MONTH. WE WANT A FIXED CAP OF
$10, NOT A CAP BASED ON
PERCENTAGE OF RENT. REJECT
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON'S SHAMEFUL
AMENDMENT THAT NICKEL-AND-DIME
STRUGGLING WORKERS AND FAMILIES
TODAY ON BEHALF OF MY UNION
LOCAL, I THINK COUNCILMEMBER
KSHAMA SAWANT FOR BRINGING
FORWARD THIS LEGISLATION TO CAP
LATE FEES ON RENT AT $10. IT I
A LABOR ISSUE BENEFITING
WORKERS, FAMILIES, CHILDREN,
SENIORS, VETERANS, AND
COMMUNITIES. THANK YOU.
>> COREY BREWER.
>> HI, THANK YOU, GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS COREY BREWER. I AM
PROPERTY MANAGER AND MY OFFICE
IS IN DISTRICT 4. I LOOKED AT
TODAY'S AGENDA AND I SEE
FAMILIAR NAMES ON THE
PRESENTATION PANEL. PLEASE
FORGIVE ME IF I HAVE THIS
INCORRECT, BUT I DON'T RECALL
THAT THE LANDLORD ON TODAY'S
PANEL HAS PREVIOUSLY TOLD US
WHICH DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF
SEATTLE WHERE SHE PROVIDES
RENTAL HOUSING AND MY APOLOGIES
IF SHE HAS BEFORE AND IF NOT I
AM CURIOUS, AS MOST HOUSING
PROVIDERS WHO TESTIFY IN THIS
COMMITTEE DO TEND TO IDENTIFY
THEIR DISTRICT. FURTHER, PEOPLE
OF SEATTLE AND THE REST OF THE
COUNCILMEMBERS SHOULD REALLY B
THINKING ABOUT THE PLATFORM
BEING GIVEN TO THE COUNCILMEMBE
FROM DISTRICT 3, WHO SKIPPED
OUT ON A KEY STAKEHOLDER MEETIN
LAST MONTH, WITH HER FOCUS
CLEARLY SET ON A NEW BUSINESS
VENTURE IN OTHER CITIES, SUCH A
MINNEAPOLIS AND PHILADELPHIA.
THANK YOU.
>> JUSTIN BAER, FOLLOWED BY
ANGIE GERALD, FOLLOWED BY KEVIN
--
>> HI, I AM JUSTIN. I AM A
RENTER IN THE WESTLAKE
NEIGHBORHOOD. I AM CALLING TO
URGE COUNCILMEMBERS, ALL OF THE
DEMOCRATS, TO VOTE YES ON THE
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL FROM
COUNCILMEMBER KSHAMA SAWANT TO
LIMIT OVERDUE RENT FEES TO A
FIXED $10 A MONTH. WHEN RENTER
DON'T PAY RENT, IT IS SIMPLY
BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE MONEY T
PAY RENT, WHICH MAKES THE CASE
FOR RAISING WORKERS WAGES,
RATHER THAN LATE FEES. I
UNDERSTAND COUNCILMEMBER NELSON
WANTS TO AMEND THE PROPOSAL WIT
A LIMIT OF $50. ALL I HAVE TO
SAY TO THAT IS THAT IF
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON WANTS TO
GIVE HER OWN MONEY TO HER
CORPORATE LANDLORD FRIENDS,
THAT'S FINE, BUT DON'T FORCE MY
HARD-WORKING FRIENDS AND
COWORKERS TO PAY BEYOND $10 AND
POTENTIALLY NOT HAVE ENOUGH
MONEY FOR GROCERIES OR OTHER
NEEDS. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU.
>> ANGIE GERALD.
>> HI, I AM A SMALL LANDLORD IN
BALLARD. THIS LEGISLATION -- I
IS IMPORTANT TO INTERACT WITH
HOUSING PROVIDERS, INCLUDING
MOM-AND-POP AND NONPROFIT AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND TO HAVE
CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF STATE
AND MUNICIPAL LAWS THAT
INTERSECT WITH THESE TOPICS.
COUNCIL NEEDS HELP SORTING
THROUGH THE HOT RHETORIC OF WHA
IS JUNK OR PREDATORY AND WHAT I
COMPLIANT WITH NEWLY ENACTED
LAWS LIKE -- UPDATED IN 2021 B
THE STATE LEGISLATURE. IT DOES
NOT ERASE THE BUSINESS COST.
IT JUST SPREADS THEM TO ALL
TENANTS, VIA INCREASED RENT AN
SEVERELY LIMITING USE OF LATE
FEES AS A GUARDRAIL SENDS A
STRONG MESSAGE THAT SEATTLE REN
IS THE LOWEST PRIORITY TO PAY O
TIME. SEATTLE IS LEADING THE
NATION IN HIGH INCOME RENTERS.
LAST YEAR COUNCIL BILL -- [
INAUDIBLE ] IF YOU WANT
FEEDBACK OR DATA, ASK LANDLORD
HOW IT IS GOING. THANK YOU.
>> KEVIN --
>> GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS
KEVIN. I'M A RENTER LIVING IN
DISTRICT 3 AND THEM CALLING TO
URGE DEMOCRATS ON THE COUNCIL T
VOTE YES ON THE LEGISLATION
FROM COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT'S
OFFICE. CAP FEES AT $10 PER
MONTH, NO WATERING DOWN. WE NEE
THIS FIXED CAP AND NOT A CAP
BASED ON RENT. AUBURN AND BURIE
E IS AT $10 PER MONTH AND IT
WORKS. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT -
WHO OFTEN HAVE NO CHOICE TO
RENT FOR $3000 OR MORE. SEATTLE
RENT CONTINUES TO SKYROCKET AND
A FEE WOULD IMPOSE A BURDEN. I
AM STILL PAYING MORE THAN HALF
MY INCOME AND IT HAS BEEN THIS
WAY SEVERAL YEARS, SO VOTE NO
ON THE AMENDMENT. RENTERS ARE
TERRIFIED OF BEING LATE ON RENT
LATE FEES ARE TAXED, WHICH PUT
RENTERS IN DIRE ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS. THIS COUNCIL HAS
ALREADY HEARD TESTIMONY AND
FROM CORPORATE LANDLORDS THAT
THEY NEED ADDITIONAL FEES TO
COVER THEIR COSTS, BUT RENTERS
ALREADY PAY A FEE TO COVER
LANDLORDS COST EVERY MONTH, THA
IS CALLED RENT. VOTE YES WITH N
AMENDMENTS WATERING IT DOWN.
THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING, COUNCILMEMBERS
I AM CALLING FROM SOLID GROUND
TO VOICE OUR AGENCY SUPPORT FOR
A $10 CAP ON LATE FEES AND
NOTICE FEES. SOLID GROUND
TENANT SERVICES PROGRAM SUPPORT
OVER 1000 RENTERS EVERY YEAR
WITH EDUCATION AND RESOURCE
CONNECTION AND WE SEE THE HARM
THAT UNREGULATED, EXCESSIVE LAT
FEES HAVE. FOR EXAMPLE,
WHENEVER TENANT COUNSELORS
SHARED RECENTLY A STORY OF
SERVING A SPANISH-SPEAKING
FAMILY WERE BOTH PARENTS LOST
THEIR JOBS. ONE TO A
WORK-RELATED INJURY AND ONE FRO
BEING LAID OFF DUE TO THE
ECONOMY. BECAUSE BOTH PARENTS
WEREN'T WORKING, THE HOUSEHOLD
BEGAN TO FALL BEHIND ON RENT
AND THE LANDLORD CHARGED $120
PER DAY IN LATE FEES. PER DAY.
THE FAMILY ATTEMPTED TO PAY THE
RENT AND LATE FEES, BUT THE
LATE FEES CREATED A QUICKSAND
SITUATION AND THEY COULD NOT PA
DOWN THEIR DEBT IN A REASONABLE
AMOUNT OF TIME. IMPOSING THESE
EXCESSIVE, PUNITIVE LATE FEES O
TENANTS ALREADY STRUGGLING TO
PAY THEIR RENT MAKES IT HARDER
TO KEEP HOUSING. INSTEAD, A
FIXED, $10 FEE WOULD GIVE
PREDICTABILITY AND STABILITY TO
RENTERS. ABILITY TO PAY, WHICH
IS SOMETHING WE ALL WANT. I URG
THE COMMITTEE TO KEEP THE $10
CAP ON LATE FEES. THANK YOU.
>> MARYLAND FOLLOWED BY A DEN,
FOLLOWED BY AUDRA.
>> GOOD MORNING. THE CITY
CHARGES $25 AND $52 LATE FEES
ON PARKING TICKETS. 37% LATE
FEES ON SOMETHING FAR LESS
IMPORTANT THAN KEEPING A ROOF
OVER YOUR HEAD. THE STUDY COUL
CONDUCT ITS OWN TRIAL RUN [
INAUDIBLE ] THEN STUDY THE
OUTCOME TO SEE HOW IT WORKS.
NOTICE FEES ARE HIGH BECAUSE TH
CITY AND STATE REQUIRE
CONVOLUTED SERVICE FOR EVEN THE
MOST MUNDANE NOTICES. YOU
SHOULD ASK A NONPROFIT IMAGE IT
COSTS THEM TO PREPARE AND SERVE
COMPLIANT NOTICES. IT WOULD BE
MORE PRODUCTIVE TO TALK ABOUT
HOW TO REDUCE THIS COST BY
ALLOWING ELECTRONIC NOTICES.
THE RENTERS DON'T COME HOME TO
NOTICE POSTED ON THEIR DOOR.
THAT WOULD HELP EVERYBODY. THIS
COMMITTEE HAS EXCLUDED PEOPLE
FROM PANELS WHO COULD ACTUALLY
INFORM AND ANSWER YOUR QUESTION
AND WORK ON BETTER SOLUTIONS. I
AM ASKING COUNCILMEMBERS TO HOL
OFF. [ INAUDIBLE ] THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING. I AM A RENTER
IN DISTRICT SIX. IT IS
OVERWHELMINGLY APPARENT THAT
WORKERS LIVING IN SUBSIDIZED
HOUSING ARE DEALING WITH MOST O
THE LANDLORD/TENANT ISSUES.
MAYBE IT IS TIME TO FOCUS ON TH
NONPROFIT HOUSING PROVIDERS,
INSTEAD OF CONTINUING TO VILIFY
PRIVATE LANDLORDS. AS YOU
CONTINUE TO PASS MORE AND MORE
LANDLORD RESTRICTIONS, YOU ARE
NOT ADDRESSING THE REAL
PROBLEMS.
>> AUDRA -- FOLLOWED BY EMILY
MacARTHUR. FOLLOWED BY DEVON
GLASER.
>> THINK YOU, COUNCILMEMBERS.
FOR BEING HERE TODAY AND THANK
YOU, COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT FOR
YOUR LEADERSHIP. AS A RENTER I
DISTRICT TWO, I HAVE RENTED IN
SEATTLE FOR OVER 20 YEARS. AS
SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN A LANDLORD
AND CASE MANAGER FOR PEOPLE
LIVING HOMELESS AND HAS ALSO
HELPED WORK ON COMMUNITY --
RENTERS DO NOT EARN WHAT THE
MARKET CAN BEAR. EVERY TINY
FEE, EVEN $10, CAN BE
IMPACTFUL. LIVING PAYCHECK TO
PAYCHECK AND COUNTING EVERY
DOLLAR. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO BE
BOLD AND BRAVE AND USE YOUR
POWER. NOT JUST THE DEMOCRATS.
I AM CALLING ON COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON DIRECTLY. I NEED YOU TO
USE YOUR POWER TO MAKE SURE
THAT EVERY RENTERS STAYS HOUSED
THIS IS CRISIS TIME.
>> EMILY MacARTHUR.
>> HI, MY NAME IS EMILY
MacARTHUR. I LIVE IN DISTRICT
TWO. I AM A LIFELONG RENTER, A
MEMBER OF WORKERS STRIKE BACK
AND A MEMBER OF THE HEALTHY
COALITION. I URGE ALL DEMOCRATS
TO VOTE YES ON COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT'S LEGISLATION TO CAP LAT
FEES FOR OVERDUE RENT AT $10 PE
MONTH WITH NO WATERING DOWN. W
WANT FIXED, NOT VARIABLE.
WORKERS HAVE ENOUGH CHAOS IN
THEIR LIVES RIGHT NOW BETWEEN
WILDFIRES, PANDEMIC, AND OF
COURSE THE EVER RISING COST OF
RENT. I OPPOSE COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON'S PRO-CORPORATE LANDLORD
AMENDMENT TO NICKEL-AND-DIME
STRUGGLING RENTERS, PRETENDING
THAT $50 IS NOT A LOT OF MONEY.
MAYBE FOR HER IT IS NOT, BUT FO
WORKING RENTERS LIKE MYSELF IT
IS. RENT IS STAGGERING. THEY
HAVE CLIMBED 25%, YET WAGES HAV
NOT. THIS IS A PENALTY. IF WE
BASED THE FEE ON PERCENTAGE OF
RENT. IT IS AN ATTACK ON POOR
PEOPLE. MORTGAGES HAVE A 15 DAY
GRACE PERIOD, SO CHARGING
RENTERS PER DAY IS AN ATTACK O
POOR PEOPLE TO GAIN EXTRA PROFI
FOR GREEDY LANDLORDS.
>> OUR LAST TWO ONLINE SPEAKERS
ARE DEVON GLASER -- AND THERE
IS ALSO ONE PERSON WHO SIGNED U
ONLINE THAT IS LISTED AS NOT
PRESENT. THAT IS AUSTIN. AND
THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL IN-PERSO
PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKER WHO
SIGNED UP. SO, DEVON GLASER IS
NEXT.
>> HELLO, COUNCILMEMBERS. THIS
IS DEVON GLASER. I AM VERY
GRATEFUL YOU ARE HAVING THIS
DISCUSSION AND YOU HAVE SOME
AMAZING ADVOCATES IN ATTENDANCE
WHO I AM EXCITED TO HEAR FROM.
WANT TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO SEND
THIS LEGISLATION IN ITS CURREN
FORM TO THE FULL COUNCIL FOR A
VOTE. I THINK THE FLAT CAP IS
PROGRESSIVE. THE LATE FEE IS
NOT MEANT TO BE A WINDFALL TO
THE LANDLORD. IT IS MUCH LIKE A
BANK OVERDRAFT FEE. IF YOU
OVERDRAFT ON A STICK OF GUM,
THEY HIT YOU JUST AS MUCH IS IF
YOU OVERDRAFT ON A $1000
PURCHASE. BEYOND THAT I WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR HITTING MOST
DELIVERY FEES. DELIVERY FEES
COST LANDLORDS NOTHING. THERE
IS NOTHING TO STOP THEM AND THE
CHARGING THE TENANT FOR
DELIVERING THE PAPER VIOLATES
ALL FAIRNESS. THANK YOU FOR YOU
WORK. I APPRECIATE ALL YOU DO.
PLEASE PASS THIS. THANK YOU.
>> AIDEN CAROL. YOU STILL
APPEAR TO BE MUTED. HIT STAR SI
ON YOUR PHONE. YOU STILL SEEM
TO BE MUTED.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?
>> YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW.
>> HELLO, YES, HI. I AM IN
DISTRICT SIX WITH [ INAUDIBLE
SPEAKING IN A PERSONAL
CAPACITY. THESE LATE FEES, AS
WE HAVE HEARD, ARE ONE MORE
THING THAT CAN PUSH PEOPLE TO
THE BRINK. AND WE, IN OUR CITY
HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE
BEEN PUSHED TO THE BRINK AND
THEN BLAMED FOR THEIR OWN
PROBLEMS. HOMELESSNESS, SWEEPS
SO WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO HELP
RENTERS, THAT WILL, AS I SAID,
SAVE LIVES. I WANT TO THANK
KATIE WILSON FOR POINTING OUT
SPECIFICALLY THAT IT DOES NOT
MAKE SENSE TO USE A PERCENTAGE,
BECAUSE TENANTS IN THIS CITY,
WHERE THE SUPPLY CHAIN OF
HOUSING IS CONSTRAINED AND
LANDLORDS ARE ALLOWED TO GOUGE
WITH THAT, EVERYBODY IS PAYING
WHATEVER THEY CAN FIND. NOT
WHAT THEY ARE ABLE TO. THIS IS
NOT AN ATTACK ON LANDLORDS, THI
BILL. BUT I DO WANT TO POINT OU
--
>> THAT IS OUR FINAL REMOTE
SPEAKER AND THEN THERE IS ONE
MORE SPEAKER IN PERSON.
>> YES, OUR LAST IN-PERSON
SPEAKER. GO AHEAD. YEAH.
>> GOOD MORNING. [ INAUDIBLE ]
>> WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.
>> OH, I'M SORRY. THIS ONE?
HEY, GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS
PRESTON. I'M A RANK AND FILE
MEMBER OF UAW 4121, REPRESENTIN
THOUSANDS OF ACADEMIC WORKERS A
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON. A
SURVEY OF OUR OWN MEMBERS SHOWE
THAT A STRONG MAJORITY OF OUR
MEMBERS PAY OVER 30% OF THEIR
INCOME IN RENT AND, YOU KNOW,
THERE IS A LOT OF FACTORS TO
THIS. THE UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON GOING INTO,
SUPPRESSING OUR WAGES, BUT ALS
THE UNIVERSITY STAYED UP MAKING
DEALS WITH LANDLORDS AROUND THE
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT AND EVEN
SELLING THEIR OWN LAND TO SOME
OF THESE PRIVATE DEVELOPERS,
MANY OF WHOM I AM SURE ARE
SUPPORTING COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON'S AMENDMENT TO JACK UP
THE LATE FEES. SO YOU KNOW,
OFTEN WE ARE SHARING OUR HOUSIN
WITH OTHER RENT BURDENED FOLKS
AND IF OUR RENT IS LATE, THEN
WE ALL HAVE TO PAY THE FEE. SO
STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THE COMMITTE
TO STICK TO THE $10 FEE AS
PROPOSED BY COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY WHO
SPOKE IN PUBLIC COMMENT. I WILL
CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS NOW AND
WE WILL BEGIN OUR AGENDA ITEM.
JUST BECAUSE THIS CAME UP IN
PUBLIC COMMENT, SPEAKER COREY
BREWER, WHO I BELIEVE
REPRESENTS REAL ESTATE AND
SPEAKS OFTEN IN PUBLIC COMMENT,
ALLEGED THAT I AM FOCUSING ON
QUOTE-UNQUOTE BUSINESS
VENTURES. I WANT TO QUALIFY FOR
THE RECORD THAT THAT IS
ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE. WHAT IS TRU
IS THAT ALONGSIDE UNION MEMBERS
LIKE PRESTON, WHO JUST SPOKE,
HAVE LAUNCHED A NATIONWIDE
MOVEMENT CALLED WORKERS STRIKE
BACK AND WE WILL HAVE A RALLY O
MAY 6 TO PROTEST AGAINST THE
IMPENDING RULING FROM THE
SUPREME COURT THAT ATTACKS THE
RIGHT TO STRIKE AND ALSO AS MAN
KNOW, I DON'T TAKE HOME THE
FULL CITY COUNCIL SALARY. I TAK
HOME ONLY THE AVERAGE WORKER'S
WAGE AND THE REST AFTER TAXES
GOES INTO SOCIAL JUSTICE
MOVEMENTS. I MENTION THAT NOT
ONLY TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD
BUT ALSO TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPL
OF HOW FAST AND LOOSE THESE
LANDLORD REPRESENTATIVES PLAY
WITH THE FACTS. FOR THEM, FACTS
DON'T MATTER AND IF YOU DON'T
CHECK YOU WOULD THINK THAT
LANDLORDS ARE THE ONES THAT ARE
STRUGGLING AND RENTERS ARE THE
ONES LIVING IT UP, WHEN THE
REALITY IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE.
WILL NOW READ THE BILL THAT WE
ARE HERE FOR INTO THE RECORD,
WHICH IS THE LEGISLATION TO CAP
LATE RENT FEES AT $10 PER
MONTH. THIS IS COMES ABOUT
120541, AND ORDINANCE RELATING
TO RESIDENTIAL TENANCY,
LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF FEES
CHARGED FOR LATE PAYMENT OF REN
AND FOR NOTICES ISSUED TO
TENANTS AND ADDING A NEW SECTIO
7.24.034 TO THE SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL CODE. THE ORDINANCE
WOULD CAP LATE FEES FOR OVERDUE
RENT AT NO MORE THAN $10 PER
MONTH. AS PUBLIC COMMENTERS
HAVE NOTED, THE NEARBY CITIES
HAVE ALREADY PASSED SUCH A LAW.
EXTRA CHARGES LIKE LATE FEES
ARE ON TOP OF THE OUT-OF-CONTRO
RENT THAT THE MAJORITY OF OUR
CITIES RENTERS ARE ALREADY
STRUGGLING TO PAY. WHILE MANY
LANDLORDS DON'T CHARGE PUNISHIN
LATE FEES, MANY DO AND THEY
TREAT LATE FEES AN JUNK FEES AS
ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLOIT
THE RENTERS. BEFORE GETTING
INTO THE SPECIFIC BILL, I WANTE
TO CORRECT YET ANOTHER IMPORTAN
BIT OF MISINFORMATION THAT HAS
BEEN RECENTLY SPREAD BY THE
LANDLORD LOBBY AND COUNCIL
MEMBERS THAT REPRESENT THEM.
THEY HAVE CLAIMED THAT OVER
HALF, THAT IS 58% OR 59% OF
SEATTLE LANDLORDS HAVE A TOTAL
FAMILY INCOME OF $75,000 OR
LESS ON AVERAGE. ESSENTIALLY
THEY ARE CLAIMING THAT SEATTLE
LANDLORDS MAKE LESS MONEY THAN
THE OVERALL AVERAGE INCOME IN
SEATTLE. IT SHOULD STRETCH THE
BOUNDS OF CREDULITY WITHOUT
KNOWING THE FACTS, BUT AS A
MATTER OF FACT IT IS WRONG. AS
EVIDENCE THEY HAVE REPEATEDLY
CITED THE 2018 STUDY THAT
SURVEYED 4000 LANDLORDS ABOUT
THEIR EXPERIENCES AND IT TURNS
OUT THIS CLAIM IS COMPLETELY
FALSE. THE QUESTION THAT THE
2018 SURVEY ACTUALLY ASKED
LANDLORDS WAS, QUOTE, WHAT IS
THE AVERAGE TOTAL HOUSEHOLD
INCOME FOR THE TENANTS YOU REN
TOO? END QUOTE. YES. PEOPLE AR
VIRTUALLY OPEN MOUTH TO THERE.
YES, THIS IS LITERALLY WHAT
HAPPENED. THE QUESTION ASKED
ABOUT TENANTS AND THE AVERAGE
INCOME OF THE TENANTS. IT MAY
HAVE BEEN AN INADVERTENT MISTAK
TO BEGIN WITH, BY THE
STATISTICIANS, HOWEVER THE WAY
THE LANDLORD LOBBY HAS USED THI
, THERE IS NOTHING INNOCENT
ABOUT THAT. THEY KNOW THEIR
AVERAGE INCOME IS NOT $75,000
AND YET THEY HAVE SEIZED ON
THIS FALSE CLAIM. WE KNOW IT IS
RENTERS AND LANDLORDS WHO MAKE
LESS THAN $75,000. IT IS
RENTERS, NOT LANDLORDS,
STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET AN
IT IS RENTERS, NOT LANDLORDS,
WHO NEED PROTECTION FROM THIS
COUNCIL. I THINK MY OFFICE FOR
DISCOVERING THIS ERROR IN THE
FIRST PLACE AND CONTACTING THE
RESEARCHERS, THE UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON RESEARCHERS WHO
CONDUCTED THAT STUDY. THOSE
RESEARCHERS HAVE CONFIRMED THAT
THE STATISTIC IS ABOUT RENTERS
AND NOT THE LANDLORD AND I
APPRECIATE THE RESEARCHER AT TH
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOR
URGENTLY LOOKING AT THAT AND
CONFIRMING THAT IN PREPARATION
FOR THIS COMMITTEE AND I THINK
THE CITY AUDITOR'S OFFICE FOR
EMAILING THE CITY COUNCIL ABOUT
THAT ERROR. AGAIN, AS I SAID,
THIS IS IMPORTANT NOT ONLY
BECAUSE OF THE STANDING NATURE
OF THE FALSIFIED CLAIM, BUT ALS
BECAUSE IT IS NOT SOMETHING THA
THEY HAVE OCCASIONALLY CLAIMED.
THIS IS A CLAIM THAT THEY USE
REPEATEDLY AND PROMINENTLY TO
ADDRESS THEIR OVERALL AGENDA
THAT SOMEHOW LANDLORDS ARE
SUFFERING. IN FACT, LANDLORDS
WHO OPPOSE THE TEMPORARY
EVICTION BANDS DURING THE EARLY
DAYS OF THE PANDEMIC TURNED
AROUND AND MADE RECORD PROFITS
AFTER CLAIMING THAT EVICTION
MORATORIUMS WOULD LEAD THEM TO
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN LOSSES.
THE LARGEST MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
OWNER IN THE U.S. DOUBLED THEIR
PROFITS IN $2021-$550 MILLION A
THE HEIGHT OF THE PANDEMIC ERA
EVICTION PROTECTIONS. THESE
ERRORS ARE NOT SIDE POINTS. AS
SAID, THE STATISTIC HAS BEEN
QUOTED NUMEROUS TIMES AS A
BASIS FOR CONCOCTING A STORY
THAT LANDLORDS ARE STRUGGLING T
PAY THEIR BILLS. IT IS FEATURED
PROMINENTLY ON THE PUBLICATION
FROM THE RENTAL HOUSING
ASSOCIATION. FOR THOSE OF YOU
WHO DON'T KNOW THE RENTAL
HOUSING ASSOCIATON ARE, THEY
ARE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
LANDLORD LOBBY IN SEATTLE AND
THEY HAVE OPPOSED EVERY SINGLE
RENTERS RIGHTS BILL THAT WE HAV
BROUGHT FORWARD AND IT WOULD
ALSO -- I BELIEVE THIS CLAIM
WAS MADE IN COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON'S COMMITTEE RECENTLY BY
SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO ATTENDED
AND I ALSO WANTED TO SHARE THA
ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO ATTENDED
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON'S
COMMITTEE, SHE SPOKE IN PUBLIC
COMMENT. AGAIN, I AM SHARING AL
OF THIS BECAUSE HOW WOULD
RENTERS AND WORKING PEOPLE KNOW
ALL OF THIS? YOU WOULD HAVE TO
DO A LOT OF RESEARCH, WHICH YO
WON'T HAVE TIME TO DO BECAUSE
YOU ARE BUSY MAKING A PAYCHECK
TO PAY THE EXORBITANT RENT. BUT
MY OFFICE HAS DONE THIS RESEARC
AND IT IS MY DUTY TO SHARE
THIS. ONE OF THE LANDLORDS WHO
SPOKE IN COUNCILMEMBER NELSON'S
COMMITTEE, SHE HAS REPEATEDLY
SUED THE CITY OF SEATTLE FOR
RENTERS RIGHTS, TO REPEAL
RENTERS RIGHTS. FOR EXAMPLE, SH
SUED THE CITY, ALONG WITH A
NUMBER OF OTHER LANDLORDS TO
OVERTURN THE FAIR CHANCE HOUSIN
ORDINANCE, WHICH IS THE
ORDINANCE BROUGHT FORWARD BY
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, THAT I
WAS PROUD TO SUPPORT. THIS USE
CRIMINAL HISTORY AS A PROXY FOR
DISCRIMINATING ON THE BASIS OF
DISCRIMINATING AGAINST POTENTIA
TENANTS ON THE BASIS OF RACE.
IN THAT CASE, THE LAWSUIT
AGAINST THE CITY WAS BEING
REPRESENTED BY A SPECIFIC LEGA
FOUNDATION. A NONPROFIT LAW FIR
THAT HAS A HISTORY OF TAKING O
THESE CASES. IN 2017, THEY FILE
A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE
FIRST-COME, FIRST-SERVED LAW
THAT SAYS IF YOU QUALIFY FOR
ALL OF THE CONDITIONS FROM THE
LANDLORD AND YOU WERE FIRST IN
LINE, THEN YOU SHOULD BE GIVEN
THE TENDENCY AND NOT BE PASSED
OVER FOR SOMEBODY ELSE. SO
THESE ARE ALL IMPORTANT FACTS
THAT WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND,
IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT THEY ARE
UP AGAINST. IN TODAY'S PANEL,
WE HAVE MY OFFICE AND TO
RENTERS AND ALSO
REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE
RENTERS RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS.
SO FOR TODAY, LIKE I SAID, WE
HAVE RENTERS AND A LANDLORD AN
ALSO REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE
HOUSING JUSTICE PROJECT,
BE:SEATTLE, AND MY INTENTION I
NOT THAT WE SHOULD DUPLICATE TH
DISCUSSION WE HAD AT THE LAST
MEETING ON MARCH 17, BECAUSE IT
WAS A VERY EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION
AND PANELISTS ANSWERED A LOT OF
QUESTIONS AND I THINK
COUNCILMEMBERS ALSO ASKED A LOT
OF QUESTIONS. HOWEVER, WE DID
REQUEST THE PANELISTS, SOME OF
THE PANELISTS, TO COME BACK
HERE. TO BE HERE TO ANSWER ANY
NEW QUESTIONS AND ALSO BRIEFLY
RECAP THE DISCUSSION FROM THE
LAST MEETING. FIRST WE HAVE A
COMMUNITY ORGANIZER IN MY OFFIC
WHO HAS COMPILED THE LATE FEE
TESTIMONIALS THAT RENTERS HAVE
SENT TO MY OFFICE. SHE WILL REA
SOME SHORT EXAMPLES AND ALSO SH
HAS SOME MORE INFORMATION ABOUT
WHAT THE COMMITTEE ORGANIZERS I
MY OFFICE HAVE LEARNED FROM
RENTERS, FROM TALKING TO
RENTERS. GO AHEAD.
>> GOOD MORNING. I WANT TO
START WITH --
>> [ INAUDIBLE ]
>> OH, I AM SORRY. I'M A
COMMUNITY ORGANIZER IN
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT'S OFFICE.
I WANT TO START WITH AN OVERVIE
OF KIND OF WHAT WE HAVE BEEN
DOING IN COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT'
OFFICE, ORGANIZING ALONGSIDE
RENTERS AND MEMBERS OF
SOCIALIST ALTERNATIVE AND OTHER
COMMUNITY VOLUNTEERS TO SPEAK
WITH RENTERS AND GATHER THEIR
STORIES FROM ACROSS SEATTLE AND
ACROSS THE SEATTLE REGION AND
OVER THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS,
COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS AND
VOLUNTEERS FROM SOCIALIST
ALTERNATIVE HAVE SET UP
COMMUNITY TABLES AND COLLECTED
OVER 300 SIGNATURES IN SUPPORT
OF A $10 CAP ON LATE FEES WITH
NO LOOPHOLES OR EXCEPTIONS AND
THAT IS ON TOP OF THE MORE THAN
700 SIGNATURES THAT ARE ONLINE
PETITIONS HAVE GARNERED. SO,
COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS SPOKE TO
STUDENTS, WORKING-CLASS PEOPLE,
SMALL LANDLORDS AND RENTERS
FROM ALL OVER SEATTLE AND IT WA
ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THERE IS
MASSIVE SUPPORT FOR A $10 LATE
FEE CAP AND THE HOUSING CRISIS
IN SEATTLE AND ACROSS WASHINGTO
IS ESCALATING, DRAMATICALLY.
RENTERS, MANY OF THEM YOUNG
PEOPLE OF COLOR, HAVE
ACCUMULATED HUNDREDS OR EVEN
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN RENTAL
DEBT OVER THE PANDEMIC IN LARGE
PART DUE TO LATE FEES AND OTHER
CHARGES. A THEME HERE IS THAT
RENTS ARE ABSOLUTELY OUT OF
CONTROL AND WORKING-CLASS
STUDENTS SPOKE TO US ABOUT
EXPLOITATIVE LANDLORDS WHO
CHARGE LATE FEES OF $50 PER DAY
WHILE TAKING WEEKS OR MONTHS T
CARRY OUT BASIC REPAIRS. ONE
CAPITOL HILL RENTER TOLD US
ABOUT A RENTAL DEBT OF $1500 HE
IS STRUGGLING TO PAY BECAUSE OF
THE LATE FEES THAT KEEP PILING
UP, WHILE INFLATION SHOWS NO
SIGNS OF SLOWING DOWN. AND I
THINK IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT
MANY SMALL LANDLORDS AND
HOMEOWNERS ALSO SIGNED OUR
PETITION, INCLUDING ONE SMALL
LANDLORD THAT CORRECTLY NOTED
THAT HIGH LATE FEES AND RENT IS
THE MAIN FORCE BEHIND THE
HOMELESSNESS CRISIS IN SEATTLE
CORPORATE LANDLORDS,
UNSURPRISINGLY, WERE NOT SO
SUPPORTIVE. WHEN WE ASKED ONE
IF HE SUPPORTS A $10 CAP ON LAT
FEES, HE SAID, QUOTE, NO, THAT
IS HOW I MAKE MY MONEY. END
QUOTE. AND FOR THE LANDLORDS,
SMALL LANDLORDS WHO WERE OPPOSE
TO THE BILL AS WELL, WHEN ASKED
IF THEY ACTUALLY CHARGE LATE
FEES, THEY INVARIABLY REPLIED
THAT THEY DON'T. IT IS CLEAR
THAT TALKING TO MANY RENTERS AN
LANDLORDS THAT ACTUALLY SOME
OFTEN DO NOT CHARGE LATE FEES O
RARELY ENFORCE THEM, SO THEY HA
NO REASON TO OPPOSE THIS CAP.
SO IT WAS OVERWHELMINGLY CLEAR
AND HAS BEEN FROM OVER 150
RENTERS WHO SUMMITED THEIR
STORIES OF LATE FEES THAT
WHETHER YOU HAVE EXPERIENCED IT
YOURSELF OR IF YOU HAVE NOT,
YOU KNOW SOMEONE , A FAMILY
MEMBER OR FRIEND, WHO HAS
EXPERIENCED THESE EXORBITANT
LATE FEES AND IT IS EXTREMELY
CLEAR WHO OPPOSES THIS BILL.
CORPORATE LANDLORDS, PROPERTY
DEVELOPERS, AND REAL ESTATE
INVESTORS. A CAP ON LATE FEES A
$10 PER MONTH WITH NO LOOPHOLES
WOULD BENEFIT WORKING PEOPLE
AND THE MOST VULNERABLE RENTERS
AT A SMALL COST OF THE
WEALTHIEST AND MOST POWERFUL IN
THE CITY, MAKING MONEY FROM
EXPLOITING WORKERS HAND OVER
FOOT. SO JUST TO SHARE SOME OF
THE STORIES THAT I THINK REALLY
ILLUSTRATE THE ABSOLUTELY
EXPLOITATIVE AND NOT AT ALL IN
GOOD FAITH NATURE IN WHICH THE
ARE CONDUCTING BUSINESS AROUND
THESE LATE FEES IS REALLY
ILLUSTRATIVE. I WANT TO SHARE
SOME OF THESE. ONE MENTOR SAID,
MY LANDLORD CHARGES $250 FOR
LATE RENT. MY RENT IS ALREADY
HALF OF MY TAKE-HOME PAY AND
HAVING TO PAY THE FEE KEEPS ME
MORE IN DEBT EVERY MONTH. I
THINK THIS ILLUSTRATES, RENTERS
OFTEN SAID MY RENT IS HALF OR A
HUGE AMOUNT OF MY TAKE-HOME PAY
AND TO NOTE A LATE FEE THAT
WOULD BE TIED TO A PERCENTAGE
OF RENT, WHEN THAT RENT GOES UP
WHICH RENTERS HAVE REPORTED IS
HAPPENING SO FREQUENTLY AND WE
KNOW FROM DATA IS HAPPENING
EQUALLY, SO WITH THAT LATE FEE
SO JUST TO SAY THAT ONE RENTER
REPORTED A $250 LATE FEE AND
LATER ANOTHER $250 LATE FEE FOR
EXTENDED LATE PAYMENT, AFTER TH
LANDLORD RAISED THE RENT 25% 1
MONTHS AGO. THIS PERSON IS A NE
MOTHER AND STRUGGLING TO PAY
THOSE FEES. AND ALSO TO
HIGHLIGHT THAT FOR MOST
MORTGAGES, WHICH I THINK WAS
MENTIONED IN PUBLIC COMMENT,
MOST MORTGAGES DO HAVE A 15 DAY
GRACE PERIOD FOR LATE PAYMENT.
SO RENTERS CHARGED $150 ON THE
FIRST OF THE MONTH OR THE FIFTH
OF THE MONTH OR $250. WE EVEN
HAD MULTIPLE REPORTS OF $500
LATE FEES. WHEN THAT IS
HAPPENING IMMEDIATELY AND FAR
BEYOND THE 15 DAYS GRACE PERIOD
THAT LANDLORDS ARE GETTING, IT
IS CLEAR THAT LANDLORDS ARE
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THIS AND
BLATANTLY EXPLOITING RENTERS B
CHARGING THESE LATE FEES RIGHT
AWAY AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO
NEED FOR IT. SOCIAL SECURITY
RECIPIENTS ARE FACING A REAL
BRUNT OF THE BURDEN OF LATE
FEES. ONE RENTER SAID, I EXIST
ON MY SOCIAL SECURITY RETIREMEN
BENEFITS WHICH ARE PAID ON THE
SECOND WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH.
OF COURSE MY RENT IS DUE ON THE
FIRST OF EACH MONTH. THE SETS M
UP FOR A PERPETUAL LATE FEE OF
$50 EVERY MONTH SINCE MY CHECK
WILL NEVER ARRIVE BEFORE THE
DEADLINE TO PAY WITHOUT PENALTY
WHICH IS THE FIFTH. I HAVE ASKE
SEVERAL TIMES TO CHANGE THE DUE
DATE TO THE 15th, BUT THE
LANDLORD WILL NOT DO THAT. SO
THIS PERSON HAS PAID OVER $3600
IN LATE FEES SO FAR AND SAYS TH
HIGH PAST-DUE PENALTY HAS NOT
ENCOURAGED ME TO PAY RENT ON
TIME AND IN FACT HAS HINDERED M
ABILITY TO PAY FUTURE RENT, AL
BECAUSE THE LANDLORD WILL NOT
ACCEPT A MIDMONTH PAYMENT AS AN
ON-TIME PAYMENT. JUST TO SHARE
A FEW OTHER STORIES AND COMMENT
FROM RENTERS. ONE RENTER SAID M
RENT IS BEING RAISED BY $200 PE
MONTH IN JUNE, WHICH OFFICIALL
BRINGS THE PERCENTAGE OF MY REN
UP TO 50% OF MY INCOME. LATE
FEES BASED ON THE PERCENTAGE OF
YOUR RENT IS THEN RAISED ALONG
WITH ANY ALLOWABLE AND LAWFUL
RAISIN RENT. SO 10% PER YEAR,
ANY LATE FEES AND OTHER FEE WIT
ITS BASIS IN PERSONAGES ALSO
RAISED. WE NEED A CAPSULE IS NO
TO MAKE RISING RENT THE CATALYS
FOR RAISING FEES ALSO. ANOTHER
STORY, MY LANDLORD HAS NEVER
TOLD ME IN THE TWO YEARS I'VE
LIVED THERE ABOUT LATE FEES OR
WHAT IT WOULD BE. ALL OF A
SUDDEN THIS YEAR THEY COME OUT
OF NOWHERE SAYING IT IS A $100
LATE FEE ADDED TO THE TOTAL.
THAT'S NOT FAIR WHEN WE NEVER
KNEW IT. WE LIVE ON SECTION 8.
IT'S HARD TO PAY RENT AND NOW
ADD AN EXTRA $100. VOUCHERS ARE
GIVING US A DIFFICULT TIME AND
THAT WE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT AN
EXTRA $100 WHEN I'M THE ONLY ON
WORKING IN MY HOUSEHOLD OF FOUR
AND THEN ANOTHER SAID, I HAVE
KNOWN MULTIPLE PEOPLE WHO, OVER
THE PAST FEW YEARS, HAD MONTHS
OF FOOD INSECURITY AND
COMPOUNDING MEDICAL ISSUES
BECAUSE OF HIGH RENT AND LOW
WAGES. MANY OF THESE PEOPLE WOR
UPWARDS OF 50 HOURS PER WEEK.
SO I THINK OVERALL THERE ARE
MANY RENTERS STORIES IN THIS
DOCUMENT THAT WE HAVE AT THE
FRONT AND HAS BEEN SHARED WITH
COUNCILMEMBERS AND YOU KNOW,
WHEN ACTUALLY THAT I SHOULD ALS
SAY IS THERE IS A RENTER
REPORTING BEING CHARGED $100 I
THEY WERE ONE HOUR LATE PAYING
ON THE ONLINE PORTAL AND MANY
HAVE REPORTED THAT WHEN THE
PORTAL WAS DOWN OR WHEN THE
LANDLORD HAD AN ISSUE RECEIVING
THE CHECK OR THE OFFICE WAS
CLOSED OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT,
THEY WERE ALSO CHARGING THESE
LATE FEES, WHICH FOR RENTERS IS
A SERIOUS DENT IN THE MONEY
THAT THEY NEED TO BUY GROCERIES
TO PAY FOR GAS, TO SURVIVE IN
THE CITY. SO THE $50 CAP IS A
LOT OF MONEY FOR RENTERS AND
ALSO IS A RESULT OF THE KIND OF
ORGANIZING THAT RENTERS HAVE
DONE TO PUT PRESSURE -- THE $5
CAP PROPOSED BY COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON, THAT IS A RESULT OF TH
PRESSURE THAT RENTERS AND
COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS HAVE PUT,
HAVE BUILT PRESSURE TO CAP THES
LATE FEES, TO MAKE THE CITY MOR
REASONABLE. TO MAKE IT POSSIBL
FOR RENTERS TO SURVIVE, BECAUSE
RIGHT NOW IT IS ABSOLUTELY A
SERIOUS PROBLEM. LANDLORDS SAI
IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT THIS
IS NOT A REAL ISSUE TO BE
FOCUSING ON, BUT IT IS ACCORDIN
TO HUNDREDS OF RENTERS AND OVER
1000 WHO SIGNED THE PETITION.
WILL LEAVE THAT THERE. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT
INFORMATION. NEXT CAN YOU
PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
>> HI -- MY NAME IS ALAN
ANDERSON. I AM A STUDENT AT UW
AND A RENTER IN DISTRICT TWO.
AM HERE IN STRONG SUPPORT OF TH
BILL FROM COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT
TO CAP LATE FEES FOR OVERDUE
RENT AT $10 PER MONTH. THIS
ORDINANCE IS ESPECIALLY
NECESSARY NOW. THE COST OF
LIVING HAS SOARED TO
UNBELIEVABLE DEGREES. ON TOP OF
THAT, RENT HAS CONTINUED TO GO
UP BY HUGE AMOUNTS. AS MANY
PEOPLE HAVE SAID, THE AVERAGE
RENT FOR A ONE-BEDROOM APARTMEN
IN SEATTLE WAS $2000 LAST YEAR
RENT INCREASED BY 19% LAST YEAR
IN DOWNTOWN SEATTLE, MORE THAN
DOUBLE THE LATE RATE OF
INFLATION, ALREADY SQUEEZING
RENTERS LIKE ME TO THE BREAKING
POINT. RENTS ARE EXPECTED TO
RISE BY A SIMILAR AMOUNT THIS
YEAR. I WILL LIKELY BE FORCED
TO CONTINUE BEING A RENTER FOR
MUCH OF MY ADULT LIFE, ASSUMING
MOST. I WILL MAKE THIS VERY
CLEAR, THIS IS NOT BY CHOICE. I
HEARD SOME COUNCILMEMBERS SAY
THAT THE MAJORITY OF RENTERS,
RENT IN THE CITY, BECAUSE YOUNG
PEOPLE JUST CHOOSE NOT TO BUY A
HOME. THIS IS SO UNBELIEVABLY
OUT OF TOUCH WITH YOUR
CONSTITUENTS. I AM ASTONISHED
TO HEAR THAT STATEMENT. I WOULD
LOVE TO OWN A HOME. BUT THERE
IS NO WAY THAT I CAN AFFORD IT
NOW OR ANYWHERE IN THE FUTURE,
ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE COST
OF LIVING. THAT IS THE CASE FO
THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE MY
AGE WHO HAVE ONLY EVER SEEN THE
ECONOMY IN CRISIS AFTER CRISIS
AND THE COST OF THOSE CRISIS
SEES IS GETTING PUT ON OUR
SHOULDERS. I HAVE TO LIVE WITH
THREE ROOMMATES, BECAUSE I
CANNOT AFFORD NOT TO. WITH
SEATTLE RENT HAVING ABSOLUTELY
SKYROCKETED OVER THE PAST TWO
DECADES, THE COST OF LIVING
CRISIS HAS ONLY MADE THINGS
WORSE. NOT LONG AFTER MOVING
INTO THE HOUSE WE ARE CURRENTLY
RENTING, THE CEILING IN MY
BEDROOM BEGAN TO LEAK RIGHT
UNDER MY BED. IT TOOK THE
LANDLORD NOT ONE, NOT TWO, BUT
THREE MONTHS TO REPAIR MY
CEILING. AFTER REQUESTING AND
THEN DEMANDING TO BE REPAIRED
MULTIPLE TIMES. AND THAT IS
JUST ONE OF A WHOLE LIST OF
REPAIRS THAT TOOK WEEKS OR
MONTHS OR CLOSE TO A YEAR TO
ACTUALLY BE ADDRESSED. OUR
CURRENT LEASE SPECIFIES, QUOTE
IF ANY RENT IS NOT PAID ON OR
BEFORE THE DUE DATE, TENANTS
AGREED TO PAY THE PENALTY OF $4
FOR EACH DAY THAT THE RENT IS
NOT PAID. INCLUDING THE DAY OF
PAYMENT, UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 18%
FOR ONE MONTH'S RENT. THE UNPAI
AMOUNT WILL BEAR INTEREST AT 12
PER ANNUM UNTIL PAID. SO WHAT
THAT MEANS IS THAT WE WOULD BE
CHARGED HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS IF
WE ARE JUST A FEW DAYS LATE ON
RENT AND WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE
12% INTEREST ON UNPAID RENT AND
FEES. A COMPOUNDING LATE FEE
LIKE THAT WOULD COST, THE MONE
ME AND MY ROOMMATES NEED TO PAY
FOR GROCERIES AND UTILITIES,
WHICH ARE ALSO GOING THROUGH
THE ROOF. LET ME ASSURE YOU,
THERE IS NO LEASE, WE DOUBLE
CHECKED, REQUIRING LANDLORDS TO
PAY US $40 UNTIL THE REPAIRS
FOR OUR HOME WE ARE PAYING RENT
ON OUR COMPLETE. IF THERE WAS,
HE WOULD DEFINITELY OWE US
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. THESE
PREDATORY LATE FEES ARE
COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS. THEY ARE
SET UP TO SCRAPE EVEN MORE MONE
OUT OF THE POCKETS OF RENTERS
WHO ARE BARELY GETTING BY. THIS
IS AN UNBEARABLE SITUATION FOR
MANY PEOPLE AND WE NEED
PROTECTIONS. SORRY, THIS IS
UNBEARABLE FOR RENTERS LIKE ME
ACROSS THE CITY AND THE ONLY WA
WE ARE GOING TO SEE THIS CHANG
IS BY GETTING ORGANIZED. TO
SHIFT THE BALANCE OF POWER FROM
THE WEALTHY, CORPORATE LANDLORD
TO A GRASSROOTS MOVEMENT TO
RENTERS TO MAKE UP THE MAJORITY
OF PEOPLE IN SEATTLE. WE NEED
PROTECTIONS LIKE THIS ORDINANCE
TO CAP PREDATORY LATE FEES AT
$10, JUST LIKE WE NEED ALL OF
THE PROTECTIONS THAT RENTERS
MOVEMENTS AND COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT'S OFFICE ALREADY HAVE
INCLUDING THE AMAZON TAX TO FUN
THE EXPANSION OF PUBLICLY OWNED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SEATTLE
RENTERS ALSO NEED CITYWIDE RENT
CONTROL WITHOUT CORPORATE
LOOPHOLES. WE CANNOT AFFORD
LATE FEES AND WE PLAIN OLD CAN'
AFFORD RENT WITH THESE INSANE
HIGH PRICES. WE ALSO NEED A LA
THAT MANDATES LANDLORDS TO PAY
THEIR TENANTS IF THE LANDLORD
FAILS TO FIX SERIOUS HOUSING
CODE VIOLATIONS, LIKE HEATING I
THE MIDDLE OF WINTER. LIKE
TENANTS BEING ABLE TO PAY LESS
RENT, ASSOCIATED WITH
COMPENSATION FOR THE PROBLEM
THAT REMAINS UNFIXED. MOST
IMMEDIATELY FOR THE CAP ON LATE
FEES AT $10 PER MONTH. I HOPE
THAT RENTERS, UNION MEMBERS,
COMMUNITY MEMBERS WERE WATCHING
WILL JOIN US. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, ELLEN, AND THANK
YOU ALSO FOR BEING HERE AGAIN.
YOU ARE ALSO AT THE LAST
MEETING. I APPRECIATE IT AND
EVERYBODY WHO IS HERE AGAIN,
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMITMENT.
>> HI, MY NAME IS SONJA PONATH
I LIVE IN THE SEATTLE AREA AND
HAVE BEEN A LANDLORD AND
PROPERTY MANAGER FOR MANY YEARS
I DO APPRECIATE THIS OPPORTUNIT
TO SPEAK TODAY IN SUPPORT OF
THIS LEGISLATION TO CAP LATE
FEES AT $10 PER MONTH. I WAS A
PARTIAL OWNER OF SIX UNITS AND
FOR ALMOST A DECADE I MANAGE TH
FINANCES OF THOSE UNITS ALONG
WITH OTHERS OWNED MY -- OWNED
BY MY EXTENDED FAMILY. IN 2016
MY COUSINS AND I SOLD THOSE SIX
HOUSES. WE SOLD NOT BECAUSE OF
RENTERS RIGHTS, REGULATIONS OR
ANY OF THAT NONSENSE. WE SOLD
BECAUSE PROPERTY VALUES WENT UP
AND THAT INCOME WAS ALWAYS
INTENDED TO GUARANTEE THE
RETIREMENT OF OUR GRANDMOTHER.
WE HAVE NEVER CHARGED LATE FEES
AT ALL. AS ONE PROPERTY MANAGER
I USED TO WORK WITH WOULD SAY,
YOU CAN'T SQUEEZE BLOOD FROM A
STONE. OVERWHELMINGLY OUR
TENANTS PAID RENT ON TIME. WHE
THAT FAILED WE TALKED WITH THEM
AND WORKED WITH THEM AND IN RAR
CASES WE DID GO THROUGH SMALL
CLAIMS COURT OVER UNPAID RENT,
BUT THE REALITY IS LATE FEES
ARE NOT NECESSARY. THEY ARE NOT
NECESSARY FOR US TO PAY ON TIME
AND THEY'RE NOT NECESSARY TO
COVER THE LANDLORD'S COST. THE
ARE A WAY CORPORATE LANDLORDS
CAN SQUEEZE EXTRA MONEY FROM
THEIR TENANTS. MY FAMILY COULD
HAVE CHARGED LATE FEES AND OTHE
FEES. MY MOTHER OWNS RENTAL
PROPERTY IN OREGON AND THE
PROPERTY MANAGER SENT A LETTER
TELLING HER SHE COULD RAISE THE
RENT BY $200 PER MONTH FOR THI
YEAR'S LEASE, BUT THAT IS NOT
NECESSARY FOR HER NEEDS. SO SHE
HAS NEVER RAISED RENTS ON
EXISTING TENANTS BY MORE THAN
$25 OR $50 PER MONTH. WE KNOW
OUR RENTERS ARE NOT GETTING MUC
OF A WAGE BUMP, IF ANY. WE ALSO
PREFER TO KEEP TENANTS LONG
TERM. IN FACT WE HAD TWO SISTER
AND TWO OF OUR HOUSES FOR 30
YEARS. I FIND IT OUTRAGEOUS THA
FOR MOST CORPORATE LANDLORDS,
LATE FEES ARE HOW THEY MAKE
EXTRA MONEY OFF THE BACK OF
STRUGGLING RENTERS. LIKE IF YO
CANNOT PAY YOUR OWN BILLS
WITHOUT GOUGING VULNERABLE
PEOPLE WHO NEED A HOME, YOU
SHOULD NOT BE IN THIS BUSINESS.
IT IS SO STRANGE TO HEAR
LANDLORDS TALKING AS IF WE ARE
THE VICTIMS, WHEN LANDLORDS OWN
MULTIPLE PROPERTIES. AT WORST,
THEY ARE WORRIED THAT THEY HAVE
OVERSTRETCHED THEIR INVESTMENT
BY TAKING OUT MORTGAGES TO BUY
EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE SEATTLE
PROPERTY. IN WHICH CASE, THEY
ARE FREE TO SELL THE PROPERTY.
IF THE REGULATIONS AS A RESULT
OF RENTERS WINNING SOME OF THES
RIGHTS ARE HONESTLY SO ONEROUS,
THAT RENTAL HOUSING WOULD NOT
SELL FOR SUCH SHOCKINGLY HIGH
PRICES. PROPERTY VALUES. WE
CAN'T RELY, THOUGH, ON A FEW
GOOD LANDLORDS AS SUFFICIENT
PROTECTION FOR RENTERS BECAUSE
POWERFUL LANDLORDS WILL USE
EVERY AVENUE AND EXPECTATION
AVAILABLE TO THEM TO SQUEEZE
MORE PROFIT FROM THEIR TENANTS.
RENTERS NEED LEGAL PROTECTIONS,
LIKE THIS CAP ON LATE FEES AT
$10 PER MONTH AND ALL OF THE
RENTER RIGHTS MOVEMENT, AND
COUNCILMEMBERS SAWANT'S OFFICE
-- MORE THAN ANYTHING WE NEED
STRONG, CITYWIDE RENT CONTROL
POLICY. IN REALITY, THIS
REGULATION GIVES COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE TO THE MOST
UNSCRUPULOUS LANDLORDS AND MAKE
IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR LANDLORD
WHO DO NOT WANT TO GOUGE THEIR
TENANTS TO ACTUALLY COMPETE. AS
MENTIONED, I DO KNOW THAT MOST
MORTGAGES HAVE 15 DAYS GRACE
PERIOD FOR LATE PAYMENT. SO
CHARGING $250 AS SOON AS THE
RENT IS LATE OR $40 EVERY DAY
RENT IS LATE OR JUST EXPLOITIN
RENTERS FOR EXTRA PROFITS. AND
THAT, I THINK, IS THE MAIN
POINT. LANDLORDS DO NOT NEED
LATE FEES. THEY ARE JUST
ANOTHER WAY THAT SOME CORPORATE
LANDLORDS HAVE FOUND EXTRA
PROFIT. I AM NOT AFRAID OF
RENTERS -- THEY ALREADY HAVE A
INHERENT INCENTIVE TO PAY RENT
FULLY, ON TIME. THEY DON'T WAN
TO SPOIL THEIR CREDIT SCORE.
THEY DON'T WANT TO CREATE
CONDITIONS TO GET EVICTED AND
THEY WANT STABLE HOUSING. WHAT
I AM AFRAID OF IS THAT FINANCIA
SPECULATION INTO REAL ESTATE IS
MAKING HOUSING SO INCREDIBLY
EXPENSIVE THAT IT IS TEARING OU
COMMUNITIES APART AND IT HAS
CONTRIBUTED TO AN ALARMING RIS
IN HOMELESSNESS. JUST IN
CLOSING, I AM HEARING MANY
POLITICIANS SAY, OH,
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT, YOU NEED
TO HAVE MORE LANDLORDS ON YOUR
COMMITTEE. WELL, COREY BREWER
WHO JUST CALLED IN, UPSET THAT
AM HERE TODAY. COREY BREWER
REPRESENTS WINDEMERE, WHICH IS
A HUMONGOUS, REGIONAL WESTERN
COMPANY WORTH BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS. SO I CAN SAY, COREY
PROVED MY POINT. AS A LANDLORD
MYSELF, I CAN SAY THERE IS NO
SHORTAGE OF LANDLORD VOICES OU
THERE. THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS
ALIGNED WITH THEM. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. MADDY OLSON.
>> HELLO, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS
MADDY OLSON. I AM A RANK AND
FILE MEMBER OF UFCW 3000 IS A
GROCERY WORKER, WHERE I MAKE
LIKE $0.03 OVER THE MINIMUM
WAGE AND I AM ONE OF THOUSANDS
OF GROCERY WORKERS STILL
STRUGGLING -- AND THAT FOUR
DOLLARS, THAT WAS A LIFELINE FO
US. AT THIS POINT WE CAN'T
AFFORD TO BUY GROCERIES AT THE
STORES WE WORK AT. WE CAPPED
CAN'T GET LUNCH, WE HAVE TO
BRING OUR OWN FOOD. AND WE CAN'
AFFORD HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS OF
LATE FEES ON TOP OF THIS
INCREDIBLE CRISIS OF RENT IN
SEATTLE. I LIVE IN A FOUR
BEDROOM HOUSE AND PAY $1200 TO
SHERRY BASEMENT ROOM WITH MY
PARTNER. THIS IS NOT UNCOMMON.
YOU HAVE TO WORK MULTIPLE JOBS
OR HAVE MANY ROOMMATES WITH ONE
PERSON LIVING IN THE LIVING ROO
AS A ROOM. IN MY LEASE, IF WE
ARE LATE, WE ACCUMULATE LATE
FEES AT $20 PER DAY. NOT NEARLY
AS STEEP AS ELLEN SAID, BUT YO
KNOW THIS NUMBER CAN QUICKLY
BECOME UNSUSTAINABLE AND WE AR
OFTEN ONLY SAVED BY A ROOMMATES
COVERING THE DIFFERENCE THAT WE
CAN'T PAY IF OUR CHECKS ARE NOT
COMING RIGHT ON THE FIRST. I
HAVE BEEN LOOKING WITH MY
PARTNER FOR A ONE BEDROOM
APARTMENT AND AS MANY OF YOU
HAVE SAID IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO
FIND SOMETHING FOR LESS THAN
$1400 PER MONTH. ANYTHING MORE
THAN THAT IS BEYOND WHAT MY
GROCERY JOB AND MY PARTNER'S
INCOME AS A GRAD STUDENT CAN
AFFORD. WORKERS LIKE US TRY VER
HARD TO NOT BE LATE. IT IS NOT
LIKE WE ARE TRYING. WE NEVER AR
LATE BECAUSE WE ARE DECIDING NO
TO PAY OUR LANDLORD. IT IS
BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE IT. WHY
WOULD I RISK AN EVICTION,
RUINED MY RENTAL HOUSING RECORD
BECAUSE I WANT TO HAVE THE
MONEY FOR A COUPLE OF EXTRA DAY
THAT I KNOW I AM GOING TO PAY
ANYWAYS? AS WAS SAID, YOU CAN'T
GET BLOOD FROM A STONE. THESE
LATE FEES DON'T INCENTIVIZE
RENTERS TO PAY ON TIME. IT JUST
BURIES US IN DEBT THAT WE CAN'T
PAY BACK. WHEN PEOPLE LIKE ME
AND MY COWORKERS ARE PAYING
OVER ONE THIRD AND EVEN HALF OF
OUR INCOME FOR RENT, THERE IS N
ROOM FOR LATE FEES. WE NEED $10
IS A CAP ON LATE FEES AND NOT
ONE DOLLAR MORE. WE CAN'T AFFOR
THAT. A FLAT AMOUNT OF $10 GET
THE INCENTIVE ACROSS WITHOUT
OVERBURDENING US. ON THE
QUESTION OF A PERCENTAGE, IT IS
BETTER THAN NOT PAYING, BUT
OBVIOUSLY NOT SUFFICIENT. $15
IS ON TOP OF THE $10 MARK THAT
HAS BEEN SET ALREADY. WHEN MORE
THAN HALF OF THE UNITS IN
SEATTLE ARE RENTING OVER
$10,000, EVEN ONE OR 2% WOULD B
MORE THAN WE CAN AFFORD. FOR
WORKERS LIKE ME, HE ROSE DURIN
THE PANDEMIC, WE ARE STILL
MAKING MINIMUM WAGE AND WE CAN'
AFFORD THESE FEES. A RECENT
SEATTLE TIMES ARTICLE SAID
WORKERS ARE TREADING WATER. WE
ARE NOT TREADING WATER, WE ARE
DROWNING OUT THERE. I WANT TO
TALK ABOUT HOW COUNCILMEMBERS
HAVE SAID YOUNG PEOPLE DON'T
WANT HOMES AND THAT IS THE
REASON WE ARE RENTERS AND NOT
OWNERS. I WOULD TELL YOU, I
WOULD LOVE TO OWN A HOME. THERE
IS NO REASON MY PARTNER AND I
WOULD NOT LOVE TO OWN A HOME AN
NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE
LANDLORDS. I CAN SAY, WE HAVE
BEEN IN A SITUATION WHERE WE HA
OPEN SEWAGE IN OUR HOUSE,
BECAUSE THE LANDLORD DID NOT
ADDRESS THE PROBLEM. WE HAD OUR
WATER TURNED OFF TWO TIMES IN A
ROW WITHOUT NOTICE BECAUSE THE
LANDLORD DID NOT ADDRESS THE
PROBLEM. THESE ARE LITERALLY
ILLEGAL AND YET MY LANDLORD IS
NOT SLAPPED WITH A FEE OR PAYIN
US BACK. WE STOPPED TO PAY ON
TIME AND I KNOW THAT THERE ARE
POLLS THAT SHOW THE MAJORITY OF
YOUNG PEOPLE WANT TO OWN HOMES.
WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE MONEY
FOR IT. I HOPE COUNCILMEMBERS
SUPPORT CAPPING THE LATE FEES A
$10 AND NOT MORE. THANK YOU.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD
ANYTHING? GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU FOR CONVENING THIS
AGAIN AND THANK YOU TO THE
PREVIOUS SPEAKERS AND ANYONE
WHO COMMENTS IN PUBLIC COMMENT.
FOR THE RECORD I AM FROM THE
KING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION AND
I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS THREE
POINTS REALLY QUICKLY. THE FIRS
WAS ADEQUATELY WELL ADDRESSED B
THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER, BUT THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER LATE FEES
INCENTIVIZE ON-TIME PAYMENT, W
DO HAVE A LOCAL CASE STUDY. FOR
THE LAST THREE YEARS WE HAVE NO
ALLOWED LATE FEES IN THE CITY O
SEATTLE. THE URBAN INSTITUTE
HAS BEEN TRACKING WHETHER
TENANTS HAVE PAID ON TIME, IN
PARTICULAR WITH A FOCUS ON SMAL
LANDLORDS IN PARTICULAR. WHAT
THEY FOUND IN JANUARY 2020,
BEFORE THE LATE FEED BAN WENT
INTO EFFECT, THAT ABOUT 92% OF
TENANTS WERE PAYING BY THE END
OF THE MONTH. RIGHT NOW IT IS
93%. THE FACT THAT NO LATE FEE
ARE IN THIS AREA, WE ARE STILL
SEEING TENANTS PAY ON TIME.
THERE WAS A SLIGHT DIP IN THE
PANDEMIC BY A COUPLE OF POINTS.
OVERALL TENANTS OF BEEN ACTING
IN GOOD FAITH, PAYING ON TIME,
AS THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER SAID.
IMPORTANTLY, TOO, I WANT TO
HIGHLIGHT THAT THE URBAN
INSTITUTE INDICATES SEATTLE
TENANTS ARE BETTER AT PAYING
RENT ON TIME. BY SIX POINTS OR
SO. NATIONAL AVERAGES ABOUT 87%
OF TENANTS WHO PAY BY THE END O
THE MONTH, ACCORDING TO THAT
DATA. HERE LANDLORDS ARE
BENEFITING FROM THE FACT THAT
THEY HAVE GOOD TENANTS AND
ULTIMATELY ONE'S WANT TO WORK
WITH THEIR LANDLORDS AND ARE
PAYING ON TIME. THE SECOND ISSU
THAT I THINK WAS TOUCHED ON WAS
DO LATE FEES COMPENSATE FOR THE
LANDLORDS LOSS? I KNOW THERE
HAVE BEEN A LOT OF NUMBERS
THROWN OUT EARLIER THAT I THINK
REALLY INDICATE THAT LANDLORDS
REALLY DON'T LOSE WHEN THEY MIS
A PAYMENT. THEY LOSE, BUT
THEY'RE NOT REALLY FACING
ACTUAL, DIRE CONSEQUENCES WHEN
THEY FACE A PAYMENT. ONE THING
OF SOME DATA POINTS I WANT TO
POINT OUT IS THAT FORTUNE
MAGAZINE, WHICH IS NOT KNOWN FO
ITS SOCIALIST AGENDA, FOUND THA
LANDLORDS MAKE ABOUT 30% PROFIT
MARGIN OVERALL IN AN ANNUAL
YEAR. A SMALL BUSINESS,
TYPICALLY 7 TO 10% PROFIT MARGI
IS GOOD AND HEALTHY. SO THE
FACT LANDLORDS ARE GETTING 30%
IS PRETTY HEALTHY AND FRANKLY
SHOWING THAT IT IS A VERY GOOD
INDUSTRY.
>> DID YOU SAY ON AVERAGE, 30%?
>> ABOUT 30%. AND AGAIN ANOTHER
STUDY THAT I REPORTED LAST TIM
AND WAS ALSO INCLUDED HERE FROM
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF
SOCIOLOGY WHICH SAID
PARTICULARLY IN LOW INCOME
NEIGHBORHOODS, ANNUAL RENT ROLL
ARE EQUAL TO ABOUT 25% OF THE
MARKET VALUE OF THE HOME. SO I
TAKES ABOUT FOUR YEARS TO PAY
OFF A PROPERTY. SO I THINK THI
IS TO SAY, LANDLORDS AREN'T
REALLY LOSING. THE IDEA THEY
NEED TO BE COMPENSATED FOR
LOSSES SINCE THEY ARE LOSING
SOMETHING ARE FACING SOME
CONSEQUENCE AND THAT IS NOT THE
CASE. ONE MORE NOTICE ON THIS,
SEATTLE TIMES REPORTED IN 2022
THAT OWNING A HOME IN THE AREA
MEANT THAT YOUR NET WORTH WAS O
AVERAGE $987,000. AGAIN, YOU
ARE SITTING ON A MOUND OF GOLD
HERE AND THE IDEA THAT YOU'RE
SOMEHOW LOSING BECAUSE OF ONE
MISSED PAYMENT IS, FRANKLY, JUS
NOT ADDING UP. THE LAST POINT I
WANT TO HIGHLIGHT IS WHETHER I
SHOULD BE A PERCENTAGE OR A
DOLLAR AMOUNT. PRIOR SPEAKERS
MADE GOOD POINTS HERE THAT
USING A PERCENTAGE IS BASICALLY
TAKING THE LACK OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND USING THAT TO
BLUDGEON THE TENANT, BY
BASICALLY SAYING WE KNOW YOU AR
STRETCHING. WE KNOW YOUR COST
BURDEN. ABOUT HALF OF TENANTS
IN SEATTLE HAVE TO PAY MORE THA
30% OF THE INCOME TOWARD RENT,
BUT WE ARE ALSO GOING TO TAKE
WOULD YOU HAVE TO BUY INTO OUR
RENT OUT A VERY EXPENSIVE UNIT
AND PENALIZE YOU FURTHER BECAUS
OF THAT EXPENSE. I THINK FROM A
REGULATORY STANDPOINT, MY
BIGGEST ISSUE WITH THE
PERSONAGE ISSUE IS THAT IT IS
VERY COMPLICATED. RENT, IT
SOUNDS SIMPLE ON THE SURFACE.
IT SHOULD BE 1.5% OF THE OVERAL
RENT, BUT RENT IS NOT EXACTLY
WHAT YOU THINK IT IS. THE LEGA
DEFINITION OF RENT IS NOT JUST
THE AMOUNT YOU ARE PAYING EVERY
MONTH, BUT EVERY PERIODIC
CHARGE AND MAY INCLUDE
UTILITIES. A LOT OF LANDLORDS
PASS THROUGH FLUCTUATING
UTILITIES EVERY MONTH, SO THE
RESULT IS, WHEN TRYING TO
CALCULATE A PERCENTAGE, THE LAT
FEE PERCENTAGE CHANGES EVERY
MONTH BASED ON HOW MUCH
UTILITIES YOU CAN CHARGE. I
REALLY AGREE WITH THE LANDLORDS
ON THIS POINT. SIMPLICITY
MATTERS. THAT RELATIONSHIP IS
COMPLICATED, BUT WE AIM FOR
SIMPLICITY. THAT IS WHY A DOLLA
AMOUNT IS MORE SIMPLE. $10
MAKES SENSE. WE HAVE SEEN IT
WORK IN OTHER PLACES. THE FACT
THAT NO LATE FEES IN SEATTLE HA
NOT CHANGED THE FACT THAT
TENANTS ARE PAYING ON TIME.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. [ INAUDIBLE ]
>> DURING PUBLIC COMMENT, KITT
WILSON BROUGHT UP A REALLY GOOD
POINT THAT JUST BECAUSE YOUR
RENT IS REALLY HIGH DOESN'T MEA
THAT YOUR INCOME IS REALLY HIGH
AND THESE HIGH FEES ARE
DEVASTATING TO LOW INCOME
WORKERS. EVEN THE $50 CAP ON
LATE FEES WOULD BE NEARLY THREE
HOURS OF WORK AT MINIMUM WAGE.
THAT IS HARD TO MAKE UP AND
ACTUALLY DURING PUBLIC COMMENT
MARILYN NOTED THAT PARKING
TICKETS HAD HIGHER FEES AND THE
WERE FAR LESS IMPORTANT THAN
KEEPING A ROOF OVER YOUR HEAD.
AND I AGREE, THAT IS WHY RENTER
ALWAYS PRIORITIZE PAYING RENT
FIRST. THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE
THAT. WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE OU
HOMES, BUT WE NEED THE ABILITY
TO GET CAUGHT UP IF AN EMERGENC
HAPPENS AND THESE HIGH LATE FEE
IMPEDE THAT.
>> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS VIOLE
LAVATAI. I AM THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE TENANTS UNION
AND I AM, YOU KNOW, I SAW THIS
AMENDMENT THAT COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON BROUGHT THROUGH. AND
EVERYTHING THAT WE FIGHT FOR I
THE COMMUNITY TO PROTECT PEOPLE
AND TO HELP PEOPLE, IT IS,
AGAIN, PROFIT OVER PEOPLE. THI
IS PROFIT OVER PEOPLE. WE HAVE
AN ATTORNEY -- THE THING ABOUT
THIS COMMITTEE IS, WE ARE
ACTUALLY SPEAKING TRUTH. WHAT
IS THE REASON WHY YOU HAVE A
COUNCILMEMBER WITH HER RICH,
LANDLORD FRIENDS, WHO IS
SAYING, LET'S CHANGE IT UP?
LET'S OPPRESS THE PEOPLE. I
SPEAK NOT ONLY AS AN ADVOCATE,
HOUSING CHAMPION FOR MANY YEARS
BUT I AM ALSO FROM THE
COMMUNITY. 150 HAVE BEEN
DOCUMENTED, THOSE STORIES FROM
TENANTS. THAT IS THE TIP OF THE
ICEBERG. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. WE ARE
ASKING TODAY, EACH COUNCILMEMBE
TO LOOK WITHIN AND TO SAY THAT
I AM IN THIS TO HELP PEOPLE, NO
TO OPPRESS THE PEOPLE. WE SEE
COUNCILMEMBERS WHO HOOK UP WIT
THE LANDLORDS. LISTEN, COREY
BREWER, I AM GOING TO SAY IT,
BECAUSE NOW YOU ARE JUST TRYIN
TO DIG AT A COUNCILMEMBER. HE
FORGOT TO MENTION THAT HE
CHARGED A TENANT, A BLACK,
SINGLE MOM ON SECTION 8, $6000
IN DAMAGE DEPOSIT. HE DIDN'T
SHARE THAT FACT. HE IS SO
WORRIED ABOUT COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT GOING TO MINNESOTA. THE
NEXT TIME WE TAKE TRIPS, WE
WILL CONTACT YOU, COREY BREWER.
WE WILL LET YOU KNOW WHERE WE
ARE GOING AROUND IN OUR NATION.
THIS IS -- I AM GOING TO BE
VERY RESPECTFUL, BUT HERE'S THE
THING. WE HAVE LANDLORDS WHO AR
SAYING, WOE IS ME. THE MOM AN
POP THAT THEY ACTUALLY TALK
ABOUT, A LOT OF THEM
UNFORTUNATELY WE GET CALLED ON
COMPLAINTS. SOMETIMES THEY ARE
BAD CHARACTER. WHAT WE ARE
ASKING IS CAPPING THE LATE FEE.
WE HAD EDMUND, SPEAKING ON THE
EFFECTS OF IT. WE HAD
COUNCILMEMBERS FACT CHECK ALL O
THIS. THIS OTHER COMMITTEE,
WHAT THEY ARE WANTING TO DO IS
JUST ATTACK THE PEOPLE AND IT
SERVES NO PURPOSE TO SAY THIS
COUNCILMEMBER IS GOING TO
MINNESOTA. WOE IS ME, I'M GOIN
TO SUE THEM ON SOME OF THESE
THINGS THAT WE HAVE ALREADY
PASSED IN LEGISLATION. WHAT WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT IS A $10 CAP.
IT DOES NOT TAKE A GENIUS. IT
IS ANOTHER WAY TO OPPRESS THE
PEOPLE. YOU KNOW, THEY ALREADY
SPOKE ABOUT WHAT IT DOES. WHAT
IT DOESN'T DO, THIS LEGISLATION
HERE'S THE THING, THE $150 THA
WAS JUST DOCUMENTED, WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT THEM REPRESENTING
THOUSANDS OF TENANTS. BECAUSE
THEY ALL TESTIFIED TO IT. SO I
AM HERE BECAUSE TENANTS GET
CALLS ON THIS VERY THING. YOU
ARE LATE IN RENT ALREADY AND
THEN THEY HAD ALL OF THESE FEES
THERE IS ALSO A THING CALLED
ADMIN FEE. I GUESS WE HAVE TO
LOOK INTO THAT, TOO. THESE ARE
FEES THAT REALLY IT IS A DOMIN
EFFECT. YOU ARE BEHIND ON RENT
AND THEN YOU HAVE THIS LATE
FEE, WHICH THE HIGHEST THAT I
EVER SAW WAS $75 A DAY AND I
TELL YOU, THAT IS OUTRAGEOUS.
OUTRAGEOUS. WE IMPLORE EACH
COUNCILMEMBER THAT IS IN THERE
TO HELP PEOPLE, EXCEPT FOR
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON. I AM
GOING TO SPEAK IT, BECAUSE IT I
MY RIGHT TO SPEAK IT. WITH ALL
OF THE OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS, T
THINK ABOUT THE PEOPLE, THE
COMMUNITY. THE OPPRESSION THAT
IS COMING. WE ARE TALKING ABOU
THE WORKING POOR. PEOPLE WHO
HAVE THREE JOBS. THREE JOBS. S
WHAT WE ARE ASKING TODAY IS
PASS THIS LEGISLATION. THINK OF
THE PEOPLE. THINK OF THE
COMMUNITY, BECAUSE ONCE YOU
PASS THIS YOU SAY TO EVERYBODY,
YEAH, WE CARE ABOUT YOU,
COMMUNITY. WE ARE NOT ON THE
SIDE OF THE RICH PEOPLE. THAT I
WHAT IT IS. WHEN I SAW THIS
TODAY, WHEN I SAW THIS
AMENDMENT, I ALMOST FELL OUT O
MY CHAIR. I WAS LIKE, WHAT THE
HECK? THIS IS ANOTHER THING. I
WILL SAY IT AGAIN AND AGAIN, IT
IS PROFIT OVER PEOPLE, WHEN
THESE KINDS OF THINGS ARE
AMENDED. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU TO ALL OF THE
SPEAKERS AND I DO AGREE WITH
YOU, VIOLET, THAT BOTH THE WOR
THAT MY OFFICE HAS DONE AND
ALSO THAT THE SPEAKERS WERE
HERE, ESPECIALLY THE RENTERS
RIGHTS ADVOCATES, THAT THERE HA
BEEN SO MUCH DEDICATION TO
FACTS. SO YOU ARE RIGHT, WE
APPRECIATE IT, EDMUND. THE
STATISTICS THAT YOU BROUGHT IN,
I THINK THAT REALLY ENRICHED
THE DISCUSSION AND HOPEFULLY TH
UNDERSTANDING OF ALL
COUNCILMEMBERS OF WHY THIS
LEGISLATION SAYS $10 AND NO
MORE. I WILL LOOK AT THIS TO
SEE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS
TOWARD THE PANELISTS. THE
PANELISTS WILL STAY HERE, AND I
APPRECIATE YOU IN ADVANCE FOR
STAYING HERE. COUNCIL PRESIDEN
JUAREZ, DID YOU HAVE QUESTIONS?
>> NO, I WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW
I'M STILL HERE. THANK YOU.
>> SO AT THIS POINT I WOULD LIK
TO INVITE ASHA VENKATARAMAN
FROM COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
ASHA WAS HERE LAST TIME AS WELL
AND I THINK YOU, ASHA, FOR
GOING OVER DETAILS OF THE BILL
LAST TIME, BUT I WOULD INVITE
YOU AGAIN TO BRIEFLY INTRODUCE
THE BILL.
>> ABSOLUTELY. GOOD MORNING,
COUNCILMEMBERS. ASHA
VENKATARAMAN WITH COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFF. I CAN GO AHEAD
AND PROVIDE SORT OF A
DESCRIPTION OF THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THIS BILL, COUNCIL BILL
120541, AND THE BILL THAT WAS
CONSIDERED LAST TIME IN
COMMITTEE, COUNCIL BILL 120530.
SO I WILL GO THROUGH AND TALK
LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THOSE BILLS AND THE
ADDITIONAL PROVISION IN THIS
BILL ABOUT NOTICES AND THEN I A
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
THAT ANYBODY HAS. THIS BILL,
COUNCIL BILL 120541, CONTAINS
THE SAME LIMITATION THAT
COUNCIL BILL 120530 CONTAINED,
WHICH IS A CAP ON LATE FEES AT
$10 AND A PROHIBITION AGAINST
ANY FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.
ANY OTHER FEES ASSOCIATED WITH
THE LATE PAYMENT OF RENT. THAT
WOULD INCLUDE THINGS LIKE NOTIC
FEES FOR LATE PAYMENT OF RENT.
BETWEEN LAST COMMITTEE AND THIS
COMMITTEE, THE NEW BILL,
COUNCIL BILL 120541, WOULD ADD
A PROHIBITION AGAINST FEES
ASSOCIATED WITH NOTICES OF ANY
KIND. SO THE MAIN DIFFERENCE
HERE IS, IF YOU WERE ISSUING A
NOTICE ASSOCIATED WITH LATE
PAYMENT OF RENT, NO MATTER WHAT
YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE, THE
LANDLORD WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
CHARGE A FEE ASSOCIATED WITH
THAT NOTICE. COUNCIL BILL 12054
BROADENS THAT PROHIBITIONTO
ANY NOTICE FEES AT ALL. SO NOT
JUST FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE
LATE PAYMENT OF RENT THAT ARE
ASSOCIATED WITH NOTICES FOR LAT
PAYMENT OF RENT, BUT NOTICES FO
ANYTHING. AN EASY EXAMPLE WOUL
BE IF THERE WAS A NOTICE, FOR
EXAMPLE, THAT THE LANDLORD
NEEDED TO ACCESS YOUR UNIT FOR
SOME REASON, FOR REPAIRS, FOR
WHATEVER REASON. THAT REQUIRES
NOTICE THAT THE LANDLORD WILL
NEED ACCESS. UNDER COUNCIL BILL
120530. A LANDLORD WOULD BE ABL
TO CHARGE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
THAT NOTICE. THIS COUNCIL BILL
120541, WOULD PROHIBIT ANY FEES
ASSOCIATED WITH THAT NOTICE
THAT THEY NEEDED TO ENTER THE
UNIT. IT IS JUST AN EXAMPLE, BU
THE PROHIBITION HERE WOULD
EXTEND TO ALL KINDS OF NOTICE
FEES. AS A GENERAL BACKGROUND
ON THE PIECE OF THIS BILL ON
NOTICE FEES, LANDLORDS ARE ABL
TO ISSUE MANY KINDS OF NOTICES
IN GENERAL AND THEN CHARGE A FE
FOR PREPARATION OR DELIVERY OF
THOSE NOTICES. CURRENTLY THERE
ARE NOT ANY REGULATIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE NOTICE
FEES. THERE IS NOT A LOT OF
DATA ABOUT WHAT THE CONTENT OF
THOSE FEES IS, EITHER. IT IS
UNCLEAR WHETHER IF LANDLORDS D
CHARGE A NOTICE FEE, IF THOSE
FEES ARE ADHERENT TO THE ACTUA
COSTS THAT THE LANDLORD INCURS
WHEN ISSUING NOTICES OR THEY
ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE COST IT
TAKES FOR THE PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT COMPANY TO COVER
THOSE NOTICES. WHAT IS THE
ACTUAL CONTENT THAT THE NOTICE
FEE IS COVERING IS NOT ENTIRELY
CLEAR. SO THAT IS THE MAIN
DIFFERENCE HERE BETWEEN THESE
TWO BILLS. THE OTHER MAIN
DIFFERENCE IS IN COUNCIL BILL
120530, THERE WAS SOME LANGUAG
THAT REQUIRED THE NOTICE TO
INCLUDE INFORMATION ABOUT WHA
LATE FEES ARE AND REMEDIES
AVAILABLE TO THE TENANT. THAT
LANGUAGE IS NO LONGER INCLUDED
IN THIS VERSION OF THE BILL.
BUT THE DEPARTMENT WOULD ENFORC
THIS LEGISLATION, THE DIRECTIO
FOR THEM TO DO RULEMAKING. TH
NOTICE ABOUT LEGISLATION IS
CLEAR TO EVERYBODY IS STILL IN
THE BILL. I WILL PAUSE REAL
QUICK, IF THERE ARE ANY
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONTENT OF
THE BILLS THEMSELVES BEFORE
MOVING TO ANY ISSUES.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, ASHA, FO
EXPLAINING THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE DRAFT WE DISCUSSED
LAST TIME AND THE CURRENT DRAFT
I HAVE SOME POINTS ON THAT, BU
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS
TIME FOR COUNCILMEMBERS TO ASK
YOU ANY QUESTIONS. I DON'T SEE
ANY IMMEDIATE TAKERS, BUT ON
THE POINT THAT ASHA JUST MADE,
CLARIFYING THE NEW VERSION
THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE WORKING
ON TODAY, CLARIFIES THE LANGUAG
FOR DELIVERING THE NOTICE.
MAKING CLEAR THAT JUNK FEES ARE
DELIVERING , FOR DELIVERING THE
NOTICE, ARE NOT PERMITTED. I
APPRECIATE YOU, ASHA, EXPLAININ
THIS IS FOR ALL NOTICES, NOT
JUST ONE PARTICULAR TYPE AND I
JUST WANTED TO REMIND PEOPLE WH
MIGHT HAVE HEARD THIS BEFORE,
BUT IN PUBLIC COMMENT, I
BELIEVE THE LAST TIME IN
COMMITTEE ON MARCH 17, ABOUT A
LANDLORD. YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS
STUFF UP. ABOUT A LANDLORD
SENDING A NOTICE ASKING FOR
PLANTS TO BE REMOTE FROM A
PATIO, DESPITE THE FACT THAT
PLANTS ON THE PATIO WERE
PERMITTED ON THE LEASE AND THEN
CHARGING THE TENANT $75 FOR
DELIVERY OF THE NOTICE. NOT FO
REMOVING THE PLANS, JUST FOR TH
NOTICE. THAT IS THE KIND OF JUN
FEE THAT THIS WOULD ADDRESS.
OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE BASE
BILL, COUNCILMEMBERS,
I DON'T SEE ANY, SO I WILL GO
AHEAD AND MOVE THE BILL, AND
OPEN THE FLOOR FOR AMENDMENTS
AND DISCUSSION. WE DO HAVE AN
AMENDMENT, AS PEOPLE HAVE NOTED
, COUNCILMEMBER NELSON PROPOSED
AMENDMENT ONE ON THE AGENDA. I
APOLOGIZE TO ANY MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC, PARTICULARLY RENTERS WH
DID NOT HAVE MORE TIME TO READ
AND CONSIDER THIS AMENDMENTS.
IT WAS ONLY SENT TO MY OFFICE A
3:30 P.M. YESTERDAY AFTERNOON,
DESPITE MONTHS OF DISCUSSION ON
THE TOPIC OF THIS LEGISLATION,
AND SEVERAL REQUESTS FROM MY
OFFICE TO MAKE AMENDMENTS
AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC IN
ADVANCE. SO I WILL MAKE A MOTIO
FOR THE BILL. I WILL NEED A
SECOND AND THEN I WILL OPEN THE
FLOOR FOR COUNCILMEMBER NELSON
TO MOVE HER AMENDMENT. I MOVED
COUNCIL BILL 120541.
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOVE
YOUR AMENDMENT NOW?
>> YES PLEASE. I MOVE AMENDMENT
ONE TO COUNCIL BILL 120541.
>> PLEASE GO AHEAD AND EXPLAIN.
>> SHOULD I LET --
>> SURE, GO AHEAD.
>> EXPLAIN IT AND THEN I'LL
FOLLOW UP.
>> ABSOLUTELY. SO POST
AMENDMENT ONE, RATHER THAN HAVE
THE LATE FEE THAT IS DESCRIBED
IN THIS LEGISLATION AT $10, IT
WOULD CHANGE THE LIMITATION TO
THE LESSER OF $50 OR 1.5% OF
THE MONTHLY RENT. SO IT WOULD
INCREASE WHAT IS CURRENTLY THE
CAP TO A MAXIMUM LATE FEE
CHARGE , SO EVEN IF 1.5% OF THE
MONTHLY RENT ENDED UP BEING MOR
THAN $50, THE MOST A LANDLORD
COULD CHARGE FOR LATE PAYMENT
OF RENT WOULD BE $50.
>> THANK YOU, USHA. STILL, ON
MARCH 16th, COUNCILMEMBERS
RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM A
75-YEAR-OLD WOMAN WHO RENTS OUT
AN A/D YOU IN HER HOME AT BELO
MARKET RATES. SHE SUPPLEMENTS
HER SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK AND
SHE SAID TO US THAT HER TENANT
REGULARLY PAYS HER RENT 8 TO 21
DAYS LATE, SO SHE FINALLY
DECIDED TO EXERCISE THE CLAUSE
IN THE RENT AGREEMENT AND IMPOS
A $10 A DAY RENT LATE FEE. AND
THAT HAD A POSITIVE EFFECT, AN
SHE WROTE US SAYING THAT IF YOU
TAKE AWAY MY ABILITY TO CHARGE
MORE THAN $10 TOTAL IN LATE
FEES, I'M QUITE SURE SHE WOULD
CONTINUE TO PAY HER RENT 8 TO 2
DAYS OR MORE LATE, AS SHE'S BEE
DOING. THIS IMPACT MY ABILITY T
TIMELY MAKE MY OWN FINANCIAL
OBLIGATIONS, AND CAUSES ME SO
MUCH UNNECESSARY STRESS. AND SO
SHE'S ECHOING WHAT WE'VE HEARD
FROM MANY OTHER LANDLORDS AND
SMALL HOUSING PROVIDERS, LARGE
HOUSING PROVIDERS, PEOPLE THAT
HAVE EMAILED US AND SPOKEN IN
COMMITTEE. AND THAT IS THAT
LANDLORDS DON'T CHARGE LATE FEE
TO MAKE MORE MONEY. THEY SPELL
OUT LATE FEES IN THEIR RENTAL
AGREEMENT IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE
TENANTS TO PAY THEIR RENT ON
TIME. NOW WE CAN AGREE TO
DISAGREE ON WHY LANDLORDS CHARG
LATE FEES, BUT IF WE ARE GOING
TO REGULATE THEM, THE LEAST WE
CAN DO IS MAKE THEM MORE FAIR,
AND MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE
RENTER'S ABILITY TO PAY. AND SO
I AM PROPOSING A PROGRESSIVE O
SLIDING SCALE OF 1.5% CAPPED AT
$50, BECAUSE WHY SHOULD A
RENTER STAYING IN A 20 YEAR OL
STUDIO APARTMENT PAY THE SAME
AMOUNT AS SOMEBODY WHO IS LIVIN
IN A NEW ONE-BEDROOM UNIT? SO
THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
FEE THAT IS CHARGED BY
NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS, SUCH
AS UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY
AND REDMOND AND KENMORE. THEY'V
ALL ESTABLISHED A 1.5% MONTHLY
FEE. AND THOSE RENTS ARE MORE
CLOSE TO SEATTLE'S RENTS AND
$50 IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT
OTHER STATES HAVE DONE, WHICH
IN COLORADO AND NEW YORK HAVE
ALSO IMPOSED A CAP OF $50. THI
IS LESS THAN WHAT DEMOCRAT STRO
PEDERSEN TRIED TO DO IN OLYMPI
THIS SESSION, WHICH WAS A $75
CAP. SO THIS 1.5 IS A -- FALL
RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF WHAT AN
EDITORIAL IN THE SEATTLE TIMES
CALLED FOR THIS PAST MONDAY, AN
THEY SAID A CAT BASED ON A
SMALL PERCENTAGE OF A TENANT'S
RENT BETWEEN 1% AND 3% WOULD
SERVE AS AN INCENTIVE FOR
RENTERS TO PAY ON TIME, YET NOT
GOUGE THOSE WHO ARE STRUGGLING
TO PAY ON TIME. SO HERE'S THE
THING -- THIS WOULD -- WHAT AR
THE REAL COSTS? MY PROPOSAL
WOULD COST A TENANT PAYING $178
A MONTH FOR RENT $26 AND $.80.
AND THAT'S THE MEDIAN COST OF
RENT ACROSS ZERO TO FIVE
BEDROOM UNITS, BASED ON THE
AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY DATA
FROM 2021. AND THAT WAS ALSO
THE NUMBER THAT WAS PRESENTED I
THE OFFICE OF HOUSING'S
PRESENTATION LAST MONDAY, AS
WELL. USING A DIFFERENT DATA
SET, FROM 2023 YEAR TO DATE,
THE RENT FOR A STUDIO APARTMENT
IS 1434 DOLLARS , SO THE FEE
WOULD BE $21.51 FOR A
ONE-BEDROOM. IT WOULD BE $29.34
SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT
REGARDLESS OF WHAT DATA SET THA
YOU USE, A TENANT WOULD HAVE TO
BE PAYING MORE THAN $3300 A
MONTH TO ALMOST HIT THE MAXIMUM
OF $50. IN FACT, MY MATH TURNS
OUT TO BE THAT FEE WOULD BE
$49.50. SO ANYWAY, I THINK THA
WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT WE ARE
TRYING TO NOT WORSEN THE
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS
WE'VE GOT ON OUR HANDS. AND A
REASONABLE, SLIDING SCALE FEE
CAPPED AT $50 WILL HELP REDUCE
THE LIKELIHOOD OF LANDLORDS
MITIGATING THE RISK OF LATE
PAYMENTS BY SPREADING IT AROUND
AND INCREASING THE RENT OF ALL
TENANTS. THAT'S JUST LIKE IT OR
NOT WHAT IS HAPPENING. AND SO,
THAT WILL DISPROPORTIONATELY,
OBVIOUSLY, IMPACT THE PEOPLE WH
CAN LEAST AFFORD TO PAY, WHO
TEND TO BE LOWER INCOME. SO I'
ASKING FOR YOUR SUPPORT FOR MY
PROPOSAL OF 1.5% MONTHLY RENT
CAPPED AT $50. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR CONSIDERATION.
>> MADAM CHAIR?
>> YES, GO AHEAD, COUNCILPERSON
JUAREZ.
>> THANK YOU, I DON'T KNOW IF
YOU HAD SEEN MY HAND. I
APOLOGIZE. FIRST OF ALL,
COUNCILMEMBERS WHO WANT AND YOU
STAFF, PARTICULARLY YOU, ASHA,
AS WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
YOUR RESEARCH. COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT, WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING
THIS SINCE PROBABLY LATE
JANUARY, AND WE PROBABLY HAD
THREE COMMITTEE HEARINGS. I
WANT TO THANK AS DCI FOR THE
INFORMATION THEY PROVIDEDTO THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND THE
PUBLIC, AND ASHA, THANK YOU FOR
GATHERING THAT INFORMATION AND
PUTTING IT IN A MEMO, AND
ANSWERING OUR QUESTIONS ABOUT
WHAT ENFORCEMENT AND HOW THAT
WOULD AFFECT AS DCI AND OUR
CASELOAD. I WANT TO THANK
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON FOR THE
SMALL LANDLORD ROUNDTABLE
DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD ON MARCH
22nd, IN HER COMMITTEE. SO WE
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY -- SINCE
JANUARY, WE'VE HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM
RENTERS, FROM ACTIVISTS, FROM
ADVOCATES, HOUSING ADVOCATES,
LEGAL SERVICE ATTORNEYS,
LANDLORDS. A LOT OF DISCUSSION,
NOT ONLY FOCUSED ON TODAY'S
TOPIC, BUT OF COURSE WHAT WE'VE
ALL BEEN DEALING WITH IS THE SK
HIGH RENTS, RENT CONTROL, THE
IMBALANCE OF POWER BETWEEN A
RENTER AND A LANDLORD. AND ALSO
WE'VE HEARD FROM EACH SIDE,
EVERY DAY, WITH EMAILS . BAD
ACTORS AS LANDLORDS AND BAD
ACTORS AS RENTERS. AND WE CAN
PROBABLY SPEND A TON OF TIME
GOING BACK AND FORTH ABOUT THAT
BUT THOSE AREN'T THE QUESTIONS
THAT WE NEED TO ANSWER TODAY. S
I WANT TO START WITH, I WILL BE
SUPPORTING COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON'S AMENDMENT, AND I'LL
TELL YOU WHY. AS THE LAW STANDS
NOW, AS WE KNOW, LANDLORDS CAN
IMPOSE A LATE FEE. WHETHER WE
AGREE WITH THAT OR NOT, THAT'S
NOT HERE NOR THERE. THEY CAN
IMPOSE LATE FEES. SO THE
QUESTION IS, HOW DO WE -- WHAT
IS THE AMOUNT OF THAT? I AGREE
THAT WE DO NEED A CAP ON RENT
LATE FEES, AND I'VE BEEN CLEAR
ON THAT SINCE COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT'S FIRST COMMITTEE
HEARING. WE DO NEED A CAP, AND
THE QUESTION IS HOW MUCH, OR HO
DO WE CALCULATE THAT CAP OR THA
FEE. OBVIOUSLY ONE SIDE IS $10.
SHOULD BE A $10 FLAT FEE.
ANOTHER ISSUE IS WHAT
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON AND OTHERS
HAVE SAID, INCLUDING OTHER
UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY AND
REDMOND IS A PERCENTAGE. AND W
KNOW THAT IN AUBURN THEY IMPOS
A $10 FLAT FEE. SO I'M GLAD YOU
BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE LEGISLATIO
THAT WAS INTRODUCED BY
REPRESENTATIVE PEDERSEN IN HOUS
BILL 1124, WHICH WOULD HAVE
CAPPED FEES AT ABOUT $75, WHICH
DID NOT PASS THE HOUSING PANEL
SO THIS IS AN ONGOING
CONVERSATION. AGAIN, THANK YOU
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT FOR
BRINGING IT TO OUR ATTENTION AN
GETTING SOME TYPE OF
LEGISLATION IN PLACE TO CAPPED
FEES. I'M SUPPORTING THE
UNDERLYING LEGISLATION AND THE
PREMISE OF HAVING A CAP ON LATE
FEES. I'M ALSO SUPPORTING
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON'S
AMENDMENT, BECAUSE I THINK WHEN
WE LOOK AT HOW WE CALCULATE TH
FEES, AND LOOK INTO OTHER
JURISDICTIONS, AND THANK YOU,
ASHA, FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER
BESIDES TALKING ABOUT REDMOND
BEING AT 1.5 AND UNINCORPORATED
KING COUNTY BEING AT 1.5% OF
MONTHLY RENT, AND BURIEN AND
AUBURN HAD A $10 CAP, WE ALSO
LOOK AT COLORADO, WHICH IS A 5%
OF THE RENT PAST DUE OR $50,
WHICHEVER IS GREATER. WE ALSO
LOOKED AT NEW YORK, WHICH IS A
5% OF MONTHLY RENT OR $50,
WHICHEVER IS LESS. BUT THAT'S
ANOTHER ISSUE BECAUSE THEY HAVE
RENT CONTROL. THERE'S
WASHINGTON, D.C., WHICH IS 5% O
AMOUNT OF RENT DUE, AND OREGON,
A REASONABLE FLAT FEE PER RENTA
PERIOD, A REASONABLE DAILY
AMOUNT WITH A DAILY MAXIMUM OF
6% OF ANY FLAT FEE CHARGED WIT
NO MORE THAN 5% OF THE PERIODIC
RENT. MINNESOTA 8% OVERDUE RENT
TEXAS, I DON'T CARE WHAT TEXAS
DOES. ILLINOIS, REASONABLE IS
$20 FOR 20% OF THE RENT,
WHICHEVER IS GREATER. SO THERE'
A BUNCH OF STATES. SO I HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY, AS I KNOW YOU ALL
DO, TO KIND OF TAKE A BALANCED
APPROACH THAT YES WE CAN IMPOSE
CAPS, WHAT SHOULD THAT AMOUNT
BE, AND WHAT IS THERE TO THE
LANDLORD AND TO THE RENTER. SO
THINK THAT THIS IS A COMMON
SENSE APPROACH. I THINK IT'S
FACT-BASED. IT'S BEEN THOROUGHL
DISCUSSED. I DON'T THINK WE CAN
TALK ABOUT IT ANYMORE, THAT A
SLIDING SCALE IS FAIR. I THINK
IT GIVES PROPER NOTICE, AND
AGAIN, COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT,
THANK YOU FOR EDITING, TAKING
OUT ALL THOSE OTHER JUNK FEES O
THE DISCUSSION OF NOT CHARGING
RENTER FOR THE PREPARATION OR
DELIVERY OF ANY OF THESE FEES.
AND ON A PERSONAL NOTE, WHICH I
NORMALLY DON'T SHARE WHEN IT
COMES TO LEGISLATION, AS YOU AL
KNOW, I KIND OF LIKE TO LOOK AT
THIS FROM A STANDPOINT OF WHAT'
COMMON SENSE GOING FORWARD FOR
EVERYBODY. AS MY WHOLE LIFE, I
HAVE BEEN A RENTER MY WHOLE LIF
MORE THAN I'VE BEEN A HOMEOWNER
I DID NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT A
MORTGAGE WAS UNTIL I WAS IN LAW
SCHOOL. SO I KNOW ABOUT WHAT
IT'S LIKE TO LIVE IN LOW INCOME
HOUSING, HUD HOMES, BEING A
RENTER, BEING KICKED OUT, BEING
EVICTED. I UNDERSTAND THAT AND
I KNOW THAT IT'S DIFFERENT NOW
WITH SKY HIGH RENTS AND WHAT WE
ARE DEALING WITH, WITH
HOMELESSNESS. AND UNDERSTANDING
THAT NOW AS A HOMEOWNER, WHICH
HAPPENED MUCH LATER IN LIFE,
THAT THERE ARE FEES ATTACHED.
AND I WANT TO APPRECIATE THE
PEOPLE THAT CAME FORWARD,
PARTICULARLY THE KING COUNTY
HOUSING FOLKS AND SOME OF THE
LANDLORDS, AND SOME OF THE
RENTERS THAT TALKED ABOUT THESE
FEES AND WHAT THE IMPACT IS TO
THEM. SO AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS
JUST A NICE, STRAIGHTFORWARD,
COMMON SENSE APPROACH, AND FOR
THAT REASON, I WILL BE
SUPPORTING COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON'S AMENDMENT. THANK YOU.
>> ICY COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS'S
HANDOUT.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MADAM
CHAIR. THANK YOU FOR CONVENING
THIS DISCUSSION AROUND THIS
REALLY IMPORTANT TOPIC. GIVEN
THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE
PANDEMIC, AND ALL THE INEQUITIE
THAT THAT BROUGHT FORWARD,
WE'VE SEEN AN INCREASED
EMPHASIS, BOTH NATIONALLY AND
REGIONALLY, AS THE PREVIOUS
COUNCILMEMBERS ATTESTED TO AND
ONE OF THE PRESENTERS DID,
EXUBERANT FEES ASSESSED WHEN
RENT IS PAST DUE, AS MUCH AS 20
OR SEVERAL HUNDRED DOLLARS IN
MANY CASES, AND WITHOUT ANY KIN
OF RESTRICTION. SO IT IS
APPROPRIATE THAT WE CONSIDER A
CAP. AS HAS BEEN NOTED, WE ARE
LITTLE BIT OF A LATE ADOPTER IN
THE REGION, GIVEN THAT SEVERAL
OTHER CITIES HAVE BEEN MOVING
TOWARD SETTING CAPS AND WE'VE
SEEN TWO MODELS THAT HAVE BEGUN
TO EMERGE, INDICATING ONE OF A
SET AMOUNT OF $10, AND THEN
REDMOND AND UNINCORPORATED KING
COUNTY SETTING A SLIDING SCALE
PERCENTAGE OF 1.5. THE SLIDING
SCALE PERCENTAGE, AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, IS ALSO UNDER
CONSIDERATION IN A COUPLE OF
OTHER KING COUNTY CITIES . I
KNOW KIRKLAND IN PARTICULAR IS
ALSO CONSIDERING 1.5 PERCENTAGE
CAP . I THINK THAT THE SLIDIN
SCALE PERCENTAGE IS AN
INITIAL STEP, IS A BETTER
POLICY. I DON'T WANT THE CITY T
BE IN A POSITION WHERE WE ARE
PERIODICALLY HAVING DISCUSSIONS
ABOUT WHAT WE RESET , THE
CERTAIN NUMBER IN THIS CASE, $1
TO, AND WHEN WE REVISIT THAT
NUMBER. AND SET IT OVER TIME.
BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT WOULD
BE SUSTAINABLE TO KEEP THE
NUMBER AT $10 IN PERPETUITY,
WHEREAS A PERCENTAGE I THINK
IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE
CONSISTENT AS A POLICY AND
SUBJECT TO BROADER
REEVALUATION AS WE ASSESS THE
IMPACT OF THE POLICY AND WANT
TO TIGHTEN IT OR LOOSEN IT.
1.5% IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT
OTHER JURISDICTIONS IN THE
REGION ARE DOING. IT'S ONE OF
THE EMERGING, MORE DOMINANT
MODELS THAT WE'VE BEEN SEEING,
IN ADDITION TO THE $10 MODEL,
WHICH WE ARE ALSO CONSIDERING
HERE TODAY, AND IT'S
CONSIDERABLY LOWER AT 1.5% THAN
SOME OF THE PERCENTAGE
REGULATIONS THAT WE ARE SEEING
NATIONALLY, OR BEING CONSIDERED
THE STATE. THAT IS STILL A
SIGNIFICANT PROGRESSIVE STEP
FORWARD. FOR THAT REASON TODAY,
I'M SUPPORTING THE 1.5 PERCENT
AMENDMENT THAT'S BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE, AND I WON'T EXTEND
MY REMARKS ANY FURTHER, AND
TURN IT BACK OVER TO YOU, MADAM
CHAIR.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MORALES, DID
YOU WANT TO SPEAK?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR . WE KNOW
THAT LANDLORDS HAVE AN
OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE THIS
WRITTEN NOTICE. I SHOULD START
BY SAYING I APPRECIATE ALL THE
PANELISTS WHO HAVE COME TO ALL
OF THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS, TO
SHARE THEIR LIVED EXPERIENCE AN
TO SHARE THEIR PROFESSIONAL
EXPERIENCE WITH THESE ISSUES
AND HOW THESE FEES CAN REALLY
IMPACT SOMEBODY'S ABILITY TO
STAY HOUSED OR MAKE SOME REALLY
TOUGH DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT ELS
IS NOT GOING TO GET PAID IN
ORDER THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO PAY
THEIR RENT. AND TENANTS
SHOULDN'T HAVE TWO PAY FOR AN
INVESTOR'S OBLIGATION TO
MAINTAIN THEIR INVESTMENT. I
HAVE TO SAY THE FACT THAT WE
EVEN TALK ABOUT HOUSING IN THIS
WAY , AS SOMEBODY'S INVESTMENT,
AS SOMEBODY'S BUSINESS THAT THE
ARE RUNNING IS PART OF THE
PROBLEM HERE, IN MY MIND. IF
HOUSING IS A HUMAN RIGHT, WE
SHOULDN'T BE, DEFYING THIS. BUT
IN ANY CASE, LATE FEES JUST
ANALYZE PEOPLE WHO ARE
OBVIOUSLY STRUGGLING TO PAY TH
RENT ALREADY. AND I THINK THAT
WE ARE MAKING AN IMPORTANT
DECISION HERE TODAY ABOUT HOW T
ENSURE PROTECTION FOR PEOPLE
WHO ARE TRYING TO KEEP A ROOF
OVER THEIR HEADS. WE KNOW THAT
WAGES IN THE CITY HAVE NOT KEPT
UP WITH THE HIGH COST OF RENT
AND THIS IS PART OF THE
STRUGGLE THAT WE ARE DEALING
WITH AS A CITY, IS HOW WE START
TO CATCH UP WITH HOUSING
PRODUCTION AND DO IT IN A WAY
THAT ENSURES AFFORDABILITY,
HOPEFULLY PERMANENT
AFFORDABILITY FOR PEOPLE, SO
THAT THEY AREN'T CONSTANTL AT
RISK OF GETTING PUSHED OUT OF
THEIR HOMES. I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT THAT WE CAP THIS FEE
AT $10, SO THAT WE MAYBE COVER
THE COST OF ACTUALLY HAVING TO
SEND AN EMAIL. BUT I DON'T THIN
THAT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR HIGHER FEES FOR SOMETHING
LIKE THIS IS REALLY GOING TO
SOLVE A PROBLEM FOR LANDLORDS.
AND I THINK IT WILL CREATE LOTS
OF PROBLEMS FOR RENTERS. SO I
WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE
AMENDMENT AND LOOK FORWARD TO
SUPPORTING THE UNDERLYING BILL.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES. I DO HAVE POINTS,
OBVIOUSLY, BUT COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES, DID YOU HAVE YOUR HAND
UP AGAIN?
>> YES, I APOLOGIZE. YES I DO
HAVE IT. I JUST WANT TO SAY THI
QUICKLY. TO TALK TO
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES, I DID NO
MEAN TO DISS HER HOME STATE OF
TEXAS. IT WAS JUST TOO LENGTHY
TO GO THROUGH WHAT THEIR
CALCULATIONS WERE. SO YEAH HIM
APOLOGIES TO THE LONE STAR
STATE.
>> I DO HAVE POINTS TO RESPOND
BUT I WANTED TO INVITE
PANELISTS, IF YOU WANTED TO
RESPOND ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT.
THE POSITIONS THE COUNCILMEMBER
HAVE TAKEN.
>> YES I DO. I THINK ONE OF THE
THINGS WE SEE, EVEN IF YOU HAV
LIVED EXPERIENCE, IF YOU SAY I
KNOW WHAT IT FEELS LIKE, I'VE
BEEN THERE, DONE THAT, YOU
SHOULD BE SUPPORTING THIS BILL
SERIOUSLY. YOU SHOULD BE. I'M
STRUCK BY REASONINGS OF LET'S
APPEASE THE LANDLORDS AGAIN.
HERE'S THE THING. THESE ARE
ACTUAL PEOPLE. THE FEES, THE
OUTRAGES INCREASE IN RENT, IT
IS SO UNAFFORDABLE, BUT PEOPLE
ARE STRUGGLING PER GO WHAT'S A
$10? YOU HAD EDMUND STATE THE
FACTS. YOU HAD THE OFFICE STATE
THE FACTS. THIS IS SUCH A MINUT
THING THAT YOU HAVE THESE
LANDLORDS WHO JUST LIKE --
LET'S JUST KEEP STICKING IT TO
THEM. I'M GOING TO TELL YOU
ABOUT THE LEGISLATION THAT IS O
THE BOOKS RIGHT NOW. A LOT OF
IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN BY
LANDLORDS. OUR JOB RIGHT NOW IS
TO UNDO SOME OF THESE THINGS
THAT HAVE BEEN OPPRESSING THE
PEOPLE. I CAN'T HARDLY SIT IN M
SEAT, WHO CARES ABOUT TEXAS? WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT WASHINGTON
STATE. LET'S STICK TO WASHINGTO
STATE. THE CITY OF SEATTLE, AND
SET A PRECEDENT , BURIEN AND
AUBURN ARE DOING IT. SO I DON'T
KNOW, THIS MOST PROGRESSIVE
CITY IN THE WORLD THEY SAY ,
SEATTLE, WHICH IS NOT. BECAUSE
WE'VE GOT COUNCILMEMBERS WHO AR
OPPRESSING THE PEOPLE. I'M
ASKING THAT YOU ALL TAKE A LOOK
AT THIS BILL AGAINST THIS
LEGISLATION AND PASS IT.
>> THANK YOU, DO OTHER SPEAKERS
WANT TO SPEAK? EDMUND, DO YOU
WANT TO SPEAK?
>> I THINK WE ARE TALKING ABOU
A BALANCE OF POWER HERE. I KEEP
HEARING YOU SAY WE WANT TO MAKE
THIS THEIR FOR THE LANDLORDS AN
THE RENTERS, BUT REMEMBER THERE
ARE VERY FEW LANDLORDS AND
THERE'S TONS, OVER 50% OF PEOPL
ARE RENTERS. SO IF SOMEONE IS
STRUGGLING TO PAY $2000 A MONTH
IN RENT AND THEN IT'S LATE AND
THEY'VE GOT TO COME UP WITH
ANOTHER, WHAT IS IT, $30? THAT'
VERY DIFFICULT FOR THEM,
WHEREAS IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTE
TO THE LANDLORD. THEY ARE JUST
GOING TO GET MORE MONEY. IT'S
JUST COMPLETELY GRATUITOUS. I
WOULD REALLY, REALLY URGE YOU T
VOTE DOWN THIS AMENDMENT. I
THINK CAPPING AT $10 IS ENOUGH.
AS I SAID BEFORE, RENTERS
ALREADY HAVE INCENTIVE TO PAY O
TIME, AND IF THEY DON'T, WE'VE
HEARD ALL THE REASONS WHY, AND
PEOPLE WORK IT OUT. SO PLEASE,
WOULD ASK YOU TO UNDERSTAND THA
THIS IS NOT FAIR IN ANY WAY,
THAT $10 IS REALISTIC. I THINK
WE HEARD THAT LANDLORDS ARE
MAKING 30% PROFIT NOW. THIS IS
AN INCREDIBLE INVESTMENT. AND
HOUSING PROVIDERS, NO, THESE
PEOPLE ARE IN IT FOR THE
PROPHET. THANK YOU.
>> I REALLY RESPECT EVERYTHING
THAT THE PRIOR COUNCILMEMBERS
AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT SAID. I D
WANT TO KNOW, I WORKED ON
LEGISLATION AND ORDINANCES LIKE
THIS IN ALL THE CITIES THAT WER
EN VOGUE, AND I DO KNOW THAT
SEATAC NEXT WEEK IS CONSIDERING
AN ORDINANCE LIKE THIS THAT HAS
A $10 LATE FEE AND WE HAVEN'T
HEARD A SINGLE COUNCILMEMBER
EXPRESSED RESISTANCE TO THIS
ISSUE. WHEN WE DID THIS IN
BURIEN AND AUBURN, IT WAS
SIMILARLY COMMON SENSE. WEEDED
HERE VERY SIMILAR LANGUAGE. I
THINK WE HAD HEARD PREVIOUSLY
FROM THE REDMOND CITY COUNCIL,
HONESTLY FROM MORE OF THE
RIGHTWARD SIDE OF KING COUNTY
COUNCIL AND IT WAS COMING UP
FROM AN ANGLE THAT IT'S HARD TO
NOT HERE. THERE IS A LITTLE BIT
OF DISCONNECT FOR SOME OF THE
RENTERS AND A LOT OF THE LOWER
INCOME CONSTITUENTS THAT PEOPLE
ARE WORKING WITH. BECAUSE WHEN
WE WORKED WITH AUBURN, WE WORKE
WITH SEATAC AND WE WORKED WITH
BURIEN, THIS IS JUST COMMON
SENSE. RENTERS SHOULD NOT BE
PAYING FOR THAT TYPE OF
PENALTY. IT'S A PENALTY ON
POVERTY, AND IT'S JUST HARD TO
NOT HEAR THAT WHEN WE GO BACK T
THIS PERCENTAGE ISSUE, THAT WE
ARE REALLY KIND OF INVOKING A
KIND OF DISCONNECT WITH WHAT
RENTERS ARE ACTUALLY GOING
THROUGH, AND WE DIDN'T FIND THI
TYPE OF ISSUE WHEN WE WERE
WORKING IN SORT OF A HIGHER OR
LOWER INCOME AREAS IN SOUTH KIN
COUNTY.
>> I WANT TO NOTE THAT A LOT OF
THE THINGS I'VE HEARD ABOUT
RENTERS HAVE BEEN REALLY
INFANTILIZING. RENTERS ARE NOT
CHILDREN. I MEAN WE HAVE
CHILDREN, BUT WE ARE NOT
CHILDREN. WE CAN MAKE OUR OWN
DECISIONS. WE ARE WORKING SO
HARD TO STAY HOUSED. WE DON'T
NEED INCENTIVE TO PAY OUR RENT
ON TIME. WE PAY IT WHEN WE HAVE
IT. WE PRIORITIZE IT ABOVE ALL
OTHER BILLS . $50 IS A LOT OF
MONEY FOR SOMEBODY WHO IS LOW
INCOME. SO WHO IS THIS GOING TO
HARM THE MOST? IT'S OBVIOUSLY
THE LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES,
BLACK AND INDIGENOUS
COMMUNITIES, WORKING FAMILIES
IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE CAPPED AT
$10. $50 IS TOO MUCH, AND A
PERCENTAGE IS, AS ADMIN POINTED
OUT EARLIER, HARD TO CALCULATE,
WHICH CAN PUT YOU FURTHER
BEHIND, NOT JUST FOR THE
FINANCIAL INDICATION, BUT ALSO
JUST THE CONFUSION AND THE TIME
IT TAKES TO UNTANGLE IT.
>> I THINK THAT WHAT THIS IS
REALLY FUNDAMENTALLY COMING DOW
TO IS WHO THESE COUNCILMEMBERS
ARE REPRESENTING RIGHT NOW. IF
WE ARE LOOKING AT THE NUMBER O
VOTERS IN THESE DISTRICTS, WE
KNOW THE MAJORITY OF THESE
PEOPLE ARE RENTERS. SO WHO
ELECTED THE CITY COUNCIL? WAS I
THE RENTERS OF THIS AREA OR WAS
IT THE LANDLORDS? BECAUSE THE
REPRESENTATION THAT I AM SEEING
RIGHT NOW IS CLEARLY GOING IN
THE FAVOR OF THE LANDLORDS,
DESPITE THE IMMENSE AMOUNT OF
DATA THAT HAS BEEN SHOWN TODAY
TO BLATANTLY SAY THAT, TO CALL
1.5% MONTHLY RENT FEE EQUITABLE
IS JUST FACTUALLY INACCURATE.
ONLY 2% OF SEATTLE RENTING
UNITS ARE LESS THAN $2000. SO
LESS THAN 2% OF SEATTLE RENTIN
UNITS WOULD RECEIVE A $30 LATE
FEE, A $30 LATE FEE . I DON'T
KNOW IF YOU CAN POINT ME TO A
PLETHORA OF APARTMENTS FOR LESS
THAN $2000 IN SEATTLE. I WOULD
LOVE THAT. THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
I'M NOT SEEING THAT. $30 LATE
FEE IS A MASSIVE AMOUNT FOR
WORKING PEOPLE, IF WE ARE
LOOKING AT THE PREVIOUS THING
WHICH WAS $50 IS THE AVERAGE
GROCERY BILL FOR FOLKS ON
ASSISTANCE. SO THAT'S LEAVING
$20 LEFT FOR THAT WEEK, IF WE
ARE GOING TO PUT IT INTO REAL,
HARD CONCRETE NUMBERS . SO WE
ARE TALKING, AND THE CONTINUAL
SORT OF IGNORANCE OF THE FACT
THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING
IN HIGHER RENT UNITS ARE NOT
HIGHER INCOME TENANTS . AS A
PERSON WHO HAS HAD THE SAME
INCOME FOR ABOUT THE PAST SIX
YEARS, MY INCOME HAS STAYED THE
EXACT SAME. MY BILLS, MY RENT
HAVE ALL INCREASED BY A
CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT. I THINK
THAT THAT'S THE SAME FOR ALL
PEOPLE HERE LIVING IN SEATTLE.
WE HAVE NOT SEEN AN INCREASE. S
TO JUST COMPLETELY IGNORE THE
FACTS HERE IS SHOWING ME THAT
COUNCILMEMBERS I THINK HAVE TH
OPPORTUNITY TODAY TO SHOW
WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE
REPRESENTING THEIR CONSTITUENTS
THE PEOPLE WHO PREDOMINANTLY
LIVE IN THE CITY, OR THE
LANDLORDS. WHEN WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT A BALANCE HERE, WE CANNOT
IN ANY WAY ATTEND THAT
LANDLORDS AND TENANTS ARE ON
EQUAL FOOTING. SO WE NEED
COUNCILMEMBERS TO STAND WITH
RENTERS, TO BE ABLE TO FULLY
BACK THIS UP. AND YEAH,
ABSOLUTELY A SHAME, I THINK.
>> CAN I SAY SOMETHING,
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT? THERE IS
NO APARTMENT BUILDING OR UNIT
THAT IS UNDER $2000. WHERE DO
YOU GET YOUR DATA? EVERYTHING I
OVER $2000? SO WHEN YOU SEE
THEM SENT ME -- YOU MIGHT PROVE
ME WRONG. BUT I DON'T KNOW THA
IT EVEN EXISTS IN THE CITY OF
SEATTLE.
>> THANK YOU TO ALL THE
PANELISTS WHO RESPONDED TO BOT
THE QUESTION OF THE AMENDMENT
ITSELF, AND ALSO THE POSITIONS
THAT THE COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE
TAKEN. I WILL TRY NOT TO REPEA
TOO MANY POINTS, BECAUSE I THIN
VERY IMPORTANT POINTS HAVE BEEN
MADE BY THE PANELISTS AND ALSO
BY COUNCILMEMBER MORALES. THANK
YOU FOR SAYING THAT YOU ARE
GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THIS
AMENDMENT, AS AM I. I DO -- I
THINK ELLEN USED THE WORDS
STAGGERING. I DO FIND IT
ABSOLUTELY STAGGERING THAT IN
THE FACE OF SUCH INCREDIBLY
SYSTEMATIC DATA COLLECTION, AL
THE FACTS THAT ARE BEING
PRESENTED, NOT JUST STRONG, AS
COUNCILMEMBERS LOVE, DEMOCRATS
LOVE TO SAY ROBUST. THEY MAKE
ROBUST CASE. WE'VE ALSO DONE
WHAT'S CALLED STAKEHOLDERING.
THESE POLITICIANS LIKE TO SAY
STAKEHOLDERING. WE HAVE DONE SO
CALLED STAKEHOLDERING, WHICH IN
MY VIEW IS BRINGING THE VOICES
OF RENTERS AND LANDLORDS WHO
ACTUALLY ARE GOING TO BE HONEST
ABOUT THE PROBLEM. AND I DO FIN
IT ABSOLUTELY STAGGERING THAT I
THE FACE OF SUCH INCREDIBLE
NUMBERS OF FACTS THAT
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON HAS BROUGH
THIS AMENDMENT FORWARD AND THAT
COUNCILPERSON WARRIORS AND
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS ARE GOING T
VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT. I ALSO WAN
TO SAY THIS ARGUMENT THAT
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS PUT FORWARD
THAT -- THE WAY HE SAID IT IS
OBVIOUSLY $10 WOULD NEED TO BE
REVISED IN THE FUTURE. WIFE? WH
WOULD THAT NEED TO BE REVISED?
IT'S NOT WAGES THAT NEED TO BE
KEPT UP WITH INFLATION, SO YOU
GET A FLAT RATE INCREASE. IF TH
BOSS SAYS TRY TO NEGOTIATE A
FLAT RATE WITH THE UNION FOR
WAGES OF THE WORKERS, THEN THAT
WOULD BE A REASONABLE THING TO
SAY. WE WOULD NEED TO REVISIT
THAT BECAUSE THE COST OF LIVING
IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT AT A
DIFFERENT MOMENT. BUT THIS IS
NOT SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE
REVISED IN ANY WAY. AS A MATTER
OF FACT, AS EDMUND SAID, WE
DON'T EVEN NEED -- THERE
SHOULDN'T BE ANY LATE FEES
REALLY BECAUSE IT IS OF NO
CONSEQUENCE WHETHER TENANTS PAY
THEIR LANDLORDS RENT . AS MADDI
SAID, YOU RODON AFTER SHE SPOKE
WHY WOULD YOU CHOOSE TO BE LATE
PAYING RENT BUT YOU KNOW YOU
HAVE TO PAY ANYWAY? YOU ONLY
HAVE TWO LOSE, NOT TO GAIN, IF
YOU DON'T PAY RENT ON TIME,
BECAUSE IT AFFECTS YOUR CREDIT
SCORE, IT AFFECTS YOUR RENTAL
HISTORY. AND IF YOU KEEP NOT
PAIN, THEN YOU ARE GOING TO GET
EVICTED. SO IT'S JUST A STRAW
MAN ARGUMENT TO SAY THAT THERE
ARE POLICIES, SOME SOUND POLICY
REASON TO NOT GO FOR $10,
BECAUSE THAT IT WILL NEED TO BE
REVISED. THE ONLY REASON THAT
WOULD NEED TO BE REVISED IS IF
IT'S A LANDLORD SUPPORTING
DOMINATED COUNCIL, WHICH IS
PROBABLY GOING TO BE STARTING
NEXT YEAR, AND THEN YOU ARE
GOING TO START TRYING TO REPEAL
THE RENTERS RIGHTS THAT WE HAVE
WON. BUT THERE IS NO ACTUAL
POLICY REASON TO REVISE IT IF
WE WERE $10. SO IT REALLY, TRUL
IS AN IMPORTANT EXAMPLE. ONE,
IT'S AN IMPORTANT EXAMPLE OF HO
EVEN COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, WHO
AS PEOPLE STATED, VOTED AGAINST
THE BAN ON CASH DISCRIMINATION
ALSO, WHICH WAS ANOTHER GLARING
EXAMPLE OF A NONPROGRESSIVE VOT
BUT THAT EVEN THAT AMENDMENT
HAD TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT HOW
MUCH RENTERS ORGANIZE , THE STA
HEALTHY COALITION, ALSO FOR THE
ADVOCACY THAT HAS BEEN DONE
COLLECTIVELY THAT FORCED THESE
PRO-LANDLORD TO CAP AT $50. I
ALSO WANTED TO ECHO WHAT KATE
SAID. $50 IS A LOT OF MONEY BUT
MANY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. TH
PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE
DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTED BY
THAT IS HOUSEHOLDS OF COLOR,
ESPECIALLY WOMEN LEAD SINGLE
FAMILIES, SINGLE PARENT
HOUSEHOLDS OF COLOR. THEY ARE
GOING TO BE THE MOST AFFECTED.
AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT
COUNCILMEMBERS WHO ARE GOING TO
VOTE YES ON THIS AMENDMENT HAVE
THE RIGHT TO CALL THEMSELVES
PROGRESSIVE. IT IS NOT A
PROGRESSIVE THING TO VOTE IN
FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT. BUT
I'M NOT GOING TO REPEAT OTHER
POINTS. I THINK IT IS JUST TO
SAY, THOUGH, THAT IT IS
GRATUITOUS. IT IS GRATUITOUS T
SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT, BECAUSE
YOU KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE T
CAP IT, BECAUSE RENTERS ARE
DEMANDING IT, BUT YOU ARE GOING
TO SQUEEZE OUT, IN OTHER WORDS,
NICKEL AND DIMING RENTERS AS
MUCH AS YOU CAN. AND THERE'S
NOTHING HONORABLE IN THAT. I'M
SORRY. SO I BELIEVE THAT WE HAV
SPOKEN AND COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE
SAID THIS, YES, BUT
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, YOU GET
THE FINAL WORD AS FAR AS THE
AMENDMENT IS CONCERNED, BECAUSE
YOU ARE THE SPONSOR.
>> NO, I'M GOOD . THANK YOU.
>> OKAY. SO I WILL -- BECAUSE W
HAVE HAD A THOROUGH DISCUSSION,
I WILL HAVE TED, WHO IS THE
COMMITTEE CLERK, TO PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL-ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT
ONE.
>> THIS IS THE VOTE ON THE
AMENDMENT, NOT THE UNDERLYING
LEGISLATION. COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MORALES?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER WARREN IS.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> YES.
>> THREE IN FAVOR, TWO AGAINST.
THE AMENDMENT PASSES.
>> THANK YOU, TED . NOW UNLESS
COUNCILMEMBERS WANT TO BRING
MORE REGRESSIVE AMENDMENTS, I
DON'T SEE ANY ZOOM HANDS UP. I
WILL ASK COUNCILMEMBERS ONE
LAST TIME, ARE THERE ANY OTHER
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE
LEGISLATION AS A WHOLE? I DON'T
SEE ANYTHING, SO I WILL ASK
TED TO CALL THE ROLE PLEASE O
COUNCIL BILL 120501.
>> VOTE ON COUNCIL BILL 120541
AS AMENDED. COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MORALES?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER WARREN IS.
>> AYE.
>> FIVE IN FAVOR.
>> THANK YOU, TED. AND THE
COUNCIL BILL AS AMENDED PASSES
AND WILL BE ON THE APRIL 18th
FULL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. JUS
BEFORE CLOSING, I WANTED TO
CLARIFY A COUPLE OF OTHER
THINGS. ONE IS COUNCILMEMBERS
WHO VOTED IN FAVOR OF THAT
SHAMEFUL AMENDMENT SAID THAT IT
WOULD MAKE SENSE TO HAVE A
SLIDING SCALE. LET'S BE CLEAR,
SLIDING SCALE IMPLIES THAT A
VARYING RATE IS PROGRESSIVE. YO
CAN'T USE WHATEVER WORD YOU
WANT TO DESCRIBE YOUR AMENDMENT
YOUR AMENDMENT IS REGRESSIVE AN
ANTI-WORKING PEOPLE. BUT IT'S
NOT A SLIDING SCALE. AS KATE
SAID, THERE ARE MANY HOUSEHOLDS
THAT ARE FORCED TO LIVE IN HOME
THAT RENT FOR GREATER THAN
$2000, BECAUSE 55% OF THE
APARTMENT, RENTAL APARTMENTS IN
SEATTLE ARE RENT FOR GREATER
THAN $2000, AND THEN THERE ARE
FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN THAT ARE
FORCED TO LIVE IN HOMES THAT
HAVE MORE ROOMS, BECAUSE THAT'S
THE SPACE THEY NEED, AND END UP
PAYING MORE THAN $3000. THERE'S
NOTHING PROGRESSIVE ABOUT --
IT'S NOT A SLIDING SCALE. IT'S
PRO-LANDLORD AMENDMENT. AND AT
THE SAME TIME, I WANT TO
REEMPHASIZE THAT WE WOULD NOT
HAVE BEEN ABLE TO WIN A CAP ON
LATE FEES HAD WE NOT HAD
RENTERS GET ORGANIZED, HAD WE
NOT HAD COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
INCLUDING THE HOUSING JUSTICE
PROJECT , THE SEATTLE TENANTS
UNION, SOCIALIST ALTERNATIVE,
MANY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, MANY
OF WHOM ARE ALREADY PART OF TH
COALITION ADVOCATING FOR IT. MY
DEEPEST THANKS ALSO GO TO THE
RANK AND FILE RENTERS, UNION
MEMBERS, WORKERS WHO HAVE SPOKE
IN MULTIPLE COMMITTEES. I ALSO
URGE YOU TO COME AND SPEAK AT
THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON
APRIL 18th, BECAUSE IT'S NOT
DONE YET. WE STILL NEED THE
LEGISLATION TO PASS. AND JUST
LAST BUT NOT LEAST, I HOPE ALL
RENTERS AND WORKING PEOPLE AND
UNION MEMBERS WHO ARE LISTENING
TO THIS OR WILL BE LISTENING T
THIS, WATCHING THE VIDEO,
SEATTLE CHANNEL VIDEO,
UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN WE WIN, W
WIN BECAUSE WE FIGHT FOR IT, AN%
SOMETIMES WE DON'T WIN
EVERYTHING WE ARE FIGHTING FOR.
BUT IF WE DIDN'T FIGHT, WE
WOULDN'T WIN ANYTHING AT ALL,
AND IT WOULD BE A MUCH WORSE
SITUATION, AS WE HEARD THE
STORIES , MANY RENTERS ARE
FACING HORRENDOUS SITUATIONS OF
LATE FEES. SO IF THIS BILL
PASSES CITY COUNCIL, THEN IT
WILL BE AN ENORMOUS STEP
FORWARD FOR RENTERS, AND THE
ONLY PEOPLE WHO GET TO CLAIM
CREDIT FOR IT IS RANK AND FILE
RENTERS AND ALL THE COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS THAT ADVOCATED FO
IT. THANK YOU. AND -- I DON'T
SEE ANY REQUESTS TO SPEAK, SO I
WILL GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN THE
MEETING. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> [ MUSIC ]