Council May Wait Until Next Year to Roll Back Renter Protections; Community Police Commission Dismissed Consultant Who Advised Them to Fix Harms They Caused

1. City Councilmember Cathy Moore reportedly plans to wait until after this year’s fall budget season—which, practically speaking, means until next year—to introduce legislation to roll back renter protections adopted by the previous city council. So far, we’ve heard Moore plans to introduce legislation that would roll back:

• A law requiring landlords to accept the first applicant who qualifies (under criteria set by the landlord, which can include standards like a minimum credit score). Landlords opposed this legislation, sponsored by former councilmember Lisa Herbold, because it prevents them from using vibes-based criteria such as “questionable character traits” and “who will best fit into the building’s community,” which can be a de facto form of discrimination.

• A law barring larger landlords from evicting their tenants between December 1 and March 1, which passed the council on a unanimous vote (with Debora Juarez and Lorena González absent) in February 2020. Landlords said this took away their right to evict nonpaying tenants who say “It’s winter. You can’t evict me.”

• A law requiring landlords to allow immediate family members (or one roommate, who can be kicked out if they don’t pass a screening test) to live with a tenant, within existing occupancy limits. Landlords have claimed this law results in overcrowding and takes away their right to screen family members, such as a spouse or parent, and reject their tenancy.

Moore is reportedly also considering legislation thatwould allow landlords to recover fees from groups like the Housing Justice Project, which provides representation for tenants facing eviction, for “frivolous” defenses against eviction

Asked about forthcoming renter-related legislation, Moore’s office responded, “Discussions around this topic are evolving and when we have something more definitive to share we will do so.”

 

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

2. PubliCola reported last week on problems at the city’s Community Police Commission, a staffed, independent city commission that is supposed to engage with Seattle residents from diverse communities and develop policy recommendations based on that engagement. Our story described a sparsely attended meeting in April about the then-upcoming police union contract; the meeting devolved into shouting and a debate about what kind of behavior is appropriate for the public and the commission.

A consultant hired to facilitate future public meetings, AV Consulting, issued a report after the meeting that made recommendations about how the CPC could improve its relationship with the community, which PubliCola obtained through a records request this week.

In the memo, AV Consulting identified a number of issues that came up during the meeting—including a need for more transparency, a lack of immigrant and refugee representation on the commission, the need to let community engagement staffers lead engagement work, and the importance of acknowledging and responding to community members’ concerns.

This last recommendation reflected an uncomfortable confrontation during the meeting, when Donnita Martin, whose son was killed during the 2020 protests after paramedics refused to go into the CHOP zone on Capitol Hill, asked the CPC what they were doing to help families like hers. Instead of responding to her question, CPC co-chair Joel Merkel thanked her for her testimony while Executive Director Cali Ellis sat silently and smiled.

AV Consulting recommended letting community members speak first at meetings, providing more transparency into the commission’s actions and budget, and being more respectful of people who have lost loved ones to violence, including police violence. “Demonstrate EMPATHY for lost loved ones FIRST in any reply. Acknowledge, validate, and respond,” they wrote.

The consultant also recommended a process of identifying past harms the CPC has caused to communities and addressing them to “rebuild trust with the community.”

Ellis responded to the report by informing AV Consulting, in an email PubliCola also obtained through a records request, that their services would no longer be needed. “At this time, we have decided not to move forward with further facilitation work,” she wrote. Ellis, who has been permanent director since last November, is currently on administrative leave, and the CPC is searching for another executive director.

6 thoughts on “Council May Wait Until Next Year to Roll Back Renter Protections; Community Police Commission Dismissed Consultant Who Advised Them to Fix Harms They Caused”

  1. Well, I don’t think anyone can argue that this city council won’t go down in history. Seattle has never had such “moderates” that would both rescind laws so landlords can raise rents as high as they want, and also push to cut the wages of Seattle residents to a point they have to chose between such things as healthcare and putting food on the table. What best of all possible worlds we have. If we could just silence those durn progressives, it’s all their fault.

    1. For your info – rents are falling in Seattle due to overabundant supply.

      1. Do you have any data, any listings or ads from 3/6/12 months ago to compare to current rents? I can assure you that rents are not dropping out here in D5, so I have my doubts they are in the more desirable locations like Cap Hill or the U District.

  2. I’d love to see those tenant protections rolled back. Many tenants will too. Especially those paying top dollar in new supposedly secure buildings only to be subject to dangerous problem tenants that cannot be evicted. This has happened multiple times in multiple buildings even to the point of building security guards almost murdered just doing their job. Tenants should be safe in their home and landlords cannot keep them safe with these laws.

    1. Sounds to me like those tenants have some issues with their management of their “supposedly secure” buildings, nothing to do with any tenant protection laws. My guess is it’s the usual “we’re tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas” excuse.

    2. I’m actually for returning to all additional tenants being screened, including immediate adult family members. If all tenants initially applying need to be screened, then all additional tenants being added to a lease should be as well.

Comments are closed.