Why I left Seattle - Rent Moratorium Extended - Jan 2022 & Beyond

16 Replies

Why I left Seattle - Rent Moratorium Extended - Jan 2022 & Beyond

There just is no sanity left in Seattle.

Seattle’s COVID-19 eviction moratoriums extended into January 2022 by Mayor Jenny Durkan

Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan issued an executive order Tuesday extending the city's COVID-19 eviction moratoriums through Jan. 15, 2022. Updated 1:22 pm

This is really sad, because it hurts vulnerable populations and increases homelessness. The mayor just sent a message to landlords that they should never rent to anyone who is high risk. This hurts low income people and people with mistakes in their past. It disproportionally affects minorities. Seattle apparently only wants landlords to rent to high paid Amazon professionals. The problem with eviction moratoriums is that threat of eviction is the only thing that will motivate some tenants to pay. If they can't be evicted, they don't see any need to get rent assistance. It also ignores the fact that some percentage of those 60,000 people are not eligible for assistance because they had no hardship. 

It is interesting that the executive order applies to commercial real estate too. 

A more common sense policy would allow evictions to proceed, but would direct the courts to delay evictions for tenants who could prove they qualified and applied for assistance. This protects landlords and helps people with legitimate hardship. 

The other question here is what role government incompetence plays in this situation? My state was handing out assistance checks to tenants in the fall of 2020. A year later and her state still can't get money out? 

Hopefully a landlord group will challenge this in court. Nobody gets evicted in the middle of winter, so we all know this will get extended.

Originally posted by @John T. :

@Joe Splitrock Good Landlord rule "never rent to anyone who is high risk."

 I agree, but there are landlords who specialize in high risk tenants. Their business model works by charging this group a higher rent, say 30% higher. If the tenant defaults, they could evict and have it re-rented in two months. Figure two months rent and eviction cost is about 20% of annual rents, so by charging 30% more they are covering the risk exposure. Once you add risk of a 2 year moratorium to the mix, there is no risk equation that works. Therefore all the landlords who focus on high risk tenants either sell or change strategy to low risk tenants.

Originally posted by @Joe Splitrock :

This is really sad, because it hurts vulnerable populations and increases homelessness. The mayor just sent a message to landlords that they should never rent to anyone who is high risk. This hurts low income people and people with mistakes in their past. It disproportionally affects minorities. Seattle apparently only wants landlords to rent to high paid Amazon professionals. The problem with eviction moratoriums is that threat of eviction is the only thing that will motivate some tenants to pay. If they can't be evicted, they don't see any need to get rent assistance. It also ignores the fact that some percentage of those 60,000 people are not eligible for assistance because they had no hardship. 

It is interesting that the executive order applies to commercial real estate too. 

A more common sense policy would allow evictions to proceed, but would direct the courts to delay evictions for tenants who could prove they qualified and applied for assistance. This protects landlords and helps people with legitimate hardship. 

The other question here is what role government incompetence plays in this situation? My state was handing out assistance checks to tenants in the fall of 2020. A year later and her state still can't get money out? 

Hopefully a landlord group will challenge this in court. Nobody gets evicted in the middle of winter, so we all know this will get extended.

 A parallel article says that there is a shortage of workers. Businesses are finding it difficult to operate fully without being staffed.

At the low to medium income of life, if you don't have to pay rent you don't have to work as much. And, Since there has been so much unemployment money given out, & no rent to pay, people have been trained they don't have to work.

The last of the unemplyment checks for a lot of people have now been sent this week. In a couple of weeks to a month things will get dicey for a whole lot of people with no money. I think the party may be over.
 

This is what happens when an extreme side of any party take hold of the governing body. I considered myself a democrat but I have been voting all republicans just to even things out lately. 

It's to a point, on NextDoor, when a business says they are closing for good, someone pops in and divulges who the property owner is and how much they are charging for rent and basically blackballing the property owner for charging the rent. I don't own any commercial property but I was shocked to find this Extreme Socialism leaning mentality in our state of WA.

New York is going to contest Seattle for the "most insane market" moniker, except in our case it's the entire state.  Our unconstitutional eviction moratorium was extended to January 15, 2022, and as you state "no one gets evicted when it's cold outside."  If ours doesn't get extended, I'll eat my hat.

As others on this thread have mentioned, vote with your feet.  Take your investment capital where it is treated better.

@Mike Hern I suggest all WA landlords get involved with RHAWA! www.rhawa.org

This group does a fantastic job advocating for landlords. I do think it's extreme and hope it doesn't spill over to the state level (which also changed a lot this last legislative session).

Originally posted by @Julie Marquez :

@Mike Hern I suggest all WA landlords get involved with RHAWA! www.rhawa.org

This group does a fantastic job advocating for landlords. I do think it's extreme and hope it doesn't spill over to the state level (which also changed a lot this last legislative session).

With all due respect, if the group is doing such a fantastic job, why are all these pro-tenant regulations being enacted in Seattle?

Don't get me wrong - the landlord advocacy and lobbying efforts here in NY have been equally ineffective.

I'm quite frankly sick of fighting my legislators, who couldn't give a rat's *** about my business or the value I bring to the community.  That's why I am now investing in states that respect a property owner's right to have control over the asset they are responsible for.

Originally posted by @Wesley W. :

New York is going to contest Seattle for the "most insane market" moniker, except in our case it's the entire state.  

How dare you try to steal our state motto. 🤬  

Our illustrious Governor Nuisance extended the CA eviction ban to April 1st as long as the tenant has submitted an application for rent relief. 

And this is happening when the economy and job market is on fire and savings are at all time highs.  Just wait until economic conditions are actually bad.

Originally posted by @Julie Marquez


Investor from Skagit County, WA
@Mike Hern I suggest all WA landlords get involved with RHAWA! www.rhawa.org

This group does a fantastic job advocating for landlords. I do think it's extreme and hope it doesn't spill over to the state level (which also changed a lot this last legislative session).

Skagit county is a world away from King co. ;-) 

@Mike Hern

Not only are they extending the moratorium, but now they're considering a requirement that you give tenants 6 months notice before raising the rent!

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/want-to-raise-the-rent-give-six-months-notice-seattle-considers-new-rental-rules/

Originally posted by @Rufus Littlefield :

Not only are they extending the moratorium, but now they're considering a requirement that you give tenants 6 months notice before raising the rent!

So basically they are going to make sure that every landlord puts in an automatic rent increase clause for renewals in their initial lease. What a way to help tenants. 

Later in the article: The second bill would require landlords to pay relocation assistance equal to three months of rent for low-income tenants who depart after rent increases of 10% or more. [...] As adjusted Tuesday, it would apply only to departing tenants at or below 80% of the area’s median income, or about $65,000 for a single person.

Too bad the quote from landlord Ed Doyne will be ignored by them: “We’re taking care of our tenants,” “Everything the City Council has done has only made that harder and incentivized us to just get out of the market.”