Questions on RCW 59.18.650

[Ben Lukes]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around RCW 59.18.650, and am pretty damn confused.

Is it better (as a landlord) to have a lease that provides for the tenancy to continue for an indefinite period on a month-to-month or periodic basis after the agreement expires or one that doesn't?  Does 59.18.650(1)(d) mean that either way the tenancy will continue on a month-to-month basis, or is that only for leases that don't fall under (1)(b) or (1)(c)?

For leases that fall under (1)(b), the language of the law keeps referencing the initial period.  Does that mean that if I had a lease that falls under (1)(b), and I extended the lease for another year with a lease extension before the end of the initial period, that I no longer can choose to end the tenancy at the end of the extended period (except for in subsection (2) because that wouldn't be the "initial period"?

Leases that fall under (1)(c) don't seem to have the potential limitation listed above, so it seems like I should be writing my leases without a provision for the tenancy to continue on a month-to-month basis going forward.  Am I understanding that correctly?

Prior to this change I had written my leases for a period of 1 year or 6 months, with a provision that the terms will continue on a month-to-month basis if we did not elect to terminate the lease, but I always extended them before the end of the term with a lease extension (also for 1 year or 6 months).  My hope would be that I can continue to do this and have the option to terminate the tenancy at the end of one of these extension terms without cause.

Hopefully I have explained my confusion clearly...thanks in advance.