Seattle wants to be like San Francisco! - New Rental Laws Passed!
Specialist · Kirkland, WA · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 817 votes
Seattle wants to be like San Francisco! - New Rental Laws Passed!
Most Popular Reply
Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes@Account Closed
28 Replies
- Specialist · Kirkland, WA · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 817 votes10y
Originally posted by @Account Closed:
@Troy Fisher The landlords have been out of control. A long time, and every city should do what Seattle is doing. Landlords love to keep security deposits when they have no right to and not fixing things when they need fixing and calling tenant's stupid so now real landlords will follow the law. Good luck.
Most professional landlords do follow the law. But when the laws start hurting the people it is intended to help, by causing my troubles for the people who are in the business of dealing with those people, it becomes Occam's Razor. The easiest path is to increase rents and standards to offset the increase in regulation and liability.
- Specialist · Kirkland, WA · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 817 votes10y
@Amit M. -- I'm hoping we have enough Seattle folks at @J. Martin's Summit in a couple of weeks to do a San Francisco vs Seattle Market Rental Analysis!
- 10yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
@Account Closed
- Investor · Orange County, CA · Member since 2015 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes10y
I hate regulations as much as the next guy and admit that I am not familiar with this one ... However, I would bet that just as with any law there will be legal loopholes that can be exploited to minimize the impact or even use the law to your benefit as an investor. Within every crisis there lies the seeds of opportunity. If you don't believe me and want an example, just ask @Account Closed what he thinks about rent control ;>) .
- Real Estate Broker · South Florida · Member since 2016 · 15 posts · 6 votes10y
I'm new to Bigger Pockets. However I'm not new to real estate. I don't know a lot about the west coast markets except for what I read. But here in South Florida, I remember during the recession a lot of landlords wouldn't accept anyone who wasn't on Section 8! The thought process was that they didn't have to worry about the tenant not being able to pay rent due job loss. Now that the recession is over, landlords do not want Section 8 anymore! An investor I know told me, he doesn't accept Section 8 because they (Section 8) reports (IRS) how much they paid him and he doesn't like that. (Income tax issue maybe?Hummmm) The rental market here in (decent) neighborhoods is getting out of control again! Maybe S. Florida needs to follow San Francisco and Seattle. Just my two cents.
- Lender · CA · Member since 2015 · 9k+ posts · 10k+ votes10y
This is a stupid level of micromanagement.
Old mortgage trick, modified for Seattle landlords (it may or may not work, talk to a lawyer, etc):
Give them the full list of what you need to consider it a "complete application" -- blast it out as soon as any email hits your inbox and/or put in your craigslist (or whatever) ad. There, you told them what's needed to be considered to have "applied" for your unit.
Then ask them for that same list, minus one thing, after they've viewed the unit and when they are ready to see if they are qualified for it. No one is going to look back at that initial email blast, they are going to look at what you sent them that day.
Look over all the pre-applicants. Pick who you want. Remind them that they need to complete their application & move out of pre-applicant status.
Many of you have actually seen the above in play yourselves when applying for and receiving your personal mortgages. Has anyone here, by chance, ever been asked for a copy of their social security card by a loan officer or mortgage broker? :P
- San Francisco, CA · Member since 2015 · 786 posts · 717 votes10y
Seems like the left leaning politicians keep helping the rich get richer. The government has proven over the last 100 years that it cannot solve problems like affordable housing. Rent control discourages developers from building cash flowing properties, which in term makes rents more expensive and segregated. So the landlords get wealthier as property values soar.
The discriminated classes need the assistance of non-profits like the one I founded that serves as a People's Hedge Fund to help discriminated classes.
- 10yAnthony GaydenPro MemberRental Property Investor · Omaha, NE · Member since 2014 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes
Originally posted by @Account Closed:
@Jay Hinrichs I never said I know the rental market in the PNW. Landlords need to follow the new law, and I doubt you will agree with that.
Another person who is not a landlord making wide sweeping generalizations about a topic with which he has no knowledge or experience.
His talking points come from the latest news article that says landlords are "bad people" who don't fix anything and raise rents on poor helpless renters.
- Specialist · Kirkland, WA · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 817 votes10y
Originally posted by @David Faulkner:
I hate regulations as much as the next guy and admit that I am not familiar with this one ... However, I would bet that just as with any law there will be legal loopholes that can be exploited to minimize the impact or even use the law to your benefit as an investor. Within every crisis there lies the seeds of opportunity. If you don't believe me and want an example, just ask @Account Closed what he thinks about rent control ;>) .
David, I look forward to reconnecting with Minh at the summit. Though, with an unveiled threat left hanging over the conversation, one of the council members has said they will be hiring two new investigators at a cost of $200k/yr to operate sting operations to make sure landlords are in compliance. The use of the word sting operation is not my word choice, but directly from the article, that hints at the mind-set being used when developing these ideas.
Washington State Law forbids any local municipality from enacting Rent Control. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=35.21... but the City of Seattle is making continues to bring down the hammer making it more difficult to be a landlord every year.
For those who are landlords in Seattle, should one of these city-mandated "first-come, first-served" tenants with "non-labor" sources of income have that money stream disrupted to the point that they don't pay rent, what timeframe Is required to evict such a tenant once you initiate proceedings? Like so many other examples of statist legislation, this attempt at "progressive engineering" will have unintended consequences.
- Specialist · Kirkland, WA · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 817 votes10y
Originally posted by @Ryland Taniguchi:
Seems like the left leaning politicians keep helping the rich get richer. The government has proven over the last 100 years that it cannot solve problems like affordable housing. Rent control discourages developers from building cash flowing properties, which in term makes rents more expensive and segregated. So the landlords get wealthier as property values soar.
The discriminated classes need the assistance of non-profits like the one I founded that serves as a People's Hedge Fund to help discriminated classes.
While I think what you are doing is great Ryland, it doesn't address the attitude of the City of Seattle Council Members in that landlords are to blame for the mighty increase in rents. If they truly want to improve the affordability of Seattle, they need to make it easier to rent in Seattle, less scary and to own rentals where an eviction can take 6 months, they need to encourage affordable units by creating a tax benefit to owners (and not just developers!), and they need to look at their encouragement of economic drivers. I think that any company that employs more than 1,000 or which currently has a payroll where the average employee makes 1.5x the qualifying income for a SFH in the Seattle Area should face tax implications.
The City of Seattle cannot keep crying to "let them eat cake" when they are ones driving the car.
- Specialist · Kirkland, WA · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 817 votes10y
- Investor · Orange County, CA · Member since 2015 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes10y
Originally posted by @Troy Fisher:
Originally posted by @David Faulkner:
I hate regulations as much as the next guy and admit that I am not familiar with this one ... However, I would bet that just as with any law there will be legal loopholes that can be exploited to minimize the impact or even use the law to your benefit as an investor. Within every crisis there lies the seeds of opportunity. If you don't believe me and want an example, just ask @Account Closed what he thinks about rent control ;>) .
David, I look forward to reconnecting with Minh at the summit. Though, with an unveiled threat left hanging over the conversation, one of the council members has said they will be hiring two new investigators at a cost of $200k/yr to operate sting operations to make sure landlords are in compliance. The use of the word sting operation is not my word choice, but directly from the article, that hints at the mind-set being used when developing these ideas.
Washington State Law forbids any local municipality from enacting Rent Control. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=35.21... but the City of Seattle is making continues to bring down the hammer making it more difficult to be a landlord every year.
To be clear, I am condoning the search and exploitation of LEGAL loopholes to stay technically compliant while still serving your needs. Either that, or avoid being a landlord in the area covered all together, but if investors do that in mass then there will be less property to rent, rents will go up further on the inventory remaining due to the new supply/demand dynamics and to cover extra regulatory costs as you already alluded, and they will have to change the state laws ... could take some time for all of this to play out, but it will sooner or later.
Unfortunately, I heard that Minh is not going to make it to the summit ... will let him confirm that one...
- Specialist · Kirkland, WA · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 817 votes10y
Originally posted by @Account Closed:
@Troy Fisher If the landlords follow the law, they have. Nothing worries about but if one tenant file a lawsuit, then the landlord will be on their radar, and no one knows how much it will cost the landlord and another thing the landlord will be on the news and in the newspaper.
Yes, we get that there are bad landlords, who skirt the law. But when the laws being created are making it more difficult to be a landlord, that is when you begin to see more bad landlords. We already carry huge amounts of liability. My insurance bill is pretty high! How high is yours?
When added costs are made to renting our properties and by the force of the city having to have long economic vacancies, unprepared landlords become desperate and do things that harm renters, we become bigger targets for lawsuits and bad press. Why not develop a beneficial relationship with the landlords and make them feel wanted, and that they are doing the city a service, and you'll have happier renters and happier landlords and happier city council members.
- Specialist · Kirkland, WA · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 817 votes10y
Originally posted by @David Faulkner:
Originally posted by @Troy Fisher:
Originally posted by @David Faulkner:
I hate regulations as much as the next guy and admit that I am not familiar with this one ... However, I would bet that just as with any law there will be legal loopholes that can be exploited to minimize the impact or even use the law to your benefit as an investor. Within every crisis there lies the seeds of opportunity. If you don't believe me and want an example, just ask @Account Closed what he thinks about rent control ;>) .
David, I look forward to reconnecting with Minh at the summit. Though, with an unveiled threat left hanging over the conversation, one of the council members has said they will be hiring two new investigators at a cost of $200k/yr to operate sting operations to make sure landlords are in compliance. The use of the word sting operation is not my word choice, but directly from the article, that hints at the mind-set being used when developing these ideas.
Washington State Law forbids any local municipality from enacting Rent Control. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=35.21... but the City of Seattle is making continues to bring down the hammer making it more difficult to be a landlord every year.
To be clear, I am condoning the search and exploitation of LEGAL loopholes to stay technically compliant while still serving your needs. Either that, or avoid being a landlord in the area covered all together, but if investors do that in mass then there will be less property to rent, rents will go up further on the inventory remaining due to the new supply/demand dynamics and to cover extra regulatory costs as you already alluded, and they will have to change the state laws ... could take some time for all of this to play out, but it will sooner or later.
Unfortunately, I heard that Minh is not going to make it to the summit ... will let him confirm that one...
Curses! Well I'll have to make sure my next trip to the bay area is around the San Jose Meetup.
I would never suggest that we do things illegally. I should have stated, that I believe that the legislation and enactment clauses will be written poorly and open landlords who are trying to follow it in good faith to be open up to higher liability. And as it is a City Ordinance, the process to modifying it is quicker and more robust.
- Specialist · Kirkland, WA · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 817 votes10y
Originally posted by @Account Closed:
@Troy Fisher There has to be a reason why the city step in and passing new laws and it could be the tenants are saying this landlord did this or did that. Do you know the reason for the new laws?
Yes: Sawant - our Friendly Socialist Councilwoman.
http://www.king5.com/news/local/seattle/sawant-pro...
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/1/6/a_socialist_e...
http://crosscut.com/2016/02/sawants-rent-control-p...
http://seattlebubble.com/blog/2015/06/23/how-does-...
And http://www.kshamasawant.org/affordable_housing_for...
I pull out one or two quotes from that last one:
The for-profit housing model is not working, with big developers and speculators pushing workers and even middle-class families out of the city. Meanwhile, the City Council is working on behalf of big business rather than ordinary renters and homeowners.Working and middle-class people need an affordable alternative to the skyrocketing private housing market! The city should provide a public option by building thousands of high-quality, city-owned housing units, rented at below-market rates. This can be financed by selling municipal bonds and making use of currently vacant city land.
Backed by the Mayor's 20 year growth plan which states:
Seattle expects gain 120,000 residents, 115,000 jobs, and 70,000 housing units over the next two decades. - See more at: http://murray.seattle.gov/mayor-murray-releases-20-year-growth-plan-for-seattle/#sthash.CevaRHSQ.dpuf
How can you have both?! Affordable housing by only planning and providing 58.33% of the 120,000 new residents with new housing units!?!?! This is the biggest issue facing increasing property and rental prices in Seattle. While on the other hand telling landlords and property owners, that WE ARE AT FAULT! BAD CAPITALIST! HOW DARE YOU!
- San Francisco, CA · Member since 2015 · 786 posts · 717 votes10y
Originally posted by @Troy Fisher:
Originally posted by @Ryland Taniguchi:
Seems like the left leaning politicians keep helping the rich get richer. The government has proven over the last 100 years that it cannot solve problems like affordable housing. Rent control discourages developers from building cash flowing properties, which in term makes rents more expensive and segregated. So the landlords get wealthier as property values soar.
The discriminated classes need the assistance of non-profits like the one I founded that serves as a People's Hedge Fund to help discriminated classes.
While I think what you are doing is great Ryland, it doesn't address the attitude of the City of Seattle Council Members in that landlords are to blame for the mighty increase in rents. If they truly want to improve the affordability of Seattle, they need to make it easier to rent in Seattle, less scary and to own rentals where an eviction can take 6 months, they need to encourage affordable units by creating a tax benefit to owners (and not just developers!), and they need to look at their encouragement of economic drivers. I think that any company that employs more than 1,000 or which currently has a payroll where the average employee makes 1.5x the qualifying income for a SFH in the Seattle Area should face tax implications.
The City of Seattle cannot keep crying to "let them eat cake" when they are ones driving the car.
With this City Council in Seattle, sounds as likely as the Sonics coming back to Seattle.
Originally posted by @Troy Fisher:
Originally posted by @Account Closed:
@Troy Fisher There has to be a reason why the city step in and passing new laws and it could be the tenants are saying this landlord did this or did that. Do you know the reason for the new laws?
Yes: Sawant - our Friendly Socialist Councilwoman.
http://www.king5.com/news/local/seattle/sawant-pro...
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/1/6/a_socialist_e...
http://crosscut.com/2016/02/sawants-rent-control-p...
http://seattlebubble.com/blog/2015/06/23/how-does-...
And http://www.kshamasawant.org/affordable_housing_for...
I pull out one or two quotes from that last one:
The for-profit housing model is not working, with big developers and speculators pushing workers and even middle-class families out of the city. Meanwhile, the City Council is working on behalf of big business rather than ordinary renters and homeowners.Working and middle-class people need an affordable alternative to the skyrocketing private housing market! The city should provide a public option by building thousands of high-quality, city-owned housing units, rented at below-market rates. This can be financed by selling municipal bonds and making use of currently vacant city land.
Backed by the Mayor's 20 year growth plan which states:
Seattle expects gain 120,000 residents, 115,000 jobs, and 70,000 housing units over the next two decades. - See more at: http://murray.seattle.gov/mayor-murray-releases-20-year-growth-plan-for-seattle/#sthash.CevaRHSQ.dpuf
How can you have both?! Affordable housing by only planning and providing 58.33% of the 120,000 new residents with new housing units!?!?! This is the biggest issue facing increasing property and rental prices in Seattle. While on the other hand telling landlords and property owners, that WE ARE AT FAULT! BAD CAPITALIST! HOW DARE YOU!
A statist is as a statist does. Of course she thinks the free market has failed...socialists love central planning. Which is, unfortunately, inherently anti-freedom.
- Investor · Sammamish, WA · Member since 2013 · 94 posts · 84 votes10y
Screening tenants is the single most important thing a landlord needs to do in order to prevent an extremely costly eviction or expensive damage to their homes. Restricting a landlord from being able to decide who they want to let in to their home is an overreach by the government.
Businesses should be able to hire whomever they feel is the most qualified job applicant, and landlords should be able to rent to whomever they feel is the most qualified rental applicant, even if the most qualified applicant was not the first qualified applicant. The only restriction should be; not discriminating against protected classes.
- Investor · Willow Spring, NC · Member since 2009 · 5k+ posts · 3k+ votes10y
- Specialist · Kirkland, WA · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 817 votes10y
Could you please point out which statements are not in the legislation? Stating it is wrong does not add meaningful to the conversation, and after reading through your supplied link I did not see anything that was countermanded.
- Investor · San Jose, CA · Member since 2012 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes10y
Mr. @Troy Fisher is venting I see. It is what it is bud. Rather than venting, see how you can capitalize on it.
I've been laying low for a while due to an unpleasant on-going mediation on our acquisition in late May. Attorney fees kept piling up. Fortunately, the law prevailed and we got what we wanted in past Thursday, and the good news kept come in. We got into contract for another apartment building on Friday. :-)
The deal was alright so I told @Johnson H. I can wholesale it to him for a $50k assignment fee pending my partner's approval. My partner said he's open to it so let's discuss. He called me yesterday afternoon and said the wholesale fee has to be $150k for it to be worth it. LOL! That just shattered Johnson's dream so I had to be buy Johnson's lunch today instead him buying me. Johnson can tell you about my wife where I told other people my story, and they looked at me like I'm an idiot. :-)
Then we got a lead on another off-market deal late Friday. I'll be checking it out tomorrow. Cheer up bud. Politicians will do what they do. We'll continue to do what we do. Don't let them get into our mind. Learn to overcome it.
For people who believe there are no deals out there, they're right. For the ones who believe they are always deals, they're also right. :0)
@David Faulkner is semi-correct. My birthday is on 8/29 so wife said don't make any plan for that weekend. Given the fact we've been vacationing quite a bit this month, I might be able to convince her to let me go to the summit on 8/28 with my partner. I can't commit to anything...........yet. It's a definite maybe at this point.
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.