How Kashama Sawant is Like Donald Trump and How She is Making Our Housing Crisis Worse
Larry Crites | Rental Property Owner
Neither of them let facts get in the way of their ideology.Trump’s craziness is well documented. Less so is Sawant’s ignorance of the facts. Most of the 8 significant new laws in the last 24 months affecting rental housing work directly against the people she is trying to help, but they sound good in a sound bite, so who cares if they restrict access for the less fortunate and drive up rent for everyone. Trump blames immigrants for job issues and crime, and Sawant blames housing providers for lack of housing. If the base loves it, who cares if it’s true? Is trashing the environment really going to bring back coal jobs? Is chasing small landlords out of the business really going to create affordability?
And neither of them will listen to any input from anyone outside their ideologically pure inner circle. Why bother to listen to someone who didn’t vote for you, no matter if they know something about what you are legislating or proposing (Bob Ferguson obviously knew the law better than Trumps lawyers). In rental housing, the people who know the business have not only been vilified (another Trump tactic) and shut out of the conversation, but have been shouted down at public meetings, and cut off by Sawant herself as they try to give a reasoned explanation of how the business is different for small landlords vs large ones, etc.
And neither of them will be around when the chaos they sow really starts to have effect. Trump won’t live to see the environmental damage his policies will have. The fact that small landlords are fleeing the rental business in droves right now is hidden by the surge of new construction. If we wind up with rent control in Seattle, which is likely if the State Senate goes Democratic, it will take 20 years for the full effect of lack of supply to drive the last bits of affordability from the market, and Sawant will be long gone. So why should she care? (see San Francisco as an example of what rent control does for affordability, or check with Venezuela for how price controls work long term). So long as Sawant can have people cheering her in public she is happy to disregard any real work on the real issues of housing affordability.
We need pragmatic, thoughtful, inclusive, leaders who look
to solve problems rather than assign blame while seeking publicity.
A few real world examples of how just one of these new rules, the restriction on deposits, has affected me personally in the last couple months:
I just had two PhD students apply to rent an apartment They had no job, and no alternative income, but they had huge savings. They offered to pay a year up front. I don’t have any other applicants so I’m not “taking the apartment away from someone else”. I can’t accept this offer because it’s now illegal, and they don’t qualify based on my income criteria. So I don’t get a tenant, and they don’t get housing. The City has created a lose / lose rule for both of us, with no advantage for anyone identifiable in this situation.
I took an application from a teacher and a public school principle with two young daughters, both with medical issues, to rent an apartment. They want to move from a much more expensive newer building into my more affordable unit, which is also closer to their daughter’s school. They can save about $1,000 / month in rent. Due to medical bills simultaneous with the 2010 real estate crash, they have both a bankruptcy and a foreclosure on their credit report and don’t meet my credit requirement. They do have excellent job history and no recent late payments. This is a classic case where flexibility to allow a larger deposit would have made this easy and would have helped the tenant improve their financial situation. In this case I broke my own standard and went ahead and rented to them (without an additional deposit). But according to the city’s rules I could be now be accused of discrimination if I don’t break my own rules every time. Ironic that I put myself at risk of being sued or fined for treating people as anyone would want to be treated.
I’ve owned a duplex on First Hill since 1996. A 15 year tenant just moved out and the unit needed an upgrade. I spent $45,000 renovating the large 3 bedroom unit. I installed new hardwood floors, kitchen, moldings, doors, bath, etc. Now my choice is to rent: and get $400–500 deposit on 45k of new improvements (1/6th of one month’s rent up front), which wouldn’t even cover the cleaning of a 1,600 sf unit if the tenant broke the lease, let alone any damage. Or to sell
into a fantastic market. I sold. The buyer is an owner occupant, and this is one more unit lost forever to our City’s rental inventory. I’m one of the small landlords exiting the market.
The bottom line is ignorant, egotistical leaders, who don’t care about reality, and don’t want to listen to various sides of an issue hurt us all, no matter if from the left or right. We need pragmatic, thoughtful, inclusive, leaders who look to solve problems rather than assign blame while seeking publicity.
I wrote an article a few months ago for Current detailing specifically how Seattle’s new rental laws are specifically having an adverse effect on the people they are intended to help. I gave a few examples of policies that could actually help. Here are a few more:
Allow development rights to be traded within a city block. Too often good buildings are torn down and affordable units lost because a developer makes an offer an owner can’t refuse. If that owner could permanently sell the development rights to the developer who could then build a proportionally larger building, we could save affordable units forever and preserve a diversity of building type and city scape.
The city is planning to spend new housing levy money building new apartments. Depending on size, these units will cost at least $200,000 — $300,000 each based on current construction costs. An alternative use of money would be to waive permit fees for home owners to add basement ADU apartments in their homes. Maybe also add in free design / architectural help. If we could incentivize homeowners to add units for a public cost of $3,000 — $8,000 per unit the housing levy could actually make a dent in our housing crisis. And these are the types of units that will remain affordable.
I’m sure many of you have good ideas too, we just need to find a politician willing to listen.
For more information about RHAWA please visit: RHAWA.org
