Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Clinton and Obama | McCain's Straight Talk Express... »

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Protections for Renters Scrapped in Olympia

posted by on March 15 at 10:10 AM

It seems like a lifetime ago that I was slogging about the bill to regulate condo conversions.

It was actually Monday. But the viaduct vote sorta took over our newsroom for 48 hours.

Luckily, the PI’s Olympia bureau stayed on top of the story and reports on the bad news for renters.

According to the PI, House Speaker Frank Chopp (D-43, Seattle) tabled the bill.

The bill, sponsored by liberal Rep. Maralyn Chase (D-32, Shoreline), would have increased assistance for displaced renters and allowed local governments to monitor and cap condo conversions of low-rent units.

UPDATE: City Council Member Tom Rasmussen, who initiated the bill (although, who was undermined by the city’s own lobbyist), just sent out this statement:

Today, Councilmember Tom Rasmussen expressed dismay that proposed state legislation to help renters whose apartments are converted to condominiums was not permitted to be voted on by yesterday’s deadline in the state Senate and the state House. “Seattle is experiencing unprecedented loss of apartments and displacement of renters due to conversion of apartments to condominiums. I am very disappointed that the legislature failed to recognize the crisis and failed to give local government greater ability to help low income renters who must move,” Councilmember Rasmussen said. The proposed legislation would have helped low income renters with the costs of moving and would have provided more notice to purchase or move out of their apartments. Over 4,000 apartments or about 3% of Seattle’s rental stock have been converted to condominiums since 2004. The amount of rental housing declined by about 167 units in 2005-2006, contributing to low vacancy rates and rising rents.

“The state law that controls condo conversions is out of date and needs to be changed to give local government the ability to respond to this crisis. The proposed legislation balanced the rights of property owners with need to help people who are impacted by the conversions,” Councilmember Rasmussen added. “I will continue to work to pass this legislation next year in Olympia.”


RSS icon Comments

1

You know, as much I usually poo poo the initiative process, it seems like a seemingly populist issue like this is not going to be tackled by an inept bureaucracy. Why haven't all the groups bitching about condo conversions gotten together and got out an initiative to legislate the changes they want?

Posted by seattle98104 | March 15, 2007 10:35 AM
2

I agree Seattle98104, the initiative process does tend to get really screwy in this state. We elect legislators to do what again? That's right: LEGISLATE!! But on something like renter's protections we have to get something done on our own and hold Mr Chopp accountable at the polls. He needs to know that we put him in office and so help us we can replace him.

Besides, it would be nice to have an initiative that is not done in the interests of Tim Eyeman just for once and do one that actualy does some good.

Posted by Andrew | March 15, 2007 11:03 AM
3

If we hadn't tried that monkey business with the underwater tunnel, it might have had a chance, but Seattle burned it's political capital on useless projects like that.

Frank's just being realistic.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 15, 2007 11:14 AM
4

2:

So help us we can replace him? You and what army?

Posted by ivan | March 15, 2007 11:16 AM
5

You have a news room?

Posted by dentene | March 15, 2007 11:27 AM
6

renters did not put chopp in office. he knows it. if they had, he would not have tabled this. he is a douche, always has been when it comes to renter's rights. they know very well what is happening to renters due to the fast condo conversions and they know that they need to strengthen relocation assistance for renters. no big secret there. olympia has historically been anti tenant. this is why judy could not really do much in terms of renters rights in seattle, because much of the stuff needs to happen at a state level. any sort of rent control in municipalities is illegal in this state thanks to olympia. to be fair, it was during clyde ballard's reign that this happen, but chopp and all the "lefty" legislators have not lifted a finger to change things and they been there quite a while. until renters vote in huge numbers(not gonna happen) most of these legislators dont give a crap because they don't fear losing their seats. chopp is a smart politician and plays the game well. besides he is probably a landlord himself.

Posted by SeMe | March 15, 2007 11:27 AM
7


I am so furious about this. 79% of renters vote and the 43rd District is covered in renters. However, these voters are not organized and don't identify themselves as renters or would even consider their living situations a political issue. Plus, renters are made to feel like second-class citizens and thus don't participate in the process. Sometimes renters themselves feel like they don't have a right to be political, which is horrible.

Anyway, Frank, as energetic as he is, works for Olympia, not the 43rd District. He is not representing his constituents.

Posted by dammit | March 15, 2007 11:42 AM
8

Write to F-Chopp. I Sent this to him:

Unbelievable. Do you have any idea what it's like to be a renter in Seattle currently? Do you know how hard it is to find affordable housing? Do you know what it's like to live with a great degree of uncertainty about your home? The uncertainty of having fee after fee, rent increase after rent increase consume every last dollar you have? Do you know what it's like to have to move every year - the expense, burden, and anxiety? I presume you don't, but that doesn't seem reasonable as you are currently the head of the Fremont Public Association - a group that deals primarily with low income renters. Where's your disconnect?

As House Speaker, your unabashed sympathy for the property management companies, wealthy landowners, and developers is contemptible. Refusing to vote on the Hon. Rep. Maralyn Chase's bill giving renters more rights and assistance, as well as capping condo conversions, is reprehensible. Sure, you allowed for Rep. Chase to 'work on the issue' and bring it back next year, but a year of living hand-to-mouth because housing is no longer affordable or certain is a very long time.

This act will not be forgotten by the many displaced renters in Seattle come election day.

Posted by ChoppChopp | March 15, 2007 11:52 AM
9

Nice win for a free market. Messing around with good intentioned, but mis-guided conversion restrictions will only serve to make real estate a less desirable investment choice and would undoubtably result in less housing created over the long term, thereby driving rents up.

Posted by High-Rise | March 15, 2007 12:00 PM
10

We need to stop electing property developers and real estate agents into government.

Posted by elswinger | March 15, 2007 12:02 PM
11

The inside story is that the City lobbyist told legislators that the City didn't support the Chase amendments to the bill. This created confusion and led to it being pulled.

Here is the 3/9 email to State Legislators from the city lobbyist on 3/9:

"I wanted to touch base with you very quickly about SHB 2014 which provides protections for renters in apartments that are being converted to condominiums.

This bill does a number of good things, including increasing the relocation assistance from $500 to 3 times the amount of the current rent; it allows renters to break their leases early if they are not purchasing a unit; it restricts the type of construction that can occur to lessen the immediate impact on residents.

Seattle supports this bill and it has the support of the realtors and developers who actually do the conversions.

There are three amendments likely to be proposed by the prime sponsor Rep. Chase. Amendment 121 requires the declarant (the entity converting the apartment) to notify the city. Amendment 120 provides for increased relocation assistance for special needs. Amendment 122 allows jurisdictions to provide limitations on the number of apartments that can be converted. (note: critical info missing here is that the amendment specifies that limits to units converted can be set only in conversions in low lncome rentals)

We do not support having those amendments added to the bill. The realtors/developers have indicated they will kill the bill if they are added. We do not want to lose those important protections.

I request you do not add those amendments, so we can keep this bill alive. If you have any questions please let me know.

Thank you for your consideration."

Posted by LH | March 15, 2007 12:32 PM
12

oh, stop whining.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 15, 2007 1:17 PM
13

sorry Josh - I didn't realize you already wrote about the issue I just posted. duh.

Posted by LH | March 15, 2007 1:21 PM
14

seriously guys, this is feel-good, do-nothing legislation. Maybe you haven't noticed, but the subprime mortgage industry is in chaos, foreclosures are going way up, and with $1 trillion worth of mortgages due to reset in the next year they will keep going up. There will be so much inventory on the market that there will simply be no demand for condo conversions.

Posted by investigatory journalist | March 15, 2007 1:51 PM
15

Do you know what it's like to live with a great degree of uncertainty about your home? The uncertainty of having fee after fee, rent increase after rent increase consume every last dollar you have?

So how exactly would preventing condo conversions keep rents from going up?

Posted by keshmeshi | March 15, 2007 2:05 PM
16

I think IJ is talking about supply and demand. But he missed the reality that we are dealing with a population of 500,000 in Seattle alone by 2040.

Gonna be a lot more condo conversions if we don't start building 100-story inexpensive residential apartment buildings near transit centers throughout the city. And that includes the Hill, NIMBYs.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 15, 2007 3:31 PM
17

This issue is indeed about supply and demand... The problem with enacting legislation restricting the rights of owners to act in their own economic self interest is that it will limit supply and actually work to push rents higher. Fewer new apartments will get a "go" from conservative-minded investment committees when exit (sale) options are limited.

Also, regarding the myth of the "greedy investor" - The apartment you live in is more likely than not owned by an institution via an investment advisor. That wicked property owner could very well be a pension fund for retired teachers from California or electricians from NYC or Dallas firefighters...

PS re 16: The City of Seattle has well over 500,000 citizens today...

Posted by High-Rise | March 15, 2007 5:10 PM
18

Who said I lived in an apartment?

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 15, 2007 5:30 PM
19

Rasmussen's statement means nothing and Chopp's decision says everything about how the city feels about the issue. 'Pimps up, ho's down, fuck renters, hook up the developers who pay the big taxes and fees, and bring in property taxes. Let's get rich.'

Posted by Gomez | March 15, 2007 7:47 PM
20

Robs from Peter to pay Paul. Most apartments are converted to condos targeted at first-time homeowners. As with any "free" service, the trade-off is easy to ignore.

And as renters, we'd pay in just to get a little back later. Make your own relocation assistance: put $25 or $50 in the bank each month. Approximates the same cost, with much greater effect.

Posted by Troy | March 15, 2007 11:42 PM
21

@17 - By the by, looked it up - we had something like a dip from 1994 to 2000, so that means I was off by a bit.

Still, gonna get crowded.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 16, 2007 12:35 AM
22

lenders council mortgage http://www.freeforen.com/phpbb/phpbb2964 >with lenders mortgage

Posted by virginia lenders mortgage | March 27, 2007 5:43 PM
23

lenders council mortgage http://www.freeforen.com/phpbb/phpbb2964 >with lenders mortgage

Posted by virginia lenders mortgage | March 27, 2007 5:43 PM
24

mortgage calculators simple http://urlin.it/cbd7 >calculators mortgage java

Posted by mortgage home calculators | March 27, 2007 8:19 PM
25

calculator mortgage year http://www.forumup.us/?mforum=mortgagecalculator >pay mortgage calculator

Posted by calculator on mortgage | March 28, 2007 5:20 PM
26

quick mortgage quote http://www.desiurl.com/84c5c >mortgage insurance quote

Posted by me mortgage quote | March 28, 2007 11:31 PM
27

lender arizona mortgage http://mortgagelender.iphorum.com >broker lender mortgage

Posted by lender what mortgage | March 29, 2007 12:02 AM
28

lender arizona mortgage http://mortgagelender.iphorum.com >broker lender mortgage

Posted by lender what mortgage | March 29, 2007 12:02 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).