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.

Frank's just being realistic.

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

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

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.

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."

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

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.

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...

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.

Still, gonna get crowded.