Well, if your landlord didn't have a profit margin he wouldn't be in business and you wouldn't have a rate hike to complain about. And yes, the city is making it far more difficult for landlords, especially the smaller ones, to stay in business.

Good luck though.

Isn't this exactly what everyone expected from 180-day rule?

F***ing rentier class.

Every time you vote yes on another property tax increase, this shit happens. Why is anyone surprised when their rent goes up after elections? My property taxes are set to go up 27% this year, so thanks a lot dickbags.

Yes, I as somebody's landlord (but probably not yours) am more inclined to make larger rent increases the farther in advance I have to plan it out. the farther out, the more uncertainty and the more risk, thus the more I have to hedge against it. But to be fair, the 180 day rule isn't the elephant in the room. It only requires earlier planning and accepting some more uncertainty as to where costs, inflation, and rental rates may be going. Other city rules like FIT, Criminal background check bans, Mandatory payment plans for move in costs, the roommate law, and arbitrary, uncompensated eviction bans for certain times of year and certain groups of people are probably making your rent go up and your rental options go down more noticeably.

Fwiw the last time Sawant actually held a meeting of the renters rights committee she chairs was Aug 19th and as Hannah noted she has a pretty poor record of holding meetings at all. Now that we are in an election year I’m sure she’ll start dangling rent control out there again and fools like this will eat it up and vote for her yet again. smh

Lets play a game: first, estimate everything you will need to spend tomorrow, including amortized things like daily rent, car payment, utility bill, food, and such and then keep track of how well you kept to that the next day.

Then try it again for a day 6 months from now.

Clearly we need a law limiting rent increases to one per year, and in an amount no more than the rate of inflation.

Actually the city’s laws don’t cause rent increases so much as they disincentivize offering affordable apartments.

The first in time law makes it far riskier to be in the lower end of the rental market (because a landlord has to make the qualification to apply more lenient, which increases the chances of winding up with a tenant who can’t or won’t pay the rent). Under current law, a credit score and income requirements are really all you can do to try to avoid problem tenants. Not all people with low scores are going to fail to pay rent, but anyone who doesn’t pay their bills is not going to keep a good score. Then the eviction bans mean once a tenant is in but not paying rent it is going to take much longer to get them out.

If the city wants housing to be available to those who can’t / won’t pay the rent, the city needs to build public housing.

as a small landlord that sold off my 4 unit bldg the increasing regulation of the city plus the inability to screen, evict, or in any way control who I rented to is beyond what small landlords can deal with. Add in the moratorium on eviction and Sawants villification of smaller landlords and you have the perfect recipe for many smaller lanlords leaving the mkt. While she rails against corporate landlords that about all you have left with over 10k units being lost last yr alone. All these motions make good soundbites but the unintended consequences lasts for yrs. I'm glad I'm out of the rental game.

Actually the landlord is spot on.... its just one of many unnecessary "shitty regulations" which are driving up the cost of rent. ... You don't know what the market conditions will be 6 months in advance and you have to give the tenant 6 months notice before raising rent. If the landlord doesn't give notice they will forego any increase for one year....

Yup ... the city council did a real number on tenants. I think in 99% of the cases the tenant and landlord can come to an accord without "THE SEATTLE MOMMY Council butting their fat ass in the middle of a private contract.

Its time for the city council to "quit being the public nanny".....

All these intrusions into market are making affordable housing actually less affordable in the end.

@9 ... Why not just do rent control. The landlord can't raise rents. Take a look at NYC before you jump on that band wagon.

What happens if a landlord improves the unit... puts in double pane windows, new bathroom, kitchen, washer/dryer in the unit... ... upgrades.... and now they can't raise rents above inflation to cover the cost of improvements?

No, the one size fits all approach doesn't work. Let the landlord and the tenant work it out.

The city is driving away independent landlords with excessive regulations. Once you drive away all the "non corporate landlords" you'll have a city of large corporate landlords- v- tenants... is that what the city is striving for.

They are effectively doing that with restaurants right now... gone are the many, many long standing private restaurants and in their place are large flavorless corporations... and very, very high prices.

Welcome to the new face of Seattle..... sponsored by your seattle city council.

And we do not have to wonder why more and more people are forced into homelessness.

This issue rarely existed 50 years ago? Because for one, corporate, international landlords did not exist. Unrelenting greed is to blame. You know who you are. And the destruction of Unions by the right wing is another reason people cannot afford to pay their bills.
Stop excusing this demented system that forces people into destitution because it will surely back fire on you.

Social Housing is an answer which has a tremendous success rate in Europe. And their use zero reason not to do that in this city. Tax the billionaires big time now and finally get some justice for the majority of the population that are not rich assholes.

Explain to everyone how people with low incomes can afford housing of any kind in this day and age?????

Everyone is waiting landlords.

@10-14 the mistake people continually make is thinking the actions of the council had unintended consequence. In fact the consequences were quite intentional. By driving out small landlords you create a gap that can only be filled by subsidized, public housing which necessitates more taxes and a bigger government while creating a class of voters wholly dependent on officials. This has been sawants goal all along but no one seems to believe her when she continually says it.

@20 - no, I think Sawant's goal is to crash the overall housing market to screw the middle class.

@21 I wouldn’t disagree, after all as a socialist private property rights is something she doesn’t think should exist. However, has limited ability to influence or penalize home owners so she’ll continue to tighten the screws on landlords to build a base of voters indentured to her thus ensuring her continued election and in her mind eventually growing to encompass others parts of the city.

As a former small landlord (one house), I'm out of the game too. I believe the rule additions were made with good intentions, however they make it too stressful to be a landlord. First, due to the myriad of requirements, notifications, pamphlets and timing rules, I now need a management agent to help which costs $$$. There are some common sense reforms here (such as a 1 sentence link to tenant rights info that can be included on all communication), but the city went with red-tape (different notices, text, pamphlets for each type of communication). Second, I can't choose a tenant I feel comfortable with. I'm taking a big risk, if the tenant stops paying rent for a year, I lose the house due to foreclosure. Houses cost a lot and although rents are high, they barely pay the bills. When I could use my own criteria, interview tenants, and make my own decision, I felt comfortable with the risk and could adjust the terms to match the tenant's needs. Now I have to jack the rent and credit scores to ensure that whomever applies first will have sufficient income to cover the rent. This is unduly biased toward a certain demographic and it makes me sick. I can't have a conversation and/or negotiation anymore, all I can do artificially select rich people that are OCD about their credit. Thank you Seattle!

@15: Persons who get priced out move away from Seattle. Persons with mental disorders move to Seattle and live in tents. The former are working poor, the latter are crazy. Please learn the difference, as you sit safely in the Seattle home you own.

“This issue rarely existed 50 years ago? Because for one, corporate, international landlords did not exist.”

Ha, ha, ha. Fifty years ago Seattle had low rents because the Boeing Slump had depopulated the city, a process which would continue into the 1980s. (Seattle would not return to the 1960 level of population until 2000.) Population grew slowly thereafter until 2015, after which high-paying jobs at Amazon attracted a population of high earners equal in numbers to every man, woman, and child in Bellevue. Their incomes, not your bogeyman paper billionaires, was why the rents increased dramatically.

“Social Housing is an answer which has a tremendous success rate in Europe.”

Europe also has national health-care services, which prevent persons with mental disorders from living in tents. Social housing can then house them. No amount of social housing can, by itself, help persons who cannot run their own lives.

@19
Where are these homes under $100K that you speak of???

I just wish landlords would have some compassion for good renters and not price them out of the market because of greedy speculation. If you are a small landlord with few properties you probably have another career and making plenty to make ends meet. Sure if you raise the rent $25 a year because you know I'm a good renter but need to cover inflation I'm ok with that and can understand. The problem is with greedy landlords that salivate over the "Zestimate" like Pavlov's dogs and everyone gets sucked down into the pit of human destructive stupidity.

@28, I don’t think most small landlords raise rent significantly for a good tenant. The problem comes when choosing a new tenant. The only criteria we can use is income level and credit score. I can’t interview you and ask you anything else. In that model we jack the rent in order to protect ourselves, not for greed. The cost of a bad tenant is 10-30,000 dollars lost rent, plus $5000+ legal fees and 100+ hours of frustration. No way I’m going to ask for less rent than market when I’m not allowed to choose my own tenant (other than income of 3x rent + top credit). It’s not a fun hobby, it’s serious stress. One screw up in following the cities specific rules and those costs can double. Hence no one will be a landlord except hedge funds which in my experience will usually choose the greediest path and/or algorithm. It’s what the city wants for some reason, otherwise the council would have excluded small landlords from at least a few of the less effective but time consuming rules.

@29- spot on. There’s way more risk in renting to the lower end of the market now. And you know who really gets hosed? Someone who probably would be a good tenant but has a bad credit score because of a recent divorce or a past illness. Under the old laws you could consider people as individuals. Not now.

Yearly rent increases, to remain static, requires adjustments for the increases in property taxes, insurance, utilities, maintenance, and inflation. A biannual increase of $50-$100 per month is reasonable and won’t put a dime of profit into the landlord’s pocket, if that’s your worry. If this is too much to bear, consider a career change or move to a location that is not as expensive as Seattle. Living in Seattle is a lifestyle choice and a very costly one at that.