I’m not so sure “gentrification” is the operative word so much as “wage inequity.” The 43rd district has always been populated with well to do professional types. In any case, 7% caps are pretty modest regulations to get fussy about. Who knows, if this really does scare the precious housing suppliers away, then the policy got in the way of our goal.

Banning / severely curtailing short term rentals is a necessary companion to rent stabilization (and in my opinion should happen first). Without protections the commodification of housing will simply shift. Let’s follow NY, LA, etc. with curtailing Airbnb profits.

@1- you’re joking, right? Everyone knows that the landlords will just use burning $50s rather than $100s to light their cigars. And if they get hurt financially by higher taxes, well, they deserve it because inequality eat the rich blah blah blah. You can’t possibly expect the landlords to be treated like business people rather than capitalist leeches, can you?

Nearly two dozen long paragraphs…. and not a single citation of the legislation Rich is urging people to take action on.

So yes - go to a legislative Town Hall meeting this weeked and tell your legislators to “support that rent control bill The Stranger is talking about.”

And keep in mind that two of your three legislators are in the House, which already voted on this, and the third is a Senator who’s almost certainly already made up their mind.

After restrictive rental laws were put in place, Seattle lost over 10,000 mom-and-pop apts--in just one year, 2022. (Source: Seattle's Rental Registration Inspection Ordinance database)

The $1B Seattle Housing Levy promises to deliver just 3,100 units--over 7 years.

So, if the goal is to shrink Housing Supply and make it really difficult for only the best financially-qualified to find an apartment--this is great legislation.

The Stranger keeps pushing this type of legislation that will really hurt their readers.

I always get a laugh out of Rich pulling out this factoid to justify an annual cap on rental increases, 7% this time:

“…who watched rents nearly double last decade,”

As noted in the post, an annual increase of 7% will more than double the rent in ten years. So, this proposed ‘solution’ would have done nothing to alleviate the problem described.

(I’m not saying rent stabilization is a bad idea, just that the Stranger does a poor job of selling the need for it.)

The bill is ESHB 2114 or 2114 for those who might like to raise it at a town hall. But the article missed a key point. The greatest challenge for progressive bills is not the floor vote, but committee votes that must pass first, where Democrats may have a majority of 1, so one defection can stop a bill. 2114 is in a large committee, Ways & Means, with 14 Democrats and 10 Republicans. Mullet is a Vice Chair of W&M. If one of the other 13 Democrats joins him, the bill fails and is dead. June Robinson is Chair and Joe Nguyen is the other Vice Chair so could be encouraged to rally the Democrats or find a reasonable Republican. I don't know their positions on this bill, but Democratic Senators Van De Wege and Hasegawa have at times obsructed progressive bills that did not make it out of Ways & Means. I agree 7% is fair, though of course if inflation is around 5% it is not capitalism running amok.

Rent stabilization is good so long as the underlying problem is also addressed: increasing the supply of housing by changing zoning and reforming fees and regulations to allow more housing to built. Example, Minneapolis. After zoning reforms Minneapolis added 12% to its housing stock between 2017 and 2022. Rents in Minneapolis rose just 1% during this time, while they increased 14% in the rest of Minnesota. No rent control. https://www.npr.org/2024/02/17/1229867031/housing-shortage-zoning-reform-cities