Sustainability & Renters' Rights Committee 4/7/23

are recording.

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone.

This is the regularly scheduled meeting of the Sustainability and Renters' Rights Committee.

Today is Friday, April 7th, 2023, and the time is 9.32 a.m.

I am the chair of the committee, Council Member Shama Sawant.

Would the clerk, Edward Doan, from my office please call the roll?

Council Member Sawant?

Present.

Council Member Juarez?

I see Council Member Juarez, although you're muted.

Sorry, I said present.

Sorry, Jed.

Here, I'm here.

Council Member Nelson.

Present.

Council Member Morales.

Here.

Council Member Lewis.

Present.

Five, present.

Thank you, Ted, and welcome members of the committee.

Today's committee has one point on the agenda, the legislation to cap late fees for renters at $10 per month, which my office has brought forward alongside renters rights activists, union members, the stay house, stay healthy coalition and socialist alternative.

Today's the third committee discussion on this legislation.

So after hearing from a community panel, I intend to move the bill for a vote.

As we have discussed in past committee meetings, there are currently no limits to the fees Seattle landlords can charge renters for overdue rent and other so-called junk fees.

Some renters have told us they are charged upwards of $250 as soon as rent is overdue, and many leases have clauses where landlords can charge an additional $40 or $50 every day the rent is late.

And I want to be clear, we have received emails from landlord lobby saying, or we have heard mentions in the news from the landlord lobby that somehow these are outlier cases.

They are not outlier cases.

We have heard from many renters that this is a very typical situation, being charged $250 or upwards for being one day late.

Other renters have even faced late fees and then late fee notice delivery fees, which is an additional fee for the privilege of getting a late fee.

For working class renters, this is a punch in the gut for being a couple days late on rent.

And for people who are temporarily unable to pay rent, late fees can spiral out of control into debt.

Renters do not get paid late fees when their landlord delays fixing broken appliances, heating or mold infestations, which is also a very typical situation.

Yet renters have to pay rent on time regardless of whether or not their landlord completed repairs.

Council members have received over 600 emails from Seattle renters urging them to support this bill to limit late fees at $10 per month without loopholes without weakening amendments and 1000 people have signed the community petition released from my office as renters signed the petition.

Many, which is over 150 renters, chose to tell their personal late fee stories, which my office has printed out and attached to today's agenda.

The stories focus on late fees because that is the topic of this legislation, but predictably, they also talk about rents, which continue to rise out of control, and now, especially in the context of the overall cost of living crisis.

I hope council members will support today's legislation limiting late fees, and then support the rent control legislation from my office later this month.

There have been many questions about the conditions faced by renters and landlords and how this legislation will impact that.

My office has prepared an FAQ, a frequently asked questions document about capping late fees.

We have copies on the table in front for people here to see them in council chambers.

And it is also included on today's agenda.

And of course it was shared with members of the public and the city council earlier as well.

For today's discussion, we will first hear from the community panel and then Asha Venkatraman from city council central staff will be available to answer council member questions as we move the legislation and then vote.

Before we begin the discussion, we will hear public comment.

Ted, how many people do we have signed up for public comment?

There are 14 remote and I believe eight in person.

Okay, so speakers will have one minute each.

I will read out the names of the people in person and Ted will read out the names of people who are speaking remotely.

And for those who are speaking remotely, when your name is called out, you will be prompted to unmute yourself.

When you hear that, please hit star six on your phone to unmute yourself and begin.

I will call our speakers in order.

And so if you hear your name read out, please be ready to speak after the speaker who's before you.

So we have Marshall Berder.

I'm sorry if I'm saying that wrong.

But anyway, the first is Marshall.

Second is Megan Murphy.

And then third is Alicia Burton.

Go ahead, Marshall.

Hello, committee.

Thank you for allowing me to speak today.

My name is Marshall Bender, and I'm a renter living in the U District.

Council members, you have a simple choice today.

You can side with your constituents and the majority of people living in Seattle, 55% of them, and vote in support of capping late rent fees at $10 a month, eliminating arbitrary and exploitative notice delivery fees, and reject Council Member Nelson's shameful amendment that nickel and dimes struggling working class families.

Don't fall for the landlord's tricks.

They're going to say that, you know, these rent fees, these late fees help them get their rent on time.

Renters don't not pay the rent because they don't want to pay the rent fee.

They pay the rent because they're legally obliged to.

They have to so they can live here, they can work here, and they can live their lives here.

This is a simple step to protect people who live in the city from unchecked financial exploitation.

Our city is already expensive enough and housing is already super tight.

Don't burden the renter anymore.

Stop the landlords and their exploitation, cap the late rent fees, and vote yes on Council Member Sawant's amendment.

Megan Murphy.

Followed by Alicia Borden and then Naisheen Boo.

Go ahead, Megan.

I'm Megan Murphy and speakers please take the microphone close to your okay yeah I I urge all Democrats on the Seattle City Council to vote yes on the legislation from council members once office to cap late fees for overdue rent at $10 a month.

Nelson has been forced to keep the limit to $50 entirely because of the pressure from renters fighting back and speaking up in the relentless organizing from Councilmember Swann's office.

We need protections like this ordinance in addition to the ones that renters movements and Councilmember Swann's office have already won, including the Amazon PACs, to fund the expansion of publicly owned affordable housing Seattle's renters also need citywide rent control without corporate loopholes.

The most common reason for delayed rent payments is financial distress.

It is exploitative for landlords to make renters pay more when they are already struggling to pay their rent in the first place.

Late fees for overdue rents are like a penalty for the crime of being poor and short on money, and it does not motivate people to pay rent on time by adding late fees.

It actually adds to the stress.

According to major lenders, most mortgages have a 15-day grace period for late payment.

This proves that landlords charging $250 on the fifth of the month or $50 per day until late rent is paid are engaging in blatant exploitation to squeeze renters of extra profit.

And even a $50 late fee is 400% greater than $10.

So, and then on a side note, if anybody, I feel like I'm paying my own late fees.

I've traced them a skate, I said, Aretha Bass, who was going to contact me, because I feel like I'm being stalked for various reasons by the billionaire class.

And if anybody else is an activist or feels, has felt this way, I just want you to know that I continue to reach out and demand that it stops.

And if anybody knows of it happening within the community, to also demand that it stops and that they stop abusing their power.

Chair Sawant, I apologize.

I set the timer to two minutes instead of one minute, as you had said, so I'm fixing it now.

OK.

And Ted, you also need to hold the microphone closer to you when you're speaking.

It's very hard to hear you.

So next we have Alicia, then Nasheen, and then Josie.

Go ahead, Alicia.

Can you hear me OK?

Good morning.

My name's Alicia, and I am from Nicholsville Central District.

Nicholsville supports a legislation cap for $10 fees.

Seattle renters are struggling to stay focused and stay housed.

More and more people are becoming homeless.

We can't keep addressing the symptoms of homelessness.

We need to address the root cause.

When a bathtub is overflowing, you don't just grab a mop.

You turn the faucet off first, then grab your mop.

More than half of Seattle residents are living paycheck to paycheck or one paycheck away from an emergency situation.

Asking renters to pay more than they are already struggling is adding insult to injury.

We thank Council Member Chavant for putting forward this legislation.

We reject Council Member Nelson's amendment.

No watering down.

Thank you.

and then Josie and then Maddie.

Go ahead, Naysheen.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Naysheen.

I'm a homeowner in District 6, and I am an organizer with Tech for Housing.

I'm also a landlord of a two-bedroom condo.

Please vote yes on the legislation to cap late fees at $10 a month and reject the amendment to raise the cap to 1.5%.

This past year, I volunteered with the Housing Justice Project for several months, conducting intake interviews with tenants facing eviction.

The vast majority of tenants were being evicted for unpaid rent, often the result of lost wages due to injury, illness, caretaking needs, and lost jobs, mostly unexpected life events.

I hear a lot of arguments that the late fee will incentivize renters to pay on time, but my experience is that those who are late truly don't have the means to pay at that time, and there's no incentive that can change this.

High late fees that pile up only work against paying their back rent.

As someone who is wealthy enough to own my primary home plus the rental, collecting these fees does not make an impact on my day-to-day life.

There's a tiny sliver of landlords out there who face serious financial trouble without on-time rental income.

Let's build and support for them, but that's not a reason to continue this predatory practice.

Thank you.

Josie, followed by Maddy Danks, and then Anita Freeman.

Go ahead, Josie.

Hi, my name is Josie I'm a state social worker and a member of the Washington Federation of State Employees local 889. I'm here today speaking in favor of the $10 cap on late fees without Councilmember Nelson's $50 late fee amendment.

This amendment will further burden working people and along with her previous vote against cast discrimination legislation shows where her priorities lie.

When I started my job for the state, my paycheck got lost in the mail, and I wasn't able to pay my rent for almost a month.

Luckily, my landlord doesn't have these outlandish fees and was understanding and waive these late fees altogether.

Through this action, my small landlord showed that they do not need the possible extra profit if I had happened to miss a payment.

The idea that landlords rely on these payments as a necessary part of their income is ridiculous.

They are a business.

If your business can only be successful by preying on the economic hardship of others, this is not a successful business.

A business should not have the authority to determine the safety and security of families in King County.

Nelson's amendment is shameful.

A $50 cap on late fees only hurts working people and families.

Thank you.

Thank you for being on the panel at the previous committee.

Maddie Danks, go ahead.

Hi, my name is Maddie and I'm a renter in District 3. I urge all the Democrats on the Council to vote yes on Councilmember Sawant's rent cap legislation and reject yet another watered-down amendment from Councilmember Nelson that prioritizes the wants of the wealthy over the needs of working people, just like her recent vote against CAS legislation.

As the council has already been told a late cap fee of 1.5% of rent will result in a greater fee than $10 a month unless your rent is less than $667.

According to data compiled from property managers, there are currently no apartments available in Seattle for rent lower than $700 and only 2% of apartments in our city are for less than $1,000.

The majority of Seattle's apartments rent out at more than $2,000.

A cap at $50 a month means working families will have $50 less to pay in groceries or gas.

And when they are already experiencing financial crisis, which is the most common cause of late revenue, this is just a punishment on working people to pad the pockets of the wealthy.

Thank you.

We have Anitra.

And after Anitra, we have Katie Wilson.

And after Katie, we have Dee Powers.

Go ahead, Anitra.

Good morning.

My name is Anitra Freeman.

I'm with WEAL, Grassroots Organizing Effort of Homeless and Formerly Homeless Women that, among other things, does a women in black vigil whenever somebody homeless dies outside or by violence in King County.

And we are doing another vigil next Wednesday at noon on the steps of City Hall for 32 more people.

There was recently news of a horrible example of the tragedy of eviction.

There was a shootout and a suicide at the site of an eviction.

There was also a report that there is a direct correlation between the names of evicted people and the names on the homeless death list.

You can help save lives late fees at $10 a month and do not raise it to $50.

Thank you.

Hi Council Members, my name is Katie Wilson.

I'm with the Transit Riders Union.

I'm also a renter in District 3. We support this legislation and ask that it be passed in a strong form.

I wanted to briefly address the suggestion that I know has been floating around that a percentage cap is somehow makes more sense or is more fair.

than a flat $10 cap on late fees.

I think that kind of supposes that people who are paying more in rent have higher incomes and more disposable income.

And unfortunately, in our housing market, that is just not the case.

Very often, you know, if you have a higher rent, it just means that you're paying a higher percentage of your income in rent and you actually have less disposable income and are more likely to fall behind.

So we ask you to keep this legislation strong.

the cities of Auburn and Burien, hopefully next week, Sea-Tac will also have a $10 cap on late fees.

So we just want Seattle to be in line with these other cities in King County.

And we also obviously strongly support the cap on notice delivery fees that is part of this legislation.

Thank you.

Our last in-person speakers are Dee Powers and Ray Dee.

So go ahead, Dee.

Hello city council members and committee members, my name is D powers and I am the program coordinator at be Seattle.

At this time last year, I was moving into an apartment after seven years of homelessness that was dragged out because I had late fees pending from my previous housing, they left them in collections and bounced them.

for years and almost prevented me from moving back indoors a second time.

Don't water it down.

You can't.

$10 is all we can handle.

$50 is a week worth of grocery budget for an EBT user.

That is an excruciating, excruciating dollar amount for low income individuals.

Don't water it down.

Keep it at $10.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is already cooking.

You can't hear me.

Can you hear me now?

No.

You just have to speak straight towards it.

Right into it.

Do I have to press this button?

No.

Hello.

Can you hear me now?

Barely, but.

No, I think you have to speak to the microphone online.

We'll be able to hear you speak in the microphone.

Yeah.

It's better.

It's better.

Yeah.

Please, we have to do the committee please.

And the other person proposed a $700 a year tax.

That suspension increase, if your rent is $2,000 a month, that would rank $2,700.

Well, it's $700 extra for the year.

That's $24,000, $25,000.

That's a total of $1,000.

That's a lot of money that you need to sign up for in your victim's contract.

But some people pay even more than that.

I mean, they...

Actually, you're paying four times the contract fee.

So, you started off paying $25,000 for the year, and now you're paying $75,000 for the year.

That's a lot.

Thank you to all the in-person speakers.

Now, Ted will go to the online speakers.

Our first three online speakers are Margaret Stewart, Barbara Finney, and Corey Brewer.

All right, Ted, go ahead.

We can hear you.

OK.

My name is Margo.

I live and work on First Hill and I'm calling to demand Democrats on City Council vote yes on Councilmember Sawant's bill to cap late fees at 10 a month, no watering down.

We should reject Councilmember Nelson's amendment to change this into a percentage of rent for what it really is.

You know, it's an opening for landlords to continue nickel and diming struggling renters.

Over half of apartments in Seattle rent for more than $2,000 with rent, you know, continuing to skyrocket late fees for working class renters would just increase every year.

I know my rent has gone up by more than $100 every year.

And as other speakers have said, that this amendment, you know, the fact that it would still cap fees at 50 a month is because of the pressure of the renters movement that's organized alongside Council Member Sawant's office.

But that's still a substantial fee, right?

You know, it's a tank of gas, it's a large part of your grocery bill.

And Auburn and Durian both have working rent caps at $10.

There's really no reason to go higher than that other than to like further enrich, you know, corporate landlords.

So I think it's shameful that with all of the soaring costs working people are facing, Council of Democrats would put this amendment forward.

I really think you should vote no on this and yes on the original bill with no watering down.

Barbara Finney, followed by Corey Brewer, followed by Justin Baer.

My name is Barbara Finney, former renter, current homeowner in District 5, delegate to the MLK Labor Council for American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3197, that represents the healthcare workers of the Seattle VA Medical Center, many of whom are Seattle renters, as are many of our patients, all veterans.

I urge the Democrats on the Seattle City Council to vote yes on legislation from Council Member Siwan's office to cap late fees for overdue rent, $10 a month.

We want a fixed cap of $10, not a cap based on percentage of rent.

Reject Council Member Nelson's shameful amendment that nickel and dime struggling workers and families.

AFGE Local 31 endorsed rent control legislation from Council Member Sawant's office in 2019. Today, on behalf of my union local, I thank Council Member Shama Sawant for bringing forward this legislation to cap late fees on rent at $10.

It's a labor issue benefiting workers, families, children, seniors, veterans, and communities.

Thank you.

Corey Brewer.

Hi.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Corey Brewer.

I'm a property manager, and my office is in District 4. I looked at today's agenda and I see some familiar names on the presentation panel.

Please forgive me if I have this incorrect, but I don't recall that the landlord on today's panel has previously told us which district within the city of Seattle where she provides rental housing and my apologies if she has before and if not, I'm curious as most housing providers who testify in this committee do tend to identify their district.

Further, the people of Seattle and the rest of the council members should really be thinking about the platform being given to the council member from District 3 who skipped out on a key stakeholder meeting last month with her focus clearly set on a new business venture in other cities such as Minneapolis and Philadelphia.

Thank you.

Justin Bear followed by Angie Gerald followed by Kevin Bitswang.

Hi, I'm Justin.

I'm a renter in the Westlake neighborhood.

I'm calling to urge all the other council members, all the Democrats, to vote yes on the original proposal from Council Member Shamasawan to limit overdue rent fees to a fixed $10 per month.

When workers don't pay rent, it's simply because they don't have money to pay rent, which actually makes the case for raising workers' wages rather than late fees.

I understand that Council Member Nelson wants to amend the proposal to 1.5% of rent with a limit of $50.

All I have to say to that is if Council Member Nelson wants to give her own money to her corporate landlord friends, that's fine.

But don't force my hardworking friends and coworkers to pay beyond $10 and potentially not have enough money for groceries or other needs.

That's it.

Thank you.

Angie Gerald.

Hi, I'm a small landlord in Ballard.

This legislation is not ready to move out of committee.

It's important to interact with housing providers, including mom and pop and nonprofit and affordable housing, and to have a clear understanding of state and municipal laws that intersect with these topics.

Council needs help sorting through the hot rhetoric of what is junk or predatory, and what is compliance with newly enacted laws, like RCW 59-12-040, updated in 2021 by the state legislature.

Prohibiting notification fees doesn't erase the business costs of compliance.

It just spreads them to all tenants via increased rents.

And severely limiting use of late fees as a guardrail sends a strong message that Seattle rent is the lowest priority to pay on time.

Seattle is leading the nation in growth of high income renters.

Why pass a highly regressive law.

Last year, Council Bill 120305 brought Seattle out of alignment with state law by not allowing late fees for a year after the city's civil emergency.

If you want feedback or data, use Rio to ask landlords how it's going.

Thank you.

Kevin Bitswong, followed by Danisha Zhang, followed by Marilyn Yim.

Morning, my name's Kevin.

I'm an educated renter living in District 3, and I'm calling in to urge all Democrats in the Council to vote yes on the legislation from the Council Member Sawant's office.

Cap late fees for everybody to rent at $10 a month with no watering down.

You know, we need this fixed cap at $10 a month and not a cap based on a percentage of rent.

Auburn and Burien already cap late fees at $10 a month, and it works.

Councilor Nelson's proposed amendment already especially penalizes working class and poor families with kids who often have no choice but to live in larger apartments that rent from $3,000 or more.

Seattle rents continue to skyrocket, and a percentage-based fee would impose a growing burden.

You know, I'm on MFTE, and I'm still paying four figures for rent, which is more than half my income, and it's been this way for several years.

So vote no on Councilmember Nelson's amendment.

You know, renters are terrified of being late on rent.

Late fees are a tax on being poor, which tilts renters in dire economic conditions towards eviction and homelessness, as councilors have already heard in previous testimony.

And we've heard also from corporate landlords saying that they need additional fees to cover their costs, but renters already pay a fee to cover landlords' costs every month.

That fee is called rent.

Vote yes on this $10 cap with no amendments or watering down.

Thank you.

Good morning, Council Members.

My name is Fina Kajang, and I'm calling from Solid Ground to voice our agency's support for a $10 cap to late fees end.

notice fees.

Solid Grounds Tenant Services Program supports over 1000 renters at risk of eviction every year with education on the right, counseling and resource connection.

And from our work, we see the harm that unregulated excessive late fees can have on renters.

For example, one of our tenant counselors shared recently a story of serving a Spanish speaking family where both parents lost their jobs, one from a work related injury and one from being laid off because of the economy.

And because both parents weren't working, the household began to fall behind on rent, and the landlord charged $120 per day for late fees.

That's per day.

The family attempted to pay the rent and the late fees, but these high late fees created a quicksand situation, and the family couldn't pay down their debt in a reasonable amount of time.

Imposing these excessive, punitive late fees on tenants who are already struggling to pay their rent makes it harder for them to keep their housing.

Instead, a fixed $10 limit to late fees would give predictability and stability to renters' ability to pay, which is something that we all want.

So I urge this committee to keep the $10 cap on late fees in its strong form.

Thanks for considering our comments today.

Marilyn Yim, followed by Aiden Nardone, followed by Andra Kranzler.

Good morning.

The city charges $25 and $52 late fees on parking tickets and traffic tickets.

That's 57% and 37% late fees on something far less important than keeping a roof over your head.

Lisa Herbold asked recently whether there are any studies about late fees.

The city could conduct its own trial run by targeting this policy to low-income housing providers that house the city's most vulnerable residents, then study the outcome to see how it works.

Notice fees are high because the city and state require a convoluted in-person service for even the most mundane notices.

You should ask nonprofits how much it costs them to prepare and serve legally compliant notices.

It would be more productive to talk about how to reduce this cost for instance by allowing electronic notices so renters don't come home to a notice posted on the door letting neighbors know all about their business.

That would help everybody and be more efficient.

This committee has excluded people from panels who could actually inform and answer your questions and work on better solutions.

I'm asking committee members to hold off on this legislation for a more inclusive panel.

All housing providers property managers and nonprofits is convened to answer your questions and shape better policy.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Aiden Nigel and I'm a renter in District 6. It is overwhelmingly apparent that renters living in subsidized housing are dealing with most of the landlord tenant issues.

Maybe it's time to focus on the nonprofit housing providers instead of continuing to vilify private landlords.

As you continue to pass more and more landlord restrictions, you are not addressing the real problems.

Andra Kranzler followed, Emily MacArthur followed by Devin Glazer.

Thank you, council members for being here today.

And thank you council members for your leadership.

As the director of the Tenet Law Center, a renter in district two, a renter in Seattle for over 20 years, and someone who's been a landlord, a case manager for people living homeless, and who's also helped work on bills using a community story lens.

Renters do not earn what the market can bear.

They earn minimum wage at at-will employment.

Every tiny fee, even $10, can be impactful in a household who's living paycheck to paycheck and counting every dollar.

I encourage you to be bold and brave and use your police powers.

Not just the Democrats, I'm calling on Council Member Nelson directly.

I need you to use your police powers to make sure that you have and make sure that every renter stays housed.

This is crisis time.

Emily MacArthur.

Hi, my name is Emily MacArthur.

I live in District 2. I'm a lifelong renter, a member of Worker Strike Back, and a member of the Stay Housed, Stay Healthy Coalition.

I urge all Democrats to vote yes and help the members to launch legislation to cap late fees for overdue rent at $10 a month with no watering down.

We want a fixed, not a variable.

Workers have enough chaos going on in their lives right now between wildfires, pandemics, and, of course, the ever-rising cost of rent.

I oppose Council Member Nelson's pro-corporate landlord amendment to nickel and dime struggling renters and pretending that $50 isn't a lot of money.

Maybe for her it's not, but for working renters like myself, it truly is.

Rents are staggering.

They've climbed over 25% over the last few years, yet wages have not.

This is a penalty.

If we base the fee on a percentage of rent families, it's an attack on poor people.

Mortgages have a 15-day grace period.

So charging renters $50 a day is just an attack on poor people to gain extra profit for greedy landlords.

Our last two online speakers are Devin Glazer and Aiden Carroll.

There's also one person signed up online who's listed as not present.

That is Austin Werner.

And there's an additional in-person public comment speaker who signed up.

So Devin Glazer is next.

Hello, council members.

This is Devin Glazer.

I'm an attorney with the Tenant Law Center.

Apologies, I'm not there in person, but I'm very grateful you're having this discussion.

And you have some really amazing advocates and attendants who I'm excited to hear from.

I just wanted to encourage you to send this proposed legislation in its current form to the full council for a vote.

I think the flat cap on a late fee is pragmatic and progressive.

A late fee isn't meant to be a windfall for the landlord.

It's a penalty assessed to the tenant, much like a bank overdraft fee.

I don't know if you've ever had the pleasure, but banks don't test fees based on a percentage.

If you overdraft on a stick of gum, they still hit you just as much as you overdraft on a $1,000 purchase.

Beyond that, I also really want to thank you for banning notice delivery fees.

Delivery fees cost landlords nothing.

And even worse, there is nothing a tenant can do to prevent one.

If a landlord wishes to give a notice about the color of flowers on a tenant's balcony, there's nothing to stop them.

And then charging a tenant for the delivery of this piece of paper violates all basic notions of fairness.

Thank you for your work.

I appreciate all you do.

Please pass this.

Thank you.

Aidan Carroll?

Aidan, you still appear to be muted.

Hit star six on your phone.

You still seem to be muted.

Star six.

Can you hear me now?

Yes, we can hear you now.

Hello?

Yes.

Hi.

I'm in D6.

with 46 Democrats, Executive Board, South Seattle, and speaking in a personal capacity.

These late fees, as we have heard, are one more thing that can push people to the brink.

And we, in our city, have a lot of people who have been pushed to the brink and then blame for their own problems with the right of way where I could continually see right home with us on tweets.

So whatever we can do to help renters that will, as we said, save lives.

I want to thank Katie Wilson for pointing out specifically that it doesn't make sense to use a percentage because the tenants in this city where the supply chain of housing is constrained and landlords are allowed to gouge with that.

Everybody is paying whatever they can find, not know what they are able to.

This is not an attack on landlords, this bill, but I do want to point out that landlords.

That's our final remote speaker.

And then there's one more speaker in person.

Yes, our last in-person speaker is Preston Sahab.

Go ahead, Preston.

Yeah.

Good morning.

My name is Preston Sahab.

I'm a rank-and-file member of UAW 4-1-2-1, representing thousands back in California.

We can't hear you.

Oh, we're not on?

Is it this one?

Oh, it's that one.

Good morning, my name is Preston Sahabu I'm a rank and file member of UAW 4121 representing thousands of academic workers at the University of Washington, you know, our members are extremely rent burden many a survey of our own members showed that over you know, a strong majority of our members pay over 30% of their incomes in rent.

And, you know, there's a lot of factors of this University of Washington going into, you know, suppressing our wages, but also the university straight up making deals with the landlords around the university district and even selling off their own land to some of these private developers, many of whom I'm sure are supporting Council Member Nelson's amendment to jack up the late fees.

So, you know, often we are sharing our housing with other rent burden folks.

And if our rent is late, then we all have to pay that fee.

So I strongly encourage that this committee stick to the $10 fee as proposed by Council Member Salaam.

Thank you.

Thank you to everybody who spoke in public comment.

I will close public comment now.

And we will begin our agenda item, but just because this came up in public comment, Speaker Corey Brewer, who I believe represents Wintermere Real Estate and speaks often in public comment, alleged that I am focusing on, quote unquote, new business ventures.

I just wanted to clarify for the record that that is absolutely untrue.

What is true is that Socialist Alternative and I have, and alongside union members like Preston, who just spoke, I have launched a nationwide movement called Workers Strike Back.

And in fact, we're going to have a rally on May 6 to protest against the impending ruling from the Supreme Court that attacks the right to strike.

And also, as many know, I don't take home the full salary, city council salary, and take home only the average worker's wage, and the rest after taxes goes into social justice movements.

I mentioned that not only to clarify for the record, but also to give you that as an example of how fast and loose these landlord representatives play with the facts.

For them, facts don't matter.

And if you don't check, then you will think that landlords are the ones that are struggling and renters are the ones that are living it up, but when the reality is the exact opposite.

I will now.

the bill that we are here for into the record, which is the legislation to cap late rent fees at $10 a month.

This is Council Bill 120541, an ordinance relating to residential tenancy, limiting the amount of fees charged for late payment of rent and for notices issued to tenants and adding a new section 7.24.034 to the Seattle Municipal Code.

The ordinance would cap late fees for overdue rent at no more than $10 a month.

As public commenters have noted, the nearby cities of Auburn and Burien have already passed such a law.

Extra charges like late fees are on top of the out-of-control rents that the majority of our city's renters are already struggling to pay.

While many landlords don't charge punishing late fees, many do, and they treat late fees and junk fees as yet another opportunity to exploit their renters.

Before getting into the specific bill, I wanted to correct yet another important bit of misinformation that has been recently spread by the landlord lobby and by council members who represent them.

They have claimed that over half, that is 58%, 59% of Seattle landlords have a total family income of $75,000 or less on average.

Essentially, they are claiming that Seattle landlords make less money than the overall average income in Seattle.

I mean, it should stretch the bounds of credulity without knowing the facts, but as a matter of fact, it is wrong.

And because as evidence, they have repeatedly cited a 2018 study that surveyed over 4,000 landlords about their experiences.

And it turns out this claim is completely false.

The question that the 2018 survey actually asked landlords was, quote, what is the average total household income for the tenants you rent to, end quote.

Yes, yes, people are people are virtually open mouth there.

Yes, this is literally what happened, that the question asked about the tenants and the average income of the tenants, but what it turned, I mean, it may have been an inadvertent mistake to begin with.

by the statisticians.

However, the way the landlord lobby has used it, there's nothing innocent about that, because they know their average income is not $75,000.

And yet they have seized on this false claim, because we know it is renters, not landlords, who make less than $75,000, according to that study.

It is renters, not landlords, who are struggling to make ends meet.

And it is renters, not landlords, who need protection from this council.

I thank Ted Verdone from my office for discovering this error in the first place and contacting the UW researchers who, University of Washington researchers who conducted that study in 2018. Those researchers have confirmed that this statistic is about renters and not the landlord.

And I appreciate Kyle Crowder, the researcher at University of Washington for urgently looking at that and confirming that in preparation for this committee.

And I thank the city auditor's office for emailing the city council about that error.

And again, as I said, this is important not only because of the stunning nature of the falsified claim, but also because it is not something that they have occasionally claimed.

This is a claim that they use repeatedly and prominently to buttress their overall agenda that somehow landlords are suffering.

In fact, landlords who opposed the temporary eviction bans during the early days of the pandemic turned around and made record profits After claiming that eviction moratoriums would leave them on the hook for billions of dollars in losses, Mid-America apartment communities, the largest multifamily housing owner in the U.S., doubled their profits in 2021 to $550 million at the height of a pandemic-era eviction protections.

So again, these errors are not side points.

As I said, this false statistic has been quoted numerous times as the basis for concocting a story that landlords are struggling to pay their bills.

It is featured prominently on the publications from the Rental Housing Association.

For those of you who don't know who Rental Housing Association are, They are a representative of the landlord lobby in Seattle and they have opposed every single renters rights bill that we have brought forward.

And it was also made, I believe this claim was made in Council Member Nelson's committee recently by some of the people who attended.

And I also wanted to share that One of the people, one of the landlords who attended Council Member Nelson's committee, she spoke in public comment.

Her name is Marilyn Yim.

Again, I'm sharing all this because renters, how would renters and working people know all this?

You'd have to do a lot of research, which you won't have to do, you won't have time to do because you're busy making a paycheck to pay that exorbitant rent.

But my office has done this research and it's our duty to share this here.

So Marilyn Yim, who was one of the landlords who spoke in Council Member Nelson's committee, She has repeatedly sued the city of Seattle for renters' rights, to repeal renters' rights.

For example, she sued the city along with a number of other landlords to overturn what was called the Fair Chance Housing Ordinance, which is the ordinance that was brought forward by Council Member Herbold that I was proud to support.

This is the ordinance that prohibits the use of criminal history as a proxy for discriminating on the basis, or discriminating against potential tenants, on the basis of race.

And in that case, a lawsuit against the city, Marilyn Yim, was being represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a right-wing nonprofit law firm that has a history of taking up anti-regulatory cases.

In 2017, Yim filed a lawsuit against the first-come, first-served law, or forced-in-time law, which says that if you qualify for all the conditions from the landlord and you were forced in line, then you should be given the tenancy and not be passed over for somebody else.

So these are all important facts that we need to keep in mind in understanding what we are up against.

In today's panel, we have BL account from my office and two renters and a landlord and also representatives from the renters rights organizations.

So for today's community, as I said, we have two renters and a landlord and also representatives from the Housing Justice Project, BC, Seattle, and the Tenants Union of Washington.

My intention is not that we should duplicate the discussion that we had at the last meeting on March 17th, because that was a very extensive discussion and panelists answer a lot of questions and I thank council members also who are present for asking a lot of questions.

However, we did request the panelists and some of the panelists to come back here to be here to answer any new questions and also briefly recap the discussion from the last meeting.

But first we'll have Bia Lacombe, who's a community organizer in my office, who has compiled the late fee testimonials that renters have sent to my office.

She'll read some short examples, and also she has some other information about what we, community organizers in my office, Adam Zimkowski and Varun Belur, have learned from renters, from talking to renters.

Go ahead.

Good morning.

I want to start with, oh, I'm sorry.

My name is Bia Lacombe, a community organizer in Council Member Shama Salman's office.

So I want to start with an overview of the kind of what we've been doing in Council Member Sawant's office, the community organizers have been doing, organizing alongside renters and members of Socialist Alternative and other community volunteers to speak with renters and gather their stories from across Seattle.

and across the Seattle region.

And over the last several weeks, community organizers and volunteers with Socialist Alternative have set up community tables and through those tables collected over 300 signatures in support of a $10 cap on late fees with no loopholes or exceptions.

And that's on top of the more than the 700 signatures that our online petition has garnered.

So community organizers spoke to students, working class people, small landlords and renters from all over Seattle, and it was absolutely clear there is massive support for a $10 late fee cap and the housing crisis in Seattle and across Washington is escalating dramatically.

Renters, many of them young people of color, have accumulated hundreds or even thousands of dollars in rental debt over the pandemic, in large part due to late fees and other exploitative charges.

But a theme here is that rents are absolutely out of control.

And working class students spoke to us about exploitative U-district landlords who charge late fees of up to $50 a day while taking weeks or months to carry out basic repairs.

One Capitol Hill renter told us about a rental debt of $1,500 that he's struggling to repay because of the extortionate late fees that keep piling up, while inflation shows no signs of slowing down.

And I think it's worth noting that many small landlords and homeowners also signed down on our petition, including one small landlord who correctly noted that high late fees and high rents are the main force behind the homelessness crisis in Seattle.

Corporate landlords, unsurprisingly, were not so supportive.

When we asked one if he supports a $10 cap on late fees, he said, quote, hell no, that's how I make my money, end quote.

And for the landlords who were, some small landlords who were opposed to the bill as well, when asked if they actually charge late fees, they invariably replied that they don't.

And it's clear that talking to many renters and landlords, that actually some often do not charge late fees or rarely enforce them, so they should have no reason to oppose this cap.

And Yeah, so it was overwhelmingly clear and has been from the over 150 renters who submitted their stories of late fees that whether you've experienced it yourself or you have, you know, if you haven't, you know someone, a family member or friend who has experienced these extortionate late fees.

And it's extremely clear who opposes this bill, corporate landlords, property developers, and real estate investors.

A cap on late fees at $10 a month with no loopholes would benefit working people and the most vulnerable renters at a small cost to the wealthiest and most powerful in the city who are making money off of exploiting renters hand over foot.

So just to share some of these stories that I think really illustrate the absolutely exploitative and not at all in good faith nature in which landlords are conducting their business around these late fees is really illustrative.

I wanna share some of these.

One renter said, my landlord charges $250 for late rent.

My rent is already half of my take home pay each month and having to pay the late fee keeps me more in debt every single month.

And I think this illustrates renters often said, my rent is half or a huge amount of my take-home pay.

And to know a late fee that would be tied to percentage of rent, when that rent goes up, which many renters reported is happening so frequently, and we know from the data it's happening frequently, so would that late fee.

And so just to say that one renter reported a $250 late fee, and then later another $250 late fee for extended late payment after the landlord raised the rent 25% 10 months ago.

This person is a new mother and is struggling to pay those fees and that rent.

And also to highlight that for most mortgages, which I think was mentioned in public comment, most mortgages do have a 15 day grace period for late payment.

And so renters who are being charged $150 for on the first of the month or the fifth of the month or 250, we even got multiple reports of $500 late fees when that's happening.

immediately and far beyond the 15 day grace period that the landlords are getting.

It's very clear that landlords are taking advantage of this and blatantly exploiting renters by charging these late fees right away and there's absolutely no need for it.

Social security recipients are facing a real brunt of the burden of late fees.

One renter said, I exist on my social security retirement benefits, which are paid on the second Wednesday of the month.

Of course, my rent is due on the first of each month.

This sets me up for a perpetual late fee of $50 every month, since my check will never arrive before the deadline to pay without penalty, which is the fifth.

And this renter has asked several times to change that due date to the 15th, but the landlord will not do that.

And so this person has paid over $3,600 in late fees so far and says, the high past due penalty has not encouraged me to pay rent on time, and in fact, hindered my ability to pay future rent, all because the landlord will not accept a mid-month payment as an on-time payment.

And just to share a few other stories and a few other comments from renters, One renter said, my rent is being raised by $200 a month in June, which officially brings the percentage of my rent up to 50% of my income.

Late fees based on a percentage of your rent is then raised along with any allowable and lawful raise in rent.

So now if your landlord raises your rent by 10% per year, any late fees and other fee that has its basis as a percentage of rent is also raised.

We need a fixed cap so as not to make rising rent a catalyst for raising fees also.

Another story, my landlord has never told me in the two years I've lived there about late fees or what it would be.

All of a sudden this year they come out of nowhere saying it's $100 late fee added to the rent total.

That's not fair when we never knew it.

We live on section eight.

It's hard already to pay rent and now add an extra $100.

Section eight vouchers are giving us a difficult time as is to lower the cost of rent paid.

Now we have to worry about an extra $100 when I'm the only one working in my household of four.

And then another said, I've known multiple people who over the past few years have had months of food insecurity and compounding medical issues due to the fact that their late fees added up because of high rent and low wages.

Many of these people work upwards of 50 hours a week.

And so I think overall there's many renter stories that are in this document we have at the front and that's been shared with council members.

And one actually that I should also say is there's a renter who reported being charged $100 if they were one hour late paying through the online portal and many renters also reported that when the portal was down or when the landlord had an issue receiving the check or the office was closed or anything like that they were also charging these late fees which for renters is is a serious dent in the money that they need to buy groceries, to pay for gas, to survive in the city.

And so the $50 cap is a lot of money for renters, but also as a result of the kind of organizing that renters have done to put pressure on the $50 cap proposed by Council Member Nelson.

That is a result of the pressure that renters and community organizers have put on, have built pressure to cap these late fees to make the city more reasonable, you know, possible for renters to survive, because right now it's absolutely a serious problem.

The landlord said in the public comment that this is not a real issue to be focusing on, but it absolutely is, according to hundreds of renters and over a thousand who signed the petition.

So, yeah, I'll leave that there.

Thank you.

Thank you for sharing that information.

Next, can we have Ellen speak and please introduce yourself.

Hi.

Hi, my name is Ellen Anderson.

I'm a student at U-Dub and a renter in District 2. I am here in strong support of the bill from council members who want to cap late fees for overdue rent at $10 per month.

This ordinance is especially necessary now.

The cost of living has soared to unbelievable degrees.

On top of that, renters have continued, rent has continued to go up by huge amounts.

As many people have said, the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Seattle was $2,000 last year.

Rent increased by 19% last year in downtown Seattle, more than double the rate of inflation, which is already squeezing renters like me to the breaking point.

rents are expected to rise by a similar amount this year.

I will likely be forced to continue being a renter for much of my adult life, assuming most.

And this is, I want to make very clear, not by choice.

I heard that some council members say that the majority of renters rent in the city because young people just choose not to buy a home.

This is so unbelievably out of touch with your constituents.

I am astonished to hear that statement.

I would love to own a home, but there is no way that I can afford it now or anywhere in the future, especially considering the cost of living.

That's the case for the vast majority of people my age who have only ever seen the economy in crisis after crisis.

And the cost of those crises are getting put on our shoulders.

I have to live with three roommates because I cannot afford not to.

With Seattle rents having absolutely skyrocketed over the past two decades, the cost of living crisis has only made things worse.

Not long after moving into the house that we're currently renting, the ceiling in my bedroom began to leak right onto my bed.

It took the landlord not one, not two, but three months to repair my ceiling after requesting and then demanding to be repaired multiple times.

And that's just one of a whole list of repairs that took weeks or months or almost close to a year to actually be addressed.

Our current lease specifies that Quote, if any rent is not paid on or before the due date, tenants agree to pay the penalty of $40 for each day that the rent is not paid, including the day of payment up to a maximum of 18% for one month's rent.

An unpaid amount will bear interest at 12% per annum until paid.

So what that means is that we would be charged hundreds of dollars if we're just a few days late on rent and we'd have to take 12% interest on unpaid rent and fees.

A compounding late fee like that would cost the money me and my roommates need to pay for groceries and utilities, which are also going through the roof.

Let me assure you, there is no lease, we've double checked, requiring landlords to pay us $40 until the repairs for our home that we are paying rent on are complete.

If there was, he would definitely owe us thousands of dollars.

These predatory late fees are completely ridiculous.

They are set up to scrape even more money out of the pockets of renters who are barely getting by.

This is an unbearable situation for many people, and we need protections.

Sorry, this is unbearable for renters like me across the city, and the only way that we're going to see this change is by getting organized.

to shift the balance of power from the wealthy corporate landlords to a grassroof movement of renters who make up the majority people in Seattle.

We need protections like this ordinance to cap predatory late fees at $10, just like we need all of the protections that renters movements and Council Member Sawant's office have already won, including the Amazon tax to fund the expansion of publicly owned affordable housing.

Seattle renters also need citywide rent control without corporate loopholes.

We cannot afford late fees and we also just plain old can't afford rent with these insane high prices.

We also need a law that mandates landlords to effectively pay their tenants if the landlord fails to fix serious housing code violations like heating in the middle of winter by the tenants being able to pay less rent adjusted for certain amounts of compensation for the problems that remain unfixed.

I'm committed to fight for this law I just described for rent control and for most immediately for the cap on late fees at $10 a month.

I hope that renters, union members, community members who are watching will join us.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ellen.

And thank you also for being here again because you were also at the last committee.

I appreciate.

And also everybody who's here again, thank you for your time commitment.

Sonia, can you go next?

Hi, my name is Sonia Ponath.

I live in the Seattle area, and I have been a landlord and a property manager for many years, and I do appreciate this opportunity to speak today in support of this legislation to cap late fees at $10 a month.

I was a partial owner of six rental units, and for almost a decade, I managed the finances of those units, along with others owned by my extended family.

In 2016, my cousins and I sold those six houses.

We sold not because of renters' rights, regulations, or any of that nonsense.

We sold because property values went up, and that rental income was always intended to guarantee the retirement of our grandmother.

We have never charged late fees at all.

As one property manager I used to work with would say, you can't squeeze blood from a stone.

Overwhelmingly, our tenants paid rent on time.

When that failed, we talked with them and we worked with them.

In rare cases, we did go to small claims court over unpaid rent, but the reality is late fees are not necessary.

They are not necessary for renters to pay on time and they are not necessary to cover the landlord's costs.

They are a way that corporate landlords can squeeze a little bit of extra money from their tenants.

My family could have charged late fees and other fees.

My mother owns rental property in Oregon and her property manager just sent her a letter telling her she could raise the rent by 200 a month for this year's lease, but that's not necessary for her needs.

So she's never raised rents on existing tenants by more than 25 or 50 bucks a month We know our renters are not getting much of a way a wage bump if any We also prefer to keep our tenants long term.

In fact, we had two sisters in two of our houses for 30 years I find it outrageous that most corporate landlords that for most corporate landlords late fees are how they make extra money off the back of struggling renters Look, if you cannot pay your own bills without gouging vulnerable people who need a home, you should not be in this business.

It is so strange to hear landlords talking as if we are the victims when landlords own multiple properties.

At worst, they are worried that they've overstretched their investment by taking out mortgages to buy extremely expensive Seattle property, in which case they are free to sell the property.

If the regulations as a result of renters winning some of these rights were honestly so onerous, then rental housing would not sell for such shockingly high prices, property values.

We can't rely though on a few good landlords as sufficient protection for renters because powerful landlords will always use every avenue of exploitation available to them to squeeze more profit from their tenants.

Renters need legal protections like this cap on late fees at $10 a month and all of the renter's rights that are movements, and Council Member Sawant's office has one.

More than anything, we need a strong citywide rent control policy.

In reality, loose regulation gives a competitive advantage to the most unscrupulous landlords and makes it more difficult for landlords who do not want to gouge their tenants to actually compete.

And as mentioned, I do know that most mortgages have a 15 day grace period for late payment.

So landlords charging $250 as soon as the rent is late or $40 every day, rent is late or just exploiting renters for extra profits.

And that, I think, is the main point.

Landlords do not need late fees.

They're just another way that some corporate landlords are found to make extra profit.

I am not afraid of renters lacking proper incentive to pay rent.

They already have an inherent incentive to pay rent fully on time.

They don't want to spoil their credit score.

They don't want to create conditions to get evicted.

and they want stable housing.

What I am afraid of is that financial speculation into real estate is making housing so incredibly expensive that it is tearing our communities apart and has contributed to an alarming rise in homelessness.

Just in closing, I'm hearing many politicians say, oh, Council Member Swatt, you need to have more landlords in your committee.

Well, Cory Brewer, who just called in, upset that I am here today.

Cory Brewer represents Windermere, which is a humongous regional Western company worth billions of dollars.

So I can say, Corey just proved my point as a landlord myself.

I can say there are no shortage of landlord voices out there.

The whole system is aligned with them.

Thank you Yeah Maddie

Hello everyone, my name is Maddie Olson.

I'm a rank and file member of UFC w 3000 as a grocery worker at PCC Green Lake Village, where I make like three cents over the minimum wage.

And I'm one of thousands of grocery workers who are still suffering from the loss of hazard pay, which only council members who want bought against.

And that $4, that was a lifeline for us.

And at this point, we can't afford the groceries at our own stores we work at.

We can't get lunch.

We have to bring our own food.

And we certainly cannot afford hundreds of dollars in late fees on top of this incredible crisis of rents rising in Seattle.

I live in a four bedroom house and pay $1,200 to share a basement room with my partner, this is not uncommon my work, you either have to work multiple jobs or you have to have many roommates with one person living in the living room as a room in my lease if we're late.

If we're late we accumulate late visa $20 a day, not nearly as deep as Ellen over here said, but you know this, this number can quickly become unsustainable.

If we are, and we're often only saved by our roommates you know covering the difference that we can't pay if our if our checks are not coming you know right before the first.

I've been looking around with my partner for a one bedroom apartment and you know as many of us have said, it's like impossible to find something for less than 1400 a month, anything, anything more than that is beyond what my grocery job, and my partner's income as a grad student can afford renters like us are very try very very hard to not be late it's, it's not like we're trying, you know, We never are late because we're just deciding to not pay our landlord.

It's because we don't have it.

Why would I risk an eviction, ruining my rental or housing record, because I wanna have the money for a couple extra days that I know I'm just gonna have to pay anyways?

As it was said, you can't get blood from a stone.

These late fees don't incentivize renters to pay on time.

It just buries us in debt that we can't pay back.

When people like me and many of my coworkers are paying over a third, sometimes even half of our income to rent, there's no room for late fees.

We need $10 as a cap on the late fees and not a dollar more.

We can't afford that.

You know, a flat amount of $10 gets the incentive across, right, without overly burdening us.

on this question of like a percentage, you know, it's better than nothing, but it's obviously not not sufficient.

$50 is quintuple this $10 mark that's been, you know, said already, when more than half of the units in Seattle are renting over $2,000, even one or 2% would be more than that $10 we can afford.

You know, for workers like me who were heroes during the pandemic, we're still making minimum wage and we can't afford these fees.

I know there's a recent Seattle Times article that said renters are treading water.

We're not treading water, we're drowning out here.

I wanted to talk about how some council members have said that, you know, young people, we don't want homes and that's the reason that we're renters and we're not owners.

I can tell you, I would love to own a home.

There's no reason and I, we would not, you know, my partner and I would not love to own a home and not have to deal with the landlords.

I can say that, you know, we've been in a situation, we had open sewage in our, because our landlord did not address the problem.

We've had our water turned off two times in a row without notice because our landlord would not address the problem, right?

These are literally illegal and yet my landlord is not getting slapped with a fee or paying us back.

Nope, we still have to pay rent on time.

And I know that these are just polls that show, there are polls that show the majority of young people, we want to own homes, we just don't have the money for it.

I really hope that council members support capping the late fees at $10 a month, not a penny more, especially if you claim to be progressive, supporters of renters who are a majority of people here in Seattle.

Thank you.

Edmund, Kate, and Violet, would you like to add anything?

Go ahead, Edmund.

Yeah, thank you for convening this again.

Thank you for the previous speakers and everyone who commented in public comment.

So just for the record, my name is Evan Witter and I'm from the King County Bar Association and the Housing Justice Project.

I'll just wanna address three points really quickly.

The first one I think was already really adequately well addressed by a previous speaker, but the question of whether late fees incentivize on-time payment.

We do have a local case study here, which is for the last three years, we have not allowed late fees in the city of Seattle.

The Urban Institute has been tracking whether tenants have been paying on time in particular with a focus on small landlords in particular.

And what they found in January of 2020, that is before the late fee ban went into effect, that about 92% of tenants were paying by the end of the month in Seattle metro area.

Right now it's currently 93%.

So despite the fact we just despite the fact that no leap phase have been available in the city of Seattle or the Seattle Metro, or at least this area, we are still seeing tenants pay on time.

There was a slight dip during the pandemic by about a couple points.

But overall, tenants have been acting in good faith paying on time, I think, as the previous speaker said.

Importantly, too, I just want to highlight that the same Urban Institute indicates that Seattle tenants are actually better at paying their rent on time here That actually by about six points or so national average is about 87% of tenants pay by the end of the month occur according to that data.

But here I think landlords are benefiting from the fact that they have they have good tenants here.

And ultimately, once you really want to work with their landlords and are paying on time.

The second issue that I do think was sort of touched on is, do lay fees actually compensate for the landlord's loss?

I know there's been a lot of numbers been thrown out earlier, I think kind of really indicating that landlords really don't lose when they miss a, I mean, they lose, but they're not really facing actual dire consequences when they miss a payment.

One thing, just some data points I just wanna point out though, is that Fortune Magazine, which is not known for its socialist agenda, found that landlords make about you know, 30% profit margin overall in an annual year.

A small business, you know, typically 7 to 10% profit margin is good and healthy.

So the fact that landlords are getting about 30% is pretty healthy and frankly showing that they're really it's a very good industry.

Did you say that was on average 30%?

It was about 30% according.

And again, I think there was another study that I reported last time and that was also included here from the American Journal of Sociology, which showed that particularly in low-income neighborhoods, annual rent rolls are equal to about 25% of the market value of the home.

So it takes about four years of rent rolls to actually be able to pay off a property in that.

So I think this is all to say is landlords aren't really losing I mean, so the idea that they need to be compensated for loss assumes that they're actually losing something or facing some consequence, and that's just not the case.

And just one more number on this.

Seattle Times reported back in February of 2022 that just owning a home in the area meant that your net worth was on average $987,000.

So that is just, again, you're sitting on a mound of gold here, and so the idea that somehow you're losing because of one missed payment is just frankly just not really adding up here.

The last point I just want to highlight is the issue of whether it should be a percentage versus a dollar amount.

I think some prior speakers made some really good points here that using a percentage is basically taking the lack of affordable housing and using that again to bludgeon the tenant by basically saying well we know you're stretching we know your cost burden that about half of tenants in Seattle are having are.

having to pay more than 30% of their income towards rent and our cost burden.

But we're also going to take the fact that you had to buy into or rent out a very expensive unit.

And we're also going to penalize you further because of that expense.

But I think that from just a regulatory standpoint, my biggest issue with the percentage issue is that it's very complicated.

Rents, it sounds simple on the surface where you think, well, it should be 1.5% of the overall rent.

But rent is not exactly what you think it is the legal definition of rent is not just the amount that you're paying every month but it's every periodic charge and may include utilities, a lot of landlords directly pass through fluctuating utilities every month so the result is when you're trying to calculate a percentage.

your late fee percentage changes every month based on how much utilities are being charged.

And just, I really agree with the landlords on this point.

Simplicity matters.

The landlord-tenant relationship is complicated, but we do want to aim for simplicity.

That's why a dollar amount is much more simple.

But again, just coming down to this, I think the $10 makes sense.

We've seen it work in other places.

We've seen the fact that no late fees here in Seattle has not really changed the fact that tenants are paying on time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Edmund.

And Kate and Violet, if you want to.

During public comment, Katie Wilson brought up a really good point that Just because your rent is really high doesn't mean that your income is really high, and these high fees are devastating to low-income workers.

Even the $50 cap on late fees would be nearly three hours of work at minimum wage.

That's hard to make up.

And actually, during public comment, Marilyn Yim noted that parking tickets had higher fees, and they were far less important than keeping a roof over your head.

And I agree, that's why renters always prioritize paying rent first.

This wouldn't change that.

We don't want to lose our homes.

But we need the ability to get caught up if an emergency happens, and these high late fees just impede that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Violet Landoch.

I am the Executive Director of the Tenants Union.

And I am just like, you know, I saw this amendment that Council Member Nelson brought through and everything that we fight for in the community to protect people and to help people, it is, again, Profit over people.

This is profit over people.

We have fact checked.

We have an attorney who has, the thing about this committee is we're actually speaking truth.

What is the reason why you have a council member with her rich landlord friends who is saying, let's change it up.

Let's oppress the people.

I speak from not only as an advocate, a housing champion for many years, but I'm also from the community.

150 have been documented, those stories from tenants, that's just the tip of the iceberg.

We're talking about thousands of people who are feeling this.

We are asking today each council member to look within and to say, I am in this seat to help people, not to oppress the people.

We see council members who hook up with the landlords.

Listen, Cory Brewer, I'm gonna say it because now you're just trying to dig at a council member.

He forgot to mention that he charged a tenant, a black single mom on section eight, $6,000 in damage deposit.

But he didn't share that fact.

He is so worried about council members going to Minnesota.

The next time we take trips, we'll contact you, Corey Brewer, and we'll let you know where we're going around in our nation.

I'm gonna be very respectful, but here's the thing.

We have landlords who are saying, woe is me, the small mom and pop that they actually talk about.

A lot of them actually, unfortunately, we get calls on complaints.

Sometimes they're the bad character.

What we're asking is capping the late fee.

We had Edmund who is speaking on the effects of it.

We had council member fact-checked all of this.

All of this, this other committee, what they're wanting to do is just attack the people.

And it serves no purpose to say, oh, this council member is going to Minnesota, you know, this as well as me, I'm gonna sue them on some of these things that we have passed in the, that we have already passed in legislation.

What we're talking about is a $10 cap.

It is, it doesn't take a genius.

It's another way to oppress the people.

I'm not gonna, you know, they already spoke about what it does, what it doesn't do, this legislation.

But here's the thing, the 150 that was just documented, we're talking about, they're representing thousands of tenants.

They couldn't all testify to it.

So I'm here because the tenants union get calls on this very thing.

you are late in rent already, and then they add on these fees.

There's also a thing called admin fee.

I guess we're gonna have to look into that too.

These are fees that really, it's a domino effect.

You're behind on rent, and then you have this late fee, which actually the highest I ever saw was $75 a day.

And I'll tell you, that is outrageous.

Outrageous.

We implore each council member that is in there to help people, except for Council Member Nelson.

I'm going to speak it, because it's my right to speak it with all the other council members to think about the people, the community, the oppression that is coming.

We're talking about the working poor, people who have three jobs, three jobs.

So what we're asking today is pass this legislation.

Think of the people, think of the community, because once you pass this, you're saying to everybody, yeah, we care about your community.

We're not on the side of the rich people, because that's what it is.

When I saw this today, when I saw this amendment, I almost fell out of my chair.

I was just like, what the heck?

And I'm like, This is another thing.

Again, I will say it again and again.

It is profit over people when these kind of things are amended.

Thank you.

Thank you to all the speakers and I do agree with you, Violet, that both the work that my office has done and also the speakers who are here, especially the renters rights advocates, there has been so much so much dedication to facts.

And so you are right, we are speaking the truth.

And I especially appreciate, Edmund, the statistics that you brought in that I think that really enriched the discussion and hopefully the understanding of all council members of why this legislation says $10 and no more.

I'll look at the Zoom to see if there's any questions towards the panelists.

And the panelists will stay here and I appreciate you in advance for staying here.

But Council President Juarez, did you have questions?

No, I just wanted to let you know I'm still here.

Thank you.

So at this point, I would like to invite Asha Venkatraman from City Council Central Staff.

Asha was here last time as well, and I thank you, Asha, for going over the details of the bill the last time.

But I would invite you again to briefly introduce the bill.

Absolutely.

Good morning Council Members, Asha Venkatraman with Council Central staff.

I can go ahead and provide sort of a description of the difference between this bill so Council Bill 120541 and the bill that was considered last time in committee which is Council Bill 120530. So I'll go through and talk a little bit about the differences between those bills.

the additional provision that is in this bill about notice fees and then happy to answer any questions that anybody has.

This bill, Council Bill 120541, contains the same limitations that Council Bill 120530 contained, which is a cap on late fees at $10 and a prohibition against any other fees associated with the late payment of rent.

that would include things like notice fees for late payments of rent.

Between last last committee and this committee.

The new bill Council want to 0, 5, 4, 1, would add a prohibition against fees associated with notices of any kind so the main difference here is if you were issuing a notice associated with late payment of rent.

No matter what that that You will not be able to the landlord will not be able to charge a fee associated with that notice constable 120541 broadens that prohibition to any notice fees at all so not just those fees that are associated with the late payment of rent.

That are supposed to do with notices for late payment of rent but notices for anything.

So, an easy example would be if there was a notice for example that the landlord needed to access your unit for some reason for repairs for whatever reason that requires some notice that the landlord will need access.

under Council Bill 120530, a landlord would be able to charge for the issuance of that notice.

This Council Bill 120541 would prohibit any fees associated with that notice that they needed to enter a unit.

This is just an example, but the prohibition here would extend to all kinds of notice fees.

sort of general background on the piece of this bill on notice fees, landlords are able to issue any kinds of, many kinds of notices in general, and then charge a fee for preparation or delivery of those notices.

Currently, there's not any regulations associated with those notice fees.

There's not a lot of data about what the content of those fees is either.

It's not clear entirely how frequently landlords do charge a notice fee, if those notice fees are any kind of adherent to the actual costs that the landlord incurs when issuing notices, or they're associated with the cost that it takes for a property management company to cover those notices, what the actual content that the notice fee is covering isn't entirely clear.

That is the main difference here between these bills.

The other main difference is in Council Bill 120530, there was some language that required the notice to include information about what late fees are and the remedies available to a tenant.

That language is no longer included in this version of the bill, but the Department of Construction and Inspections who would enforce this legislation, the direction for them to rulemaking, so notice about legislation is clear to everybody, is still in the bill.

I'll pause real quick if there are any questions about the content of the bills themselves before moving to any issues.

Thank you so much, Asha, for explaining the difference between the draft that we discussed last time and the current and updated draft.

I had some points on that, but I just wanted to make sure there's time for council members to ask you any questions.

I don't see any immediate takers, but just on the points that Asha just made, clarifying that the new version that we are going to be voting on today clarifies the language around fees for delivering a notice.

making it clear that junk fees for delivering a notice are not permitted.

I appreciate you, Arsha, explaining that this is for all notices, not just this one particular type.

And I just wanted to remind people who might have heard this before, but we heard in public comment, I believe the last time in committee on March 17th about a landlord and you can't make this stuff up, about a landlord sending a renter a notice asking for plants to be removed from the patio despite the fact that plants on the patio were permitted on the lease, and then charging the tenant $75 for the delivery of the notice, not for removing the plants, just for the notice.

So that's the kind of junk fee that this current version would address.

Are there questions on the base bill, council members, before I sort of move the bill and open the floor for amendment and all that?

I don't see any.

Okay, so I will go ahead and move the bill and then open the floor for amendments and discussion.

We do have an amendment, as people have noted, from Council Member Nelson listed as proposed amendment one on the agenda.

I apologize to any members of the public, particularly renters who did not have more time to read and consider this amendment.

It was only sent to my office at 3.30 p.m.

yesterday afternoon, despite months of discussion on the topic of this legislation and several requests from my office to make amendments available to the public in advance.

So I will make the motion for the bill.

I will need a second and then I will open the floor for Council Member Nelson to move our amendment.

I move Council Bill 120541. Second.

Thank you.

Council Member Nelson, would you like to move your amendment now?

Yes, please.

I move Amendment 1 to Council Bill 120541. Second.

Please go ahead and explain.

Should I let Asha?

Sure.

Yeah, either way.

Go ahead, Asha.

If you want Asha to explain, that's fine.

Can you please explain it and then I'll follow up?

Yeah, sure.

Go ahead.

Thanks.

Absolutely.

Proposed Amendment 1, rather than have the late fee that is described in this legislation at $10, it would change the limitation to the lesser of $50 or 1.5% of the monthly rent.

So it would increase what is currently the cap to a maximum late fee charge of $50.

So even if 1.5% of the monthly rent ended up being more than $50, the most a landlord could charge for late payment of rent would be $50.

Thank you, Asha.

So on March 16th council members received an email from a 75 year old woman who rents out an ADU in her home at below market rates to supplement her social security check and she said to us that her tenant regularly pays her rent 8 to 21 days late.

And so she finally decided to exercise the clause in the rent agreement and impose a $10 a day rent late fee.

And that had a positive effect.

And she wrote us saying, if you take away my ability to charge more than $10 total in late fees, I'm quite sure she would continue to pay her rent 8 to 21 days or more late.

as she's been doing.

This impacts my ability to timely meet my own financial obligations and causes me so much unnecessary stress.

And so she's echoing what we've heard from many other landlords and small housing providers, large housing providers, people that have emailed us and spoken in committee.

And that is that landlords don't charge late fees to make more money.

They spell out late fees in the rental agreement in order to encourage tenants to pay their rent on time.

Now, we can agree to disagree on why landlords charge late fees, but if we're going to regulate them, the least we could do is make them more fair and more consistent with a renter's ability to pay.

And so I am proposing a progressive or a sliding scale of 1.5% capped at $50, because why should a renter staying in a 20-year-old studio apartment pay the same amount as somebody who's living in a new one-bedroom unit?

And so this is consistent with the fee that is charged by neighboring jurisdictions, such as in unincorporated King County and Redmond and Kenmore, they've all established a 1.5% of monthly fee.

And those rents are more close to Seattle's rents than Auburn or Burien.

And $50 is consistent with what other states have done, which in Calo Colorado and New York have also imposed a cap of $50.

And this is less than what Democrat Strom Peterson tried to do in Olympia this session, which was a $75 cap.

So this 1.5 falls right in the middle of what an editorial in the Seattle Times called for this past Monday.

And they said, A cap based on a small percentage of a tenant's rent between 1 and 3% would serve as an incentive for renters to pay on time, yet not gouge those who are struggling to pay on time.

So here's the thing.

This would, so you're probably wondering, what are the real costs?

Now, my proposal would cost a tenant paying $1,787 a month for rent, $26.80.

And that's the median cost of rent across zero to five bedroom units based on the American Community Survey data from 2021. And that was also the number that was presented in the Office of Housing's presentation last Monday as well.

Now using a different data set, CoStar, which is from 2023 year to date, the rent for a studio apartment is $1,434.

So the fee would be $21.51.

For a one bedroom, it would be $29.34.

So the bottom line is that regardless of what data set that you use, a tenant would have to be paying more than $3,300 a month to almost hit the maximum of $50.

In fact, my math turns out to be that fee would be $49.50.

So anyway, I think that we can all agree that we're trying to not worsen the housing affordability crisis that we've got on our hands, and a reasonable sliding scale fee capped at $50 will help reduce the likelihood of landlords mitigating the risk of late payments by spreading it around and increasing the rent of all tenants.

That's just, like it or not, what is happening.

And so that will disproportionately obviously impact the people who can least afford to pay, who tend to be lower income.

So I'm asking for your support for my proposal of 1.5% monthly rent capped at $50.

Thank you for your consideration.

Madam Chair?

Yes.

Go ahead, Council President Morris.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, I didn't know if you had seen my hand.

I apologize.

First of all, Council Member Sawant and your staff, Central staff, particularly you, Asha, as well, thank you so much for all your research.

And you are right, Council Member Sawant, we have been discussing this since probably, I think, late January.

and we've probably had three committee hearings.

I want to thank SDCI for the information they provided to the committee members and the public.

And Asha, thank you for gathering that information and putting it in a memo and answering our questions about what enforcement and how that would affect SDCI and their caseload.

I want to thank Council Member Nelson for the small landlord roundtable discussion that we had on March 22nd in her committee.

So we had an opportunity, so since January, we've had an opportunity to hear from renters, from activists, from advocates, housing advocates, legal service attorneys, landlords, a lot of discussion, not only focused on today's topic, but of course, what we've all been dealing with is the sky high rents, rent control, the imbalance of power between a renter and a landlord.

And also we've heard from each side every day with emails, bad actors as landlords and bad actors as renters.

We could probably spend a ton of time going back and forth about that, but those aren't the questions that we need to answer today.

I want to start with, I will be supporting Council Member Nelson's amendment and I'll tell you why.

As the law stands now, as we know, landlords can impose a late fee.

Whether we agree with that or not, that's not here nor there, they can impose late fees.

The question is, How do we, what is the amount of that?

I agree that we do need a cap on the rent on late fees.

And I've been clear on that since Council Member Sawant's first committee hearing.

We do need a cap.

And then the question is, how much or how do we calculate that cap or that fee?

Obviously, one side is $10 should be a $10 flat fee.

Another issue is, but Council Member Nelson and others have said, including other unincorporated King County, and Redmond is a percentage.

And we know that Bering and Auburn impose a $10 flat fee.

So, and I'm glad you brought up about the legislation that was introduced by Representatives in Peterson House Bill 1124, which would have kept fees at about $75, which did not pass the House and failed.

So this is an ongoing conversation.

And again, thank you, Council Member Sawant for bringing it to our attention.

and getting some type of legislation in place to cap fees.

I'm supporting the underlying legislation and the premise of having a cap on late fees.

And I'm also supporting council members Nelson's amendment.

Because I think when we look at how we calculate the fees and looking at other jurisdictions, and thank you, Asha, for putting this together.

Besides talking about Redmond being at 1.5 and unincorporated King County being at 1.5% of monthly rent and Burien and Auburn at a $10 cap, we also looked at Colorado, which is a 5% of the rent past due or $50, whichever is greater.

We also looked at New York, which is a 5% of monthly rent or $50, whichever is less.

but that's another issue because they have rent control.

There's Washington DC, which is 5% of amount of rent due.

And Oregon, a reasonable flat fee per rental period, a reasonable daily amount with a daily maximum of 6% of any flat fee charge with no more than 5% of the periodic rent.

Minnesota, 8% of overdue rent.

Texas, I don't care what Texas does, Illinois, reasonable is $20 or 20% of the rent, whichever is greater.

So there's a bunch of states.

So I had an opportunity, as I know you all did, to kind of take a balanced approach that, yes, we can impose caps.

What should that amount be and what is fair to the landlord and to the renter?

So I think that this is a common sense approach.

I think it's fact.

I think it's fact based.

It's been thoroughly discussed.

I don't think we can talk about it anymore, that a sliding scale is fair.

I think it gives proper notice.

And again, Council Member Sawant, thank you for adding and editing, taking out all those other junk fees on the discussion of not charging a renter for the preparation or delivery of any of these fees.

And on a personal note, which I normally don't share when it comes to legislation, as you all know, I kind of like to look at this from a standpoint of what's common sense going forward for everybody is my whole life.

I have been a renter my whole life more than I've been a homeowner.

I did not even know what a mortgage was till I was in law school.

So I know about what it's like to live in low-income housing, HUD homes, being a renter, being kicked out, being evicted.

I understand that.

And I know that it's different now with sky-high rents and what we're dealing with with homelessness.

And understanding that now, as a homeowner, which happened much later in life, that there are fees attached.

And I want to appreciate the people that came forward, particularly the King County housing folks and some of the landlords and some of the renters that talked about these fees and what the impact does to them.

So again, I think this is just a nice, straightforward, common sense approach.

And for that reason, I will be supporting Council Member Nelson's amendment.

Thank you.

I see councilmember Lewis has

I would like to make a comment on the constraints of the pandemic and all the inequities that that brought forward.

We have seen an increased emphasis both nationally and regionally as the previous councilmembers attested to and a lot of the presenters did.

Exuberant fees assessed when rent is past due as much as 20% or As has been noted, we're a little bit of a late adopter in the region, given that several other cities have been moving toward setting caps.

We've seen two models that have begun to emerge, Auburn and Burien indicating one of a set amount of $10, and then Redmond and unincorporated King County setting a sliding scale percentage of 1.5.

The sliding scale percentage, as I understand it, is also under consideration in a couple of other King County cities.

I know Kirkland in particular is also considering a 1.5 percentage cap.

I think that the sliding scale percentage as an initial step is a better policy.

I don't want the city to be in a position where we are periodically having discussions about what we reset.

the certain number, in this case, $10, too, and when we revisit that number and set it over time, because I don't think it would be sustainable to keep the number at $10 in perpetuity, whereas a percentage, I think, is a little bit more consistent as a policy and subject to broader reevaluation as we assess the impact of the policy and want to tighten or loosen it.

1.5% is consistent with what other jurisdictions in the region are doing.

It's one of the emerging more dominant models that we've been seeing in addition to the $10 model, which we're also considering here today.

And it's considerably lower at 1.5% than some of the percentage regulations that we're seeing nationally or being considered at the state.

So it's still a significant progressive step forward.

So for that reason today, I'm supporting the 1.5% amendment that's before the committee and I won't extend my remarks any further and turn it back over to you, Madam Chair.

Council Member Morales, did you want to speak?

Sure, thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

You know, we know that landlords have an obligation to provide this written notice.

I think, and I should start by saying I appreciate all of the panelists who have come to all of the committee meetings to share their lived experience and to share their professional experience with these issues and how these fees can really impact somebody's ability to stay housed or make some really tough decisions about what else is not going to get paid in order that they're able to pay their rent.

And tenants shouldn't have to pay for an investor's obligation to maintain their investment.

I have to say the fact that we even talk about housing in this way as somebody's investment, as somebody's business that they're running is part of the problem here in my mind.

If housing is a human right, we shouldn't be commodifying this.

But in any case, late fees just penalize people who are obviously struggling to pay the rent already.

And I think that we are making an important decision here today about how to ensure protections for people who are trying to keep a roof over their heads.

We know that wages in the city have not kept up with the high cost of rent and this is part of the struggle that we're dealing with as a city is how we start to catch up with housing production and do it in a way that ensures affordability, hopefully permanent affordability for people so that they aren't.

constantly at risk of getting pushed out of their homes.

I think it's important that we tap this fee at $10 so that we, you know, maybe cover the cost of actually having to send an email.

But I don't think that providing an opportunity for higher for something like this is really going to solve a problem for landlords.

And I think it will create lots of problems for renters.

So I will not be supporting the amendment and look forward to supporting the underlying bill.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

I do have points, obviously, but Council President Juarez, did you have your hand up again?

Yes, I apologize.

Yes, I do have it.

I'm just going to say this quickly to Council Member Morales, I did not mean to diss her home state of Texas.

It was just too lengthy to go through what their calculations were.

Apologies to the Lone Star State.

Thank you.

As I said, I do have a point to respond, but I wanted to invite panelists if you wanted to respond about this amendment.

and also the positions that the council members have taken.

Yes, I do.

I think one of the things we see, even if you've lived experience, if you say, hey, I know what it feels like, I've been there, done that, you should be supporting this bill.

Seriously, you should be.

I'm struck by reasonings of let's appease the landlords again.

Here's the thing, these are actual people.

These fees, the outrageous increase in rent is so unaffordable, but people are struggling.

What's a $10?

You've had Edmund state the facts.

You've had the office state the facts.

This is such a minute thing, but you have these landlords who just like, let's just keep sticking it to them.

I'm gonna tell you about the legislation that is on the books right now.

A lot of it has been written by landlords.

Our job right now is to undo some of these things that have been oppressing the people.

I can't hardly sit in my seat.

Who cares about Texas?

we're talking about Washington State.

Let's stick to Washington State, the city of Seattle, and set a precedent, Burien and Auburn are doing it.

So I don't know this most progressive city in the world, they say, Seattle, which is not, because we got council members who are oppressing the people.

I'm asking that you all take a look at this bill again, this legislation and pass it.

Thank you about it.

Do other speakers want to speak admin to do you want to speak, I can.

I think we're talking about a balance of power here.

I keep hearing you say, we want to make this fair for the landlords and the renters.

But remember, there are very few landlords and there's tons, over 50% of people are renters.

So if someone's struggling to pay $2,000 a month in rent, and then it's late, then they got to come up with another, what is it, $30?

You know, that's very difficult for them, whereas it doesn't really matter to the landlord.

They're just going to get more money.

It's just completely gratuitous.

I would really, really urge you to vote down this amendment.

I think capping at $10 is enough.

As I said before, Renters already have incentive to pay on time.

And if they don't we've heard all the reasons why And people work it out.

So Please I would ask you to uh understand that this is not fair in any way that ten dollars is realistic I think we heard that landlords are making 30 profit now.

This is That's an incredible investment.

And housing providers know these people are in it for the profit.

Thank you.

Yeah, and I really respect everything that the prior Council members and Council President said.

I do want to note, I've worked on legislation and ordinances like this in all the cities that were invoked, and I will note that SeaTac next week is considering an ordinance like this that has a $10 late fee, and we haven't heard a single Council member express resistance to that issue.

When we did this in Burien and Auburn, it was similarly common sense.

We did hear very similar language though I think that we had heard just recent just, I mean, previously from the Redmond City Council from more kind, honestly from more of the right word side of the King County Council when this issue had come up and it was coming up from an angle that it's hard to not hear.

there is a little bit of a disconnect with some of the renters and a lot of the lower income constituents that people are working with.

Because when we worked with Auburn, when we worked with SeaTac, when we worked with Burien, this was just common sense.

There was like renters should not be paying for that type of penalty.

It's a penalty on poverty.

And again, it's just hard to not hear that when we go back to this percentage issue, that we're really kind of invoking a kind of disconnect with what renters are actually going through.

And again, We didn't find this type of issue when we were working in the sort of the higher or I'm sorry, lower income areas in South King County.

I want to note that a lot of the things that I've heard about renters have been really infantilizing.

Renters are not children.

I mean, we have children, but we're not children.

We can make our own decisions.

We're working so hard to stay housed.

We don't need incentive to pay our rent on time.

We pay it when we have it.

We prioritize it above all other bills.

$50 is a lot of money for somebody who is low income.

So who is this going to harm the most?

It's obviously the low income communities, Black and Indigenous communities, working families.

It really needs to be capped at $10.

$50 is too much.

And a percentage is, as Edmund pointed out earlier, hard to calculate.

which can put you further behind not just with the financial indication but also just the confusion and the time it takes to untangle it.

Yeah so I think that what this is really fundamentally coming down to is who these council members are representing right now.

If we're looking at the number of voters in these districts, we know that the majority of those people are renters.

So who elected the city council?

Was it the renters of this area or was it the landlords?

Because the representation that I am seeing right now is clearly going in the favor of the landlords, despite the immense amount of data that has been shown today to blatantly say that to call a 1.5% percent monthly rent fee equitable is just factually inaccurate.

Only two percent of Seattle renting units are less than two thousand dollars.

So less than two percent of Seattle renting units would receive a thirty dollar late fee.

A thirty dollar late fee.

I don't know if you can point me to a plethora of apartments for less than $2,000 in Seattle.

I would love that.

That would be great.

I'm not seeing that.

$30 late fee is a massive amount for working people.

If we're looking at the previous thing that was said, which is $50 is the average grocery bill for folks on assistance.

So that's leaving $20 left for that week, if we're gonna put it into real hard concrete numbers.

So when we're talking and the continual sort of ignorance of the fact that the people who are, living in higher rent units are not higher income tenants.

As a person who has had the same income for about the past six years, my income has stayed the exact same.

My bills, my rent have all increased By a considerable amount.

I think that that's the same for All people here living in seattle.

We have not seen the increase so to just completely ignore the facts here.

Um is showing me that uh, you know Council members I think have the opportunity to today to show whether or not they are representing their constituents the people who predominantly live in the city or the landlords, um when we're talking about a balance here we cannot in any way pretend that landlords and tenants are on equal footing and so we need council members to stand with renters to be able to fully back this up and yeah absolutely a shame I think.

Yeah, can I say something Council Member Sawant?

There is no apartment building or unit that is under $2,000.

Yeah, where do you get your data?

Everything is over $2,000.

So when you see they send me, you might prove me wrong, but I don't know that it even exists in the city of Seattle.

Thank you to all the panelists who responded to the question of the amendment itself and also the positions that the council members have taken.

I will try not to repeat too many points because I think very important points have been made by the panelists and also by Council Member Morales.

Thank you for saying that you're going to vote against this amendment as am I.

I do, I think Ellen used the word staggering.

I do find it absolutely staggering that in the face of such such incredibly systematic data collection, all the facts that have been presented, such a strong—as council members love, Democrats love to say robust—we've made a robust case.

We've also done what's called stakeholdering.

You know, these politicians like to say stakeholdering.

We've done so-called stakeholdering which in my view is bringing the voices of renters and landlords who actually are going to be honest about the problem and I do find it absolutely staggering that in the face of such incredible numbers of facts that Council Member Nelson has brought this amendment forward and that Council President Juarez and Council Member Lewis are going to vote in favor of it.

I also want to say this argument that Council Member Lewis put forward that, well, you know, I mean, the way he said it is, well, obviously $10 would need to be revised in the future.

Why?

Why would that need to be revised?

It's not wages that need to be kept up with inflation.

And so if you did a flat rate increase, you know, if the bosses, try to negotiate a flat rate with the union for wages of the workers, then that would be a reasonable thing to say, well, we would need to revisit that because the cost of living is going to be different at a different moment.

But this is not something that needs to be revised in any way.

In fact, as Edmund said, we don't even need, there shouldn't be any late fees really because it is of no consequence to whether tenants pay their landlord's rent.

As Maddie said, Why would you, you know, I wrote down after she spoke, why would you choose to be late with paying rent that you know you have to pay anyway?

You only have to lose not to gain if you don't pay rent on time, because it affects your credit score, it affects your rental history.

And if you keep not paying, then you're going to get evicted.

So it's just, it's a straw man argument to say that there are policies, some sound policy reason to not go for $10 because that it will need to be revised.

No, the only reason if that would be need to be revised is if it's a landlord supporting dominated council, which is probably going to be starting next year.

And then you're going to start trying to repeal the renter's rights that we have won.

But there is no actual policy reason to revise it if it were $10.

So it really truly is an important example.

One, it's an important example of how even Council Member Nelson, who as people stated, voted against the ban on caste discrimination also, which was another glaring example of a non-progressive vote, But that even this amendment had to take into account how much renters have gotten organized.

I really want to thank the Stay Healthy Coalition also for the advocacy that has been done collectively that forced these pro landlord council members to cap it at $50.

But having said that, I also want to echo what Kate said.

$50 is a lot of money for many, many low-income households.

And the people who are going to be disproportionately affected by that is households of color, especially women-led, single-parent households of color.

They are going to be the most affected.

And I don't believe that council members who are going to vote yes on this amendment have the right to call themselves progressive.

It is not a progressive thing to vote in favor of this amendment.

But I'm not going to yeah I'm not going to repeat other points I think it is it is just to say though that it is gratuitous it is gratuitous to support this amendment because you know you're gonna have to cap because renters are demanding it, but you're gonna squeeze out every, in other words, nickel and diming renters as much as you can.

And there's nothing honorable in that, I'm sorry.

So I believe that we have spoken and council members have, and I have said this, yes, but as Ted is correctly reminding me now, Council Member Nelson, you get the final word as far as this amendment is concerned because you're the sponsor.

No, I'm good, thank you.

Okay, so I will, because we have had a thorough discussion, I will have Ted, who's the committee clerk, to please call the roll on the proposed amendment one.

So this is the vote on the amendment, not the underlying legislation.

Council Member Sawant?

No.

Member Morales?

No.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Juarez?

Aye.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Three in favor, two against.

The amendment passes.

Thank you, Ted.

And now, unless council members want to bring more regressive amendments, I don't see any Zoom hands up.

I will ask council members one last time, is there any other discussion about the legislation as a whole?

I don't see anything, so I will ask Ted to call the roll, please, on Council Bill 120541.

Vote on Council Bill 120541 as amended.

Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Juarez?

Aye.

Five in favor.

Thank you, Ted.

The council bill as amended passes and will be on the April 18th full city council agenda.

Just before closing, I wanted to clarify a couple of other things.

One is council members who voted in favor of that shameful amendment said that it would make sense to have a sliding scale.

Let's be clear, sliding scale implies that a varying rate is progressive.

You can't use whatever words you want to describe your amendment.

Your amendment was regressive and anti-working people.

But it's not a sliding scale.

As Kate said, there are many households that are forced to live in homes that rent for greater than $2,000 because 55% of the rental apartments in Seattle rent for greater than $2,000.

And then there are families with children that then are forced to live in homes that have more rooms because that's the space they need and then end up paying more than $3,000.

There's nothing progressive about, it's not a sliding scale, it's a pro landlord.

amendment.

And at the same time, I wanted to emphasize that we would not have been able to win a cap on late fees had we not had renters get organized, had we not had community organizations, including the Housing Justice Project, B-Seattle, Tenants Union, Socialist Alternative, many other organizations, many of whom are already part of the Stay Healthy Coalition advocating for it.

My deepest thanks also go to the rank and file renters, union members, workers who have spoken in multiple committees.

I also urge you to come and speak at the city council meeting on April 18th, because it's not done yet.

We still need the legislation to pass.

And just, you know, last but not least, I hope all renters and working people and union members who are listening to this or will be listening to this, watching the video, Seattle Channel video, understand that What we win, we win because we fight for it.

And sometimes we don't win everything we are fighting for.

But if we didn't fight, we wouldn't win anything at all.

And it would be a much worse situation as we read out the stories.

Many renters are facing horrendous situations of late fees.

So if this bill passes City Council, then it will be an enormous step forward for renters and the only people who get to claim credit for it is rank and file renters and all the community organizations that advocated for it.

Thank you.

I don't see any requests to speak, so I will go ahead and adjourn the meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you.