Seattle City Council Sustainability & Renters' Rights Committee 3/4/21

councilmember Sawant?

Councilmember Morales?

Council Member Peterson.

Here.

Council Member Lewis.

Present.

Council Member Warris.

Or present.

Thank you, Ted, and thank you, council members, for being here.

In today's committee, we will continue the discussion we started at our previous committee about evictions in Seattle, the need to extend the moratorium on evictions, the importance of legal representation for people facing eviction, and the problem of default evictions.

We have for possible vote the right to counsel legislation from my office and from renters rights advocates, which guarantees that any renter in Seattle facing eviction has the right to a lawyer regardless of ability to pay.

Thank you so much to Councilmember Lewis, who has co-sponsored the legislation and has spoken in favor of it.

In the over the past several, several years to the people's budget movement and efforts from my office in coordination with the people's budget and so many activists, we have one city level public funding for eviction defense attorneys, such as through the housing justice project.

The right to counsel legislation would commit the city of Seattle to contracting for all the legal representation that is needed, such that attorneys from organizations like the Housing Justice Project can defend every renter facing eviction who needs help.

Before the pandemic, about 1,200 renters in Seattle faced eviction every year.

Even during the pandemic, With the moratoriums in place, landlords have filed more than 300 eviction cases with the courts as they are exploiting loopholes in the moratoriums.

And without this right to counsel legislation, we can expect a tsunami of evictions once the city and state moratoriums expire as renters will still be struggling under the double blows of the capitalist recession and the COVID health crisis and will be burdened with debt.

We know that evictions destroy communities, wreck households, and even kill.

The 2018 report, Losing Home, the Human Cost of Eviction in Seattle, found that 87.5% of all tenants who are evicted end up homeless.

In their study of 2017 evictions, the authors of the report, the Seattle Women's Commission and the King County Bar Association, found that some tenants even died shortly after being evicted.

We also know from data that the Housing Justice Project staff will be presenting shortly that many evictions occur because tenants don't show up in court.

These are called default evictions.

It would be preposterous, of course, for anyone to claim that this is because tenants don't care about being evicted.

Rather, many tenants fail to show up in court because they are not aware of their rights.

They are bullied by their corporate landlords and are led to believe that an eviction is inevitable, that they can't do anything to fight against it, or they are undaunted by an unfamiliar and labyrinthine court system, so they understandably give up.

Sometimes tenants are preoccupied with healthcare challenges or busy with multiple jobs and childcare and have difficulty making a court date.

I would really urge council members who are members of this renters rights committee, and then the full city council to pass this bill without watering it down with loopholes, which I'm sure our panelists are going to be talking about specifically why we don't want the means testing loophole and why it doesn't work.

After the council passes this right to council legislation, the city council must, there's two words, council and council.

Right to council is obviously, we mean legal council, not council as in a committee council.

But after passing this legislation, the city council must immediately take up the related legislation that my office is drafting to minimize, if not completely do away with default evictions by providing that renters be fully informed of their rights and their right to representation before any eviction proceeding begins.

This includes imposing notification requirements on landlords and also funding outreach and education so tenants know what their rights are, including their right to legal representation.

I also want to add a note about whom we are talking about when we talk about landlords who are evicting.

We'll hear more from our panel on this, but suffice it to say that it's not struggling mom and pop landlords who are the most evicting landlords disproportionately the landlords who are showing up in court time and again, seek to evict tenants in and seeking to evict tenants in Seattle and King County are the big corporate landlords, big regional, national, and even global real estate management companies which make profits for millionaires and billionaires at the expense of working class renters and who have unlimited resources to hire attorneys and other legal resources.

I would also, of course, mention that Tenants in publicly owned housing also, unfortunately, are often victims of evictions.

But in my view, that only adds more evidence as to why we need this kind of right to counsel legislation and why we need to address default evictions.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU, found that nationally 90% of landlords are represented in eviction court, while only 10% of tenants are.

Can you imagine as a struggling tenant facing eviction, perhaps because you just lost your low wage job?

going up against the likes of attorneys from Goodman Real Estate, a global enterprise with $2.5 billion worth of real estate, that's billion with a B, in managed assets and the number one evicting landlord in our city.

Imagine being a lone tenant going up against a multi-billion dollar enterprise.

Our right to counsel legislation will give these tenants at least a fighting chance in court when they have to go up against these greedy corporate landlords.

We also know that we need to do more than win the right of every tenant to be represented in court.

We have to stop evictions from being filed in the first place.

That is exactly why my office has also launched a petition demanding that Mayor Durkin and Governor Inslee immediately renew the eviction moratoriums for renters, small businesses, and nonprofits through 2021. We know this unprecedented economic crisis for working people will extend at least through the end of this year.

And as Seattle and state public health experts have recently reported, the public health crisis, which was the original basis for the emergency declarations last March, also will extend at least to the end of this year, even with the best projections from state health officials on vaccination dissemination.

I think it's probably obvious to say that tenants' rights legislation is wildly popular with rent tenants, who, as you know, constitute about half of all residents in our city.

It applies to all the district council members and the city-wide council members.

And renters will soon be in the clear majority.

But committee members should also know that small landlords have also been speaking up in support of tenants' rights.

One landlord from Fremont recently wrote to us saying, quote, I am a landlord and rental property owner.

I support these protections for people renting from me or from anybody else.

Money should not be ranked higher in importance than people's health and safety at any time, but especially during a public health crisis.

And Evan from West Seattle, responding to our call to extend the eviction moratorium, wrote, quote, I'm a Seattle homeowner who rents out a portion of my home, and I support extending the rent moratorium.

It's immoral for landlords to kick out renters during a pandemic for not being able to pay rent.

when so many are losing their jobs due to no fault of their own, end quote.

I really am appreciative of the small landlords who have written in support of tenants' rights in our city.

The right to council bill will hopefully be the first in a series of renters' right legislation that this committee will discuss this spring and in this coming summer.

In today's committee, we will start with discussing with the community panel, including renters and experts about the right to council and also about future legislation that will be needed As I said, one of the key problems is default evictions, which I will sort of go over a little bit as an introduction when we come to the panel.

And after the panel, we will hear from city council central staff about the right to council legislation for a possible vote.

And finally, the committee will vote on four reappointments to the City of Seattle Renters Commission.

Before we begin all those items, we have public comment.

And I will be reading the names of each person who has signed up for public comment.

And everybody who signed up for public comment should please know that we have a minute for each of you.

We have 30 people signed up for public comment.

So just want to make sure everybody is heard.

And so rather than the usual two minutes, we'll go with one minute.

Ted, if you're ready, I would like to call the first name.

We have Daniel Cavanaugh.

Am I?

Yes, we can.

Oh, hey, my name's Dan.

I'm a renter in the Central District and a constituent in District 3. I just wanted to urge the council members, you know, that we really need to pass Shama's legislation to offer a right to a public council for renters facing eviction.

i live up over a twenty seventh in charity about a block away from our the gas fire was the other day and a lot of my neighbors who uh...

uh...

you know i've talked to have uh...

lost their jobs and have rental that building uh...

building up and they understand that you know when the eviction moratorium is lifted that that is going to come crashing down on them uh...

if we don't have some other kind of protection and uh...

you know a lot of landlords already have been exploiting loopholes in the law uh...

and uh...

in cities where a right to counsel has been passed, evictions have gone down significantly.

So I think, you know, I just want to urge that no loopholes are put forward for this legislation, because we need the strongest possible version of this bill.

Thank you, Dan.

Next, we have Angie Gerald, followed by Brett Waller.

Angie, go ahead.

Hi, my name is Angie, and my husband and I have been small landlords in District 6 since 2003. We rent two single-family houses in the Lower Phinney area.

A little over a year ago, I met with council members to want staff along with a few other small local housing providers, mom and pop, landlords, all.

Collectively, people like us offer a significant portion of the remaining naturally affordable housing in the city.

I'm speaking today to confirm that our concerns are playing out and city council's actions are greatly intensifying the fleeing of small landlords from the Seattle market.

You are creating a Seattle rental environment that is far more corporate and favorable for deep-pocketed investors with greater polarization between haves and have not.

Seattle's current and proposed policies have created massively increased risk for small housing providers.

Many more people are selling their Seattle rental properties who never intended to.

It's possible to focus on improving tenant stability and preventing evictions while avoiding extremism and unintended impacts.

Seattle City Council has not collaborated with little landlords.

The RRIO database has all our contact info if you want to work with the little guys in preventing evictions and cultivating and increase not further dwindling of independent locally owned rental housing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Brett Waller, followed by Grayson Van Arsdale.

Good morning.

This is Brett Waller representing the Washington Multifamily Housing Association.

We are supportive of access to council, but wanted to raise the concern about the constitutional gift of public funds as it relates to the current language of the bill.

I'm happy to talk further with any of the council members on the committee about this issue and our support of access to council as this bill moves forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Grayson followed by Blythe Serrano and then Jacob Shear.

Go ahead, Grayson.

Hey, I'm Grayson.

I'm a renter in the Central District and I'm in support of guaranteeing the legal right to council for renters.

not only would this legislation reduce evictions overall it would strike a really significant blow against landlord intimidation which we know is rampant and even more so during this crisis where a third of all adults have had to use their savings or retirement to pay their bills in the last year.

I think we can agree that this affording of a basic legal right to renters is urgently needed so what I want to emphasize is that it should be passed without means testing and without an expiration date.

I think the suggestion of an expiration date is particularly insidious just given that You know, evictions don't have an expiration date.

And I think the idea of guaranteeing legal representation in a situation where defendants could have their lives ruined by simply not understanding court procedure is a pretty basic feature of democracy.

A right to counsel with an expiration date isn't a right at all.

I think the real question is, should renters be equipped to protect themselves from corporate and predatory landlords or not?

Council member Sawant and the hard work of her office and the renters rights movement for bringing this forward.

Every council member should vote yes on it.

Thank you.

We have Blythe next, and then Jacob Shear, and then after that, Jordan Quinn.

Go ahead, Blythe.

Hi, my name is Blythe.

I am a renter in Mount Baker, and I'm calling in support of Right to Counsel for renters facing eviction now and after the pandemic is over.

The vast majority of King County residents who are evicted end up homeless, and some even die.

Evictions also force children to give up their schools and friends, which is an especially prevalent concern, given that among tenants who appear in eviction courts, those with children are significantly more likely to be evicted than those without.

Right to council is also an issue of racial and gender justice.

According to the ACLU, black renters in Washington state had evictions filed against them at more than twice the rate of white renters, with black women facing the highest risk.

The city council cannot claim to support the Black Lives Matter movement while doing nothing to prevent renters of color from being evicted at alarming rates.

That's why I urge the city council to vote yes on council member Sawant's legislation and guarantee every renter facing eviction right to legal representation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jacob and then followed by Jordan Quinn and Margo Stewart.

Go ahead, Jacob.

Jacob, you'll need to hit star six to unmute.

speak on behalf of real change.

I'm here today to speak on behalf of real change and our low income unhoused and housing insecure vendors.

Uh, real change stands unequivocally with council members.

So on legislation to provide all Seattle tenants with the right to legal counsel when faced with eviction, uh, this of course being insulated to the need to institute an eviction moratorium through the end of 2021. Um, we must start with eviction ban through at least the end of the year, recognizing that COVID-19 and the economic devastation that has brought will continue to impact Seattle.

And in particular, it's most vulnerable communities for the foreseeable future.

We need our council members to meet this crisis head-on.

This is not the time for half measures or pragmatic solutions.

We need you to meet the immediate material needs of thousands of your constituents and keep people in their homes.

It should be a really easy decision for you.

Ensure tenants' legal right to counsel and institute an eviction more times at the end of 2021. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Jordan Quinn followed by Margo Stewart and then Eva Metz.

Go ahead, Jordan.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Hi, my name is Jordan Quinn.

I'm a renter in District 2, a member of Socialist Alternative, and I'm urging the committee to pass and not water down Council Member Sawant's legislation for renters facing eviction to be guaranteed a right to legal counsel.

I'd like to thank Council Member Sawant for putting forward this legislation.

We really need to extend the eviction moratorium, like the last speaker said, to the end of the year.

But right now, the moratorium is up at the end of the month.

And if that comes due, big landlords and property management companies are going to go on the offensive to kick out renters, despite the ongoing pandemic.

Already, 300 evictions have been carried out while the moratorium has been in effect, and largely by big landlords and not small ones.

Anyone in this position deserves to have a lawyer, just like the landlord evicting them, It's also crucial that any right to counsel not be means-tested.

In some cities like San Francisco, the right to counsel is guaranteed without any means-testing.

And the data out of San Francisco shows that, overwhelmingly, these are low-income people already.

So in a sense, the means-test is built into the very fact that they're in eviction court.

Well-off people aren't getting these eviction notices.

So it's really crucial that the committee pass this legislation out of committee.

Thank you.

We have Margo.

And then after that, Eva Metz and Matthew Smith.

Go ahead, Margo.

Hi, my name is Margo.

I'm a renter in District 3. Also commenting to support Council Member Sawant's initiative to provide the legal right to counsel for tenants facing eviction.

And I urge the committee to approve this measure fully, as others have said, without loopholes, without sunset clauses, and without means testing.

We know that in the majority of cases, evictions are filed with the intent of bullying or harassing tenants into leaving, and that, unfortunately, this is usually successful because low-income tenants either aren't aware of the resources available to them or simply don't have time to fully take advantage of them.

And so this would be a huge boon to these people.

And as others have said, these evictions are, of course, predominantly coming from big corporate landlords who are drawing in profits during the pandemic while their tenants are struggling to make ends meet.

But I think it's worth noting that the right to counsel is a crucial measure during the pandemic and economic crisis, but it should remain in place after because we can't forget that Seattle was the epicenter of a housing and affordability crisis before COVID hit.

And despite the moratorium, which should be extended, evictions are still being served, and no doubt there will be a deluge of them after it ends, landing on already heavily financially burdened tenants.

It won't stop being an issue.

And so this right to counsel won't stop being necessary to keep people housed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have Eva Metz next, and then Matthew Smith and Alicia Lewis.

Go ahead, Eva.

Hi, my name is Eva and I'm a renter in district two.

Um, I think the city council needs to vote yes on council members to launch legislation and support legal representation for all tenants facing evictions.

Some politicians worry about the opportunity cost of the city paying funds for renters have attorneys.

And I think it would be inexcusable for politicians to say that the most vulnerable and low income community members should not get this basic assistance.

I grew up in Baltimore, where the eviction crisis is even worse than here.

And a 2020 study found that investing $5.7 million into the right to counsel legislation would save Baltimore and Maryland $35.6 million in emergency shelter, health care, child care, and other costs.

So if you want to just look at the numbers, preventing the evictions that happen every year in Seattle and King County would save the state millions of dollars We need this legislation and now we also need to extend the eviction moratorium through at least the end of 2021. Thank you.

We have Matthew Smith followed by Alicia Lewis and then Aiden Nardone.

Go ahead, Matthew.

Is Matthew Smith there?

He appears to be unmuted and should be able to speak.

How about we go to the next speaker?

Alicia Lewis will come back to Matthew.

Alicia, go ahead.

And Alicia will need to hit star six to unmute.

Hi, my name is Alicia Lewis.

I'm a renter in District 3 and a member of Socialist Alternative.

I also support Councilmember Sawant's legislation guaranteeing renters the right to counsel.

And I believe that this bill is long overdue.

Seattle's been in a big developer-fueled housing crisis for decades with skyrocketing rent.

And now with this historic recession, that crisis has exploded.

Even with eviction moratoriums in place, since the pandemic began, more than 300 Seattle tenants have been served with eviction papers.

And when the moratorium expires, renters are going to be burdened with debt and an onslaught of evictions.

And that's why we need to fight for the right to counsel now and to extend the current moratoriums, at least through the end of the year.

And even when the pandemic ends, we cannot afford to return to business as usual, which in reality was already a daily hardship for working people.

And that's why this legislation needs to be passed with no escalation.

The capitalist for-profit system has proven itself completely incapable of providing for the basic needs of humanity, from housing to health care to preventing climate catastrophe.

We need to strengthen renters' rights now so that we can grow the movement to massively expand public affordable housing and challenge the capitalist system itself.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is Matthew Smith here?

Hello.

Can you hear me?

Yeah, Matthew, we can hear you.

Go ahead.

Great.

Yeah, my name is Matthew Smith.

I'm a renter in District 2. Sorry, I was muted before.

I urge the Council to vote in favor of Councilmember Suan's right to Council legislation without means testing, without any other measures to water down what I think is a really basic right for renters to defend themselves in court from predatory corporate landlords.

We're facing down an eviction crisis on top of a pre-existing housing crisis in Seattle.

And these are predominantly big landlords that are driving the eviction crisis.

The report from B-Seattle and Housing Justice Project shows it's companies like Goodman Real Estate, like Epic Asset Management, like Essex Property Management, Carl Hagelin's company, who are driving this.

They have millions and millions of dollars to throw into legal battles, and we will be unable to solve the housing problems in Seattle until we change the fundamental balance of power between renters and big corporate landlords This right to council legislation is one small step, I think a really basic and fundamental step in giving renters a fighting chance in court.

I urge you to pass it without loopholes.

Thank you very much for the time.

Thank you.

We now have Aiden Nardone.

Apologies if I'm mispronouncing anybody's names.

And then after Aiden, we have Zoe Amer and then Hannah Swoboda.

Go ahead, Aiden.

Good morning.

My name is Aiden Nardone.

I'm a retired senior citizen that has been renting from a reputable mom-and-pop landlord for many years.

They strive to provide a healthy, safe, and affordable residence.

As the city council continues to pass laws that hobble mom-and-pop landlords and force them to incur increased expenses, more mom-and-pop landlords are selling their properties and safe and affordable rentals are coming off the market.

These properties will revert to an owner-occupied piece of property, or they will be sold to a developer who will build more expensive townhomes.

Aren't non-profit housing providers under the same Fair Housing Landlord Tenants Regulations umbrella?

I haven't heard one word from any of them about this proposed legislation.

This proposed legislation does not help to maintain the supply of safe and affordable rental units across the city.

It will compound the problem.

This legislation will turn into another wrecking ball coming down the turnpike.

Thank you.

We have Zoe Amer followed by Hannah Svoboda and then Hannah Swanson.

Go ahead, Zoe.

Good morning.

My name is Zoe Amer.

I'm a resident of District 4. The Committee of Sustainability and Renters' Rights must vote yes on the proposal to fund legal representation for renters facing eviction.

According to a 2017 King County Bar Association report in Seattle women and people of color bear the brunt of economic insecurity which makes them disproportionately at risk for eviction.

Just as we stand against the disproportionate violence and brutality that BIPOC and LGBTQ people face from the police We must stand against the disproportionate brutality they face at the hands of huge corporate landlords.

Small landlords will have concerns, just like small business owners had concerns on passing the $15 minimum wage, which Seattle's now so proud of, and which Biden has shamefully failed to pass federally.

The $15 minimum wage succeeded in Seattle, and the eviction moratorium, relief for renters, and legal representation are all possible as well without jeopardizing small homeowners who rent to tenants.

The vast majority of evictions come from huge corporate landlords.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

We have Hannah Sobota followed by Hannah Swanson and then Ariana Laureano.

Go ahead Hannah Sobota.

Hi.

I'm a renter in District 3 and I'm calling to urge the council to vote yes on council member Swanson's legislation to give tenants right to council.

The bottom line is that evictions are an act of violence and seriously upend our community.

Every tenant facing evictions needs a lawyer.

Time and time again, landlords have legal representation and tenants do not.

But in cities that already have right-to-council legislation, eviction rates have plummeted.

As many have already said, the reality is that big landlords are by far the ones carrying out evictions.

This legislation is not targeting mom-and-pop landlords.

We're talking about property management corporations, sometimes global entities.

These are landlords who often file eviction papers just to bully renters into leaving, just to turn a profit.

Housing should not be about profit.

Even with eviction moratoriums, landlords are still finding loopholes to exploit so that they can evict tenants in the middle of a pandemic.

We urgently need right to counsel with no means testing so that tenants and struggling small businesses can actually have a chance to stand up in court.

Thank you.

We have Hannah Swanson followed by Ariana and then Sarah Gonzer.

Go ahead, Hannah.

I think I may have disabled talking for Swanson accidentally.

Okay, we'll wait for Hannah to come back.

Hi, my name is Hannah Swanson.

I live in D4 and work at Swanson Shoe Repair, also in D4.

I want to strongly urge City Council to support the Right to Council legislation put forward by Councilmember Sawant without means testing.

Representation when facing the violence of eviction is a basic right all tenants should have.

Like Hannah said before me, a Right to Council is not a threat to mom and pop landlords.

A right to counsel will both reduce evictions and deter predatory corporate landlords from filing for eviction in the first place.

Evictions fall on our most vulnerable and oppressed communities in Seattle with an already devastating amount of folks unhoused in our city.

We must take every measure to keep people housed especially as we enter a historic recession.

Please also continue to pressure Mayor Durkin and Governor Inslee to extend the moratorium through the end of 2021 and push for truly progressive revenue like taxing the wealthy to build affordable housing infrastructure we so badly need in the city.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you.

We have Ariana followed by Sarah Gonza and Bryce Hackney.

Go ahead, Ariana.

Hello, my name is Arianna.

I'm here to weigh in on the fiscal irresponsibility of not providing the right to counsel as mitigation for the eviction pandemic.

The right to counsel has been demonstrated to keep as many as 86% of those who face evictions housed.

The average cost of having a chance to defend your home in court is $600 per household.

That's $600 to keep families housed.

$600 to prevent the relocation of children.

That is $600 to save lives.

As the CDC has told us, we can expect a COVID death for every 60 Washingtonians evicted if the eviction rate hits 1 percent.

We can expect at least a quarter of those evicted during the pandemic will be evicted into the streets.

The average person living on the streets has four E.R.

room visits a year, averaging over $2,000 a visit.

This program pays for itself.

It will always be less costly to mitigate a disaster than to deal with the fallout of one.

The right to counsel is a sound, responsible policy that saves lives.

Thank you.

Have a good day.

Thank you.

After Sarah Gonza, we have Bryce Hackney and then Barbara Finney.

Go ahead, Sarah.

Hi, my name is Sarah and I'm a renter in Capitol Hill and I'm here to urge the council to support the right to counsel legislation.

Tenants facing eviction deserve the right to representation.

And as we know, landlords, especially corporate landlords, can easily afford legal aid, while according to the American Civil Liberties Union, the working people these big landlords are evicting can only afford counsel 10% of the time.

With millions unemployed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, renters are accumulating debt as they try to pay their basic bills.

There have been countless surveys showing that millions of people have only about $1,000 in savings, meaning these folks are living paycheck to paycheck.

If a tenant can't afford to pay their rent in this especially tough time, they certainly can't afford legal aid on top of being evicted.

And without the promised stimulus checks to supplement unemployed renters in the eviction moratorium ending next month, this will mean hundreds more renters will be at risk of eviction in the months ahead.

On top of all this, we absolutely need to extend the eviction moratorium until at least 2021. Thank you.

Thank you.

We have Bryce Hackney, and then we have Barbara Finney and Alvin Muragori.

Go ahead, Bryce.

Yes, hello, Council.

Legal help for renters in the Seattle area is incredibly important.

My first default eviction was an informal eviction from a mom-and-pop landlord In the middle of the pandemic in October that used threatening tactics and intimidation to remove me as a renter, I felt completely helpless after receiving texts telling me I must be out by the end of next month.

Things like, we have a showing this afternoon.

Unless you want to lose 1,000 of your deposit, please be cooperative.

A deposit he inevitably kept anyways.

Quoting the next month's rent is our responsibility.

Leaving people without legal representation in the middle of a pandemic, in a housing market like this leaves people like me vulnerable.

Ultimately homeless, disconnected with no savings now, living in a uninsulated garage all winter.

Mind you, this was all while working full time and willing to pay for rent.

Please, please, please support renters with legal representation.

We really need your help.

Thank you.

Thank you.

After Barbara Finney, we'll have Alvin and then Maria Batayola.

Go ahead, Barbara.

Hello, my name is Barbara.

I'm a retired RN and a homeowner in district five where the majority of residents are renters.

Thanks to Council Member Shawna Sawant for holding this meeting and championing this vital and lifesaving legislation.

Every home eviction is an act of violence.

Evictions rip apart lives, push families out of their communities and force children to give up their schools and friends, drive people into destitution and desperation.

Also, when the eviction tears the fabric of the community where it happens, evictions fall disproportionately on women and people of color.

And the vast majority of King County residents who are addicted end up homeless and some even die as a consequence.

According to the 2017 King County Bar Association and Seattle Women's Commission report losing home, please extend the eviction moratorium to 2021 and give the right to counsel for renters facing eviction without any means testing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

After Alvin, we will have Maria Batayola and then Mindy Lee.

Go ahead, Alvin.

Alvin, we can't hear you very well.

Can you speak up, please?

Oh, sorry.

I would like to voice my support for Council Member Solan's right to legal capital bill.

And I think this is an essential protection that should exist, you know, even before COVID, but especially now.

And considering that the moratorium is ending, which should be extended until the end of next year, landlords are already finding loopholes and renters need greater protection.

And this is, you know, this is a fight against corporate landlords like Goldman, Real estate and ethic asset management of these corporations have been responsible for a majority of the eviction notices filed, and renters need legal counsel to go up against these giant corporations which can afford legal representation.

Over 90% of landlords have representation and 10% of renters don't.

And evictions are already used to bully and harass renters, and having the legal right to counsel would deter landlords.

And in cities like San Francisco, where this rate is already guaranteed, where you see that evictions have gone down and people have been able to remain in their homes and in their communities.

And I'd also like to voice my voice against any sort of a watering down of the bill.

Thank you.

We have Maria and then Mindy Lee, followed by Bruce Goggle.

Go ahead, Maria.

Good morning, Council Members.

Thank you for helping keep our neighbors housed.

My name is Maria Batiola from the Beacon Hill Council on El Centro de la Raza.

I'd like to speak on sustainability and climate.

King County is now currently adopting their strategic climate action plan, and it excludes aircraft emissions.

Planes fly over Beacon Hill every 90 seconds, and SeaTac is planning to increase service by 40% for airplane takeoffs and landings.

And we are not eligible for mitigation.

The pollution affects our respiratory, cardio, sleep, and mental health.

We're a community of BIPOC immigrant and refugees of 32,000 people.

We're asking to amend King County's Climate Action Plan to include those aircraft emissions in the greenhouse gas targets, include Beacon Hill and their resiliency coverage, work with Puget Sound Clean Air Agency to monitor aircraft emissions, work with Puget Sound Regional Council to add aircraft transportation.

I will send this letter to you.

Thank you.

Stay safe and please continue to be courageous.

Thank you, Maria.

And absolutely, we will be talking about the sustainability issues in the coming committee meetings that will schedule for March and April.

We have Mindy Lee followed by Bruce Gogol and then Dustin Ray.

Go ahead, Mindy.

Oh, sorry, Mindy is shown as not present.

So we'll go with Bruce Gogol and then Dustin Ray.

Bruce, you'll have to hit star six to unmute yourself.

Maybe let's go to Dustin, Dustin Ray, and then we'll come back to Bruce.

Go ahead, Dustin.

Good morning Council Chair Swant and members of the Renter's Right Committee.

My name is Dustin Ray.

I've been in Seattle for over six years.

Right now I'm homeless and staying at Sherwell's Tent City 3. We are located at the University of Washington campus.

The reason I'm homeless is because the rent in Seattle is too high.

I've rented here several times but I've been keeping up with this rent is almost impossible when you have a low income.

Sherwell's supports extending the rent moratorium and council legislation because Seattle might throw out another 5,000 residents on the street and that would be absurd.

The tenant should not be subjected to homelessness.

It isn't always safe.

Lots of people get sick.

Lots of people can't work while homeless.

And what's more important is homeless people find it harder for everyone.

There will be more competition for resources between homeless people.

There will also be a lot more people in tents in public places.

This isn't a secure option for them.

That is why a long moratorium on evictions is good.

It will help us find a humane alternative.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you.

We have Emily MacArthur next.

Just to inform everyone, Mindy and Bruce are shown as not present for now.

So Emily MacArthur will go next, followed by Karen Gramling and then Benjamin Maritz.

Go ahead, Emily.

Hi, my name is Emily.

I'm a renter in District 2, and I'm urging all committee members to pass this legislation immediately.

We've seen that there is a precedent and that that precedent works.

The evictions have dropped dramatically.

That is what we need to be aiming for.

And the idea that there needs to be some sort of built-in end date is just absolutely absurd.

The only connotation in which I could think you could even begin to fathom an end date is when we have full availability of social housing and zero homelessness in this city.

And even then, the basic right of having the ability to defend yourself in a court of law when you're being evicted is not something that needs some sort of countdown clock on it.

It's just absolutely heartless.

And further concerns about small landlords I would like to add that Council Member Sawant has been leading the way on demanding not just cancel rent, which we do need during this pandemic, but also canceling mortgages for small landlords.

I heard earlier a speaker from the Multifamily Housing Association.

He pretended to be a little bit meek, but I would like to reiterate that he's actually a member of a notorious lobbying firm for big landlords.

And as has already been mentioned, those big landlords are the ones that are evicting.

And that's why they're trying to sow concerns or doubts that this legislation is necessary, urgent.

Thank you.

We have Karen Gramling.

And then Benjamin is shown as not present.

So we'll go to Michael Malini.

So go ahead, Karen.

Yes, this is Karen Gramling.

Go ahead.

I'm a resident of the Nicholsville-Northlake tiny house village, which is not a lifesaver for me, but not everybody's going to be so fortunate.

As a formerly financially well-off woman with a master's degree, I never expected to be homeless.

But due to uncontrollable circumstances, I am.

And without an extension to the eviction moratorium, which provided legal counsel, the city can expect to have far more costs and problems with the phenomenon of unhoused voters and the rippling chain reaction that the city already struggles to deal with.

Remember, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Nicholsville supports the moratorium and appreciates the efforts Council Member Sawant and others are making.

Thank you.

So unless the people who are showing up as not present show up, our last two speakers will be Michael Mellini and Sonia Ponath.

Go ahead, Michael.

Hi, my name is Michael Mellini.

I'm a renter in District 3 and calling in support of Council Member Sawant legislation for a right to counsel and to extend the moratorium past the end of the year.

Once the pandemic subsides, these problems will still be here.

And currently we're favoring corporate landlords over working class people and renters in communities in our city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Sonia.

Hi, I'm Sonia Pona.

And as a small landlord, I support Council Member Sawant's legislation and urge the council to vote yes for a strong legislation.

I have worked with tenants to ensure no one has been evicted during this pandemic, really ever.

These are people's homes.

And two of our tenants were actually there for 30 years.

But not everyone is in my position.

So it's crucial that the petition to extend the evictions moratorium from our movement and from Council Member Sawant's office clearly states that struggling small businesses should also be protected from eviction during COVID.

When the Cheesecake Factory announced last year they wouldn't pay rent on their 211 restaurants, they got a $200 million investment, no eviction.

They worked it out.

So instead of nickel and diming the rest of us, let's make big business pay for this and shoulder the burden.

And also guaranteeing a right to counsel, which is this legislation doesn't force landlords to evict their tenants that's their decision, it just means a good tenant also gets a lawyer which small landlord doesn't pay for.

I fail to see how allowing a right will cause small landlords to sell their properties.

So if you're struggling, you need to get involved in our movement, so we can cancel rent and mortgage.

Thank you.

That was the last of our speakers who was present.

So I'm not seeing any change.

So I will close public comment for now.

And then we will move to our first agenda item in the committee.

which is the community panel by first thanking all the people who spoke in public comment.

I really appreciate that.

Our first agenda item is the community panel to discuss evictions.

Could our presenters please introduce yourselves with one or two sentences for the record, and then we will start the presentation.

How about we start with the Housing Justice Project presenters?

This is Evan Witter.

He came from the Managing Attorney of the Housing Justice Project, and I'll let Molly and Amy introduce themselves.

Hi, my name is Molly Goff.

I am the Data Program Manager at the Housing Justice Project.

Good morning.

My name is Amy Kangas.

She, her pronouns, and I'm a social worker with the Housing Justice Project.

Thank you.

I'll just call the names of the other panelists because otherwise everybody's waiting for everybody else to introduce.

So Ellen, can you go ahead, please?

Just give us a sentence of introduction.

Yeah, thank you.

Hi, I'm Ellen Miller.

I'm a tenant organizer from New York City with full-time tenant.

And I use they, them pronouns.

Kate?

Thanks for having me.

I'm Kate Rubin.

I am the executive director of Be Seattle, and my pronouns are she, her.

Paige?

Hi, I am Paige Owens.

I am a real change vendor and real change advocacy intern.

And my pronouns are she, her.

Violet.

Hi, I'm Violet.

I'm the executive director of the tenant union.

And Leah.

Hi, thanks for having me.

My name's Bia.

She, her pronouns.

I am a renter in Capitol Hill and an organizer with the Tax Amazon Movement.

Thank you all for introductions.

I believe the Housing Justice Project folks will be doing their presentation first, if I'm right about that.

And go ahead.

Denali, Naomi, if you want to start.

All right.

Let me share my screen.

Okay, so as we said, my name is Molly Goff.

I am the data program manager at HJP.

And joining me in this presentation will be Amy Kangas, the social worker for HJP.

Our presentation today is just about Seattle eviction filings in 2019. Thank you for having us.

We're excited to be here.

And Amy, do you want to start?

Yes, thanks, Molly.

Okay, so first we have is an overview of the evictions filed in Seattle in 2019. There were just under 1200 evictions filed.

And this number includes the formal evictions that were filed in the courts.

First table shows the primary basis for these evictions, the vast majority were based on non payment of rent at 86%.

After that, the next most frequent basis for eviction were lease violations, which made up about 8% of eviction.

This other table shows the breakdown of eviction filings by race compared to racial demographics in Seattle overall.

The race demographics for the eviction filings are estimates from the Bayesian model, which was the same estimate model used in the 2018 losing home report.

Black tenants were overrepresented in eviction filings at 28% compared to 8.3% in the overall Seattle population.

All right, so this next slide is the top 10 plaintiffs that we were seeing in the 2019 eviction filings.

For our data analysis, the plaintiff name was recorded in the same manner in which it was listed on the complaint.

Um, so this means that the graph is showing the number of filings, um, for specific buildings for property management companies, but not necessarily all the properties, um, in Seattle.

So for example, you can see that GRE Downtowner is number one, um, and GRE Zindorf is number six on the graph.

Um, both of these buildings are owned by the Goodman Real Estate and are listed on, um, the GRE website, but are showing us two separate columns on this graph.

Um, so knowing that we did a second analysis and when the building specific information is removed from the plaintiff name, um, in total, the GRE filings in Seattle rises to 74. Um, so still number one, and that is including three GRE, um, buildings and Thrive Communities Incorporated, which is another, um, commercial entity comes in at number three with 29 filings.

However, looking back at the graph as is right now, the most common basis for these top 10 plaintiffs for the eviction filings was nonpayment of rent at 83.5%.

The second was lease violations at 13.5%.

Another notable thing for both of the GRE buildings, the GRE-Downtowner and GRE-Zindorf, their filings combined were 97% about non-payment of rent, you know, kind of continuing that same trend.

Another thing to note is that the second two plaintiffs on this graph, Seattle Housing Authority and Capitol Hill Housing, these both represent multiple properties, while GRE-Downtowner, which is number one, is just a single building.

Um, and lastly, another thing to note is that all of the top 10 plaintiffs, you can see there are no individual landlords in this list.

Next we have data for both the default rate and the housing justice project success rate and keeping tenants housed.

This is based on Seattle, Seattle evictions filed in September and October of 2019. In this time period, 66% of tenants in an eviction case defaulted, either by failing to respond to the eviction summons, failing to appear at their hearing, or by violating a previously entered stipulation.

In the same time period, the Housing Justice Project had a 53.3% success rate in keeping a tenant housed when involved in the eviction case.

When both HJP and Home Base, our financial assistance program were involved, the tenancy was saved 84.6% of the time.

Without HJP's involvement, tenants remained housed just 7.7% of the time.

So based on this data, we can estimate how many additional households could avoid eviction with the right to counsel.

Seattle has approximately 1,200 filed eviction cases each year, Of these, we estimate that between 48 to 66% will default, which is between 576 and 792 households.

If these households have been able to access legal services with HCP success rate of about 53%, an additional 307 to 422 could avoid infection each year.

With the added benefit of financial assistance, considering HGPs and home basis success rate of 84.6%, we estimate that an additional 487 to 670 households could avoid eviction each year.

I do want to note that means testing could detrimentally impact these estimates because it would serve as a barrier to tenants being able to access these services.

Thank, oh, sorry.

Those were all the slides you had, right?

Yes, thank you.

Thank you so much.

I have a couple of questions to ask about this presentation, but I wanted to open it up for other council members.

If you, committee members, if you have questions, please either just speak up and then I'll call on you or do use the raise hand in the Zoom, raise hand feature in Zoom, either way.

is fine.

There are questions to these presenters.

I don't see any council members wanting to speak at this moment, but yeah, any time, please let me know.

I was wondering, one is, Obviously, again, this is no surprise because we've seen this data before, but I was just wondering what your thoughts were on this.

Why do we see the black community, our African-American community, being impacted so much by eviction at four times, more than four times the rate compared to others, for example?

What is your view from having experience of legally defending you know, clients who are facing eviction, what do you think is going on here?

I mean, needless to say, it's really stunning and clearly this, it makes it a racial justice issue as well.

Yeah, I think that's a good question.

I think there's really a lot to talk about there.

But I mean, number one, I think a lot of people are pretty well aware of is that there are those who own homes and there's those who don't.

And oftentimes that line is separated by race.

So in King County, about 70% of black residents rely on rental housing as their primary residence, compared to about 38% of white residents who actually rely on rental housing.

I mean, I think from generations and just years and years and years of racial disparities and sort of racist policies, we have basically created a system where a lot of black and Latinx households have to rely on rental housing, whereas a lot of white households are particularly able to own home and have that sort of wealth that allows them to do that.

And so when we talk about renter policies, we are effectively talking about protecting black and Latinx groups.

It is frankly, you know, I think even when you hear the things about problematic tenants, I frankly think it's dog whistling.

I think we all have this image in our head.

But a lot of the big problems is that the people who rent are frankly black and Latinx households.

And that's why renter protections are a racial justice issue.

And so when, you know, just under state law, if you lose, if you fall behind on your rental payment, you have 14 days to pay up.

But if you fall behind on your mortgage, you have by law 190 days.

I mean, we've prioritized one type of housing over the other.

And it just so happens that one type of housing is used by black and non-X households versus one that's white.

So the short of it is, as a lot of renters, we have groups that rely on rental housing are more likely to be evicted just because we have, I think, through generations forced them into rental housing, forced those groups into rental housing.

and are just frankly going to be more vulnerable.

And there's all the other issues involving the fact that most evictions happen for just a month or less in rent.

And when we've surveyed our clients, it's usually just because of one temporary unemployment issue, one medical emergency, one death in the family that kind of brings them there.

And so this sort of income inequalities, instability in our system and the racialized divisions that it has definitely shows up in the data that we've seen.

Thank you.

That was very, very useful to hear.

And as you said, it is very much comes down to who ends up renting.

And I think that is not only important, as you said, in terms of looking at how it falls along racial lines, but also given the fact that if you look at it from age, the younger generation, more and more of a proportion of the younger generation is going to be renting just because they simply, we're not seeing the economy replicate those kinds of middle class standards of living that maybe our parents' generations had.

So I think this question of renters' rights in general and the right to counsel really comes into play.

And I really appreciate you saying that it's dog whistling when we say, I'm not sure what, I remember what exactly you said, but, you know, sort of dog whistling to say renters are bad actors or, you know, or skipping out on rent or something like that.

Another question is, what is the average cost of representing a tenant?

And if we could contrast that with the types of costs and sort of the whole array of costs that the city and county, in terms of costs paid by taxpayer revenues, that the city and county would incur if people, every time people are evicted.

I know Arianna in public comment mentioned that, and she mentioned the phrase, the figure of $600.

If you could talk about that and how that sort of figures into also in terms of a fiscal responsibility kind of argument that Arianna was talking about.

Yeah, I think that's a really good question, and it's hard to give you a solid number.

I mean, we've been trying to sort of figure out this question, but I will say that probably on average, like our services cost about $300 to $500 per household that we help.

And so, you know, household is multiple individuals, and we tend to see about two to three on average persons per household.

You know, there's a lot of different estimates out there, different reports, depending on the ones that you see.

I mean, there's estimates that if somebody becomes homeless, it costs anywhere for the city from $10,000 to $100,000 per that individual to be in the homelessness system.

So, but even on the bottom estimates of $10,000 a year to be able to have somebody in the homeless system compared to $300 to $500 to just keep them out of it.

I mean I think the math is pretty simple.

And then when you add on top of like when we do, we run a rental assistance program with United Way called HomeBays.

And our average payment tends to be anywhere between like $1,500 to $2,000 or $3,000 depending on what's going on.

It's not a lot of money.

And again, even when you add that factor into the rental assistance piece, the small amount that it costs for a legal services provider, somebody like Amy, who's also a social worker, when she's not doing a lot of the data work, to be able to help somebody stay housed.

I mean, the math, again, even on that lower estimate compared to $10,000 versus $3,000 to $4,000 to be able to provide rent assistance, keep the landlord paid.

and then ultimately keep that family housed, and make sure that their rights are enforced and kept.

I mean, I think the math is simple, is we really can't afford to have a lot of people lose their housing.

And I think the other thing, too, about the numbers that they projected, I mean, there's about, on average, it seems like 1,200 filed evictions every year, or 1,200 households that basically face eviction in Seattle every year, and that's a lower number, because we don't know how many people are getting notices that we don't have records of, or getting summonses that they don't have records of.

But it also doesn't take a lot for that to have a really huge impact on the homelessness population, because there's only 11,000 individuals, based on the point in time count, who are homeless in King County, in a county of 2.2 million.

And so if you added just a couple thousand households being evicted, you're going to exacerbate that problem greatly, and you're going to overwhelm the homelessness response system that's frankly not, that is struggling, even as we all know right now.

Right, absolutely.

I think that connection between preventing evictions and the burden on the homelessness funds, which are already too limited, is a very important point.

And I think the presentation that the Housing Justice Project and also the sort of nationwide look that we have been able to take, thanks to you and John Pollock, And our last committee also showed the really interesting numbers from Baltimore, which was quoted by one of the people in public comment, that in the 2020 study found that investing $5.7 million in right-to-counsel legislation would save Baltimore and Maryland $35.6 million in emergency shelter, health care, child care, and other costs.

It's really important.

And on the other side, you have all the taxpayer money that is spent on the King County Sheriff carrying out the eviction, all the taxpayer money to run the eviction court, all of that.

So I really appreciate that look to it.

And then now we have a question from Councilman Morales.

Please go ahead.

Thank you.

Thanks to everyone who's presenting today.

And Council Member Sawant, you basically covered what I was going to say, which is that in addition to the cost of having folks enter into the homeless system, we have the health outcomes that result from people becoming homeless, their entry into the criminal legal system.

If we're talking about kids, then school absence and the impact that that has on a family.

You know, the figure from Boston doesn't surprise me.

And when you account for all of the ways in which a family might be impacted, it's huge.

Yeah, absolutely.

Really appreciate that Council Member Morales bringing in what the costs that are not traditionally counted in terms of dollars.

So what is the impact on a child whose community of friends and school is uprooted, who misses school days or school absences?

I mean, all of that.

I mean, those are things that you cannot put a price tag on.

And that's very important to take into account as to why, as a city council, we need to pass these basic renters' rights laws.

I'm not seeing any other council member.

Yeah, go ahead.

Go ahead, Council Member Lewis.

Oh, thank you so much.

Yeah, I just wanted to jump in on that point, because I appreciate Edmund's recitation of all of the benefits to caseload and other places when you make these investments.

legal representation.

So I think this is more of a question for Asha.

Sorry, for Rosh on central staff.

I wonder, is there a way we could try to quantify based on what we know in Seattle, what we could expect the impact to be from this legislation here for us based on those examples from other cities.

Because we do have some, you know, these illustrative examples from other places, but it would be nice to be able to, with confidence, be able to stand by some estimates of what we could expect to see based on those experiences here.

Yes, so Asha Venkatraman, Council Central staff.

I'd be happy to start putting together what those numbers might look like with the help of my colleagues and get back to you all.

That'd be really helpful.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis, and thank you, Asha.

If there are no immediate questions, the council members, just in the interest of time, I'll also move to the other panelists.

But absolutely, please feel free to ask questions or make comments on any part of the presentation.

It doesn't matter what the order is.

I would like to call on Ellen Miller now to say a few words about what their experience has been in New York, which is one of the cities where right to counsel law has been passed and there is experience there.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Thank you, everyone, for being here today.

I'm Ellen.

I'm a tenant organizer with Full-Time Tenant Union in New York City.

Full-Time Tenant Union formed to represent tenants under our corporate management company when a few dozen tenants who were laid off from our jobs at the beginning of the pandemic decided to rent strike and knew that we would be safest if we were collectively organized.

One year into the pandemic, Full-Time Tenant Union is advocating alongside other New York housing organizations for many of the same demands as Seattle tenants, including rent cancellation, housing for the homeless, and no evictions during the pandemic.

In a capitalist system that treats housing as a commodity rather than a basic need and tenants as revenue generators rather than human beings, all housing issues, and in particular evictions, are about landlords leveraging power over tenants to maximize their profits.

Every single one of New York City's top 20 worst evictors owns more than $18 million of property, more than half own over $400 million worth of property, and three own multiple billions, joining the ranks of billionaires nationwide.

who have collectively accumulated another trillion dollars over the course of the pandemic alone.

These massive corporate landlords and serial evictors have access to the best legal services their money can buy, allowing them to prey on low income black and brown tenants, undocumented immigrants and women who evictions disproportionately affect.

So it's really no wonder that at least half of tenants who are evicted would not be if they had access to legal aid.

This power dynamic that allows corporate landlords to unfairly leverage the court system against already marginalized people is unconscionable.

The ability for tenants to access good legal counsel when facing eviction is one critical step in leveling the playing field.

But you don't have to take my word for it.

New York City won first in the nation right to counsel for tenants facing eviction in 2017 through committed coalition based mass struggle.

And even just within its five year phase in, the numbers already speak volumes.

Evictions have been on the decline since some public representations for tenants first began in 2013. But with the right to counsel legislation that guarantee representation, the numbers only get more promising.

Evictions and right-to-counsel zip codes have declined by 29% since the law was implemented, a greater decrease than a non-right-to-counsel zip codes.

In 2019 alone, evictions in New York City dropped 15%.

And overall, 84% of New York City tenants facing eviction who accessed a lawyer with right-to-counsel remained in their homes.

Right to Council punches above its weight economically as well.

Out of New York City's $92.5 billion budget for the 2020 fiscal year, just one tenth of a percent went to Right to Council.

This is in contrast to the nearly 12% of the budget that went to the New York City Police Department, which has a consistent track record of actively not helping and in fact harming tenants by siding with landlords during illegal lockouts.

New York City's right to counsel was signed into law with restrictive means testing measures and a phase in by zip code.

And even then, we've seen major benefits.

But during the pandemic, as New York has faced some of the nation's highest unemployment levels and seen the contraction of most of the industries, which were central to the livelihoods of New York's working class, these restrictions have been wrote back.

Right-to-counsel attorneys are being assigned to all cases, including emergency law and maintenance requests, in addition to traditional evictions, regardless of income, location, or immigration status.

And as a tenant organizer, the impact of this universal right-to-counsel during the pandemic cannot be overstated.

Right to counsel has been invaluable for fighting landlord malpractice of all sorts.

For example, full-time tenant union has been able to keep consistent contact with a legal aid lawyer who we consult when dealing with rampant building neglect and unrest maintenance issues, informal evictions involving egregious intimidation tactics, and even cases of illegal rent destabilization.

Most importantly, universal right to counsel doesn't just allow all tenants representation, but it actively encourages the most vulnerable tenants to utilize it by removing confusion around the sluggish and overcomplicated bureaucracy of means testing that so often causes individuals who are already in highly stressful crisis situations to simply give up, even if they would otherwise be eligible.

In contrast, strict means testing measures attached to New York's rent relief program from last summer meant that only $40 million of the allocated $100 million were spent on the program, yet 60% of the applicants were denied access.

New York State also rolled back its universal eviction moratorium to a means tested moratorium on March 1st, but the complicated application process has meant that over the three months that this plan has been in place, only 9,000 tenants statewide have applied for the program.

a number which tenants, landlords, and lawmakers alike recognize does not remotely reflect the need.

Universal Right to Council addresses tenants' most immediate and urgent need for housing stability as a crucial component in combating the staggering imbalance of power that corporate landlords leverage against tenants, but this is also just the first step.

The next step for Seattle, New York City, and the rest of the country must be taking on the enormous debt crisis facing tenants, which, if left unaddressed, will lead to waves of evictions in the near future, will exacerbate the housing and homelessness crises and gentrification of communities, and will further the racial wealth gap for generations to come.

The housing crisis did not start with this pandemic, so we cannot rely on messages of back to normal to end it.

Most immediately, in addition to right-to-counsel legislation, we need a universal efficient moratorium guaranteed to last until at least one year after the pandemic to ensure that no one is forced from their home as they get back on their feet.

We need to universally cancel rent for all tenants and mortgages for homeowners and provide assistance for struggling small-scale landlords and small businesses while corporate landlords and big banks take the hit that they can afford.

Beyond the pandemic, we must continue to fight for instituting good cause eviction, rent stabilization, rent control, and ultimately, we must fight to put an end to for-profit housing altogether because under a capitalist system, any basic human need that is treated as a commodity will be exploited by the ruling class to drive their profits with as little regard for the human expense as we can let them get away with it.

And we cannot let them get away with it any longer.

Solidarity.

Thank you, Ellen, that was very both.

It was chock full of really, really useful information about not only the right to counsel law and how it's working in New York, but also a very strong case, statistically based case against means testing kind of loopholes, but also I really appreciate the commitment you clearly bring for the renters you represent at full-time tenants union.

Similarly, I would like to welcome Kate Rubin now for a few words, and then after that page, and then Violet and Bia.

And then once we hear from all of them, of course, we want to open it up for questions and comments.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Kate.

Thank you.

I am a renter in District 2, and I'm the executive director of BCADOM, we're a housing justice nonprofit.

We're hearing from renters every single day who are just terrified of what's to come upon the end of the eviction moratorium.

Many of them are convinced that that's the only thing preventing them from becoming houseless.

There isn't enough assistance available and accessing the limited resources is confusing and overwhelming.

I received permission from a renter in Lake City, Claire, to share her story.

Claire lost her job as a bartender and server at the beginning of the pandemic.

Because she's immunocompromised, she has been unable to take another job during the pandemic that doesn't jeopardize her health.

Management has been largely unresponsive to Claire's requests to view the terms of her lease or negotiated payment plan, but they have been on top of sending passive aggressive emails, one of which I'm going to share now.

Subject, we are here to help.

We hope everyone is continuing to stay safe and remain positive through this challenging time.

We wanted to reach back out to encourage you to be in touch if we can be of assistance and remind you that we are all in this together.

At this time, you have an outstanding balance on your account of $30,683.64.

If you are in need of financial assistance, food, and or healthcare, we urge you to identify resources offered by federal, state, and local governments, as well as community organizations.

Additional unemployment benefits and government stimulus programs are available to help us all manage our obligations.

As a reminder, the current moratorium on evictions and late fees does not relieve residents of their responsibilities surrounding their lease.

This includes the payment of rent utilities and satisfying proper insurance requirements.

If you've not paid your February rent in full or you think you will have difficulty doing so in March, please contact the office immediately.

Communication is crucial during this time and understanding every resident's intentions and helping work out a plan to get back on track is critical for everyone involved.

So, The apartment complex she lives in is managed by Con Am Management Corporation, who manages a portfolio of more than 53,000 units.

They were included in a list of the top 10 plaintiffs in Seattle, just shown in the presentation by HGP.

So it doesn't really sound like they're here to help.

It honestly doesn't even sound like they realize that they're communicating with people who are struggling to survive.

As Council Member Sawant noted in her opening statement, these rich and powerful corporations are the ones pushing working people out of their homes, not mom and pop landlords.

Claire tried to organize with her neighbors in order to build solidarity as she's feeling alone, scared, and overwhelmed.

But maintenance took down a flyer she posted on people's doors.

These powerful corporations lack humanity.

They don't see their tenants as real people who are about to become houseless.

They see them as dollar signs.

And Claire's situation isn't unique.

I spoke with another tenant in the university district recently who said she's been stockpiling camping gear for when the moratorium ends as she recently lost her job.

She says the encampment nearby that she was planning on moving to when she is inevitably evicted was recently swept and now she's even more frightened.

Right to counsel without means testing is so desperately needed.

These are our neighbors and their lives literally depend on it.

We know that in communities that have not been preventing evictions, it's increasing the rates of COVID transmission and deaths.

Both of the tenants that I mentioned and thousands of others are at high risk and don't have a safety net.

They don't know their rights, and even when they do, there's such a huge power imbalance.

Making tenants prove economic hardship will only make it harder for them when they're already overwhelmed and struggling to navigate overlapping crises to access a service.

These landlords are hiring cutthroat lawyers to fight against people who are struggling to even put food on the table.

Without adequate representation, how will they defend themselves?

Well, I understand there is a right to counsel.

It should be looked at as a preventative measure.

There's a cost to the right to counsel.

It should be looked at as a preventative measure.

The homelessness crisis also cost the city a lot of money, from sweeps, which cause further harm and displacement, to sanitation services, to shelters.

And people are still suffering.

We see it everywhere.

How will your neighborhood look if thousands of your neighbors are evicted?

What would Seattle be like if the artists, entertainers, students, grocery store clerks, service and hospitality workers, and other low-wage earners were suddenly forced out of their homes?

They've been keeping this city alive.

Due to Seattle's racist housing history, low-income Black and Indigenous people of color are more likely to be renters, and they are the first to be displaced.

These communities were already disproportionately affected by the homelessness crisis before the pandemic even began.

We have the opportunity right now to pump the brakes, to give people fair representation and support, and to ultimately keep them housed and save lives.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Kate.

Really appreciate the strong advocacy that you and other organizers in BC will bring.

And thank you so much for sharing Claire's story and how she is courageously organizing with her fellow renters.

And I just wanted to add to what you were saying.

As you mentioned, Con Am is a huge landlord.

And I think, did you note that they are a top 10 evictor?

Am I right?

Yep, they were number 10 in the list shown.

Right.

And I believe they own 53,000 apartments in 26 metropolitan areas throughout the United States.

So definitely not a mom and pop landlord.

So I think that concrete information is necessary.

Before I move to Paige, I just want to have a request out to all the panelists who have spoken so far, including the Housing Justice Project panelists.

If you could just stay through the next item when we will be voting on the legislation because council members may have questions or comments directed to you so I'd appreciate your time just for that duration.

Next we have Paige.

Hi let me take a My name is Paige Owens.

I'm currently a real change vendor and real change advocacy intern.

I'm here to speak on behalf of our vendors who are either low income or currently experiencing homelessness.

I'm also here speaking because I'm currently living paycheck to paycheck and also have 12 years of personal experience with being homeless under my belt.

I am so lucky.

We can't hear you, Paige, or is it just me?

Page, we're not able to hear you.

Name, um, where I was paying a smaller portion of rent and the program was paying the rest as well as my electricity.

I was working full time at McDonald's and only making around $9 an hour.

After about six months of being in the program, the funding was cut and I was left with a lease and rent utilities.

I couldn't afford on my own.

The landlord I had was nice enough not to put an eviction on my record, but told me I still had to leave.

I put all my belongings into a storage unit and lived in Nicholsville.

I then lost my job because I was relying on members of that community to make sure I woke up for my shifts.

Basically, rents are too high, minimum wages are too low, and even if I was working full-time, I still wouldn't make enough to pay three times the amount of rent or owed for rent, which I realize you technically need to be able to pay things like electricity, water, sewer, and garbage, car and renter's insurance, gas, phone bill, et cetera.

I live paycheck to paycheck, and if I hadn't won the Section 8 lottery after being on their waiting list for three years, I would still be living in the enhanced night shelter at Angeline's, where there are of course a limited amount of beds and a limited amount of time that you can stay there.

And don't even get me started on how stressful it is to live in a room with 10 bunk beds working full time.

I believe page zoom is frozen would make me feel more protected.

I feel like I would be less likely to be taken advantage of.

Maybe if I had had right to counsel back then, I would have also been set in a better direction than I would have and not ended up in Nicholsville.

On another note, extending the moratorium through 2021 is a must.

Just think, even before the pandemic, there were already way too many people living paid

Paige, your sound is not coming through.

You might want to just turn your camera off.

Huh?

We keep missing parts of what you're saying because your sound keeps going off.

Maybe you want to turn your camera off.

Maybe that might help.

I don't know.

Let's try it.

Oh, no.

No problem.

Just keep going.

You're doing great.

OK.

On another note, extending the moratorium through 2021 is a must.

Just think, even before the pandemic, there were already way too many people living paycheck to paycheck with barely any if anything in savings.

Our homeless crisis is already a crisis.

Can you imagine throwing thousands more into the mix?

All the while knowing that there aren't enough shelter beds as things are now for everyone who is already experiencing homelessness.

So basically we would be forcing people to stay outside or in their cars.

Single people, people with mental disabilities, whole families.

People die without shelter, whether it be from weather or violence.

Please help keep people off the streets and out of harm's way.

Thank you so much, Paige.

I really, really appreciate you sharing your own story and because that takes courage and heart.

And as you noted, this is happening to so many of our community members and your story also shows the often unseen or invisible issue of how renters are intimidated into leaving under the threat of eviction.

And so it really also is a strong case, as you noted, of how legal advice could help so many renters in a similar situation.

We have Violet next.

Go ahead, Violet.

Thank you.

I am here, you know, I'm always here as a tenant advocate, you know, the, I'm the, my name is Violet Lovett.

I'm the executive director of the tenant union.

We've been in existence for, this would be our 44th year.

We've been advocating for tenants for so many years.

And, um, Edmund brought up a good point.

Um, people always ask me, why is there a homeless problem?

Why are there people on the streets?

And it goes back to, racist and discriminatory that has been set up by a system that if we want to get rid of racism in housing or whatever, is breaking down this system that has been placed to oppress people.

African American, as you see, is the highest rate of number of evictions.

Our cause on our hotline is Some of them already lost their place and they're calling us.

How can we get back in our place?

And a lot of the tenants who lose their place really are afraid.

Sometimes they don't know about Housing Justice Project.

And what we try to do is actually send people to Housing Justice Project or called Northwest Justice Project.

At some point, the tenant union is there as a buffer to help tenants to advocate for them.

Sometimes we reach out to the landlords and sometimes we take the means of protesting.

But having this in place right to counsel will help a lot of people.

The majority of people that will help are communities of color.

And those are the highest rates of evictions in our state.

It's a fact.

It's not something that Oh, let's guess about it.

No, it is a fact.

As a woman of color, I see discrimination in everything that we do.

And I think this is an opportunity for us as people, as advocates, as coming together and really ask the council members to pass this legislation right to council.

It will help save a lot of people.

It will lessen the people who are on the streets.

In 2015, the mayor at that time declared that there would be no more homeless problem.

That was the uttermost lie.

It got worse after 2015. What I'm here to speak about is this right to counsel.

It's something that we need.

It's something that should be passed.

It's something good for the people.

I'm going to tell you, if we don't pass this, you will see a lot more people on the streets.

We have too many people.

One is too many on the streets right now.

And I think it's not a who's presenting this or how can we pass this, it's a human rights, it's a moral obligation for all of us to really get to the heart of why we need this and what can we do together.

We are right now gearing up.

A lot of us have written to the governor.

We have written letters to them.

He's probably so tired of seeing emails from me, but I'm going to keep asking to extend the moratorium to the end of the June or maybe to the end of the year.

What we want to do is, you know, we know that landlords are You know, it's it's noted that they have sued the governor about the moratorium.

I just think right now it takes all of us to stop to extend the moratorium, ask the mayor to extend it till 2021. And right now we haven't heard anything statewide.

I've been asking around people that are close to the governor.

I'm really anxious because what's going to happen on March 31st and the moratorium ends?

You'll see a lot of people who are in fear right now of losing their place.

If we pass this legislation, it will help many more families.

And the families that Housing Justice Project and all our legal advocates for people will help people stay in their homes.

Our ultimate goal is not just a human obligation, but it's a moral obligation to help many more people.

We need to stop the people that are already on the streets.

Everybody always asks, why is it important that you get the message out?

Because racial discrimination has been something that I've seen over and over, even working at the tenant union.

It's something that has been set up.

It's something that I always talk about.

It makes people, when I go talk on panels, uncomfortable.

But it's saying something about, why we're in the position where we're in is that racial discrimination plays a part, a lot of part in all of our lives, in our housing, in our world.

And I think sometimes we have to call it and name it and say it.

And I, for one, support, you know, having Edmund and Housing Justice Project, I really, I really am happy that they exist.

I really am because they are helping a lot of people.

There are sometimes I know they're overwhelmed.

They get a lot of people calling them, but I'm excited always that there are actual advocates in our legal world who are actually advocate for people are there to pay that part to stop this, this mass, maybe mass wave of eviction that are coming up.

And, you know, we get calls on our hotline every day.

After this meeting, I got to get on the hotline again to support all the calls that are coming in because we, you know, it takes all of us to play our part.

And we see so many people on the streets and we want to stop from adding more people on the streets if we don't pass legislation like this, if we don't extend the moratorium.

So thank you very much.

Thank you so much, Violet.

Really appreciate your words and also your years of service.

And also appreciate you thanking others like the Housing Justice Project, because as you said, so many of the people who are providing various kinds of social services are overwhelmed with the work, but they do it because they're so dedicated to it.

And the least that the legislative body of the city can do is do its moral obligation by passing these laws to help the tenants and the advocates themselves.

So having said that, I'd invite our last panelist, Bia Lacombe.

Go ahead.

Yeah, thank you.

And thank you to everyone who's spoken so far on the panel.

I think it's really so important that you're all here today.

My name is Bia.

I've been a renter in Seattle for about three years now.

Right now, I actually rent from Thrive Communities in Capitol Hill, one of those corporate landlords listed as the top 10 plaintiffs taking tenants to court in Seattle.

Throughout this pandemic, I've been an organizer, including with the tax Amazon movement for much of last year, and I've had the opportunity to talk to dozens of renters on any given week.

at socially distanced tables while doing phone banking and other engagement with renters and working people dealing directly with the pandemic.

What's immediately clear from talking to people and I think from hearing from everyone who's spoken today is how dire the situation is for renters in Seattle right now.

there's no doubt about the crisis we're facing.

We know from reading the news every day that ordinary people have suffered for over a year through not only a deadly pandemic, which has taken the lives of friends and families and community members, but workers and renters have lost income and or lost their jobs completely, which has wiped out what little financial security they may have had and put thousands of renters deep into debt and forced many more onto the streets.

Working previously for campaigns on rent control and affordable housing, and as a renter in Seattle for several years now, I think we all know the COVID-19 pandemic is by no means where this crisis began.

Folks have already spoken to this.

Renters in the city have been struggling to pay their bills long before March of last year.

The pandemic and economic downturn have really only exacerbated what was already an untenable situation for many renters who lived and still live just a paycheck away from not being able to pay rent or any of their other bills and facing eviction.

You hear that time and time again on the phones and at the doors talking to renters in the city.

I think it's important also to talk about how evictions are not only a shattering of a person's financial future, but also really traumatic and violent.

And this is something that comes out in conversations with people.

We also know, of course, so much of the data and research backs this up, all of it really, as we've already heard from some of the other presenters.

Evictions rip families apart, cause profound psychological harm to adults and children alike, and leave what can be lifelong effects.

As council member Sawant and other folks have spoken to, evictions and the trauma they cause fall disproportionately on women and people of color.

And the vast majority of King County residents who are evicted end up homeless and some even die as a consequence.

The most immediate thing that council members can do is to give some peace of mind to families and ordinary people, many of whom are genuinely burdened with the overwhelming fear of losing everything they need to survive.

And on top of that, losing any hope of stability and safety and for many, not just for themselves, but also for their children.

Giving renters in Seattle the right to counsel without means testing will reduce evictions, mitigate this fear and trauma, and it's absolutely necessary.

What I've heard over recent months from renters in Seattle speaks to this clear and obvious need to shore up the basic rights of renters that folks in the city depend upon.

Over my conversations with so many Seattle renters, there's real support for these interconnected demands to improve their lives.

And these demands that council member saw in her office have been bringing forward and fighting for again and again during this crisis.

For example, I spoke with a renter recently who lives in the central district, who told me that she lost her job in December and has been living on her savings and very small unemployment benefits since then.

She was scared.

She didn't know what she would do because her rental debt was piling up and she's going to lose her home when the eviction moratorium ends at the end of this month.

Despite this incredible stress, but also, of course, because of it, this renter understood how important these issues are and she wanted to get involved.

She donated a few dollars to help build the movement to cancel rent and to fight to extend the eviction moratorium because she recognized that it's the only way she's going to avoid getting evicted.

A few months ago, I also happened to speak with a small landlord who shared that his three tenants have been unable to pay rent for months now after losing their jobs.

His financial situation as their landlord is incredibly strained, but like many small landlords, some of which we even heard from this morning, he recognized that it's not his tenants' fault and that small landlords and tenants alike desperately need relief from the city.

He supported the demand for enormous corporate landlords to pay for the growing rent and mortgage debt that tenants and small landlords can't possibly afford to pay.

Much like those conversations, I've heard consistent support for extending the eviction moratorium, for the demand to cancel rent and debts for those who've lost incomes during the pandemic, for the right to counsel when they, as ordinary people, have no choice but to go up against billion-dollar corporate landlords in court.

Ultimately, ensuring legal representation for all tenants facing eviction is just one step towards what's really needed to make sure that renters and workers who, through no fault of their own, have lost their income and lost their jobs to this crisis to ensure that they don't have to pay to fix the crisis they didn't create, pay money that they don't have, right?

The big banks and corporate landlords are the ones who should be paying, using the billions that they've amassed since the pandemic began.

So I would like to end by joining many, many renters, struggling homeowners and small businesses in calling on council members to support canceling rent, mortgage and utility payments for all those affected by this crisis.

Thank you.

Thank you, Bia, and thank you so much to all our speakers who spoke with such passion and dedication, which reflects the genuine dedication they feel towards the the people that they represent, either as people who are directly providing services or such as speakers like Bia who have come into contact with renters who are facing this crisis.

And all the stories that you all shared are extremely helpful and informative, I think, to the City Council's Committee on Renters' Rights to understand how this crisis is affecting various sections of our community.

Obviously, I want to open it up to questions and comments from council members.

But what I'll do is go ahead and read out the next agenda item, because I feel like those two are the community panel discussion that just happened.

And the next item, which is the right to council bill, I think they blend in together organically.

So I'll go ahead and read the agenda item two of our committee.

This council bill 120-007, an ordinance relating to residential evictions, guaranteeing the right to legal counsel regardless of ability to pay for any residential renter in Seattle, responding to an unlawful detainer suit, and adding a new section to the Seattle Municipal Code.

So I first wanted to make a call for council members, if you had any comments or questions for the panelists.

And then after that, I'll have Asha give us a rundown of her memo for the right to council legislation.

Yeah, Madam Chair, I have a question for the panel.

Good.

Thank you.

So this question is for Ellen.

And Ellen, I appreciate your presentation about the experience in New York and how that can be instructive here.

I wonder if you could just maybe share a little bit about what the impact is.

Well, first, to tell us kind of what the means testing threshold is in New York.

and how that screening process sort of works in terms of how it's administered.

Because I think getting into those granular details can maybe help shed some light on how some of those things can set up potential barriers.

I'd just like to maybe learn a little bit more about New York's experience.

And I think it's important context setting for what we're discussing.

Yeah, thank you, Council Member Lewis.

And to be to be fully honest, my interaction with the right to counsel in New York has largely been actually during the pandemic after the means testing has been rolled back.

But my understanding is that prior to the pandemic means testing in terms of In terms of income was based on area median income and specifically was also the threshold was actually lower than New York City's minimum wage, and so there were there are minimum wage people making minimum wage who did not have the.

guaranteed access to legal counsel that was publicly funded.

And I think it's clear that given the stagnation of minimum wage, even in comparison to inflation in New York and nationwide, that there are lots of people sort of above that income barrier who would not be able to afford a lawyer on their own.

But who would not qualify.

So that's, I think, one really sort of representative restriction of the means testing of the right to counsel threshold in New York.

I think the other interesting one is immigration status that There are throughout various sort of means tested tenant bills during the pandemic.

This has been a constant battle that we've been facing with means testing is trying to make sure that undocumented immigrants can access these services that they need on their own.

But oftentimes, tenants are not able to access them on their own, they would need to go through an agency because of their lack of documentation.

And I think undocumented immigrants, of course, are some of the most vulnerable people, both in terms of working oftentimes in informal economies, where their job precarity is much higher than lots of other people, especially during the pandemic, and given the instability of informal economies during the pandemic.

But then, but then additionally, you know, undocumented tenants face lots of additional issues in the eviction process that, you know, American citizens or documented tenants would not face.

And I think, therefore, you know, the need for representation is really even more clear without for to have the right to representation without means testing.

Thank you.

Just a quick follow up on that too.

So during the pandemic, there's been an adjustment in New York to the means testing thresholds.

That's correct.

Yeah.

Prior to the pandemic, the means testing legislature, the right to counsel legislation that was signed in in 2017 was on a five-year rollout by zip code specifically.

And that was set to be fully rolled out to all zip codes by 2022. But then during the pandemic, the zip code restriction as well as some other, as the income restriction and the documentation restriction were rolled back.

Are those permanent or just for the pendency of the pandemic emergency?

That's a good question.

And my understanding is that the zip code restriction will, or the lack of restriction rather, would remain because that was planned to be rolled out by 2022 anyway.

I'm not entirely sure about the income eligibility requirements.

I imagine there will be some imperative to reinstate those after the pandemic.

But of course, you know, as tenant organizers, we'll be fighting to make sure that the legislation remains universal.

Just one more thing, because I don't want to monopolize all the question time, but this has been really helpful.

And I appreciate you being here.

Could you walk through, to the extent that you're familiar with it, if I were a tenant in New York facing eviction and I wanted to take advantage of this, what are the things I have to go and do?

And what are the wait times I could expect?

you know, what are the administrative processes?

Like, is it online?

Do I have to physically go somewhere?

How long until, you know, I know I have counsel, how is that counsel assigned?

Could you walk through some of those real quick just to kind of get a sense?

I'm just kind of curious how, you know, exactly how those systems work step for step to just to sort of deconstruct what some of the barriers are.

Yeah, during the pandemic, it's been, it's very, very straightforward.

Tenants are able to call our 311 city services line and they will be automatically paired with a legal aid provider.

And then, you know, basically once they're hooked up with a legal aid provider, the conversation simply, you know, continues from there.

Um, with, you know, prior to the pandemic, um, with the various means testing requirements, there would be that sort of, uh, intermediary step in between, um, a tenant calling, uh, the 311 number and then, um, being paired with a lawyer.

So that would also increase wait times, um, and, um, you know, of course would, would make for the possibility that a tenant would not be able to, um, get that legal representation ultimately at all.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis, and thank you especially, Ellen, for really illuminating information.

I saw Edmund had his Zoom hand raised up, but then it was raised down.

Edmund, did you want to respond also?

Yeah, and I can help illuminate.

I helped with the rollout in New York City prior to coming to Seattle and the right to counsel in the Bronx.

And I will say that the means testing was a logistical hardship, particularly because what we would have to do when we started the rollout is we would have to go into each courtroom and call everyone's name who was on the calendar that day and we'd have to ask them like can you you know do you want an attorney You know, this is going to start having to have them fill out paperwork at that then time.

Ultimately, though, that's eating away at the clock because you have landlords and their attorneys who are saying, well, why is this case not moving along?

Meanwhile, we had some income or some documentation requirements, at least at the time, that we had to get support.

And a lot of tenants don't come in with proof of their income and any other proof that they have readily accessible.

So we'd have to start doing shop calls at that point where we're like, well, I don't know if we can actually under the funding represent them, so we won't be able to bill it.

But now we're doing this work that we're not funded for, so it's kind of stretching us and making us having to do these difficult calls.

And to be frank with you, we would just say, like, well, we'll just have to figure this out later.

Because I'm not going to take a tenant who's desperate right there, who needs the help now, and just say, well, I can't help you because you didn't happen to know you needed to bring proof of income in.

or anything else along those lines.

And that was creating this sort of like kind of just patchwork of like, I think of unnecessary regulation when the fact is, I think a lot of people already did meet that threshold.

It was a 200% of the federal poverty line.

And it has, I think I mentioned this last time when we had this discussion, it's pretty rare that anybody actually exceeds that.

But as soon as you start tacking on documentation of the requirements or any type of means testing, it can start getting really complicated.

And frankly, it means a lot of time a lawyer is actually just focused on someone's income.

when they're not focused on their legal case, not focused on their outcomes, not focused on anything else.

And we start getting this process of like, well, you know, what are we supposed to do in that time?

So I think it was definitely a really hard thing to do in New York City.

And I would definitely discourage it as much as possible here.

But I also think it's an unnecessary barrier, frankly, because frankly, people get evicted because of poverty, by far.

And I don't think we need to add necessarily another layer to that to help improve that poverty.

Thank you Edmund, that was extremely helpful and really showed how it's not only unjust, it's just it's not required because people who are facing poverty are the ones who are the most overwhelmingly likely to be evicted, and it's helpful to make that connection.

Council Member Morales, I'm not sure if you are wanting to speak.

Lower your hand.

If other council members want to speak, please let me know.

Failing that, I will invite Asha at this point to go over the...

Council Member Sawant?

Go ahead, go ahead.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

I know I'm raising and lowering and raising and lowering.

I just wanted to, first of all, thank Edmund for that perspective.

I do think it's really important that as we're moving this forward, we make sure that it is baked into the process that people just have access.

That's the whole point here, is making sure that people are getting access to representation and putting up yet another barrier is not going to be helpful in having the outcome that we're looking for.

So I just want to thank you, Ellen and Edmund, for that perspective, and also just to signal my support and my interest in helping to co-sponsor the legislation.

Thank you so much Councilman Morales.

Absolutely will add you as a co-sponsor.

I really appreciate what you said, especially what you said that the whole point is here is to give tenants access.

What is the point of baking into the legislation barriers to that access?

Simply doesn't make sense.

So I really appreciate that point of view.

And actually, before I call on Asha, something that Council Member Morales said sort of triggered my memory.

And I wonder if Ellen could quickly just go over something that, Ellen, you had already mentioned in your presentation, but maybe it was missed.

But I feel like some numbers you used to show how when means-tested was put into the eviction moratorium in New York recently, how it really had a huge impact, negative, bad impact.

Can you just go over that again?

Yeah, definitely.

So in January, our universal eviction moratorium was extended until May 1st, with the caveat that on March 1st, the universal aspect of the moratorium would be rolled back to a means-tested version, and applications were provided for tenants to access this means-tested version of the eviction moratorium.

However, in the three months that this plan has been in place, only 9,000 tenants statewide have applied for the program.

And do you have an estimate as to how many tenants would be, like, are we talking about hundreds of thousands, tens of thousands, you know, tenants would actually be eligible if there wasn't this barrier?

Because I think you said earlier in your presentation that actually lawmakers, service providers, renters, and even landlords are all in agreement that this is a very low number of people seeking the service, seeking the moratorium.

Yeah.

And of course, it's really hard to estimate, you know, the patchwork of eviction moratoriums, exactly how many tenants this really affects.

But I think it's illustrative.

I think the number is certainly well into the tens of thousands, if not the hundreds of thousands.

If we look at the rent relief program that was rolled out last summer, there were almost, I believe, almost 100,000 applicants that applied for that, and almost 60,000 of those applicants were denied access.

So that speaks a little bit to the needs of tenants, and certainly without any substantial relief, that situation is not getting better as time progresses.

Thank you, that yeah, that definitely makes sense.

So without further delay, Asha, please, if you could go over the memos, council members can look at that.

Sure, Asha Venkatraman, Council Central Staff.

As Council Member Sahlins mentioned, we're talking about Council Bill 120-007, which would codify the right to council bill in the Seattle Municipal Code.

And I think, as previously mentioned, it is intended to be available to any tenants in Seattle that are facing eviction or an unlawful detainer suit free of charge, and regardless of the tenant's income.

So the bill itself lays out some of the details about what that right to counsel will look like.

So the idea is for counsel to be available as soon as practical after the tenant receives the complaint.

So when the suit is filed by the landlord, there's a summons and complaint basically notice of the landlord that has to go to the tenant.

And so once that is received, the right to counsel is intended to kick in at that time.

It's intended to last until the case is over.

So either until the court dismisses the case, until a judgment is entered, or that complaint is withdrawn, so that the tenant is getting the full scope of legal representation as needed during that proceeding.

The bill also authorizes our Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections to enter into a contract for an organization to be able to provide those services.

Currently, SDCI does contract with the Housing Justice Project as well as the Tenant Law Center, but the requirements in the bill sort of lay out what it is that the council is looking for in an organization that's going to provide these services.

So it is intended to be to an organization that has experience supporting renters and advocating for their legal rights, has at least one location near to where the proceedings are taking place.

So in this case, the King County Courthouse, and then can provide legal services in languages that are commonly spoken in Seattle or have access to translation services.

And so all of those are intended to make the practicalities of obtaining counsel a little bit easier for the tenant.

There are also some provisions that speak to the obligations of SDCI in terms of educating renters about their right to counsel.

And so the idea is for SDCI to update their notices to make clear that anybody facing eviction does have access to counsel.

The bill also speaks to a requirement for landlords to update their notices to provide notice of the right to counsel to tenants, and gives SDCI the opportunity to do a rulemaking to figure out what exactly that language would look like.

The last piece of that is that once that rulemaking is completed and landlords do know what language they're supposed to put on a notice, if that language doesn't appear on the notice, that would be a defense to eviction.

A couple other things in the bill are the tenant is not required to accept counsel.

It just gives them the option of retaining counsel.

So if they choose not to hire the counsel provided by the city or go out to independently hire legal counsel, the city is not responsible for paying those costs.

And the, The attorneys that the city is providing are not obligated to represent tenants if they're doing so would violate some of the Washington State Court rules of professional conduct.

So just to make sure that the bill isn't requiring representation when there would be conflict, ethical conflict.

Well, it includes a provision as well.

And lastly, this is not in a codified section.

It asks the city to contracts excuse me, ask the city to appropriate sufficient funds so that the city can contract with an organization at the funding level that would cover all of the tenants that might need representation during an eviction proceeding.

At this point, if there are no questions about the provisions in the bill itself, I can move into the fiscal considerations, but I'll pause in case anybody has any questions.

I have a quick question on that last point, if it's appropriate now.

OK.

So you mentioned that in circumstances where there's a conflict, the core agency that's been contracted with might not be in a position to provide that representation.

I mean, that happens commonly in the criminal legal system, where there might be a conflict with one of the defender agencies, and so an outside conflict counsel is secured.

Does this bill envision a process to do that?

Or is that sort of implied in the rulemaking SDCI would do and how SDCI would do their contracting?

Like would they be in a position to secure sufficient contracts for like a conflict firm?

Or is that something we should envision in the core bill?

So there isn't anything in the bill itself that speaks to what does happen in case there is a conflict of interest.

SDCI itself has the authority to contract with a variety of organizations, but I don't know that they have specifically thought through what a process might be for counsel if there is a conflict.

I would say that in this situation, currently we have two to providers that were contracted for, so both the Tenant Law Center and the Housing Justice Project.

So I would think that if somebody from the Housing Justice Project wasn't able to provide representation, if none of the attorneys were allowed to, then someone from the Tenant Law Center might be able to.

But that is something that we can discuss further with SDCI to figure out what a more specific process might look like.

Yeah, I think we should look into it just because, you know, I mean, we contract with You know, three of the constituent agencies of, or representation groups of DPD, right, are part of our contract with the municipal court.

And there are certainly occasions where people are conflicted out of all three of those agencies, and we have to have coverage council come in for whatever reason.

So, you know, I could see a scenario where both, you know, contracted groups could be conflicted out.

So that might be something to, look into, because my understanding as a related question, I mean, the right is going to attach to tenants.

So we're going to be in a position where we're going to have to be able to figure out a way to provide that representation consistent with the court rules around potential conflict.

So, yeah, I think it's something to certainly prepare for.

I have one more question related, sort of related to that.

At what point under the current legislation does this right go into effect?

So as it currently is drafted, it says that legal representation shall be made available upon that person's request as soon as practical after a service of summons for an unlawful detainer suit.

the language around upon that person's request is essentially a way for people to know one way or the other, whether a tenant would need counsel at all.

And so otherwise there may not necessarily be a way for outreach to happen in the opposite direction.

And so- My question was actually more like, when are we going to be in a position where we're expected to be providing lawyers to people that are in eviction proceedings?

Like when would this bill go into effect if we pass it?

Sorry.

No, I understand.

So this bill has the regular 30-day clause.

So it'll go into effect 30 days from the mayor's signature.

So ostensibly if this would get voted on next Monday or the Monday after and the mayor were to sign it, it would go into effect mid-April.

are that the reason i asked that question is i hadn't really thought about it until i read your compare and contrast with the state bill and and kind of notice the state timeline which which is you know, like wouldn't go into effect for like a year, I think, or something like that.

But it did make me think in terms of whether the department, and I have questions in the SDCI, and maybe you know the answer, so I'll ask now, whether SDCI would be in a position to honor that right to counsel on that turnaround?

Have they indicated that they would?

So we have been having some conversations about what the timeline would look like.

And what my understanding is after those conversations was that because we are already contracted with some of the providers and we are in the position where the moratorium still is in effect, right now we're in a position to be able to provide counsel to anyone that's facing an eviction filing.

what the uncertainty comes in as to what happens when the moratorium is lifted.

And so the STCI's role in this would really just be to take the funding that is granted and either add it to an existing contract or create a new contract.

And so they don't have very much to do with the actual because they don't have very much to do with the actual provision of legal services.

They are primarily working on the contracting side.

There's not gonna be very much time that it's gonna take to ramp up because those contracts are already in place.

The other thing that SDCI would be responsible for in terms of updating notices and education and doing the rulemaking, hopefully that is, or my understanding is that that is, those are things that can be done in the short term.

And so those things can get done by the time this bill goes into effect and hopefully, assuming that there's some sort of extension to the eviction moratorium, they would have the time built in to ramp up already.

So we wouldn't need an additional, all of this additional time to build in as the state bill references.

So am I to take that to mean that the department hasn't indicated there's any administrability issues in getting this operational in the timeline that the legislation envisioned?

That's my understanding.

Okay.

Thank you, Asha, for giving all that information.

I believe Council Member Pearson has a question.

Just before opening it up for Council Member Pearson, I will add that Just in terms of what Asha was referencing, the moratorium, I mean, we don't know what will happen with the moratorium.

We're certainly organizing with renters to ensure that the moratoriums are renewed, but we definitely don't want the moratoriums to end without renters having counsel.

So I think that it's really important that we do this.

But having said that, yeah, Council Member Peterson, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Swann.

Good morning, everybody.

I want to thank Council Member Swann and Council Member Lewis for bringing this forward.

Also, thank you for the panel of tenant advocates here today for your time and your experience sharing that with us, both here in Seattle and with other cities.

And while we don't have any landlords that the table today to get their perspective on how this might, you know, the practical impacts of this from their perspective.

I did hear some of them call in, so that was helpful.

And it sounds like the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections has been consulted since they're named in the bill to help administer this.

Obviously, we have the Seattle Housing Levy that awards money to nonprofits to build and operate low-income housing through the city, and we partner with the Seattle Housing Authority and the King County Housing Authority.

These questions are all for Asha and wanted to know, have you had a chance to run it by the Seattle Department of, or the Seattle Office of Housing, or the Seattle Housing Authority, or King County Housing Authority?

So I did send this over to the Office of Housing, but I didn't receive any concerns from them about this particular piece of legislation.

I haven't talked to the King County Housing Authority or to SHA, so I'm not sure, Council Member Solent, if your office has had those conversations, but I have not.

So we've already talked a lot about the concept of means testing of whether something like this should be targeted to those who are low income.

And I've heard the arguments against that.

And so I appreciate that being fleshed out.

I'm not sure I'm totally on board with that, but I do appreciate that there's been a lot of discussion of that.

So that I understand the council bill a little bit better.

In addition to there not being means testing, it looks like it's not targeted to nonpayment of rent.

It's for any alleged violation of the lease or any other issue in addition to potential nonpayment of rent.

Is that true, Asha?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

So would be interested, you know, if we are able to get any word back from the office of housing or a housing authority, whether there's any concern about this not applying to other issues of the lease agreement between the tenant and the landlord, and in some cases, many nonprofits operating housing throughout the city here.

I did want to, you know, I was doing some research as quickly as I could before today's committee meeting on some of the other interventions that we have.

There's different ways that we're trying to support tenants in need and was reminded of the different budget actions that we took just a few months ago.

And under Councilor Solan's leadership to increase the budget, there was an increase of $460,000 of eviction legal defense, there was another $145,000 increase.

Councilor Strauss had a bill adding half a million dollars.

And so we have, it looks like we've more than doubled the financial supports.

And the reason I mentioned that is I'm interested in trying to be helpful through the budget process.

to provide the funding for those who need it, whereas this is a regulatory change.

So there are different ways to help, and I'm more interested in the budgetary ads, and I'm glad we added money in the past and hope that we can consider that as we see what happens going forward.

We also banned evictions during the coldest winter months.

Again, thanks to Councillor Swann's leadership, we banned evictions during the COVID pandemic.

We adopted the Council President's program to allow for installments of back rent following COVID.

And I'm really interested in this state Senate bill.

5160 and as I understand it, it is moving forward and the legislative session will be over soon.

So I'm very interested to see what state legislators come up with.

I know that they're considering several elements that would be useful.

So I just wanted to signal that I do have some, I do have concerns about the bill, this bill before us in its present form.

I'm interested in, looking at the budget situation, interested in seeing what the state legislature does.

So I just wanted to get those thoughts out there as we consider this.

Thank you.

If it would be helpful, I can talk a little more about the budgetary piece of it and what we're looking at, as well as some of the elements in the state bill.

Go ahead, Asha.

OK.

So currently, in terms of what we're looking at with funding, This, for 2021, the whole budget for tenant services, so not just the budget for legal and eviction defense, the entire budget is close to $1.7 million.

That, as I mentioned, that what we actually allocate to the pieces around legal eviction defense is maybe about a third of that, and that has been the case for the past two years at least.

And so those funds are split between the Housing Justice Project and the Tenant Law Center.

The specifics of legal representation are one of the things that gets funded.

And so at the moment, as is referenced in the memo, the Housing Justice Project gets about $218,000 of the about $560,000 that are allocated to just the legal and eviction defense piece.

And so working from the estimate that it would take $750,000 to be able to provide legal counsel in a typical year, not necessarily in a moratorium or a pandemic year, but if we're looking at 1,200 evictions that are filed a year in Seattle, we're looking at that $750,000 number.

So currently, given the $218,000 and given the uncertainty around when the moratorium will be lifted, it's possible that at some point during this year, which as I mentioned, we don't know yet, more funding will be needed for allocation to legal and eviction defense.

And there are still some funds that SDCI has not yet awarded out of that 1.7 million that could go towards funding the legal eviction defense piece.

In future years to fund this long-term, again, with that $750,000 number, there are a couple ways to deal with funding in that scenario.

Assuming under the assumption that no additional funds would get added, for example, for the 2022 budget, there would need to be some reallocation of how the current tenant services budget is is granted, and so that would mean reshuffling some of the current ways in which those funds are, or how SDCI allocates those funds.

Assuming that there are funds added during this year's budget for 2022 and ongoing, that reallocation may not necessarily be needed, but it just depends on how much additional funding ends up being added through the budget for 2022. That could be Let's see, so there is a gap of about I think it's about $440,000 between what would be awarded to the housing justice project, assuming additional funds get added this year and the $750,000 number so ballpark to be able to keep the tenant.

services budget whole, we probably need between $300,000 and $500,000 additionally in this year's budget for the program to be able to move ongoing.

The last piece of that fiscally is that that is, and I think this was mentioned earlier during the panel, but that's based on the 1,200 filings that we're currently seeing.

It's entirely possible that as more and more people learn about their right to legal counsel and are educated about the fact that they can access an attorney, that people that have been leaving before the filings actually happen would wait until there was a filing and then want to have access to legal counsel.

So it's possible that those numbers would increase, but until the education and outreach is out there and we know how the program is functioning, it's not entirely clear that the $750,000 is going to be sufficient for the long term.

So some of this will be waiting to see how the program goes as it's implemented and monitoring to see if there are increases or decreases in eviction filings that affect that number.

Thank you.

Sorry, go ahead.

No, sorry, I was just going to say I was just going to pause for questions before moving into anything about the state.

I don't see any.

I have just a quick question, Madam Chair.

Go ahead.

Yeah, so I appreciate you going over those costs, Asha.

There was some good reporting yesterday by SCC Insight indicating kind of costs in other cities and how we might expect to see it.

Is it too early to tell, or would you be prepared to provide an opinion or analysis on this, on whether we would expect those costs to be, potential cost increases, to be permanent or to be temporary based on the unique impacts of the pandemic.

Tough to say.

And I think that that is primarily because the landscape changes.

So quickly, depending on what bills get passed out of the state legislature this year, as well as what legislation comes out of the city, it's possible that the differences that are made to the just cause eviction pieces could have some impact on eviction filings.

It's possible that knowing that for landlords to know the fact that tenants now have a right to counsel, that they might be more interested in mediation before making an eviction filing.

So there are a lot of factors that go into, I think, figuring out whether filings will increase or decrease, but the pandemic and the associated moratorium, I think, do make it complicated for us to have any real idea in the long term about what's going to happen.

And do we know, just as one last question too, in the event that some kind of means testing regime were attached to this, would that carry with it additional unanticipated costs?

That's something that hadn't really occurred to me till today, but to administer something like that, there would probably need to be some additional contracted service, I'd be interested if that could be quantified too.

Maybe if you don't have that answer now, like later, but I'm just kind of curious about that.

Yeah, and I'd be happy to follow up on that piece.

I think some of that will depend on whether that's something that we want SDCI to be responsible for.

So that might involve costs of having an FTE and then any IT costs that would be required in terms of setting up that kind of new program.

Or we would want to contract out to somebody that could do that vetting or increase contract amounts to our current contractors to do that work.

And so that's definitely something I can check in about and see if we can get any numbers on.

So you could confirm now that there would likely be costs associated with it.

It's just unclear what those costs are.

That is my, yes, that is my current understanding.

I don't think that, at the very least, SGCI has the capacity to stand up a new program that would cover all of the pieces around what it would take to administer a means test without additional funding or FTEs?

Or staff.

As a last related question to that, I mean, we saw in, I'm sorry, Council Member Sawant, but I think you'll actually like this follow-up question.

You know, we saw in Kevin Schofield's reporting yesterday that San Francisco, you know, only had 6% of people that, you know, that weren't indigent that took advantage of their no-means-tested system.

Another thing that'd be interesting when you're looking at quantifying the cost of what it would be to administer is, would the city end up spending more on means testing than we would save in providing legal counsel to people who would fall outside of it?

I think would be an interesting analysis.

Because it just seems like from San Francisco's experience, that might almost be the case.

So I certainly want to see that before we make assumptions that we would save taxpayer money.

by imposing a means testing regime.

But I'd want to confirm that.

I don't want to assume that, but the statistics seem to indicate that might be the case.

So I'm curious.

Absolutely.

I'm happy to follow up on that piece once I've gotten the chance to talk to SDCI.

And I would just add, just from overall economic evidence, I don't have an exact answer to your question, Council Member Lewis, on as far as it's related to right to council.

But I can tell you that the overwhelming economic evidence, first of all, shows a very basic fact is, yes, it will always cost public revenues to carry out a means test.

There's no question about it.

Whether on balance it costs more or less than the service itself, that's a different question.

But there's no doubt that it actually costs resources in order to carry out a means test.

And the question is, what does it actually give in return?

And I think that's what's the most important question.

is, does it actually allow people who need the service to access it, or does it create barriers for it?

And I promise you, right to counsel is not the first kind of public assistance that is where this question came up.

I mean, the conservative economists and conservative politicians have made arguments in favor of means testing.

for decades and for decades the evidence shows that actually a smaller and sometimes very small proportion of people who are eligible for the service actually end up getting it because it sets up barriers of various kinds and really appreciate Edmund and Ellen going over all those barriers that are put in place.

And I would say the biggest cost really of putting in means testing is not even the dollar amounts or so on, but actually what happens to people's lives when their lives get ravaged because they're not able to access it.

I think as legislators, we absolutely have to put the biggest value on what happens to people's lives.

But yeah, that was a very thorough discussion on a lot of points.

Asha, did you want to go over the state bill?

And I had some points about that as well.

But I also want to be mindful of the time.

We are already past two hours in the committee, and I don't want to lose committee members because we do want to vote on the legislation.

So I'll have you talk about the state bill, and then I will add some points, and then hopefully we can move to a vote.

Go ahead, Asha.

Sure, I can just speak to it very briefly in terms of the differences between what is in that state bill and what we are discussing currently.

But in terms of eligibility, the state bill does limit the right to access to indigent tenants, which they define as receiving a whole variety of public assistance benefits or being at 200% of the federal poverty level.

The other The other big difference, sorry, I'm just looking at my comparison here.

The other big difference is that, as Council Member Lewis mentioned, this wouldn't go into effect until at least 12 months after the effective date of the bill.

It asked the Office of Civil Legal Aid, which is the office that would administer all of these contracts, to submit an implementation plan within 90 days of when that bill got passed.

It does have some prioritization to counties that have the most evictions.

Lastly, is specific that the court must appoint an attorney for an indigent tenant at any show cause hearing or scheduled trial.

And so it has a little more detail about when exactly that attorney would be appointed.

Sorry, the last part is legislation itself updates the 14-day pay or vacate notice as well as the summons form to include language around right to counsel.

So those are the main points of that bill.

Thank you, Asha.

And just to add to what you said, Asha, I would also say that The state bill, just to clarify, the state Senate bill has not passed either chamber at this point.

It may get further watered down.

We don't know.

That would not be surprising.

Currently, it includes stringent means testing, eligibility capped at 200% of the poverty line.

And as you have noted, it would not take effect for a year, maybe.

But the most important point here is I think it's not clear that this will pass the Senate and then it will need to go to the House on a tight timeline.

Many bills, even with broad support, end up dying in a typical year.

That is what we see.

And so while, of course, I very much hope that Senate Bill 5160 will pass, the sad reality is that we simply cannot count on it.

the state continues to have shockingly anti-renter laws on the books like the statewide ban on rent control but not just that even other laws and in fact our housing justice project attorneys have presented on this in past years about how actually other states are much better But what we have seen, on the other hand, is that when we pass progressive legislation in Seattle, it helps build momentum to also pass it citywide.

We saw that, obviously, with the $15 minimum wage, but we can also see that from renters' rights.

And I would also stress, and maybe, Asha, you already said this, but the Senate bill and this city council legislation will not be contradictory or mutually exclusive.

to each other.

And in fact, many renters' rights are asserted both at the state and the local level.

It's actually quite important because it allows renters to appeal to either the city or the state to have their rights upheld.

So there's nothing bad that will come out of it.

Only good things can come out of it, depending on whom you're representing.

If you're representing the most vulnerable, only good things can come out of it.

And also, I just wanted to add, I forgot to mention, in terms of Council Member Lewis's question, which I thought was a very good question about does it actually have an impact on the number of eviction filings itself if tenants have representation guaranteed by law?

And I think that's a very important note.

I believe John Pollock, who presented at our last committee from the National Coalition for the Right to Counsel, said that in New York City, eviction filings have dropped by 30 percent, including a 20 percent drop In 2019 alone, so it really shows how much elections have to do with the power dynamic between corporate landlords and, you know, just ordinary people who are renters.

So if when landlords know that what they are going to face in the court is not a really vulnerable tenant who's lost in the process because the courts are not on their side, but instead a trained attorney, then they are actually, it acts as a deterrent to eviction filing itself.

So I think all of these factors are going to play a role in what, you know, what the numbers come out to be at the very end, but I don't believe that you can actually see that until this law goes into effect.

So I think this law needs to be put in place and then we see how much of a good impact it's having, but I have no doubt in my mind, having seen what's happened in New York City and San Francisco, that it will have a very good impact.

How much of a good impact?

That's great.

We can see what happens when the law is put in place, but it's very clear that it will be extremely positive.

Unless there are really burning questions, I don't want to lose council members, and I really, really appreciate your time, not only council members, but all our presenters and Asha.

I feel ready to move this to a vote.

I'll just wait for a few seconds before I move, just in case there are burning questions.

Seeing none, I will go ahead and move Council Bill 120007 for a vote.

Do you have a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Sorry, go ahead.

Sorry, were you saying something, Council Member Morales?

I was just trying to second, sometimes my microphone doesn't work.

Thank you.

So the bill has been moved and seconded.

Are there any additional comments?

Council Member Sawant?

Go ahead.

Yeah, just briefly, I really appreciate the discussion today.

I particularly requested a lot of information from central staff and additional analysis.

you know, considering that I do support the core tenants of the legislation and have co-sponsored it, and, you know, I'm willing to vote it out of committee in reliance of that we probably know what the answers to a lot of those questions will be, but I did just want to signal that, you know, I'd feel more comfortable on the final passage of this at full council, having those answers back from central staff, but with those reservations, I will vote for it today.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

I'm not seeing any hands on the Zoom feature.

Okay, seeing no other comments, I will ask the clerk to call for the vote.

Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Peterson?

No.

And Council Member Juarez is not present.

So that's three in favor, one opposed.

Thank you, Council Members, and thank you, Ted.

And just in terms of what Council Member Lewis said before I close this agenda item, I, my understanding is some of the questions you asked Council Member Lewis are questions that will have answers once the law is in effect.

And once we see how, how much it's deterring landlords from filing evictions, how much people are seeking assistance and so on.

So I just want to be clear that some of the questions I think Arsha can find answers to, but some are just, just the nature of statistics that you have to see the change in order to, I don't see the change if that's making sense.

So I just wanted to clarify that.

Yeah, I think some of the more immediate ones are just around quantifying some of the fiscal implications for the city, which I think we can figure out.

But certainly some of them are, what would the effect of this legislation be on the rental market?

And that's true.

We're not really going to know that until it's in effect.

But in terms of the impact on City finances, I mean, that stuff we should be able to figure out and departmental capacity and whatever else, so.

Okay, but also I wanted to clarify just, and to reiterate what Asha said, I know you talk about departmental capacity, but really it's the attorneys with organizations like the Housing Justice Project that are providing that service.

It's not the Department of Construction Inspection that's providing that service.

So the bulk of the, in terms of the time and resources, is not focused on the city department.

So I also just wanted to clarify that as well.

We will absolutely work with ASHA and central staff as a whole to make sure that whatever is needed are compiled.

And I also wanted to make it clear that, you know, when we talk about uncertainties, of course, you know, it's very clearly, very honestly stated in the fiscal note and so on that there is an uncertainty.

But I just want to make it clear, the uncertainty is not in all kinds of different directions.

It's not like we're going to find out, that it's actually hurting renters.

That's not the case.

It's only a question of how much of a magnitude of an effect, positive effect it has on, it's going to have on renters.

And I think the indications from other cities are very strong.

I mean, we're, unlike $15 an hour, we are not the first, and winter evictions ban, we're not the first city to do it.

And this is a good thing that we have data to go by.

So I think all of that should be extremely helpful for us to, make sure that we have responses to the questions that have come up.

So having said that, and in the interest of time, I will thank Council members for engaging on that legislation and especially a very big thank you and gratitude to all our presenters and panelists, including Asha and our community members and our renters rights advocates and renters rights service providers.

Thank you so much for all the information and guidance you have provided, not just today, but throughout the year so far, ever since we started researching right to counsel.

I really appreciate that.

I will move quickly to the next agenda items that we have.

Our final agenda items are items three through six, which are reappointments to the Seattle Renter's Commissions.

Because they are reappointments rather than new appointments, it's not customary to have them appear in committee, but I will read them in record for now.

appointment 01814, reappointment of Dina Brascio.

I apologize for my dog who's howling.

Reappointment of Dina Brascio as member of Seattle Renters Commission for a term to February 28, 2023. appointment 01815 reappointment of calvin jones as member seattle renters commission for a term to february 28 2022 reappointment 01816 reappointment of max scotty ray mcgregor as member seattle renters commission for a term to february 28 2022 Appointment 01817, reappointment of Regina Owens as member Seattle Renters Commission for a term to February 28, 2023. Dina Brascio is an organizer with the tenants union, Calvin Jones.

originally got involved with the Renters Commission as a Get Engaged appointee.

Matt McGregor is an organizer and leader in the LGBTQ community.

And Gina Owens is an organizer with the Washington Community Action Network.

All four have played an excellent role on the Renters Commission in their first term.

And Council Members may know them as well through their work in the community.

I will quickly open it up for any questions or comments that council members have.

Seeing none.

I will go ahead, and if there's no opposition, I will go ahead and move all four appointments as a single vote.

I move appointment 01814, 15, 16, and 17. Second.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Ted, can you please call the roll?

Council Member Szilagyi?

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Four in favor.

Thank you to thank you council members, the appointments and the reappointments and the legislation will move forward to full council and the appointments will definitely move on Monday.

My hope is that the legislation will also move for a vote this coming Monday, but we will be in touch with all committee members and we will be in touch with the community members and all our panelists to make sure everybody is well-informed about when the final vote will be on the right to council legislation.

I really, really appreciate council members staying for a longer committee than usual.

And if there are no final comments, I will go ahead and adjourn the meeting.