Seattle Human Services, Equitable Development, & Renter Rights Committee 4/23/19

Good afternoon, everybody.

This is the regularly scheduled meeting of the Human Services, Equitable Development, and Renters' Rights Committee of the Seattle City Council.

I am Council Member Kshama Sawant of District 3. The time is 2.10 p.m., and we are in council chambers.

And I hope we will be joined by other council members, but we're going to have a committee meeting regardless.

We have just come from a very exciting press conference where seniors and community members have spoken very clearly about why they want Bird Bar Place and the Central Area Senior Center to be held for public use in perpetuity in the hands of the community.

We will have them at the table in a few minutes where they will talk about their efforts to transfer formal ownership of properties from the City of Seattle to their nonprofits currently operating out of those buildings.

The nonprofits have had Mutual and offsetting benefit leases which means that they use the properties rent-free but in return they use the property to provide an invaluable service to the city providing crucial community and social space.

Transferring formal ownership would not change anything in terms of the community benefits delivered by these properties.

However, it will make sure that these spaces will be held for social and public use regardless of income into perpetuity and that they will not be up for grab by for-profit developers.

Most immediately, Bird Bar Place won a $1.455 million state grant, but has been unable to collect it for several years, simply because the city of Seattle's establishment has unacceptably delayed transferring the property ownership for the last seven years.

Now if the state legislature does not reappropriate the money in this session, Bird Bar will end up losing the grant and through no fault of their own.

As of now, that reappropriation, meaning reassigning that $1.5 million for bird bars use, is in the House capital budget, which is good, but it is not in the Senate budget yet.

And unless a special session is called, the state budget will be finalized by the end of this week.

And that is why it is urgent that we make sure the state legislature ensures that the $1.5 million are there for use by Board Bar Place, regardless of when the ownership gets transferred.

Community members will be speaking today about how they have advocated for this in the past seven years through three mayoral administrations.

Last November, the City Council passed a resolution unanimously, sponsored by Council Member Herbold, setting a deadline for the end of March to complete these transfers, but that deadline has also now passed.

Later in the meeting, we will talk to the Seattle Renters Commission.

The chairs of the Commission will discuss with us their work plan for 2019 and the Commission's tenant protections.

work group will present on two of their most recent policy recommendations, rent control and extending the notice to tenants for rent increases to 180 days.

Both of these issues are very much interconnected because we're seeing in a city that is very quickly becoming a playground for the very wealthy and for big business, ordinary people are having to struggle both for affordable housing and accessible social spaces.

So I'm really glad that we're going to have both these discussions today.

Before we start the discussion, we do have public comment and we have about 15 people signed up for public comment.

Given that we want to come to the discussion as soon as possible, I am appealing to everybody to stick to one minute each so that we can hear everybody for a minute each who have signed up for public comment, and then we can begin our discussion.

Because part of that discussion is also what are our next steps?

What are we going to do after today, right?

So I'm going to call the names in order of signing.

And I will call several names each time so that you know that you're coming up next and so that you can line up at the microphone.

And also know that there are two microphones so you can, if you hear your name called as the next speaker, upcoming speaker, you can go to the other microphone and be ready so that that way we don't spend too much time in the back and forth of speakers.

So our first Three speakers are Ruby Holland, Marguerite Richard, and the Honorable Michael Fuller.

And please look at the timer here.

You need to create an anti-displacement plan for every homeowner in every urban village in Seattle.

or you need to make every neighborhood share in the density crisis and upzoning.

Anything less is a joke and is seen for what it is, a land grab, pure and simple.

The overtly discriminatory MHA is a ploy to take prime property out of the hands of seniors, middle-income earners, Asians, Hispanics, and blacks from the seedy and south end and place it into the hands of greedy developers.

If you think we are going to walk away from our property while the rest of Seattle goes on with their lives as if nothing's happened, wrong answer.

That's not going to happen.

To suggest that people of color sell their land and return to rent from the very people they sold to is an insult and absolutely appalling.

Seattle citizens from Magnolia and Laura Hearst to Mount Baker and parts in between rejected the MHA because they know the value of property ownership.

I ask every homeowner, renter, business owner, and pro bono attorney to stand with us in solidarity as we fight this scourge to protect our right to own property and to live in Seattle.

We need to tell Durkin and her racist machine that we value diversity and we reject their vision of an all-white Seattle.

If you want our property, you'll have to fight me for it.

So call off the pit bulls and fat cat developers.

Thank you.

Yes, Ms. Richard here after six months of a trespass.

So I went into my archives and brought out the Central Connector, July, September, well, July through September 2013. So that's some time ago and I still have it.

It's a nice laid out program of what they have going on up there.

But then what I see being produced down here is telling black people in 2019 that they're not good enough to lead.

They're not good enough to hold onto something that their children walked through there.

They had funerals maybe up in some of those places, repasses, all kinds of things that I know for a fact that went on in those two buildings And now you turn around and this is 2019, like they said, a new breed of institutionalized slavery and the worst black massacre on us that I've lived through.

See, I was just coming up when Dr. King was being murdered, but now I'm full grown now.

And you're still perpetrating fraud on us?

I say no more, okay?

No more.

The Honorable Michael Fuller is next and after that we have Cassandra Smith, Sarah Jane Siegfried and Jim Wickfall.

I apologize if I don't say your names correctly.

So I want as I continue in prayer I can't help it because I was in a coma for months.

I can't help it because it took me two years to learn how to eat, talk, and walk again through the grace of my God.

I can't help it because I have brain damage.

I can't help it, I always remember what my two neurologists told me that people would try to take advantage of me because I have brain damage.

Now, 400 years of enslavement as of August of 2019. Now, Martin Luther King beat August 16, 1967. Where do we go from here?

Now, so one, you get in where you fit in, drive, that violates the first 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights against our own forces, females and males.

2,996 deaths, 2,977 victims, 343 firefighter deaths and 19 hijacker deaths and then you talk about one America when it's a war on America that violates title 18 USC chapter 73 obstruction of justice and title 18 U.S. code Chapter U.S. Code 2441, war crimes.

So Juan, you're not fighting for me.

You're in the Black Lives Matter community, and Black Lives Matter, but this is not the change or the dream Black Lives Matter.

can believe that our new generation armed forces females and males who fought to make this country safer is the truth from that federal reform act of 1986 that was signed by R-R-Ronald Reagan.

But my guy got your address and your phone number because you're my phone number in the CD.

You understand?

You note that for the record and you let the record reflect.

Then we have Sarah Jane Siegfried, Denjim Wickfall, and then we have Joan Paulson.

Go ahead.

My name is Cassandra Smith, and I'm a product of Seattle, where I grew up across the street from Garfield High School, excuse me, where I grew up across the street from Garfield High School.

I've been able to be blessed to travel in and out of Seattle most of my life, and I've watched the decline of minority community as well as Chinatown, where I also grew up.

So I'm watching all communities disperse.

So if Mary Durkan was standing here today, my question is, what is your exchange?

Because sometimes you don't have to ask before you take, but consider, considering where would you place the seniors if you took?

That's my question.

Where would they go?

What would they do?

Because the same way back in the early part of the 90s, back in 91, 92, where they went to ask people for their homes, due to ignorance, they sold their homes, but not knowing until 2019, it's still the same take.

You're taking and you're taking.

So I'm asking everyone, please sign and stand up for what matters.

My name is Sarah Jane Siegfried, and I'm here as a regular user of the Central Seattle Neighborhood Coalition Meets Their Monthly.

This is about our community places, the gathering places for seniors to attend programs, to socialize, and to maintain nutrition as we age in our homes.

Senior centers are essential.

We know that seniors who isolate and that they live shorter lives are more likely to deteriorate and actually die years earlier than seniors with active social lives.

Seattle has long underfunded and neglected its senior centers.

Given our commitment to our social justice initiative as it amends to years of racism, this delay is inexcusable.

We ask Mayor Durkin to transfer the central Greenwood Senior Center and Bird Place now without delay.

Thank you.

My name is Jim Wickfall and I'm the CEO of Sound Generations and the City Council had the foresight to pass a resolution requesting the mayor to transfer the ownership of the property of Bird Bar Place and Central Area Senior Center to those organizations by the end of March and unfortunately due to her inaction I look forward to the City Council taking the lead and ensuring that the property is transferred.

Thank you.

We have Mindy Lee, Lori Lucky, am I saying that right?

And John Barber.

My name is Joan Paulson, and I've come here today to support the legislation for all three organizations to be approved.

There has not been any mayor in the city of Seattle since the late 60s, early 70s, who have moved ahead on these three projects, and I don't expect a lot out of our current mayor in regards to that either.

because this is an issue of social economic justice that needs to be remedied and put forward.

So I highly recommend that your committee move this week, if at all possible, to move the three projects together and transfer of ownership because the mayor has not fulfilled her obligations.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Mindy Lee.

I'm a member of Puget Sound Advocates for Retirement Action, and I have never been to the Senior Center, but what I'm seeing here today is community, and it's amazing.

And as much as people need food and family and a place to live, they need community.

It's another part of people's lives that keep them healthy, keep them connected, keep them vital.

Don't let the mayor sell this property away just because it's got a good view.

These people need that property.

No more delays.

No more delays.

No more delays.

No more delays.

No more delays.

No more delays.

My name is Lori Lucky, and I've been a member of the Central Area Senior Center for four years.

I'm a retired University of Washington research administrator.

And I go to the Senior Center mostly for line dancing and for the meals, but also for the social group that is there and the welcoming atmosphere from the moment you enter the front door.

I think that if we look at the overall membership of the senior center, this is one of the most heavily African American centers in Seattle.

This is seniors who grew up under Jim Crow and discrimination.

They did the work that a lot of Seattleites didn't want to do if they were white and didn't need to do because they were privileged.

These people deserve their senior center.

They deserve this view.

They deserve to have a nice place to go and see each other.

They represent the institutional history, just like the Northwest African-American Museum does, of African-Americans and blacks in Black Seattle.

The social history is in their minds of Black Seattle and the proud citizens that it represents.

And they are most deserving if Mayor Durkan chooses not to give over our control of the center.

And to our excellent director, Diane Ferguson, I will consider that she's just a part of what we think of as institutionalized racism.

Thank you.

Let's do some more chanting.

After John Barber, we have Sharon Sobers, Outlaw, and then Madison McCombs.

My name is John Barber.

I think it's extremely important to enable the transfer of ownership of the Central Area Senior Center to the community organization that's had its dream of this for so many years.

My wife and I moved to the neighborhood in 1971, we knew at that time that there was a group organized, the Central Area Seniors that are looking for a home.

And we were there in 1972 when there was a statewide bond issue, the Health and Social Facilities Bond Issue.

It passed by a vote of something like 700,000 to 500,000 voters in Washington.

to tax ourselves to have this kind of community facility.

These bond issue monies helped buy the property.

Since being at the center, we've made many, many friendships.

We've enjoyed the health benefits of the programs there.

It keeps us together as a neighborhood, and this is extremely important to keep.

this facility operating as a senior center.

Hi, I'm Sharon Sobers-Outlaw, and I am a resident of the Leschi community.

I've lived there for 35 years.

I was a single parent, and I'm still there.

I'm there with my mother, taking care of her at this time, and I am an ex-board member of the senior services, where I played a major role in keeping the Central Area Senior Center there.

And I fought for that, and I will continue to fight.

I'm also the ex-president of the Leschi Community Council, where I also fought for the community to remain the same, to make improvements, to make the park.

We made Powell Burnett Park that we could live in, that we could work in.

We made Floraire Park.

We did all of that.

We supported that.

We got the monies to do that for us to be able to enjoy it, which we are not being able to at this time because we're being moved out.

Oh.

I have worked really hard.

I was also on the Central District Council with Mr. Muskelly, who has been my mentor, who has taught me how to fight for our community.

And I stand here today to fight for Central Area Senior Center.

I will not go down without a fight.

I want us to continue to have that center.

I want you to tell you a small story about myself.

I was struck with arthritis about five years ago, and I wasn't working.

And I went to Century Senior Center.

I had always been a part of that center.

But I went there, and I went to the sliders every Friday.

I could hardly walk, but I began to walk again.

I went to the sliders every...

I went to performances, and I walk.

And you see me now?

I can do anything.

And that's because...

that community lifted me up on a daily basis and was able to be a part of.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Madison McCombs.

Hang on.

Before Madison goes, we have, after Madison, we have Pastor Vic Langford, then Norma Roberts, then Nancy Grafton, and then Reverend Harriet Walden wanted to say a few words too.

Hi, my name is Madison McCombs, and I'm an organizer at BC Seattle and a student at Seattle Pacific University.

I'm going to be commenting on item number three of the agenda, which is rent control and extending rent increase.

But I also just want to comment that everything that we have been talking about today, I'm fully also supporting as well.

But I believe that rent control and extending rent increase notice are policies that will help make Seattle a more equitable place to live, especially across people of various financial and economic class statuses.

And we at Be Seattle also believe that these policies will support, will increase stability for people in Seattle who are the most vulnerable, people of color, women and female headed households, the elderly and poor communities.

These are the people who our policies need to be putting at the forefront of our minds and prioritizing and putting first.

And policies like these need to be prioritized.

And overall, if we prioritize the most vulnerable people in our society, it will make Seattle a better place for us to live, for all of us.

So with that in mind, I just reiterate that I am representing B-Seattle and myself and multiple other individuals in supporting the policies of rent control and extending rent increase notice.

Thank you.

I'm Pastor Vic Langford, minister of the St. Mark's Lutheran Church, and it is my pleasure to share three questions, and I invite the community to respond with me.

My first question is, what do we want?

Central area community.

Yes, what do we want?

Central area senior center.

I said, what do we want?

Central area senior center.

When do we want it?

Now.

When do we want it?

Now.

When do we want it?

Who must act on this?

Who must act?

Mayor?

Who?

What did you say?

One more time?

Make it clear.

What do we want?

When do we want it?

Who must act?

No more delays!

No more delays!

Okay, my name is Norma Roberts and I want to say to the city and the government to stop hiding behind low-income and affordable housing when they want to take property from senior citizens and owners.

What's low-income and what affordable housing can afford a view like Central Area Senior Center has?

So if she can tell me who can afford that, thank you.

No one.

Next time we chant, let's also hold up the red placards every time we chant.

Okay.

Go ahead.

No, go ahead.

My name is Nancy Grattan.

And first of all, let me just say I'm dismayed that the Seattle City Council is not here today.

Let me calm down.

Okay.

My godmother has been a member of the Seattle Central Area Senior Center for the entire 51 years.

She's a bridge player.

She was a bridge player.

She's 98 years old, but the community center was her safe place.

She loved to go to the community center.

And I'm perplexed that the city has no problems with the other senior centers, but they seem to be eager to turn this building over Bye!

I love the senior center.

I actually attend the diabetics workshop, and I don't have, I'm not diabetic, but I just love all, I try doing the slide, but I don't slide well.

But I do go up there and just join the seniors for lunch.

I just love being around seniors.

I'm a senior, but I love being around the seniors at the center are like 80, 90, and that's their livelihood.

That's their life.

And to take that away from them is, Totally disrespectful.

So it's a place where the seniors can partake in any of the many activities and they love it.

So I'm going to step down now and say not this time.

No more delays!

No more delays!

No more delays!

No more delays!

And next we have Harriet Wollin, who is the last speaker in public comment, and then I'll ask all the presenters to come to the table after she finishes speaking.

Good afternoon.

Again, this is an auspicious day to do what's right in the world.

It's always a good time to do what's right.

And you know, we're here because number one, we have a right to be here.

We are the descendants of the stolen ones.

been here before the 13 original colonies.

That's how long we've been in America.

So we have a right to be here.

And so we're speaking in this right today.

And I'm speaking for Mothers for Police Accountability have used the center more than once.

And now I've grown to be a senior.

I'm grown to be a senior.

Isn't that a blessing?

It is a blessing to grow, to be a senior.

All right, isn't that fabulous in here?

And we're all well, and the Senior Center help keep people well.

And you know what, Mayor Durkin, it's no excuse.

You know, really and truly, you can't hide behind anything else.

This is the age of instance whatever.

So let's just do the right thing, and just really show that you really have some respect, and that you believe that we can actually do the job.

You know, black people helped build this country, so we know that we can keep the Senior Center and Berg Bar and all the rest of this.

All we need is an opportunity.

You know, we just want you to put a crack in the door and we'll come on in.

All right, Jane Brown said we'll get it for ourselves.

So thank you everybody who spoke both at the press conference and public comment.

So we have central staff, we have Ted Verdone who is policy analyst in my office who will be joining, and then you all.

While you all are coming, I just wanted to clarify, I think we had more people, right?

We have Andrew Viking.

Sumit?

Or Andrea?

Somebody?

Oh Andrea, you're here.

Sumit should also come.

I wanted to say, A lot of the politicians here don't like this kind of a meeting where community members are here in big numbers, are chanting, demanding their rights.

But I have to say that is exactly the kind of thing that gives me the most pleasure.

So thank you all for being here.

And thank you for demonstrating what City Hall ought to be.

It is City Hall, right?

It belongs to everybody in the city.

So you have the right to be here.

Just for the record, just because we have to conduct the meeting in a certain way, just for the record, I will ask each person starting from here, give me one sentence introduction, and then we will have Jeff Sims from Central Staff introduce some of the points, like the background, and then it's a free-flowing discussion, so please feel free.

Go ahead.

Ted Rodone, Council Member Swann's office.

Jeff Sims, Council Central Staff.

Mike Andrew, Executive Director of Puget Sound Advocates for Retirement Action.

Samit Pama, Operations Assistant at Bird Bar Place.

Andrea Capayne Sanderson, Bird Bar Place.

Diane Ferguson, Director, Central Area Senior Center.

Garrett Africatown Community Land Trust.

Thank you all very much for being here.

Jeff, can you kick us off?

Of course.

You covered some of these items earlier, but beginning, first of all, with the definition of a MOB lease.

That stands for Mutual and Offsetting Benefit Leases.

It's a situation in which the tenant holder pays a portion or all of its lease by providing services that are found to be mutually beneficial for both the city and its residents in the agency.

Some agencies do also make a cash payment, though that typically would not be anywhere near the amount offered in services.

Going back seven years, as you alluded to earlier, the council in 2012, as part of its budget proceedings, passed a slide, number 58-1A2, in which it asked to explore the status of the MOV properties and also look for recommendations on actions to take.

Some of the highlights from that report found that the status quo situation was not sustainable due to the increasing cost for the maintenance of these buildings.

The report, the response that the executive provided recommended the sale of the property to Bird Bar Place.

It also recommended the transfer of the property to the Central Area Senior Center after the Central Area Senior Center was able to demonstrate the financial ability to maintain the property.

In 2016, the Office of Housing for Seattle did examinations of both Bird Bar and the Central Area Senior Center and determined that they were not suitable for affordable housing.

More recently, though still in my chronology, the Bird Bar place, at that time Centerstone, received in the 2015 to 2017 capital budget from the state.

a grant through the Building Communities Fund Program.

It's a reimbursement grant so that 25% of the work that is put into renovations or maintenance of the building can be reimbursed after those funds are expended.

That was reappropriated in 2017 to 2019. appropriation for the capital budget, meaning that those funds would expire on June 30th of this year.

Though, as Council Member Sawant noted, at this time, those funds are again reappropriated in the 2019 to 2021 House capital budget, though not yet part of a final bill, since that has not passed.

In 2017, Solite, a contractor hired by the city, recommended the transfer of these properties, as well as the Greenwood Senior Center.

And as noted by both speakers and council members, the council passed resolution 31856 in our most recent budget discussions, in which the council resolved to, quote, collaborate with the executive with the goal of completing a transfer of the city-owned properties, unquote.

As you know, there was a deadline set of March of this year for the executive to proceed with the transfer of those properties.

At this time, the mayor's office has drafted some criteria outlining the way that they would assess when it would be appropriate to transfer a property that with a mutual and offsetting benefit lease.

These criteria were purposely drafted to apply to all six of the properties that the city has with mutual and offsetting benefit leases, not just the three that are most notably have indicated interest in having their properties transferred.

In addition, there has been a meeting with both Bird Bar Place and Central Area Senior Center and also Finney Neighborhood Association, which operates the Greenwood Senior Center, to obtain comments on this criteria and have any edits made.

Those comments, from what I understand, have been submitted, and we expect that their final criteria should be provided to the council pretty close to May 1st, or my understanding is it might be May 2nd at this point, but May 1st, 2019, which would outline final criteria that the executive would use to determine that it is appropriate to transfer a property and then begin to engage in negotiations for a purchase and sale agreement.

Any further questions, Council Member?

Not at this time, but you're going to stay here, so if you have questions, we'll make sure to note them.

And I was wondering if Diane and Andrea wanted to go next and describe their experience of what's happened and what you think.

And also, I'm glad Jeff mentioned the criteria that the mayor's office has outlined.

How do these fall into our discussion of an agreement that was supposedly made years ago and the community has been trying to do this for seven years?

Well, I can speak for Central Area Senior Center and I think Bert Barr and to some extent Greenwood Finney shares our same concern, is that the eligibility and evaluation criteria that was presented to us at an interdepartmental team meeting on March 13th, really went far beyond what was necessary in terms of what the referendum noted as to how property could be sold or transfer.

It wanted us, for one thing, it added a whole new criteria that was not a part of the original referendum in which the state and the people voted to make sure that the Central Area Senior Center site, the Greenwood Finneywood site, could be sold, and that was they wanted us to look at and offer to them a development feasibility plan as to how we would develop the property.

And so the minute that I saw that, I immediately wrote back to the interdepartmental team and said this was not something that was a part of the original referendum money.

It was not part of the 1975 contract that was signed by then Mayor Wes Ullman with Department of Health and Human Services where the property was then transferred to the City of Seattle after the levy was successful.

And so it really was a can of worms.

You're opening up a can of worms because the criteria was that if we wanted to stay on the property, we needed to present to them a development plan for affordable housing, which we know is a can of worms.

And my response to them was, this is not part of what the resolution said that was passed by the city council on November 18th.

It's also not a part of the referendum requirements.

And we know that it's a very loaded question and something that we could never satisfy.

And that in our work, our work at the Central Area Senior Center, one of the things we had to do was meet with all of the various departments.

And we met with the Office of Housing.

We did a study ourselves as well as the Office of Housing.

And the first thing that they noted and wrote in their report that because we are on a steep slope on the 31st Avenue side, it could never be affordable housing.

because it would take so much money just to develop and firm up that slope that before you did that, to actually build the housing, it could never be affordable.

We, through our partnerships and relationships with some of the media and our Public Information Act that I would suggest everybody utilize, we were able to get a copy of the redacted information where the mayor and her team met on December 7th of 2018 and actually drafted the criteria of eligibility and evaluation for the November 18th MOB properties.

And at that moment in time, the evaluation criteria also suggested that at the Central Area Senior site, it would be a wonderful site to build 10 single-family houses.

And so we're just real concerned and we just want to move forward because we think that it is not honest and it's disingenuous to what the resolution was that was passed by the council.

Thank you very much Diane.

Can I ask you one follow-up question and then we'll open it up for discussion?

You mentioned and of course Sumit and others at the press conference mentioned the referendum.

Can you, a lot of people who are watching this and you know people are also watching it online because this is available for them online through Seattle Channel.

Can you tell us when this referendum was passed?

What did it say?

And clearly of course you're talking about a ballot referendum which means voters have spoken their will.

Yes, so I actually have it because we quoted it in our piece that we, in our memo that we sent to the interdepartmental team on March the 26th.

So referendum 29, what the legislation said was the transfer of real property and facilities to nonprofit corporations Public bodies may transfer, without further consideration, real property and facilities acquired, constructed, or otherwise improved under the Social and Health Services Facilities 1972 Bond Issue to nonprofit corporations organized to provide individuals with social and health services in exchange for the promise to continually operate their services, benefiting the public on site, subject to all the conditions in this section.

Furthermore, it says a nonprofit corporation shall use the real property and facilities for the purpose of providing the following programs as designated by the Department of Social and Health Services.

Facilities for social services, adult and juvenile corrections or detention, child welfare, daycare, drug abuse and alcohol treatment, mental health, public health, developmental disabilities and vocational rehabilitation.

The deed transferring the property in subsection one of this section must provide for immediate reversion back to the public body of the non-profit corporate of the must revert back to the public body if the non-profit corporation ceases to use the property for the purpose described in the subsequent one of this section.

and criteria written into the law include, A, transferred aloud without no further consideration, B, a written promise to continue to serve the public, C, the deed must provide for immediate reversion back to the public body, if the non-profit corporation ceases to use the property for the purposes described in subsection 1 of this section.

So that is actually what the referendum called for.

And in the case of Central Area Senior Center, the purchase price in 1975, if we can imagine, was $300,000.

And the money for that property, $185,000 of it, came from the referendum itself, which was voted on by the people.

Sunrise, which actually was a Jewish convalescent nursing home, that was built in 1955 wanted the seniors at the Central Area Senior Center who was already operating programs to have the facility so much so that they gave $100,000 towards the effort of the $300,000 and then the members itself collected another $15,000 to make up the $300,000 that purchased the building.

Now, the city did have to, under the guise of Mayor Ullman, who also was very pro-advocate for the senior center, then went to the city and got money passed in the amount of about $87,000 to remodel the facility so that it could then be used for a senior center.

But what the referendum clearly shows is that Property can be transferred.

You don't have to do any developmental studies and feasibility studies.

What you have to do is continue to provide your services and continue to serve your community in order for the transfer to occur.

And secondarily, the other most important thing of that is, is if you cease to not be a non-profit organization and to provide the services, then it would revert back to the public entity, which in this case would be the City of Seattle.

Thanks.

I'll do a little bit of history walk leading up to the present.

So our building, Fire Station 23, is 111 years old.

Bird Bar Place, or camp, has been in that building since 1977, and it was identified as excess property by the city seven years ago.

where we then expressed interest in ownership or a long-term lease as we're currently month-to-month.

As a result, we've been in ongoing negotiations with the city.

And these negotiations began with Mayor McGinn's office, continued with Mayor Murray, and now Mayor Durkin's administration.

During these times, we've gone through, as Diane said, several rounds to prove to the city that we have the capacity to manage this property.

We want to own the property so that we can retrofit the building to make it safer in the event of an earthquake, and there's a lot of talk about seismic events potentially happening in Seattle.

And we want to bring the facility up to ADA standards and modernize the facility to be able to provide a higher quality of services to our community.

Having ownership will allow us to use the authority and stability to raise capital to invest in the building.

As you've heard, we have been challenged with this.

Specifically, we have that legislative appropriation of $1.5 million for renovation, but the legislature simply won't hand over the money because we don't control the property.

The funds will expire June of this year, and yes, we've had a request to extend it due to this administration's delay, and though the current state capital budget does include an amendment that would extend our funding for two years, it hasn't been passed, so nothing is guaranteed.

We also have other funders who need a guarantee that the property will be in our long-term care before they will invest in our capital campaign.

Essentially, Councilmember, three different administrations over a seven-year period has made commitments to us regarding the transfer of this property and the Senior Center, with each administration conducting some level of assessment and in the end agreed with their own internal assessment every time that these two properties should be transferred to us.

This property has been committed to us both verbally and in writing, which we both have documentation.

established that we meet all documented criteria for a transfer.

They even went as far as saying that they are confident in our organization's abilities to manage the property after transfer.

Successive administrations have said that?

Yes.

The most recent iteration of this process to transfer the property was initiated in 2017 and included six organizations at the time.

Bird Bar Place, The Central, Greenwood Senior Center, South Park Community Center, Southeast Health Clinic, and Southwest Senior Center.

Three of those properties, which includes us in the Senior Center and The Central, were slated to be completed by 2018. This round of transfer stalled when the city yet launched another review.

This mayor's office has created an interdepartmental team between the Office of Economic Development, Department of Neighborhoods, Finance, and Administrative Services to develop yet additional criteria for transfer.

Recently, we've had several meetings with the city to review these new criteria, which asks, again, for another layer of documentation on our operations, financial viability, technical capacity, and ability to maintain the facility, among others.

Prior to former Mayor Ed Murray's resignation, the property was to be transferred to our organizations by mid-2018, as it was determined that in addition to the benefit to community organizations housing these properties, that the city also stood to gain from these transfers, as the large investments we stand to make in seismic upgrades and elevators are expensive.

Also, transferring properties would remove the city's financial responsibility to provide basic maintenance and allow our organizations to raise funds.

Lastly, as you know, Councilmember, in the fall of 2018, City Council adopted Resolution 31856 calling for Mayor Durkin to transfer this property and other properties to community-led organizations no later than May 31st of this year.

Now, we keep being told a formal letter of intent is the next step, but the process keeps dragging on with no formal letter to date.

Essentially, we feel there's a goalpost that keeps getting moved on us.

We should get into some of the points that have come up, but I just wanted to also give a chance to, we have, this is an incredible opportunity.

We don't, we don't often, we're not often able to pull this off where we have so many members who are rooted in our community together in one room.

and I think it's very important to hear from Viking.

Can you share with us why it's important for Africatown and our community in the Central District and especially how the preservation or not preservation of these two spaces particularly affects our black community members.

And then, Mike, if you could also share why PASARA cares about this, and that's also important because many of the members of PASARA are retired labor union members.

Why should the labor movement care about this?

Sure, thank you.

I think it's been well stated by Diane and Andrea, the facts of the record.

And I mean, just to hear that an institution of this magnitude and this long of existence is on a month to month lease is ridiculous.

It's an insult.

I mean, this is reminiscent of sharecropping.

What can you do in a capital society You know, with a month-to-month lease, there's no way you can leverage that asset to grow, and that's the whole foundation of what we see happening around us.

The predatory developers are leveraging, over-leveraging, they crash the economy by leveraging, and so it's just...

A real shame that we would even hear it stated that we have an institution that is working for the social good every day, has been for over 40 years, and it's on a month-to-month lease.

So that, and at the same, on the other side, we're hearing equitable development and, you know, all these things each day.

And so we just want to, you know, these issues resolved expeditiously.

We know new rules keep coming into play, new delays, and as you've heard many times, no more delays.

We want to take what we currently have and plan for a future that includes us.

And we need action not just rhetoric to move that forward.

And so we've heard and we know there's other institutions and assets in our community that need to be protected.

They are in the, you know, public realm and they need to be leveraged for the highest and best public use, not the highest and best you know, exploitive use for someone to just, you know, flip the property and move on.

We don't know where this capital is coming from.

It could be any state, any country, but we know that our community has been here rooted in the Central District for over 140 years and has made significant contributions to this city.

And so this is just a basic matter of dignity and respect for our elders and our community and our children and future generations.

So as the name suggests, Puget Sound Advocates for Retirement Action is a senior advocacy organization.

And in whatever we do, we start from the premise that seniors have a right to live.

And not just exist, or not just subsist, but thrive.

After putting in 40-some years working, building this city, making this city run, seniors have a right to retire in at least modest comfort and security.

And part of that is to be able to have public spaces where they can come together, with other seniors, with their family, socialize, have a nice meal, play cards if they want to, learn to play the guitar if they want to.

Our organization has put on a number of educational events at senior centers all over the Puget Sound area, including the Central Area Senior Center.

This center and ones like it are absolutely vital for seniors because many, many studies show that one of the leading killers of seniors is social isolation.

And the testimony that you heard before from some of the people who use the senior center is much more powerful than anything that I could say in terms of statistics or studies.

This is a vital part of the community.

And, you know, particularly for the central area, where people who have grown up in that community have seen their community eroded away by gentrification, this is a valuable public good that the city needs to maintain.

It would be not only bad policy, but it would actually be an act of cruelty to seniors to do away with the Central Area Senior Center.

Thank you.

I just wanted to add to what the gentleman said and what others have said that this is a matter of life and death.

And what the community is asking is that, or not even asking, demanding, is that this genocidal behavior because everything that exists needs a space to exist.

And so once you take away the space, then you're saying that you don't have an expectation for whatever was there to exist anymore.

So that means if that's our community, our seniors, our lives, that means that there is a plan for it not to exist in Seattle.

And we know You keep moving people, spreading them out, relocating, uprooting them.

There's actually research from the Center for Disease Control that shows that this type of displacement has significant negative impacts on the health and well-being of individuals, families, and communities.

And so in the face of that, there should be no delay in making sure that our community is well and stabilized.

Right.

No more persecution!

So the other thing that's really important is on yesterday, Bert Bard, myself, and the Greenwood Finney received a letter from the interdepartmental team about our negotiating process, a process that in many ways is disingenuine to myself.

One of the requirements that they asked of us was to project out for the next 15 years what our cost and our expenses would be.

And my response to them was, if you give us the last 15 years, we can project out to the next 15 years.

And I'm still waiting to receive that.

I have not received that yet.

But in this letter of yesterday, the last paragraph says, the transfer of property by the city will include consideration of affordable housing.

We continue to believe that given the City's current housing affordability challenges, it is in the public interest to require that any plan redevelopment of a City-owned property include consideration of the feasibility of providing affordable housing.

Therefore, we expect to require a durable covenant allowing the city to participate in any major redevelopment so the redevelopment can include affordable housing.

So this is the issue.

The issue is that we are in a residential area that is zoned for residential.

They would have to change the zoning.

We also have a million dollar view that all of us can benefit from.

We know that affordable housing will not be built on that property by the City of Seattle.

It is disingenuine, it is non-authentic, it is insulting to suggest that of all the properties in the City of Seattle, that this property is needed to build affordable housing in a residential area and that is the best benefit than a community center and a senior center where everybody can come to on a daily base and participate.

Furthermore, it is not a requirement, it was never a requirement of the referendum money that the city received for the property.

They said that the building could be transferred at any time to the non-profit organization as long as they continue to offer their mutually offsetting benefit.

And so Central Area Senior Center publicly, and we'll state this in writing to the city, that we do not feel that development feasibility is something that the city should require of us as a condition of owning and having the property transferred to us because we know it's not authentic and genuine, plus legally in the money that the city received, it was never a requirement then.

Right.

Absolutely.

Before you come on, I want to say one thing in response to what the points that came up, but I also wanted to let everybody here know that my staff are distributing these sheets to all of you.

Please make sure you fill that in because we want to take pictures of these and make sure that we have something that we can use for our follow-up actions because I don't think this, I don't, as glorious as our organizing has been for today, which I think we should really, we should be happy about our collective effort, we, it will not be enough.

Since our experience shows that the fight will have to go on.

I have no doubt that we will win, but we will have to keep fighting.

as many of you have already said.

And I'm really glad, Diane, that you quoted from the letter.

And this letter has been written on behalf of the interdepartmental team, but it's signed by the director of the Department of Neighborhoods, which is a city of Seattle department that reports directly to the mayor of Seattle.

And they do talk about, you know, as Diane said, the transfer of property by the city will include consideration of affordable housing.

And Diane, you stated some very important points about why affordable housing is actually not feasible on the specific property that the central area of senior center lives in.

But I also wanted to say that I think that logic applies to Bird Bar Place also.

And I really think as we, I think we know this, but let's state it like it is.

What's happening is that when it comes to the needs of seniors of our black community and our working class community members, then what they're trying to do is spit this social space for seniors.

against affordable housing.

We should not accept that kind of false choice because the same communities that need the senior center are also the ones that are getting pushed out because of the lack of affordable housing.

So I really think that we should, or rather, what do you think our response should be to that?

Like, you know, how should we respond to that?

Well, I'll echo what White King said earlier, that we have an administration that needs to stop putting the economic advancement of a small few ahead of the well-being of vulnerable populations.

Senior Center and Bird Bar Place provides stability and predictability and safety to over 18,000 households annually in the city of Seattle.

And that contribution to the city, to the residents of the city of Seattle, we are owed a return on that investment by the city of Seattle.

So I just want to follow up on the idea of the city trying to pit affordable housing against social spaces.

Seniors obviously need affordable housing as well because even if you retired as an ex-union member, you were lucky enough to have a good union job and to retire with a defined benefits pension, you're still only making a portion of what you made when you were working.

And even for, you know, for our members, our retired union members, our retired Boeing machinists, who retired with good pensions, although they can no longer retire with good defined benefits pensions, but the ones who were able to, are finding it more and more difficult to afford to live in Seattle.

And so we need both.

We need both the social spaces for our seniors to gather and to build a sense of community, and we need affordable housing, and we need affordable transportation, you know, and we need good medical services, and we need access to food, because many of our members live in so-called food deserts, where they don't have

And so I just want to be real clear.

I am not saying that I don't support affordable housing because every day we come to work, we're working with our members trying to find some housing, shared housing, cooperations with each other.

But we know, and so this is what we have to call out.

A lot of times we don't like to be specific about things.

What is specific is that the site that we are on can never be affordable housing because it is too expensive to build on that site.

And so we would be co-opted.

be we would be disingenuine to try to pretend that we could achieve something that's not achievable.

We are realist and we know that affordable housing will not be built on that property by the mayor or It could be built by Amazon or Google or someone with a lot of money, but then it ceases to be affordable and it ceases to be community.

And so it is not our place, it is not to the interest of our members to take away a social space And we know that that is a disingenuine thing, but it's a great talking point.

If we all ran around and said, let's build affordable housing, and we don't bottom down and go, well, affordable housing can be built there, but it can't be built here.

And then you have the seniors thinking that, oh, they're going to put affordable housing on this property and then I'll get to live here as well as have my community center.

No, it will not be built for you.

You will not be living in any housing that gets built on that property because it's too expensive and we cannot afford it.

So let's keep it a community space.

Let's honor all the people who come before us.

who worked really hard for that space.

And I think that we can answer our questions of affordable housing, homelessness in the city of Seattle if we have the will to do that.

Right.

I'd like to add to that.

I'd just like to add, you know, many of our elders who go to the center are homeowners in the community.

And they are facing pressure of being displaced from the affordable housing that they already have.

And so if this is the primary concern, then we need a robust mitigation strategy as the zoning, the up zones have happened.

We need to make sure that our community members are able to stay and grow and age in place as well, and also have a path for their grandchildren to be able to continue and hold on to the property.

We understand there are deferred tax strategies, but still, at the time that they pass, all of that is due and can become an undue burden.

So if this is the case, we know it has been already proven unfeasible at that site, then let's start focusing on where it is feasible in our community to have more affordable housing, to have more Liberty Bank buildings and to have the community members that own their properties now continue to maintain ownership if that's our primary concern, which we share, right?

But again, we don't want to conflate the issues and confuse the people.

Right, I think, yeah, absolutely.

And I think that that is the main thing that, you know, in terms of we're coming towards a close for this discussion, but we're not by any means close to the end of our fight to win this.

So I think One of the things we will need to do as a community, as a movement, is to, as our speakers have said, to reject this false dichotomy between social space, community spaces, and affordable housing, because it's the same community that needs both.

And in fact, we are at this moment losing both.

Working families are losing both social spaces and affordable housing because this city is fast becoming a place only wealthy people can live.

And that has also meant a massive displacement of our black households.

I strongly agree with Diane that this is a disingenuous ploy by the mayor's office to say that we are not going to transfer these properties until you show us evidence that you can build affordable housing here.

I think it is important.

that our movement, as Diane said, and as Andrea and others said, we have to, we should not fall into the trap of this, oh, if you want to save the Central and Bird Bar, somehow you're against affordable housing.

We should absolutely reject this trap.

We don't want, you know, this is because they're trying to reduce the legitimacy of our demand by saying, well, that means you're against affordable housing.

Instead, we should turn back and tell, ask the mayor, if you care about affordable housing so much, then are you going to support the rent control?

Ordinance.

If you support affordable housing so much, why did you and the majority of the council repeal the Amazon tax which would have built affordable housing in our cities by taxing big business because our homeowners are already overtaxed through property taxes, right?

So I think, you know, first of all, make sure everybody fills, I don't know where that went.

The thing that I'd held up, I can't find it now.

Make sure you fill that out.

And I know many of you have the plan to go up to the seventh floor and demand that the mayor listen.

I think you should.

Unfortunately, I cannot because we have the agenda item to discuss rent control.

But I do want to say one thing before we all disperse.

Are we agreed that this was only step one and we need to continue the fight?

step has to be even bigger.

I think we can get hundreds of people to come out with us.

We should aim, I don't have the date and time, we should coordinate and figure out what works for our community members, but I think our goal should be to next, as a next step in a few weeks have a big rally that brings hundreds of people either at City Hall or in our neighborhood.

Either way, I have no doubt that it will put a lot of pressure on the political establishment and the mayor's office.

And we should also, I think, have a letter-writing campaign.

We should send emails to all the council members and the mayor where we, and I'm happy for my office to share a draft if that helps, But the main point that we should make in that is exactly what our speakers have said, which is that we reject this false dichotomy between affordable housing and social spaces.

If you cared about either, you wouldn't have done what you have done so far, and you would be supporting us in property transfer.

So what we need is the immediate transfer without delays of these properties into community ownership, and we need to tax big business to fund affordable housing, and we need rent control.

And we should make sure that our movement to save the central and the board bar place also brings renters alongside us because there are many many renters in our community who will support our homeowners as well because we are both struggling against gentrification and displacement.

So let's make sure that our next step is even bigger than today, but I wanted to congratulate everybody for such a phenomenal action that we did today.

I think all of us are grateful and we want to thank you for hosting this press conference as well as this committee meeting.

And I would actually go a step further and say that in the resolution it was very clear that if the mayor did not act by March 31st, that the city council would act.

And I think part of what we need to do is to help the city council frame their own thinking about what kind of action should be taken.

I would hope that the action that they would frame with our assistance and all our advocacy was to actually do an ordinance that required a resolution of soft, a resolution says, you know, we want you to do this.

And just like anything, the mayor or anyone can say, well, I'll take that under consideration.

and have a lot of criteria and evaluation process that you'll never achieve in a year and a half or five years.

So I think we should make it stronger and our action should be to acquire and work with the city council to pass an ordinance that could override what the mayor can do because it would be something permanent and something that you'd have to act upon.

So I know that our members would be very excited to work in a joint partnership with all the City Council members and with all the MOBs, particularly BART and Central, so that that could be a reality.

And so that five years from now, we're not having the same conversation, but that by the end of December 31st, You know, we will have that.

And we will add fire station seats so that this can be a reality.

And in fact, at the meeting that we had on Monday that you had organized, Diane, I said absolutely We will be working, and in fact, Jeff is making notes as we speak.

My office will be working on bringing that ordinance forward.

There's no question about that, and we will be doing that work, and Ted, policy analyst in my office, will be working hard at it.

There's no problem with that.

The question will be how will we get the city council members to do the right thing, because it's not just the mayor.

Let's not make it just about the mayor, because it is most of the politicians here in City Hall will be doing what the big developers want.

So it's not going to be, I don't want to give people the impression that it's going to be easy, just if my office drafts an ordinance, that doesn't mean we're going to win.

We're going to need the ordinance that we will make sure it's drafted, but we will need mass actions like today to make sure that they're listening.

And why do I know that?

Because we have done this many times, and we have won victories.

We start with me being the only council member at the table, and then we end up with nine votes.

There's nine council members.

We can do that again because we have done that again and again.

But the only way we have done that is to make sure that all the politicians here, both the mayor and the council members, know that we are serious about fighting our fight.

Yes, we can!

Yes, we can!

Yes, we can!

Yes, we can!

Yes, we can!

Yes, we can!

Everybody and and let's if you if many of you are leaving let's yes Those of you who want to go up can I have one I Those of you who want to go upstairs, please meet my staff member at the door and they will show you the way.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for being here.

on everything.

This is disingenuous.

You know?

Yeah.

That's okay.

I have my bicycle with me Come on they should like throw up the cameras so we can see how we're looking we have one more Do you want to sit next to me since you're my since we're talking work plan it'll make it easier with the cameras I join you guys over there Do you feel alone over there, Michael?

We can all just stare at Ted.

Oh, this is not my glass.

So, I really appreciate you all taking the time to wait for this item.

I know we are delayed.

And I apologize, but as Madison said, these two issues are related.

So can we start with introductions for the record, and then you can take it away.

I'm Jessica Westgren, and I am the co-chair of the Seattle Renters' Commission.

I'm Christiana Obisemner.

I am also co-chair of the Renters' Commission.

I'm Michael Padilla, just a member of the Renters' Commission.

And I'm Devin Silvernail, also a member of the Renters' Commission.

Great.

No need to apologize about the delay.

It seems like they've waited far longer than they need to.

They've waited a long time, yes.

So please, yeah, it's in your hands.

Let's get started.

So we have quite a robust work plan for 2019. A lot of it has actually come back over from 2018 because the action items we've chosen are going to take longer than a year to solve.

And in order to achieve this ambitious work plan, we created several work groups, the rent stabilization slash rent control group, the housing supply group, renter protections group, and the outreach strategies for engaging renters.

Christiana and I are on different work groups, so we can speak to what the work plans they're doing.

For housing supply, we've been looking a lot about how to increase affordable housing across Seattle as a whole.

Some of the key ticket items, the Fort Lawton housing development, which is very important and can serve as a model for what we can do if we ever get another land opportunity like this again, like the interbay land that's coming available soon.

We have worked on mandatory housing affordability, and we are currently working through accessory dwelling units and detached accessory dwelling units, ADUs, DADUs, or backyard cottages, mother-in-law units.

Beyond that, we will be exploring other options for increasing affordable housing supply throughout the city as they are brought to our attention.

So that work group will always have something to do, as far as I'm concerned, because we have not enough affordable housing anywhere.

So that's what the housing supply group is up to.

Yeah.

Rent stabilization, rent control.

As you saw from some of the letters that we've sent, not only are we, you know, looking to address the excessive rent highs, but also the 180-day notice, which, you know, and have that rent increase tied to inflation and wage increases.

And support the legislation to lift the statewide ban on rent control.

And we also had a letter on that as well that went out and essentially had a strategy that we're calling for city council and the mayor to support an ordinance that would put in place rent control effective immediately once the statewide ban on rent control was lifted.

The renter protections group is different than that in such that we look at other protections.

This year we'll be looking at what protections we can do to help immigrant populations stay housed, get housed in general, and also avoid displacement, how to support undocumented immigrant renters.

But it's important for this work group to look at the effectiveness of existing tenant protection laws, what works, what doesn't work, why things were brought on, maybe why they aren't working.

and fix them that way.

Rental screening criteria is something that can help renters all across the board, whether they work at Amazon, or they work at a coffee shop, or they live on subsidy.

And also looking at things like my co-chair just mentioned, amending the rent increase law, because the 30-day notice and 60-day notice is one of the more punitive notice periods nationwide.

So the renters protections group, we like to hear feedback from renters in the city, find out what they're experiencing and meet as a group and discuss, you know, from our various backgrounds, how we could tackle that situation and make it a more legally safe place for renters to be.

In addition to developing some outreach strategies so that we can engage renters in this work, we also want to find ways to have assistance for renters that would also have the economic eviction assistance program as well as perhaps some rental assistance vouchers.

An affordability portal so that people have a centralized location to be able to speak on that.

and renter assistance for billing purchases and first right of refusal to purchase apartment buildings.

And, you know, especially, you know, I'll just break script a little bit here to say this is really a huge passion of mine as well as we will get to the social justice.

pieces in the lowering barriers as I came to the Renter's Commission after working in direct service and housing and homelessness services for almost six years.

And a lot of us has worked in these spaces.

I just want to like underscore that a lot of these things may sound like, oh, how are we going to do this, or a little bit.

pie in the sky, but I have seen this tangibly, not only in my family, but also professionally with the clients that I served in previous.

So I wanted to underscore especially the assistance for renters piece of this and having the outreach strategies for engaging the renters so that we can get the narratives of what's happening on the ground, which is one of the biggest issues that I saw working in social services, that there were things that were happening or decisions being made at the higher levels.

But for us working with the community, that those narratives were not as amplified.

The outreach is really important because we can make as many protections as we want for renters, but if they aren't aware of what those protections are, and conversely, if landlords aren't aware of what those protections are, it doesn't create a good relationship.

And that's a very, it's a relationship that needs to be, you know, everyone needs to know who can do what when you're talking about, you know, a property manager and a tenant.

I don't think a lot of tenants know that they should look to SDCI to get an answer.

That's not an intuitive thought process.

And, you know, I can answer left and right where you should go and who you should talk to, but that's because I've had to learn all those things through my job and through my advocacy.

All of our renter protections, for the most part, are based upon self-reporting.

So a tenant has to say, my landlord is breaking this code.

Or a tenant has to say, I'm due relocation assistance.

But if they don't know that, then how are they going to get what they need?

What's the point of making the laws if nobody knows what they are?

So the outreach group has a really important role to play in all of this.

They're kind of the glue.

The last part, so we talked about lowering barriers for the homeless and the effectiveness of rapid rehousing.

I have a lot of stories in my body.

From, you know, I worked from everywhere from permanent supportive housing to I was a housing navigator at Harborview.

And working through the coordinated entry system.

trying to work through the coordinated entry system, rapid rehousing has always had some significant issues to the stability of housing, especially for folks going to the social justice piece.

So in that intersectional space, you know, we have race and gender impacts of housing accessibility and affordability, as well as class impacts.

I spoke earlier today with the Disability Commission about, you know, also the intersectionality of disability as well and people who have a fixed income, people who need universal design, people who need perhaps a more streamlined or intuitive structure to getting into housing that just does not exist.

And many of the needs assessments have shown that the convolution of the systems is part of what has led to some people not being able to find affordable or stable housing.

And also housing availability and resources for low-income seniors who identify as LGBTQ plus.

More often than not, seniors may have been in their apartments 10, 15, 20 years back when you didn't use Craigslist and the internet to look for apartments, and all of a sudden get this $200, $250 rental rate increase, and they would come into my office and ask me how to look for an apartment.

And they need people to help them navigate the internet land of housing, the fast rapid, not just go and call and have an appointment and that apartment's still waiting for you atmosphere that we have.

And I'm very proud to live in a sanctuary city, but I find that to be a bit disingenuous when it's very hard to afford to live here.

And so, When we're talking about taking care of, you know, making sure people don't get displaced, we also don't have spaces for people who want to be here.

And if people who have lived here for a decade can't navigate how to find housing, how are people who are new who are coming here for sanctuary going to find housing as well?

Right, and then when you add in language.

Language barriers are huge, yeah.

And finding, like needing your social security card and how to fill out an application and all of that ends up being just a huge burden when people just really need a roof over their heads.

And actually on that, can you also specifically talk about, you mentioned undocumented immigrants, how this impacts them, especially in the case of all the paperwork that you need to have as a renter?

Well, none of the places that I have worked as a property manager would be able to accept an undocumented immigrant as a tenant, because you need a social security card, they need to be able to run a credit check, and I even have some friends that have moved from Germany to work for Microsoft and they don't have American credit.

So, you know, if we're talking about people who are coming to have a high-wage job and now we're talking about people who, you know, are coming over sanctuary, there's just so much that we have set up in the system where you have to get all the correct documents, but how are you going to do that?

What are you going to do, stay in a hotel while you're doing this?

Airbnb while you're doing this?

All of these are large costs and there aren't enough advocates out there assisting people with this paperwork so that they can get into the safe housing.

So what you do run into then is people living in unsafe housing, living in the places where the codes aren't up because, you know, they finally got a roof over their head.

They're not going to report the fact that their doorknob doesn't work or that the refrigerator is dead because then they'll lose that housing because they don't have the legitimate documentation to get into something that might be more regulated.

And I know that in my family, both me and my partner are disabled, but we're able to maintain where we are in District 5 up north.

But where the urgency for this is kind of going to what we just saw in the previous amazing collectivistic action was, you know, the light rail's coming to Northgate.

A light rail is coming down the street from my house.

They are tearing down the mall, which is already getting rid of some of the resources that I've come to rely on to do things like buy clothing or furniture or entertainment.

But there's also not anything to help me and my partner feel safe or secure in our housing against displacement and gentrification.

It's one of the last places that's affordable to live.

So there's a lot of this that, you know, when we're talking about this, we're talking about the most vulnerable populations, but I also challenge folks who are listening to this to also be mindful perhaps of where the bias of the archetype may take them.

Because both me and my husband, although disabled, are also trying to work hard, also trying to maintain our housing, trying to create a family, and we just see everything building up around us in a way that makes us concerned around what's gonna happen to our lease this summer.

And that's no way to live.

You're already worried about scarcity, you're already worried about trying to make your rent, And then you're going to have to wonder if you're going to have to come up with the 7,000 or odd dollars they said the average is for move-in fees.

That's no way to live.

And so I think in Seattle, we really care about race and social justice.

We really want to lead with race and equity.

And if we really want to be a sanctuary city in the full embodiment of what that means, We need to do the thing.

We need to do the thing of what that means.

And so I'm hoping that as co-chair with our amazing commission that we're not just talking philosophy, that we're also holding accountable to action.

Yes.

I mean, some of those leases can be up to 72 pages long when you're looking at addendums.

And it's like, you know, you get your cell phone contract, you don't read it, you just sign, you know, click acknowledge that you read it.

But when you're doing a lease, and you shouldn't do that, I mean, I think you should probably read everything.

But with your lease, most assuredly, you should not just breeze through 72 pages because of a language barrier or because of a disability that might hinder you from doing that.

But who's going to help you do that?

on the tenant who is probably also working 40 plus hours a week at a minimum wage job and you know it's a lot task.

That's pretty much for the work plan though.

So we can actually talk about the two letters that we have here.

So two different work groups kind of came together on these.

The first letter is the Passing Rent Control, which would be the Rent Control Rent Stabilization Group.

And they worked in conjuncture with the Tenant Protection Law Group.

And so our two peers over there worked very hard on There's your presentation.

Which one of you would like to go over the presentation?

And before, yeah, before you get started, I just wanted to say it was actually so incredibly wonderful that we, in our office and with a lot of community members, we were, and socialists, we were talking, most of whom are renters and struggling to pay their rent, we were talking about, you know, How would it be if we pushed for, we built a movement for rent control here because that's what we know we have to do that in order to, this is a starting point to get the state ban lifted, but what if we actually built a movement in Seattle to win a law that says rent control free of corporate loopholes, but a law that will go into effect as soon as the state ban is lifted because we don't want to be confronted with that question again and again.

Like, well, how can you do rent control?

It's illegal.

And so for us, it was just incredibly amazing to see the Renters Commission recommending exactly the same thing because it really made us feel like we're not alone.

You know, socialists are clearly in tune with what Many, many of us are thinking, and as you said, the Renters Commission brings in a lot of the experience that people are feeling.

And I have to say, since the press conference we did on Monday, that B-Seattle and the Renters Commissioners were also part, they were there in personal capacity, but clearly, you know, following the recommendation that you all voted on as a commission, Since then, our experience has been that, our experience has been to find that most renters are super excited about this idea.

In fact, they're like, where can I sign up for this?

And most of the time when my office shares petitions for people to sign on some issue or another of social justice, we'll get lots of people signing it.

But most of the time, people will just sign it and not write comments.

We would love to share soon with the Renters Commission and with the public the incredible comments that people are saying about why they want rent control and why they are willing to fight for it.

And so I really wanted to thank and congratulate the Renters Commission for showing this leadership and And also now we can have your presentation.

We have an exciting collection of people in Olympia right now who are listening to this kind of conversation and starting this kind of conversation as well.

So that adds even more excitement for me at least.

That's great, yes.

Yes, absolutely.

And a really great thing about this, too, is that it's not just Seattle.

We're the city that gets to talk about it right now.

But hopefully, other cities will see us as an example.

If we can pass rent control here, the proactive rent control that we're talking about here, we can go and see places like Wenatchee or Yakima, Auburn, Kent, places like that, smaller cities that are feeling this burden as well.

they can take up that mantle of rent control.

And yeah, I just wanted to actually, before getting to this note, what you were talking about, Council Member Swant, for my day job, we do renters' rights work, and we used to do surveys of renters, and 98% of the renters that we talked to were in favor of rent control.

So that's a huge number.

When it comes to organizing, you don't,

You don't see numbers like that.

Yeah, that's a huge number.

So, but why don't we go ahead and get to this?

This is just a presentation that we put together that explains our reasoning behind rent control and the proactive rent control that we're talking about.

And when I say proactive rent control, it's exactly what you had said earlier, passing a rent control law now that we'll have on the books that we can then use that time to plan for meaningful rent control legislation when the, or meaningful rent control law, actually, when the state ban is lifted.

So, obviously, why rent control, right?

Well, you know, it's pretty simple.

We saw a huge contingent of people here earlier today for a very similar thing.

When it comes to people, you know, people want to stay in their communities.

People put down roots.

People have, for generations, wanted to stay in their community.

And so we want to make sure that Seattle renters, they have predictable and affordable rent.

It's kind of a no-brainer when you think about it.

And so actually in the background of this photo, we have the Kenton Apartments, which is a great example of just one of the many buildings around the city that have faced rent increases that have led to a lot of people being worried about displacement, and some of them have already been displaced.

Some folks at the Kenton Apartments have received 70%, up to 70% rent increases.

That's neither affordable nor predictable.

Can you also share with the people who are watching where the Kenton is located and a little bit more about that as well?

Sure, yeah.

So the, well, the Kenton apartment building, that's on Capitol Hill.

So that obviously I think in 2019 is a place that we think has come and gone when it comes to displacement and affordability in Seattle.

And they were people that were living in a long-term building where their landlord, they had a private landlord that they had a really good relationship with.

And they kept the rent below market rate.

Recently, the landlord decided to sell the building to a corporate developer, and the corporate developer did what corporate developers do, and they raised the rent to fit with the market.

And interestingly enough, the Kenton building, they've won a lot of victories through organizing, which is exactly what we're going to have to do with rent control.

kind of push back that rent increase.

They've been able to limit it.

But it's interesting to note that their landlord, their previous landlord, they were effectively rent controlling themselves already.

And that's something that a lot of small landlords that you'll talk to are doing that.

So the Kenton is a really good example.

But it's not just happening on Capitol Hill.

It's happening in the Central District, all over the Central District.

It's happening in the South End.

It's happening in the North End.

It's everywhere in Seattle.

And why?

because we've got a state ban on rent control.

And it's been in effect since 1981. All across the country, in the 1970s, cities were passing rent control laws.

San Francisco, New York, Boston actually used to have rent control as well.

And then you look north, Quebec and Montreal passed rent control in 1979. Vancouver and British Columbia, they have a form of rent control as well.

And in 1981, after a push, tenants were organizing.

They wanted rent control here in Washington State.

The landlord lobby, they did a really good job of lobbying Olympia, and they got that state ban passed.

So that's what we're fighting against, almost four decades of allowing rents to go up.

Kind of willy-nilly.

In my job, I tell renters, it's just an illustration, but it's absolutely true that in 30 days, your rent can go up by less than 10%, but in 60 days, your landlord could raise your rent by a million dollars if they wanted to.

That's absolutely legal.

It's not going to happen, but it is.

And if you look here on this slide here in Seattle, our rents have been unpredictable.

Since 2008, our rents have jumped up by over, well, between 2008 and 2017, 62%, according to Dupre-Scott, which was a very landlord-friendly group that consulted and did these kind of surveys.

And you know that's I think that's just illustration enough that these rent increases will be happening year over year without any kind of balance.

I know myself, I'm lucky to live in a building with a landlord who, again, effectively rent controls themselves.

They raise the rent every year by $25.

But I've talked to people in my work who, actually I talked to people just two months ago who got a $600 rent increase over the course of two separate rent increases actually over the course of one year, $600.

And, you know, that shows that jump, right?

Every 30 days, you can get a rent increase of 9% or less, essentially.

And every 60 days, you can get a rent increase of 10 or more.

And that is especially hard on the communities that we've been talking about today.

If you're a renter, if you are a single parent, if you are a family, if you are a senior, 60 days is just not enough.

Let's go to the next slide.

And that's why the Renters Commission, we see that Seattle, like I said earlier, could be a catalyst.

We could be the city to start this.

If we were to pass a proactive rent control law now, not only is it going to send a message to Olympia that there is a need and a want for this, in the largest city in the state, but we're hoping that this is going to have a ripple effect, like similar laws have, like source of income discrimination laws, for example, have had all across the state.

And I was really hoping that we would have more city council members here to kind of prod us on this, but, you know, if we can do this as soon as possible, like we had said in our in our letter, this is going to be something that will legitimize this rent control fight across Washington State.

And you're going to hear from a lot of people, you'll hear from a lot of economists who also happen to be venture capitalists, things like that, that rent control just simply doesn't work.

It's economics 101, right?

You know, in some senses, they're right.

It is an economics class.

It's probably not 101 level.

But you do see other cities in the country who are having problems with rent control.

But then you also do see cities that have a really great, robust rent control law.

And so in the back of this background, we have Montreal, kind of the gold standard for renters in North America.

Because what they have is rent stabilization with with vacancy control, they take away the loopholes, and for them, we'll see later on that their rents have stayed pretty stable.

So we can actually go to the next slide where we see, but what about San Francisco?

You know, what about New York?

What about X, Y, and Z city that has been having problems with their rent control?

And, you know, myself, I'm lucky enough, I actually used to work in San Francisco as a tenant rights counselor and as an organizer.

And I can tell you, you know, the San Francisco law isn't perfect.

The rent control law in San Francisco is full of loopholes.

And they were there, they were put there intentionally because they were A, one of the first cities in the country to enact rent control.

during that big wave, but then also because these caveats were required for landlords to buy in.

So in San Francisco, no building built after June of 1979 will have rent control.

Single family homes don't have rent control.

Mother-in-law, so-called quote-unquote mother-in-law units or ADUs don't have rent control.

Vacant units don't have rent control.

So landlords in California, they can use what's called the Ellis Act, eviction or other forms of eviction to push people out of their homes and then raise the rent by triple digits.

You know, what's common in San Francisco is to do an illegal buyout where a landlord will give a very small amount of money to a tenant to force them to move.

And then they can raise the rent by $400, $500, $600, $1,000.

And then also, there's something called a rent board approved pass-through.

And so those are allowed by the rent board.

They have to be approved by them for landlords to do repairs on their property.

So they can raise the rent on that property to do repairs.

And they can also bundle those.

So you see places in San Francisco, if you look at that city, Many people live in buildings that aren't necessarily apartment buildings.

They're single-family homes.

And so a lot of people don't fall under that.

And then even if you are on rent control, and you're in a rent-controlled unit, once you leave, that unit is just kind of up for grabs.

And I think you're coming to that next probably, but I just want to say you use the term vacancy decontrol, and of course in your next slide you're referring to vacancy control.

I was hoping you could explain that for our viewers.

And also, when you were talking about San Francisco, we were also talking about the weakening of the rent control law statewide with the Costa-Hawkins Act, if you could also get into that.

Because as you said, we're going to hear a lot of demonizing of rent control, so we want to make sure we arm you know, the only way we are going to win this if we arm thousands of people in Seattle to understand that, you know, when you have a robust rent control law, it works great.

Yeah, I think that, thank you for that question.

Yeah, the, so vacancy control is pretty simple.

If you look at a place like San Francisco, the rent control doesn't apply to vacant units at all.

So once there is nobody living in that unit, you can raise the price by as much as you want, but there are examples of vacancy control which applies rent control to vacant units.

And then also like you said with Costa Hawkins, that's something that I think it's a little bit too complicated to get into in this meeting, but what I would really recommend people do is, you know, just to look at the work that groups like Tenants Together and the San Francisco Tenants Union and the Housing Rights Committee, Casa Hosta in San Francisco, all these places that are working to repeal Costa-Hawkins, they're doing it for a reason, and that's because it's limiting the local control of rent control in places like San Francisco Los Angeles, where they want more robust protections, but they're just not allowed to.

And we look at a place, actually, there is a place where that is allowed, and it's Quebec.

And they've had rent control in the books with none of those caveats since 1979. They've also, kind of like Seattle, seen a really big boom.

Between 2008 and 2017, they added about 100,000 people.

So not as much as us, but they had a huge boom also in the tech sector where they were bringing in people with higher incomes as well.

So it's a city that we, when we were doing the studies, we found, and as Michael is gonna talk about too with 180 Days, that we saw that was doing this really great work for renters, and it's kind of like the bizarro Seattle.

When you talk to a renter from Montreal, they talk about how easy it is to rent there and how much freedom they feel like they have.

And a really great example is on the next slide here.

You see that their rent has gone up much less than ours in the same decade that we mentioned.

So between 2008 and 2017, their rent went up by $101, and that's across all housing types.

So obviously there are places like the Roe Houses in Montreal that are higher rent you know rent per month than that but by all all sources combined it's only one up by 9% on average and that's because they have that rent that robust rent control policy they don't have any of these loopholes or caveats that's you know that say well you have rent control but then you can also ask for a little bit more money as well.

And Montreal's economy has not gone defunct because of rent control.

It's not tanked, it's surprisingly, it's a very vibrant city and it's interesting because I think you'll talk to people who kind of sit on the developer side of this and they'll tell you you know, people will stop building if rent control happens.

And even in San Francisco, you know, the quote-unquote rent control hell, you know, they're still building.

They're not building as much as we are, but we're also building a lot more than everybody else.

They're adding, if you go to San Francisco and you go to mid-market, if you go to the Castro, to the Fillmore, the Fillmore, which is very similar to the Central District, where generations of black folks have been displaced for corporate development.

You know, if you go to Montreal, you see development happening there too.

It doesn't kill the economy, like people say.

And renters, because what happens is the people, you know, the people that can't afford to live in Seattle now who still have to commute in from Kent or Auburn or Tacoma or Puyallup or anywhere else, they're going to, they're going to be able to stay in place with something like rent control.

So rather than having these long commutes and people being forced out of the city, the people that are really making the city great and the people that are making the city run, the workers and the teachers and the nurses, baristas, retail workers, these folks get to stay in the city that they love, and again, the city that they put roots in.

If you look at Montreal again, you don't have that worry.

I bet everybody at this table can talk about a story of worrying.

Christiana brought it up, worrying about what's going to happen once the light rail comes into Northgate.

That's a legitimate fear for Seattleites, for Seattle renters.

I've had the privilege of talking to renters in Montreal, and they do not talk about that at all.

They do not worry about rent increase.

It's interesting too because the folks that I've been able to talk to, they love their landlords.

They have dinner with them, they work with them, they paint the house together with them.

It's a very different world.

And can you also share from your knowledge of Montreal, because we know one of the other myths about rent control and the demonizing of rent control is that the quality of the homes deteriorates rapidly when you have a strong rent control ordinance.

So what do the renters in Montreal think about the quality of the rental homes there?

Well, I've also been lucky enough to venture into quite a few of those homes in Montreal.

And they're like some of the most beautiful old brownstones that you can imagine, right?

That's the interesting thing, too.

And I think a lot of times here in Seattle, and I've talked to small landlords, again, bringing that up, that they are already effectively controlling their own rents.

They're stabilizing their own rents.

It's not any different than that.

The worst, most appalling conditions that I've seen, with my own eyes in Seattle, when organizing tenants, it's with big corporate developments.

It's very rarely with small landlords.

And so, you know, everyone that I've talked to and every unit that I've been in in Montreal, you know, was beautiful.

You know, it's very reminiscent of the older buildings that we have here in Seattle, and they're really well kept up.

So there is that fear, and that was a fear that existed in San Francisco as well with the with the ability to keep up with maintenance and things like that.

But if you rise with inflation, that gives you the ability to keep up with those repairs.

It doesn't say that you're not allowed to make any more money.

We ultimately live in a capitalist society right now.

And so that's going to be the driving force.

And those cities are not economically crashing.

So yeah, I think that's something that we could say about that, that it's not going to change anything that's happening right now.

For many of the landlords who are effectively controlling themselves, the only change is going to be for the bigger landlords who aren't going to be able to have a 25% profit margin.

Right.

They won't be able to exploit their renters in that way.

I just wanted to add, yeah, we've already had small landlords in Seattle already tell us that they are strongly in support of this ordinance and that they want this to happen.

And I also wanted to mention one of the things that we see in Seattle, which does not have rent control, and rent has gone sky high, we see so many examples.

And my office has tenants calling us every week talking about how their apartments, which are very expensive, with expensive rents, have mold infestations or elevators that don't work, stairs that are broken.

And we're talking about disabled people with physical disabilities having real mobility hindrances because these problems are not fixed.

We, especially the immigrant community and non undocumented members of our community, they, as you correctly noted, they end up accepting substandard conditions because they're afraid of what might happen to them.

Retaliation, yeah.

Yes, exactly.

And our retaliation protection is only 90 days in Seattle right now, so.

Right.

And that also makes you just think about, it's not good landlords that are afraid of protections.

It's people, it's predatory landlords.

It's the folks that we might not name that have a law named after them because of the way that they treated tenants as well.

empowering for renters.

The larger third party corporate management is who I believe we're kind of talking about right now.

They don't even look, more often than not, they don't look at your apartment and say, oh, you've lived here seven years, you're about $200 on your market, so we're gonna raise you $200.

Instead, they actually have software, and this is something we should be aware of, especially if we were able to control rent bury, we should be looking at these releasing softwares that the corporate property management uses.

Yieldstar will pump out numbers, and so you'll get a printout daily of what your rent should be on your apartments based upon what their algorithm says.

So there isn't any humanness to these rent control or these rent increases that are coming out.

especially if they don't mind waiting 60 days.

So if you've ever toured an apartment on Tuesday and they say the apartment is $2,100 and then you tour it on Wednesday and they say it's $23.21, then they're likely using yield optimization software.

And that software, again, it's very similar to Rentberry.

It takes the human aspect out of this relationship and turns it into an algorithm, an aggressive algorithm that promises large returns to the property management company.

By definition, it gets overinflated numbers that the landlords end up using.

Yes.

So, for instance, when you look at an apartment, you usually put in more than one application.

You know, you're not just going to be, I mean, if you're lucky enough to find the apartment of your dreams that fits in your budget the first time you go looking, then lucky you.

But most people look at several apartments, five, ten.

I think the most ones I looked at was over a dozen.

And so every time someone looks at that one apartment, the software says, oh, there's interest in this apartment.

So whether it's an email, a phone call, or a tour, that inflates how many people are interested in the apartment, which then inflates the software's valuation of what that apartment should be.

So if everybody at this table all looked at a one-bedroom apartment in one building, it would assume that all six of us would be potential lenders.

renters and then add even more value to the cost of rent as opposed to the mom and pop landlords that are sitting there going, you know, Devin's been here a decade.

I've got some big repairs coming up.

I haven't raised his rent in a bit.

How's 150 sound?

It's been five years since I've raised your rent versus this software that is not a person that's just raising rents.

When you work in the corporate property management, you actually create the market.

Monthly, you call apartments that are similar in style to yours and you find out what they've been renting their homes at and what their vacancy is.

Oh, you're 99% occupied and you've been able to rent your one bedrooms that are 600 square feet for 2,400.

Well, we've only been renting ours for 2,200.

So maybe we should start increasing ours.

And so you actually create, the inflation.

It's like if everybody who made milk called each other on the phone and was like, what did you get for your gallons of milk?

And we're able to control the price that way.

And that's where Dupree and Scott got a lot of their information was from these market surveys that if they're going to do them, I feel like we should all be able to look at them.

But honestly, that's also controlling the market and finding out like, oh, you could charge that much.

So they just keep going back and forth.

If it was me and Michael, Michael was making $2,400.

I raised to $2,500.

He's going to raise to $2,600.

And it's just going to keep going.

And that's the scary thing, too.

I think Jessica brings up a really good point that we haven't been able to touch on as well is that the human element is taken out of it.

that for, and again, not for good landlords, but for bad landlords, that people, corporate landlords or predatory landlords aren't seeing people as people.

They're seeing the people that they can get into units or the folks showing interest as dollar signs.

And what it really ends up being, though, is that the folks that miss out or the folks that are forced out, maybe they leave Seattle and they go to Tacoma or they go to Everett, they go to Portland, But there's also a really good chance that they're going to end up on the street.

81% of the folks that are unhoused right now in Seattle were previously housed at a dress in King County.

That's huge.

And we're in the middle of a homelessness crisis.

This is one way to help solve it.

You know, we want to keep people housed, and we want to bring the conversation back to people.

When you talk to a Montreal renter, that's exactly what it is.

It almost seems like the landlords have to compete over them, and it's not that we're you know, us and 20 or 30 or 40 other people are applying to a unit or an apartment, or that folks will be economically evicted, as we'll probably talk about later, in that apartment that I'm looking at now, that they were economically evicted before and probably ended up on the streets.

And that's why we want rent control in Seattle.

We want to bring it back to humanity.

We want people to be able to live in the city, every kind of person.

And this shouldn't be a Charles Dickens novel.

We shouldn't have this huge disparity.

We shouldn't have folks living on the street.

We should be able to house everybody equitably.

And that's really what this is coming back to.

Yeah, so moving on to our next suggestion.

Building off that is our recommendation to increase the rent notice period to 180 days.

You know, just starting off with this next slide, some facts about where we are right now.

You know, as we've heard from Devin here, you know, Seattle rents have increased.

In the last six years, they've increased 57%.

In the last eight years, they've gone up 62%.

It's, you know, there's this upward trend and folks are just getting priced out.

And again, the increases aren't just like $20 or $30.

They're, you know, in the hundreds.

So this is where we are currently in terms of what the notice period is.

I do want to point out that there is HB 1440 that is, I believe, at the governor's desk right now that will increase the notice period to 60 days in the state.

Yeah, for any rent increase.

And that's really great.

And we were really excited to hear about that when we were talking about this.

But we still believe that, you know, 30 days, 60 days is not enough.

You know, we believe that 180 days is what people need.

Particularly in Seattle, where the rents are so high.

Yeah, it's more of a crisis.

It's a crisis.

So we need to behave like it's a crisis.

It is.

And yeah, so currently, up until this bill is signed, for rent increases of less than 10%, Seattleites receive no more than a 30-day notice.

For an increase of 10% or more, they receive a minimum of 60 days notice.

And our question to that is, is that enough time to either move, find a new place, or to increase your income?

And as we've seen, you know, there's a lot of barriers.

We have had some support for renters in terms of, you know, finding new places to live.

But there's still that barrier of like, you know, what we talked about.

Just fighting a new spot.

We can go to the next slide.

Sorry.

Yeah, so our current rent hike notification laws, you know, we believe that it leaves marginalized communities and folks vulnerable.

Again, 30 days is, it's tough to find a house, especially when there's so many people moving in.

Seattle's a place where a lot of folks want to live, and that's a great thing, but also we need to make sure that we're not moving anybody out and we're not displacing folks in order to grow.

You know, the current state of our notification laws, in some ways, incentivizes landlords to economically evict some tenants.

And that's, again, where they increase the rent, knowing that some folks aren't going to be able to afford it, so that they can bring in someone else that can afford the higher rent.

And can you say, generally, what do we observe in terms of, you know, you have the quote, unquote, undesirable?

people with children, because children cause damage to homes, is one example I would say.

Disabled people who end up needing accommodations for their housing.

Yeah, and I think just anyone who can't afford the new rent, like if you can't If someone can rent an apartment at a higher rent, they want someone that can afford that.

And, you know, that's a really sad situation that we're in right now.

And then following up with this next point, you know, some folks point out, too, while there's month-to-month options in case somebody wants to, like, you know, take an extra month to figure out, you know, where they're going to move to or to figure out their their rent increase amount.

But really, those month-to-month options aren't really an affordable option due to the premium fees.

You know, those fees are added on top of monthly rents, which would mean that now someone is not only paying what they were paying before, but now that there's...

What was the number, Jessica?

So if I was to give you a rental rate increase number, if I'm like a landlord right now, I would say, hey, your rent's going up to $2,400, or you can go month to month, which is an additional $250.

So now you'd be paying $2,650 for the opportunity to take the time to look for a place to live.

And they can go from $50 up to the highest month-to-month fees I've seen were $500.

And I don't understand how that's even a premium fee.

The reason why those are usually included is because it's seen as risky for a lot of larger buildings to have leases expire whenever, which is what month-to-month is, so they can't predict when Michael's leaving.

So they charge this month-to-month fee for the risk factor of it.

But we're in an affordable housing crisis, it doesn't matter now if it's December or July, you still have a line of people who are looking to move in.

So still using them, there's no, we don't have any protections on those.

You can charge whatever you want for a month-to-month fee.

So again, penalizing people.

And as it was in the Seattle Times a couple of, a week or so ago, we still have issues with people not discriminating against folks who have subsidies, Section 8, shelter plus care, things like that.

So in my professional experience, I have seen this where someone just gets in on a voucher, whichever voucher it is, and there's already a bias.

against folks who have subsidy vouchers, and then they'll say, oh, we're raising, the rent has to increase somehow over your voucher limit.

But what folks don't understand is that it's not so much just finding a landlord will take your voucher, but also an apartment that fits within your voucher limit, and then also going through the process of having that apartment, depending on which voucher you have.

inspected and approved, and some of them, you know, that you might need to make repairs or changes, get things approved by, you know, the voucher going to the landlord, and it takes longer than 60 days.

And there's other things, too, on the side of some of these voucher programs where they deadlines and limits, that's a whole different advocacy issue, but we perhaps can reduce some of that, some of the barriers to finding housing for these folks, as well as community education around who has rental subsidies and how it's illegal to discriminate against them.

cost of living on Social Security this year, so the COLA increase was only 2.8%.

We're not hearing that rents are going up an average of 2.8%.

And that's even after several years where there wasn't even a cost of living adjustment if I remember correctly.

So that's.

Yeah, I mean, it's tough.

If we look at our slide right now, Seattle residents pay an average rent of $1,731.

To put that in perspective, someone making minimum wage right now, working 40 hours a week, earning 15 an hour, would need to commit 72% of their income to rent just to remain housed.

That doesn't include anything else other than rent.

any economist will tell you not to spend more than 30% of your income on rent and housing.

Yeah, and those economists aren't living as $15 minimum wage workers in Seattle.

No, and often it'll be the same economists who are also against rent control.

And this is what you learn in school, in economics, about how bad rent control is, how bad unions are, you know, that kind of stuff, which is completely belied by reality.

And these minimum wage employees now have to call off work to find apartments, which affects most of those jobs don't come with PTO, you know, so paid time off.

So we're, that's another reason why the increase is really important.

30 days, that's four weekends.

not enough time to find an apartment pack, move and clean and get your security deposit back if you're lucky.

So calling off work from your coffee shop or the senior center that you work at or a DESC greatly impacts those businesses, but also impacts your ability to pay for your new apartment.

Right.

And the Renters Commission is also saying that 60 days, the 60 day notice that the state passed also not enough.

It can't be.

For Seattle.

I mean, I've gone to look for apartments and been 12th in line when I'm an hour and a half early.

So, and they're supposed to technically take the first person in line.

That doesn't always happen either, but that's a whole other story.

And these are for apartments with like crooked kitchen cabinets and squeaky doors and peeling linoleum.

And you're like, I'll just, I hope that they'll take my app after I waited two hours in line.

And you do that over and over and over again until somebody calls.

You know, and the person behind you might be a dual income, no kids working at Amazon.

There's nothing really to stop them from taking out application either.

So when we're fighting for the smallest scraps, we need the longer amount of time in order to do so.

And to mention also how we were talking about before, without rent control, people are leaving the city.

You know, people do want to try to stay where they have roots, and so maybe you take that first 30 days to try to make it work in Seattle, and then you can't, and then you try to make it work in Tukwila and Shoreline, and then you can't, and then you go to Federal Way, and you can't, and you have to keep going.

You know, there's people that are displaced a really long way, and this 180 days, at the very least, can give them time to continue looking to be able to stay in the community that they helped build.

You can go ahead.

I was going to say, and I think that what's really important here too is like the systemic nature that it can become.

And so I was sharing with Jessica earlier that there was a client that I had back in the day who was working full time, who had a rent increase that made him have to leave.

And so they became a car dweller and they lived in their car while they were working full time, making between $50,000 and $60,000 a year.

Because they were living in their car, they had a lot of moving violations and fines that also impacted their credit score and report.

And we did find a landlord that was considering renting to them.

However, because of the credit issues, you know, they want it first, last, the full amount of rent for deposit.

And I always told my clients, you know, you only have 20 to 15 days for your second month's rent, so make sure you have that on board.

And for that package, it was a little over $8,500.

Now, this is a person that it was all because of a rent increase.

They were working full time.

They didn't have any of the stigmatized archetypes that we have for homeless folks.

And they ended up, the only option they had at the end of it was to go into transitional housing.

Not knocking transitional housing, but it was unnecessary.

And I don't know anyone besides perhaps folks working at some of these international corporations here in Seattle that has $8,500 just ready to go on a moment's notice like that or even in 60 days.

In fact, the statistic overall nationwide is I think 45% of Americans don't have enough money in their bank account to even tide over a $400 unexpected expense.

So very, very far cry from anything like $8,500.

Right.

The reason why I really enjoy the 180-day proposition is, you know, this is local.

This doesn't involve us waiting on the state to do something.

So I consider this to be extremely impactful for everybody in our city currently.

Yeah.

And the city hasn't addressed notifications in 20 years.

And we have a little graphic up there just showing what some other cities in the region and a little bit beyond have done.

Tacoma, for example, recently, you know, updated theirs to be a 60-day notification.

Portland has 90 days.

Vancouver's 90 days.

And then, you know, Montreal with 180 days.

Like, what we're recommending and what some other cities have done is not something that's, like, impossible.

It's, you know, it's what people need.

Again, I think we mentioned it, but, you know, who can increase their income by, like, $100 a month, like, in the 30-day notice?

It's not something that's easy to do.

Yeah.

Oh, I was just going to caution that we are over time for the meeting.

Yeah.

Yeah.

In closing, just, you know, a 10% increase for the average tenant in Seattle, that's $2,000 a year.

That's a lot of money.

And folks need time to respond to that.

And I do want to throw in a little thing just about the 180 days in Montreal.

Some very savvy, you know, landlords or folks who work for the landlord lobby will probably tell you that it's not necessarily 180 days there.

They have a very complicated system.

But for fixed term leases, it's between three and six months notice.

But they also do, because they have rent control, Every tenant gets their rent increase notice at the same time every year.

So effectively, even if you don't have any notice, you know that it's coming in July.

And that being said, though, when we were talking about this, we saw that there's between the three and six months.

But again, with Seattle's crisis, the way that it is, we straight up just said 180 days, no caveats.

That's what we need.

So it was tied to the rent control law when they created their office of rent control.

That was 1979.

You'll hear some pushback on increasing the notice days means that landlords aren't going to have enough time to bring up money for repairs.

I would personally say it would make me very nervous to rent from an apartment building that can't replace a refrigerator without raising my rent.

It is good property management standings to do an annual inspection.

So you should know how old your refrigerators are.

You should know how your roof is.

That is part of you maintaining your business.

So I don't see any reason why six months shouldn't be able to be predicted by your repair budget.

especially if you've been in the building five, 10 years, you know what to expect.

You know how old your appliances are.

You know the last time you had to do the roof.

You know how many leaks you had to repair the year before and what you should probably budget for this year.

So I don't necessarily agree with the six months is so much time that we will not be able to make repairs on the building.

I consider that to be a poor form of business and it would make me a very nervous tenant.

I think just in basic too, just from a basic business administration sense, you should know what your appreciation value of your investment will be in six months.

I would keep the empathy of the fact that there are humans and family living in that apartment.

But I would also, you know, perhaps if it's going to take services or education available for landlords to know how to forecast whether or not they will have to increase their rent to give this notice, I think that is a good compromise.

But I think that as a small business owner myself, I would be very concerned if someone said that they didn't know how to forecast appreciation of value within six months.

Very good points.

And we didn't go through one slide, which I think also just to say, you have even a rent increase of 10% can cost the average tenant an additional $2,000 a year.

When was the last time our wages went up by anything close to that, right?

So I really appreciate the Renters Commission not just coming here and presenting, but taking your work so seriously in advocating for renters.

As you know, we, my office has asked the central staff to start drafting the rent control ordinance along the lines of what we have discussed.

And I just also wanted to make sure people who are watching should also go to my council office website to look at some of the, there's a one-pager that we've put together and also a rent control FAQ, frequently asked questions.

And some of those things go into what Devin and others were mentioning about the, the lies that we hear from economists and others about how rent control, they claim rent control doesn't work.

We know it works, but the main thing being we need a rent control law that is free of loopholes like the Montreal Law, and that's precisely what we need to fight for.

And just one other thing I wanted to mention is one loophole that we don't want is what is the rent increase actually that we're talking about?

We're talking about increase no more than the inflation rate, which you mentioned, of course.

Effective date of this law would be as soon as the state ban would be lifted.

Who is covered?

And I think this is part of what, you know, one of the loopholes that was introduced by Costa-Hawkins in California.

We want all residential rental homes to be covered, whether it's a single family home or, you know, condominium that is being rented or it's an apartment building.

We don't want exceptions to be made for what kind of space it is because then quickly, you know, all kinds of loopholes would be carved.

And then no vacancy decontrol.

So if renters leave of their own volition, tenants leave of their own volition, it still remains a rent control unit.

So yeah, thank you for all this.

And as Devin said, we're going to have to fight for it.

I don't think we're going to win.

win every council member's strong support unless we build a movement, and then suddenly they will realize, oh, they support rent control.

And I think it has been- And have since they were five.

Sorry?

Then they'll support it and have ever since they were five.

Yes, then they will have wanted rent control ever since they were five.

Thank you for engaging with the Renters Commission.

I believe I speak for the Commission as a whole when I say that we encourage our council members and our mayor and our city departments to engage with us as well as almost anything the city decides does impact the lives of renters and we are here to listen and talk and figure things out together.

I really appreciate that.

I really urge all council members and the mayor's office to have discussions with the Renters Commission and understand why it is that you're recommending these policies.

Before we go, also I wanted to make note that there were a couple of people who weren't who are part of our work group who did this work who weren't able to come today.

And I just wanted it to be known that they did a tremendous amount of work and they should get credit for it.

So Beverly Aarons and David Mooney deserve a lot of thanks for a lot of the work that they did here too.

And hopefully, you know, we'll be able to have them at the table next time that we talk with you, Council Member Swann and President Harrell and Council Member Juarez and everybody.

Let's make sure we build a strong enough campaign citywide that that all council members know they have to listen, and I have no doubt that we will get to that point.

Thank you for leading on this, because that leadership matters, because we need that starting point.

And please convey congratulations from everybody in my office to all the commissioners who worked on this.

And I also wanted to mention Gina Owens, who's one of the newest commissioners.

who perhaps may not have been an integral part of this, but has been fighting for renters for many years in our community in South Seattle.

So I'm really encouraged at the work you all are doing.

Thank you so much.

And thank you for also the wealth of knowledge you bring in.

I mean, I was making notes here because I think it's really important, especially the The inflation, inflated rents that they use from the software yield.

I can speak to your office more about that if you'd like.

That'd be great, thank you so much.

I saw an article recently I think about how that is actually a problematic thing and could we make that illegal or something like that?

If we did with the rent bury.

Yes, exactly.

And also just one thing, the last thing, on the 180 days, I didn't mention this in the press conference, but obviously rent control was what made the news, but we are, we actually have, TED has actually already drafted the legislation to change it to 180 days.

But again, it won't be a mere matter of changing the number.

Writing the legislation is simple enough, but we're going to have to fight for it as well.

And so we hope that as we broaden the citywide campaign for rent control, that we can bring in two other things, which is the 180 days, but also the economic eviction assistance ordinance that the Renters Commission has already voted its support for, which is if your rent goes up by 10% or more and you are anywhere at or below 80% of area median income, then your landlord owes you three months worth of rent.

I think it's important to note, I don't know if we covered on this, the 180-day covers all types of leases.

So fixed-term leases, month-to-month leases.

We didn't want to create a situation where after your first lease, all landlords just made you go month-to-month.

So this, our recommendation is to cover all rental situations.

That totally makes sense, and thank you for mentioning that.

So we'll be following up with you.

Hopefully, next time we do this, we will have full chambers full of people who are fighting for end control, and that forces all elected officials to be here.

I'm excited about that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, and meeting adjourned.