Blog
Blog
Last week, one resolution and a series of rental housing bills were passed by the Seattle City Council. They will now be presented to the Mayor for approval and signature. If the bills are signed, (unless otherwise specified), they will become effective 30 days after they are returned to the City Clerk. Resolution 31998 recommends that the city's Covid eviction moratorium, currently set to expire 6/30, be extended through the end of 2021. Plainly summarized, the current eviction moratorium temporarily removes the ability for landlords to: Terminate or give notice of intent to terminate a lease (even term leases) for any reason other than the tenant poses an imminent threat to health or safety Nonpayment of rent and other lease violations must be endured by landlords Prohibits landlords from moving tenants out at the end of a lease term to sell or re-inhabit their own homes (a protection the state order allows outside Seattle city limits) Prohibits raising rent or giving notice of a rent increase CB120046 will shield educators and tenants with minor children from eviction during the school year. Evictions for just cause (including nonpayment of rent) cannot take place during the school year as defined by the Seattle Public School calendar. CB120077 further defines the required language for the eviction process following the eviction moratorium, for the period of time defined by the pandemic emergency. CB120090 effectively ends the practice of term leases, mandating landlords to offer lease renewal to tenants 60 - 90 days prior to lease end dates. Once a housing unit becomes a rental, CB120090 requires that it must now remain a rental until the lease is terminated by the tenant, or if just cause exists to evict a tenant when it becomes legal again to do so, following the covid eviction moratorium. The ordinance also allows tenants the right to rescind a notice of intent to vacate, which could greatly impact the practice of pre-leasing units before the previous tenant has moved out. Students, who secure housing primarily through pre-leasing, will be most impacted, but landlords will also incur longer vacancy time and costs between tenants. Alex Pedersen, a dissenting council member from district 4, made the comment, "We want to be mindful of the financial challenges faced by small housing providers who lack the economies of scale to absorb these costs." Our firm agrees, believing the net effect of these policies on independent landlords, housing supply, and affordability wasn't studied or considered in the council's vote. We anticipate a negative long-term outcome for tenants in particular, resulting from this legislation.
City dwellers are on the move, and they are moving to the suburbs - trading in micro-apartments for spacious townhouses with balconies and single family homes with outdoor space.
Well-maintained common areas speak volumes about a multifamily building and its ownership. Residents notice well-kept grounds, hallways and stairwells, and clean laundry facilities. These areas set a visual expectation for how residents should treat their own dwellings, and are a key component to resident comfort, satisfaction, and safety. Savvy owners recognize common areas as a vital tool for improving resident retention, allowing them to enjoy lower vacancy rates and the ability to command higher rents. Outsourcing common area cleaning carries the added benefit of experienced and consistent eyes on the property, to spot maintenance and other concerns which are exceptionally valuable to building owners managing their properties remotely. Good business practice aside, keeping common areas reasonably clean and safe is a legal expectation in many local municipalities, including Seattle. Recognizing the key role building owners now play, in helping to curb the spread of COVID-19, many owners are taking cleaning a step further with common area sanitization, helping their residents remain safe and healthy at home. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends taking the following actions for effective sanitization1: Hard (Non-porous) Surfaces If surfaces are dirty, they should be cleaned using a detergent or soap and water prior to disinfection. For disinfection, most common EPA-registered household disinfectants should be effective Follow the manufacturer’s instructions for all cleaning and disinfection products for concentration, application method and contact time, etc. Additionally, diluted household bleach solutions (at least 1000ppm sodium hypochlorite) can be used if appropriate for the surface. Follow manufacturer’s instructions for application, ensuring a contact time of at least 1 minute, and allowing proper ventilation during and after application. Check to ensure the product is not past its expiration date. Never mix household bleach with ammonia or any other cleanser. Unexpired household bleach will be effective against coronaviruses when properly diluted. Prepare a bleach solution by mixing: 5 tablespoons (1/3 cup) bleach per gallon of water or 4 teaspoons bleach per quart of water Soft (Porous) Surfaces For soft (porous) surfaces such as carpeted floor, rugs, and drapes, remove visible contamination if present and clean with appropriate cleaners indicated for use on these surfaces. After cleaning: If the items can be laundered, launder items in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions using the warmest appropriate water setting for the items and then dry items completely. Otherwise, use products that are EPA-approved for use against the virus that causes COVID-19 and that are suitable for porous surfaces. More information is available at www.polishedhousekeeping.com.
Hotel-sized toiletries are adorable, but supplying single-use plastic to short term rental guests weighed on us ethically. An exhaustive search for eco-friendly alternatives led us to Ashland, Oregon, and a luxurious collection of shampoo and soap bars that we’re now proud to offer under our house brand, Polished Seattle. For hair, a buttery Coconut and Tea Tree conditioning shampoo bar. A Black Bamboo Charcoal bar balances the set for face and body. Locally handmade from sustainably and ethically sourced natural ingredients, these travel sets are totally unique in the marketplace, completely biodegradable, and a cute memento that captures the social and eco spirit of the Pacific Northwest. Now available exclusively through Madeson Management properties, and online: polishedhousekeeping.com/amenities
Madeson Management is very pleased with the ruling overturning the First in Time Ordinance . It provided prospective tenants with a mechanism to tie up multiple properties without a hold deposit and increase vacancy time/cost. We will continue to process applications in the order we receive them in the spirit of general fairness, we’ve always done this, but we are glad to be free of the bureaucracy that stymied the process. There is another piece of local legislation that just took effect on 2/19/18 – the Fair Chance Ordinance . This legislation prohibits landlords from running or considering criminal background checks in their screening process. The thought behind it is, minorities are disproportionately represented in the criminal system due to inherent bias, which then translates to bias in housing when criminal checks are used. The exception to this rule is sex offender registry status. Landlords can still check for this and if they can prove a sex offender’s presence in a building would negatively impact business (for example, in an apartment building where other tenants would move out if a sex offender moved in), then they can decline the applicant. It will be interesting to see if this ordinance is also overturned, citing the basis for the recent decision with the First in Time ordinance. This wave of recent tenant-friendly housing legislation is causing fallout in the housing industry. We at Madeson Management are seeing it first-hand, with many applicants saying their landlords are forcing them out to bulldoze their rentals and build row houses or townhouses for sale, or existing landlords coming to us for management assistance or selling because Seattle Landlord-Tenant law is too complex for the average independent landlord to navigate now. Our typical lease agreement is around 50 pages in length, due to Seattle-required disclosures, and the verbiage used in listing ads and appointments is very carefully crafted to comply with fair housing and other rules. To be sure, some fair housing rules are necessary – we still hear anecdotes from tenants of landlords illegally denying housing to people with children, unmarried couples, immigrants – but it’s clear the pendulum has swung far enough towards tenants that the city is now losing rental inventory as landlords sour on the process.
The Seattle City Council’s Affordable Housing, Neighborhoods, and Finance Committee met again on July 20th to discuss Short-Term Rental Regulations. I think there were two key takeaways from the meeting: TAKEAWAY #1 The committee has proposed some exceptions to the original legislation! The first committee discussion revealed a couple of concerns: “The City may not be able to rely on rental platforms to cooperate with the proposed structure. Individuals have expressed concerns about the treatment of existing short term rentals in secondary residences, given current law is not explicitly prohibitive.” The committee has offered the following limited exceptions to the proposed legislation: “Within a defined window, individual households may register and license one dwelling unit apart from primary residence if: They had a business license prior to June 1, 2016 for that unit They have proof that they have paid applicable taxes for that unit Year-round short-term rental uses will be allowed to continue operation at these properties for a period of 10 years or when the property changes ownership, whichever is shorter” For more detailed information on the Modified Policy Approach, click here: http://seattle.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=4572446&GUID=373BF3D4-1825-4727-B017-7EC484093CA0 TAKEAWAY #2 The opposition to the Short-Term Rental Regulation in Seattle is more than a mash up of different people concerned with the potential law changes. The opposition is organized. The opposition is vocal. And the opposition is awash in neon green! The Seattle Short-Term Rental Alliance (SSTRA) was a noticeable presence at the committee meeting in their neon green shirts emblazoned with the phrase “Save Seattle Short-Term Rentals.” Many members spoke in support of short-term rentals in the public comment period, which unlike in the last committee meeting, was held to a hard thirty-minute period. Those who spoke expressed concern about the economic hardships, the loss of employment, and the destruction of small businesses if the proposed legislation was made law. The SSTRA codified their response to the Council’s proposed legislation in handouts they were passing out at the exit: “Short-term rentals in Seattle positively impact the local economy by creating jobs and supporting small businesses. There is neither evidence-based research nor academic studies demonstrating that shot-term rentals negatively impact affordable housing in Seattle. Proposed regulations phasing out short-term rentals in secondary residences will result in unexpected consequences – negatively impacting the local economy, eliminating jobs, putting small business owners out of business, and harming the ability of private citizens to earn a living from income property.” The SSTRA also made some recommendations to the Council, which can be found on their website here: http://sstra.org/seattle-short-term-rental-alliance-statement-brief/
The Seattle City Council’s Affordable Housing, Neighborhoods, and Finance Committee met on June 15, 2016 to discuss their proposals for regulating short term rentals. The meeting started with Public Comment, scheduled for twenty minutes on the agenda, that ran for over an hour. Over 50 attendees stepped up to the microphone to share their impassioned testimony in front of the Council Chamber’s standing room only audience, the Committee, and multiple local news cameras. It was obvious from the comments, and loud audience support, that the majority were there to defend their short term rental related business from additional regulation. There were several comments from short term rental operators about how this was a tool that allowed them to augment income to pay bills including their mortgage. Some were able to afford retirement by renting a room in their house, for some it was the centerpiece of their retirement plan. A few owners of businesses that manage short term rentals, a cleaning company, and employees of related businesses, all shared that they would be put out of business or a job if the proposed regulations were made law. Many shared that they utilize a short term rental to house friends and family when they are in town, along with their neighbor’s friends and family who do not have extra space. Some were able to offer housing in areas where there are no hotels, or where hotels are incredibly expensive. Short term rentals offer a place to stay for visitors in town for medical treatment, those moving to town for work and looking for a long term residence or even a place for contractors or interns to stay who are temporarily in Seattle with one of the large tech firms. Some people commented that they are proud to act as a “cultural ambassador” for the city of Seattle with their short term rental. Several commenters proposed the solution is to tax short term operators and use that money to provide more affordable housing. The audience was very supportive of the suggestion. One commenter suggested that the nice, high end units that are being utilized as short term rentals, once regulated out of the short term rental market, will still be unaffordable to the very people the Council is trying to provide housing for. Many said because of the structure of the regulation they would not be adding their units back into the long term pool at all. There were one or two comments from those that were or are homeless, supporting the need for more housing. Some condo owners commented that a significant percentage of their building had been converted to short term rentals. Some short term rental owners thought the regulations as proposed were appropriate in their current form and supported the Council. A commenter posed the following question, which was cheered by the audience: The tech industry has been a major factor in the housing shortage in Seattle, are they going to be made to participate in the solution to create more affordable housing? After the Public Comment period the Committee discussed the proposal for regulation. Points of note from that discussion include the following: The committee acknowledged the public’s interest in additional taxation as a solution. Member Rob Johnson proposed further discussion on this topic in the next committee meeting. A committee member asked why the short term rental proposal was for only 90 days. A member of the group that crafted the proposal stated that they determined that was the breakeven point, by their estimation, at which it made more sense to covert a unit from a short term rental to a long term rental. The audience expressed a lot of dissatisfaction with this suggestion. The proposed timeline they shared includes another committee meeting on July 20th. A full council vote in August or September 2016 and implementation in 2017. Here is a link to the Seattle City Council’s webpage relating to the regulation of short term rentals: http://www.seattle.gov/council/issues/regulating-short-term-rentals
Locations We Serve
University District
Madison Park
Queen Anne
Ballard
North Seattle
Magnolia
Greenlake
Capitol Hill
Bryant
Ravenna
Wedgwood
Montlake
Wallingford
Fremont
Laurelhurst
Windermere
Associations
