AN ORDINANCE relating to termination of residential rental tenancies; providing a defense to certain evictions of children, their families, and educators during the school year; and amending Section 22.206.160 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
The Report of the Sustainability and Renters Rights Commission Agenda Item three Council Bill 120046 An ordinance relating to termination of residential rental tenancies, providing a defense to certain evictions of children, their families and educators during the school year, and amending Section 22.206160 of the Seattle Municipal Code. The committee recommends the Council pass the Council bill with a divided report with council members Swamp Morales and Lewis in favor and Councilmember Peterson opposed. Thank you, Madam. Councilor. So on. As chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to address. I am sorry. In order to provide the committee's report. Thank you. President Gonzalez, this is the legislation from my office banning the eviction of schoolchildren, their families and educators during the school year. It is common sense, but there are also mountains of research showing that when children are evicted, it has devastating impact on their academic achievement and their development and mental health. For example, the Losing Home Report found that code of evicted respondents with school age children 85.7% said their children had to move schools after the eviction, and 87.5% reported their children's school performance suffered very much because of the eviction. And in 2018, the state found that nearly 4200 Seattle public school children were homeless at some point during the school year. That is a staggering 7% of all public school children. And in practical terms, it means that in an average of 30 students, two will be homeless at some point during the school year. This is a racial justice and Black Lives Matter issue as well. Just as Seattle landlords evict black tenants at much higher rates than other tenants, we also see that black students and other students of color disproportionately face homelessness. And we should make sure, of course, to understand the causal link between evictions and the likelihood of ending up homeless. We know the Losing Home report also found that nine times out of ten evictions result in homelessness. The 2018 state data found that fully 40% of homeless students were black and 23% of homeless students were Latino. Even though those communities constitute only 14 and 12%, respectively, of Seattle's public student population. Preventing school year elections will reduce at least this one form of systemic racism that is affecting our students. In the class of 2018, for example, 55.2% of homeless students graduated on time, compared to 85 or 84.5% of students who were housed. So we see a dramatic impact of homelessness and evictions on children, graduation rates and the academic research into the impact of eviction and housing instability on students and children is also revealed, for example, the negative effects of instability on child development. The report, published by the Urban Institute, found that children experiencing residential instability demonstrate worse academic and social outcomes in their residentially stable peers such as lower vocabulary skills, problem behaviors, grade retention, increased high school dropout rates and lower adult education attainment. And similarly, research shows that turnover in school staff significantly harmed the school's effectiveness. And that is why this is such a strong bill where it includes not only school children but all educators, staff in public on public school campuses. And as I've said in the past, the eviction of children from their homes in one of the richest cities in the richest country in the world is a damning indictment of capitalism. But at the very least, the city has the power right now, just drop evictions during the school year and should do so immediately. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilmember Sawant, for that initial report. I do know that there is an amendment that you would like to bring forward, and there are I think you see at least one other amendment. So I'm going to go ahead and ask you. Councilors want to make your motion for proposed Amendment one. Thank you. A move Amendment One, which is a purely technical amendment, adding a severability clause. It was sent to the council offices last Friday. This amendment was developed based on the suggestion of Council President Gonzales. And I really appreciate your help on this, and I don't have anything more to add, but of course, I need a second . Yeah. Is there. I will second that motion. So it's been moved and seconded to adopt proposed Amendment one. Are there any additional comments or questions on proposed Amendment one? Hearing and seeing no additional questions. Will the Court please call the role on the adoption of Amendment One? Whereas I Lewis. Yes. Morales. As. Muslera. I. Peterson. I. Salon. Yes. Council President Gonzalez. I. Seven and seven unopposed. Emotion carries the amendment as adopted and the amended bill is before the council. Interstate Councilor Mosquito You have another proposed amendment. Proposed amendment to someone many go ahead and handed over to you to make your motion and and we'll see and then have a second and we will then allow you to address your proposed amendment. Thank you very much. Madam President, I move to amend Council Bill 1 to 0 046 by adding language from amendment number 2/2. It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment two. Councilor must get him to hand it back over to you to address your amendment. I thank you very much. First, I want to start with a thank you. I want to thank council members, want for all of the work that she and her team and the committee as a whole have done to bring forward this legislation for today. I'm very supportive of the underlining bill, and I want to thank her for her work with me as I brought forward a potential idea for amendment. We had some other ideas that we would have liked to include that we will continue to work on, and I'll make note on that here very soon, but wanted to do everything that we could to address some of the potential concerns that had been coming up for a very small sector of the community that has raised some concerns about potential unintended impacts to housing stability. In the very rare situation that there is a homeowner who has a financial limitation or other life circumstance that necessitates them to potentially move back into their homes. Colleagues, this is a very similar to the very narrow situation that we have included in the just care statute that's already in effect. And the amendment that I have circulated for your consideration today, which is outlined in amendment number two, is trying to make sure that we are addressing those very narrow concerns and applying an owner move in as an exemption during the school year moratorium. This has been discussed with housing activists, tenants, rights organizations and members of the labor community. And I think overall there is a broad understanding and desire to make sure that, A, this bill moves forward and is passed today, which I'm strongly supportive of, B, that we continue to address the concerns that are coming up about potential misuse of any of the exemption statutes across the board, which I'm very committed to and council members want. And I had extensive discussions about. And we will continue to work on and see that if there is a situation that arises for these individuals who happen to be very small landlords with, you know, one of these housing units that they do need to move back into, given their financial limitations or other hardships and life circumstances that we apply the very same language that we already have included, and the other two pieces of legislation in front of us today and that we've already included in the just cause legislation as well. I want to be very clear that this just cause additions here that we're talking about is not is just is just for the owner move in as they just reason for eviction. This is not a loophole, as there are many reasons that many owners may need to move into their homes, including life changes like the birth of a child, the loss of a job which so many folks have experienced, illness or relocation. These cases, which we expect to be very few, have meant that some of the owners who have some of these rental units are concerned about their own ability to have housing stability. The amendment would add in the owner move an exemption for owners to to require them to give the 90 days notice and to make sure that they are adhering to the requirements within the justice cause language. This narrow amendment is intended to be a response to those concerns that we've heard about possibly having instability in the housing market in those very few circumstances where some of these small, very small landlords are income restricted with one single residence, that maybe they can't depend on that residents anymore and they they're sorry their income any more and they need to move into their own families home. We know that Seattle's high cost of housing, there are a few circumstances where the owner residents may not have the financial means to line up other housing options for the length of time potentially required in the legislation as currently written. And so in these very narrow circumstances, we are hoping that this helps to create greater housing stability for folks in this specific situation. I really appreciate that there is a ongoing conversation that we have begun to address here today with the legislation in front of us through the other ordinances that we're continuing to pass today, and that there's a clear understanding that we need to make sure that our language around owner move ins is strengthened, that we make sure that there's penalties for people who are violating any of these narrow exemptions that we have written into statute. I noted earlier during council briefing, I am very interested in treble damages, making sure that renters are receive triple the amount of their rent that would otherwise be paid to in the form of rent had they stayed in the place. If there is any violation of the ordinance and also that we seek to enhance the enforcement statute by requiring a private right of action that includes any damages as well be paid to the renter. I think that many of these things are on the horizon for us to work on and they will apply broadly to the other tenant protection bills that we're considering today and just because language is already on the books. So I know that there's much more work to be done. And I am hoping that in. The case of this piece of legislation. Unfortunately, we were not able to include some of the stronger enforcement provisions that council members want and I had been working on due to the time limitations. But I am very committed to voting on this bill today. Did not want to hold it up. Greatly appreciate that it's in front of us today, know how urgently needed it is and an effort to move forward this narrow provision. I am asking for your support on amendment number two with the commitment, with the full throated commitment that we continue to make sure that there are stronger enforcement standards related to the department's ability to make sure that folks are adhering to our just cause language. I do want to thank Aaron House for the work that she has done with Councilmember Swann's office and a broad swath of stakeholders, including from the tenants, rights groups, labor organizations, housing rights groups as well. I think there is broad understanding that alone this is not enough that this moratorium, including language from this amendment, needs to be coupled with rental relief and repayment for small landlords. One memo that we received said that this more trans important. It's nice, but it doesn't stop it doesn't stop rent debt from accumulating rent relief and other forms of monetary support will definitely help and is much needed. And that colleagues who are providing assistance for Seattle Public School students with immediate health, safety and housing and educational needs show that rent and housing support is one of the highest requests where most of their money goes. So excited to pass this legislation. I'm hopeful that we can include this narrow addition here today, and we know that there's much more to do, both in terms of improving enforcement standards from the department and also making sure that we do more with rental assistance, which were teed up to do in the rental excuse me, which were teed up to do with the federal relief dollars. And we know we will continue to address in this fall's supplemental and budget process. So thank you very much for your consideration today. Thank you, Councilmember Mesquita, for the introduction of proposed amendment to. Are there any additional comments or questions about proposed amendments to. Councilmember Salam, please. Thank you, President Gonzales. And thank you, Councilwoman Mosquito. I really appreciate Councilmember Mosquito talking through this amendment with me in a very thorough manner. And I really appreciate the commitment to not holding up the vote because obviously, overall, I would say on renters rights, the city has a real work to do in terms of making sure that the laws we pass in favor of and protections are actually enforced. And so that's a larger conversation that I would really be interested in having and something that I've been most often and I've been discussing with renters and renters and rental activists over the years. But as I've informed Councilmember Mosquito, I'm not going to be supporting adding this loophole to the schoolchildren eviction ban that would allow landlords to evict children in the middle of the school year in order to move themselves or their family members into the property. I agree that this is a very likely only a very narrow issue. And I also agree that if it's applied in such a way that only small landlords who are facing this specific, difficult kind of situation, then it's then it's not that you cannot characterize it as a loophole, but the reason I would be concerned about it is twofold. One is that I don't think it is needed because with little foresight, with a little foresight, landlords should be able to arrange to move in over the summer so that they don't force a child to move during the school year, because it often also entails having to move schools in the middle of the school year . And that's the that's an onerous burden to put on a child. And so so in that sense, I probably this may not arise very often, but I would also be concerned that it may not be used by genuine landlords. And again, that brings up the overall question of enforcement and the concern that an unscrupulous landlord might, you know, use of also just saying that they intend to move into the unit and they have no and but that they are actually no intention of actually occupying and that after the fact, it's impossible for the renters or nearly impossible to figure it out and then follow up and and get reparations for it. And also, I think this amendment would allow any building on or not just small ones, to move themselves or their family members into the unit. So I still agree that it is probably not going to be very damaging, but at the same time, I would hesitate to be party to opening the door. And so that's why I would not support this amendment at this time. I really appreciate Councilmember Mosquito's interest in improving the enforcement in the future. And as I said before, my office has been eager to look into renters rights enforcement overall. So this is something that we would really be happy to follow up with you, Councilman, was get in any other council member who wants to look into this. And I also wanted to share with members of the public that I have discussed with the small landlord who is facing a specific situation, which sounds extremely problematic. It is an outlier situation, but nonetheless, it seems like a very troubling situation. But the landlord also themselves agreed that it is an outlier situation. And I also wanted to express publicly appreciation for this small landlord saying that they really support renters rights as a whole and that they had some specific concerns and that they would be willing to speak speak out in favor of renters rights as a whole, because as a small landlord, they they understand and appreciate the need for renters rights to be strengthened. So stop there. Thinking. Any other comments or questions on proposed amendment to. And looks like there are no other comments from other councilmembers. Their concern was getting you have the last word. If you could close out debate on proposed Amendment two, that'd be great. We can call it to a vote. Thank you very much. And I just wanted to thank council members want for her comments as well as we look forward to strengthening overall enforcement monitoring and and really compliance with legislation that's already on the books, I think that's important as we also look to expand the moratoriums that are in place because we want to make sure that folks are adhering to the existing laws and that as we allow for greater protections for tenants, that everybody knows both their rights and the responsibilities. So I look forward to that future conversation. Thank you, Councilmember Swan, for continuing to push, for broadening the enforcement elements of this, which I will be there with you to further those discussions. I really appreciate also that folks are acknowledging that this is a very narrow situation that we're talking about here in infrequent situation. But there have been a number of emails that we've received. There's a few stories. One example of a correspondence that we received was a family who has been living with other family, but they've since welcomed a new baby and has always intended to move back into the home that they've purchased and don't have the means to both pay for mortgage and take on additional debt or housing costs. And I want to reiterate that this is intending to try to find stability in the overall market, though we are very, very clear that the overall intent of this legislation is tremendously impactful, very strongly in support of the folks who have been advocating for this and the housing and tenant folks to see sell education. And Martin Luther King County Labor Council really appreciate the strong coalition that's supporting this legislation today. And so this very narrow amendment is, again, from our perspective, not a loophole. There's lots of a language that we already wrote that has already included this type of this type of allowance, which also includes the two other bills that we're talking about today, that look specifically at just cause reason for ending month to month agreements, which is included in Councilmember Silence and Morales right to refuse the legislation. That's also up for a vote this afternoon, which I'm very supportive of. And we're going to be working towards a greater, I think, broader swath of making sure that all of our enforcement mechanisms are properly in place so that if there is any of these situations in which a lease moves automatically to a month to month conversion, that the just cause ordinance and other protections are applied, apply it appropriately , and that we are strongly enforcing who is using any of these standards, because this is paramount that we get this right and we send a strong message to landlords that they are going to be watched if they are using any of these provisions. And overall housing stability is absolutely the goal of the legislation and the other narrow amendment in front of us. So with that, look forward to supporting the overall bill and bills in front of us today and think think very much councilmember support for your comments. All right. Thanks so much for closing out debate on proposed Amendment two. With that being said, will the court please call the roll on the adoption of the amendment? Once I. Lewis. Yes. MORALES Yes. Mosquito I. Peterson. Hi. Want? No. Council President Gonzalez high six in favor one of close. Emotion carries the amendment as adopted, and the amended bill is now before the Council. I am not aware of any other amendments being brought forward on this particular bill. So I am going to open it up for general comments again. Customers want you are the primary sponsor of this particular bill, so you'll get the last word to close out debate on the bill as amended. But before that, just want to see if any other council members have any comments that they'd like to make on the bill as amended. House member Peterson, please. Thank you, Council President colleagues, for those of you who are not on the Ranchers Rights Committee, I offered several amendments which I believe would make this legislation better. I wanted to offer those amendments, then debate those amendments, then that committee, rather than rehash them here. But I do want to explain my vote on this. I agree with the sponsor of the legislation that evictions present hardships for children and families. And no one wants to have this disruption that leads to learning, loss and instability for children. I voted in favor of numerous tenant protections during the past year, including the winter ban on evictions for low and moderate income residents. Free legal counsel for those in need and facing eviction and the payment plans for those negatively impacted by the COVID pandemic. Today, I supported the resolution to encourage another extension of the eviction moratorium to provide more time to have more rental assistance, money flow from the federal and state governments to both housing providers and tenants. Before joining the City Council, I helped to build and preserve tens of thousands of units of low income housing, and I worked at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, helping to allocate billions of dollars to address homelessness throughout the country. However, I believe a more targeted, direct and efficient solution is to fund tenant and landlord assistance for those in need, rather than adding another regulation that could be legally challenged because it leaves one party, the providers of the House, bearing the brunt of the cost regulating rather than funding the solution on a permanent basis is more likely to have a negative, substantial impact, not on so-called corporate landlords that can absorb these costs imposed by the council, but on the smallest landlords in our city. So for the three ordinances before us today, I had offered amendments that would have exempted small landlords owning four or fewer units in Seattle. Regarding this bill, 120046 this permanent bill that singles out educators or special rental protections. One of my amendments would have targeted the bill to assist teachers and substitute teachers and curriculum specialists, rather than every single employee at the school who might not be involved in the direct education of children. My amendment would still have kept the special new protection for the school children and their families. Another amendment would have made the bill more like the law from San Francisco, which limits the eviction protections to one. It is no fault of the tenant who is an educator. But my amendment would have been broader than San Francisco's because it would have still banned the evictions for school children and their families. Another amendment would have changed this permanent alteration of landlord tenant relations to an 18 month pilot program to determine whether it's effective or what its impact is. It's important for the general public to know that this bill is different from recent COVID relief bills because it would be permanent. I believe we should focus on getting targeted funding to those in need rather than permanently altering the contractual relationships. That puts the burden entirely on the housing provider. So to be consistent with my votes at committee, I'll be voting no on this council. Bill. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, are there any other colleagues who would like to make comments on this particular bill? I'm not seeing any other hands raised. So I did actually want to just add a little bit of context for the bill that we're about to be voting on. I want to signal that I am very supportive of this particular piece of legislation. And as a reminder, we have I have personally sponsored legislation, and we have all supported multiple pieces of legislation over the last year and beyond to provide additional rental assistance to people who who need it in this space. So, again, I think it's important to understand that in particular, some of these bills have identified funds, very much needed funds for to address the issues related to students experiencing homelessness. And of course, keeping students house has been something that I have personally championed additional resources for during the last three years. Now, for example, our families education preschool Promise Levy includes for the first time ever dedicated funding to the tune of $600,000 a year to address the experience of student homelessness. We've also provided funding for child care, for families experiencing homelessness, and we have added language. We added language the Jumpstart spending plan to require work with small landlords in addition to language focused on families with school age children. Our 2020 budget process ensured that there were additional dollars specifically designated for rental assistance to go to families with school age children of overall rental assistance for overall rental assistance resources. So my support of this bill is recognizing that there is a holistic way for us to continue to support the needs, the housing stability needs of our families and kids. And yes, more rental assistance is needed and yes, more dollars to allow for an invest in investment in the families. Housing stability is absolutely needed, but that isn't enough. We also have have an obligation as policymakers to fix regulations when regulations are part and parcel of one of the causes for why that housing instability begins and continues to pervade within our communities. So I'm excited to support this legislation and I look forward to future conversations with all of you who have expressed interest in identifying additional resources to support families experiencing housing instability. One of the things that my office has been following very closely is spending on the families, education, preschool and Promise Levy. And one of the things that we have begun to learn is that many of the dollars that we have identified to support specifically students experiencing homelessness, have not been able to be spent at the level that we expected, in large part because of at home learning. So there will be an opportunity for us to potentially work together as a council to reprioritize some of those dollars, to still meet the needs of students in our public school system, but be very nimble and quick with some flexibility as it relates to existing revenue resources. So I look forward to having those conversations with you all into making sure that we address those concerns. So I'm excited to vote on this bill. And with that being said, I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Su want to close out debate and then we can vote on this bill and move on to the other suite of bills. Thank you, President Dallas, and I appreciate your comments on this bill and your support of it. I just wanted to thank the committee members, council members Morales and Lewis for standing with renders in the committee and voting against the amendments that Councilmember Peterson brought forward because they are not in the interest of renters specifically. I wanted to note that one of the amendments which would have divided public school workers into, you know, well-paid employees, better paid employees who would have access to this eviction protection and others who would not. It was important that the committee rejected that amendment, among others, and it reflected the the ideas and the sentiment of many rank and file workers and union members who stand for solidarity among all public school workers. And I really appreciate the Seattle Education Association, among the many other unions representing workers in the public school district who have taken such positions in the past. For example, the Seattle Education Association having public actions in solidarity with the ongoing strike at the time of the Teamsters 174 public school bus drivers. And overall, I appreciate the organizing of the Seattle Education Association. I have spoken out again and again in defense of their students and fellow workers in public schools. Every day, educators see the devastating impact of housing insecurity on young people, and they are organizing. Actually, as he is organizing was crucial also for passing the cap on movement fees that my office developed in 2016 alongside the Washington Community Action Network. And their support for today's legislation is also greatly appreciated. Now, I wanted to especially thank the leadership of the Seattle Education Association, including Jennifer Matter and Judy Hawkins, the president, the vice president, and also all of whom who made time to meet with my office to discuss the legislation and also rank and file union activists from Seattle , like Bruce Jackson, who brought the resolution to the ACA representative assembly supporting this legislation, which passed overwhelmingly, and Matt Neely, who presented to our sustainability committee also as an ACM member. Now I also wanted to thank the Martin Luther King County Labor Council School Board Director Zachary DeWolf, who brought this legislation to our notice in the first place, El Centro de la Rosa Sound Alliance and Seattle Council, Parent Teacher, Student Association, Socialist Alternative and the organizations in the State House, Healthy Coalition, all of whom who have advocated for City Council to pass a strong bill protecting students and educators from school year evictions. And most of all, I want to thank all the rank and file renters, working people, union members and socialist advocates for this bill. Thank you. Thank you so much. Conversant for those closing remarks. All right. That does close out debate on this particular bill. So I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill. Whereas I. Lewis I. Morales Yes. Well, Sarah, I. Peterson No. Silent. Yes. Council. President Gonzales. I. Six in favor one of those. The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Right. Close. We're going to move to item four. Will the clerk please read item four into the record? Jan the item for Council Bill 120077 an ordinance relating to the termination of residential rental tenancies providing a defense to eviction for rent due during the city's COVID 19 civil emergency. And amending Section 22.20 6.160 of the Seattle Municipal Code.