AN ORDINANCE relating to termination of residential rental tenancies; prohibiting evictions in winter months; and amending Section 22.206.160 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
Agenda and one to be part of the Sustainability and Renters Rights. Committee accountable. 119 726. An Ordinance relating to. Termination of residents, residential rental tenancies prohibiting eviction in winter months and amending Section 22.20 6.1 60th respect. The committee recommends that the bill passes AMEND with Councilman Russell Morales and Lewis in favor with Councilmember Peterson with abstention. Thank you very much, Madam Clerk. Council colleagues, we have about six amendments that have been proposed to this bill. Council members want this as your bill. Would you like to open with a few comments before we take the amendments? Thank you so much. President Mosquito. Last November, the Seattle Renters Commission recommended that council take up this urgent issue. They pointed out that winter evictions are especially cruel and harmful. In 2018, the Seattle Women's Commission and the King County Bar Association jointly issued a study Losing Home the Human Cost of Eviction in Seattle. The study found that nearly 90% of people evicted become homeless, and that people of color were disproportionately, in fact, overwhelmingly were the ones who were evicted. And more specifically, black tenants experienced eviction at a rate 4.5 times what would be expected based on their demographics in Seattle. So it's specifically affecting the most marginalized in our society. Most Seattle tenants are evicted for not paying their rent in, you know, for being short on rent. And in most cases, the study found the evicted tenants owed one month or less in rent. In one case, the tenant was evicted for owing $10. And there was a Seattle Times article, I believe, which showed a tenant being a you know, she fought her eviction, but she was there was an eviction notice for being charged $3 on a rent. You can't make the step up. Eviction also can be a death sentence. The study reviewed 2017 evictions and found that six Seattle tenants died during or right after evictions. Four tenants committed suicide. One died of an accidental overdose a day after being evicted, and one tenant died during the eviction process while receiving hospice care. The study also found that at least nine people who died homeless on the street in 2017 had an eviction filed against them in the three preceding years. And this is happening to so many people. You know, I would urge everybody to read Dan Beckman's excellent article in the Seattle Times that was published over the weekend that shows over a thousand people were evicted in King County in this past year. The data are a brutal indictment of a private housing market that is dominated by corporate landlords who care more about profit than housing people. I recognize that there are good landlords out there, families who own a small number of rental units, or sometimes just one unit who care about their tenants, who make timely repairs, who don't try to get away with charging the highest possible rents, and who don't exploit their Dennis. But those landlords aren't why we are considering a moratorium on renter evictions tonight. They are not the problem. The Renters Commission pointed out in their letter last fall, and I want to just quote from the letter. During winter in Seattle, temperatures regularly fall into the thirties overnight. And according to all home King County's count, does it count? As in a report for 2019, 41% of homeless neighbors sleep outside every night with an additional 19% sleeping in vehicles. Neither of these situations provide much protection from the elements, and both can be deadly. And they have more statistics on how being outside and unsheltered in the winter is a contributor to that. Obviously, you can't fully isolate what the immediate causes of that work. So I really thank the members of the Seattle Renters Commission for demonstrating leadership on this issue and also wanted to point out. One of the members of the Renters Commission, Devon Southern Neil, is now a staff member at NAMI Council Member Darin Morales's office. I wanted to commend his work and work of Seattle as well. I also want to thank Ali Banerjee from City Council Central Staff and also the City Attorney's Office for fully engaging and developing on this issue and developing the work that we need it. And a city attorney's office for developing the precedent setting legislation. Just to give a timeline of where we came here. The bill was recommended by the Renters Commission in early November and December. My office introduced the first draft. We discussed it thoroughly and the Sustainability and Renters Rights Committee on January 23rd. And there the the bill that got voted out of committee was an amended version of the previous version, which took into account many concerns that we had heard in a very thorough manner. And and it was supposed to be voted on February 3rd, but the vote was delayed by the council holding it today. So I hope we are able to vote today. Just one point I wanted to make in general on the amendment and on the specific amendments, I'll speak when they are moved. I am very disappointed to see that many of the amendments that councilmembers are bringing forward will actually, if passed, if these amendments passed, will make it more difficult and more restrictive for renters to be protected by this winter eviction ban. The exception is Councilmember Lewis's amendment, which I support and was already ready last week. And I and I wanted to point out that it is shocking to see how elected officials demand and less data and justification for even the smallest measure to benefit for our working class people. But really that our programs are pushed forward, policies that are pushed forward with no data at all. And in fact, like the sweeps of homeless people, unless data to show that they don't work. And yet the city continues to spend $8 million every year on that. So I you know, I welcome the support of my colleagues on the bill as a whole. But I'm disappointed that the amendments that are coming forward are, I don't think will help other people who are facing evictions. But I'll wait for the amendments. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Swan, as sponsor of the bill, we appreciate you moving this forward. I also want to underscore my appreciation for the council colleagues, ongoing conversations with your office and central staff to come up with various amendments, though, because I think it is important that the bill move forward. This is a really good vehicle for us to build upon. So if amendments do hang, I think that there is always work to do as with any piece of legislation. But I just want to commend you for bringing this forward and our council colleagues who've I think finessed some ways to make sure that this is going to be implementable, meaningful and always the first step to continue to get worked on. I would also like to say for folks in the press, I know if you're used to going to the halls of the state capitol, they have a press table there. We haven't had that as a common practice here, but you're welcome to use the table here if you need to. Here's your laptop or if you need to come behind the diocese. You're welcome to do that, too. So for the security folks here, if there's any press that need a place for their laptop, they're welcome to have that. We now have six amendments and we'll take them in the order as they appear on the agenda. And amendment number one, council members. Would you like to speak to this amendment? Yes, I, i of course. I guess I should move amendment one. I'm sorry. No, no. Can I double check? Do I need to move the bill or are we good? Okay, great. Great. Go ahead and move it and I'll second it. I move Amendment. One, I second it. Thank you. This amendment is a technical amendment. It does not make any substantive changes. It adds a just cause to permissible evictions that is identical to one already included in this legislation that regards a time when a landlord is legally required to evict someone and is responsible for relocation assistant and this assistance and this amendment adds a clarifying whereas clause and provides clarifying language of the moratorium on window evictions is a defense and eviction court. This was already the case, but the language just makes it more clear. Are there any other questions or comments on amendment number one as outlined by Councilmember Swanson? Since none I it has been moved and seconded that the bill be amended with amendment number one seeing no additional comments. All those in favor of Amendment one vote I and raise your hand I any opposed? None. Madam Clerk, it appears that there are seven votes in favor of Amendment One. It will be included in the underlying bill. The Second Amendment is from Councilmember Lewis. Councilmember Lewis, would you like to move your amendment? Yes, I do. So move my amendment. Second, Councilmember Lewis, would you like to speak to your amendment? Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. So when we discussed this ordinance in committee, one of my takeaways from it, or one of the most salient criticisms I think of the ordinance, was that there wasn't a mechanism put in. Place to compensate landlords in the event that there was an economic eviction, that that potentially put especially small landlords in a position where they would have to face their own hardship, especially households that are dependent on their income that they make as a landlord. A lot of the comments we heard at public comment today address that very same concern of a lot of landlords in our community where their primary source of income is renting a small number of units. So under this amendment, we would establish a a mitigation fund. It would only be accessible to folks who establish this defense. And I think it is important that when we talk about this moratorium, we're really talking about a defense and an eviction proceeding as the way it's applied in the case that a tenant facing eviction is able to establish this defense. This would then exist as a fund that could be accessed by the tenant in order to pay rent or access additional rental assistance. So it would not. The reason I raise that is this is not a fund that would take from existing rental support funds. This the vision of this is that we would fund, hopefully, in this fall's budget, an additional rental support fund that would apply in the event that a tenant was not able to receive assistance through existing funds. I did have central staff come up with some initial ballpark estimates on how much a fund like this prospectively would cost . The cost varies depending. The cost estimate varies depending on how many months. This legislation today ultimately will cover in the event of five months, it would be $1.6 million. In the event of three months, it would be about half a million dollars in financial assistance. This estimate is based on the current number of evictions for the from the Losing Home report in 2017, based on an estimate for the winter period that evictions minus the number of people who received home based assistance. And then that comes up with a number of an estimated about 169 folks in a given winter that could potentially face eviction in in the winter months. So I think it's a doable number to fund a mitigation fund like this. I think it gets at the core concerns of a lot of the landlords, particularly small landlords, who are in a position where they feel like this eviction moratorium would cause them severe hardship, a hardship in being able to provide in the event that someone is in a position where they can't pay their rent. We do know that it's all too common in this country right now where a overwhelming number of Americans are within complete homelessness or bankruptcy for an unanticipated $500 expense. And so a fund like this can provide much needed assistance. And I hope to revisit this in the fall when we are looking at budget priorities. And for the time being, I would ask that we move this amendment and incorporate it into the ordinance. Thank you, Councilmember Lewis. Any additional comments or questions? Comments? Cosmopolitan then. Councilmember one. Thank you. President Mosquito. I support this amendment which, as Councilmember Lewis said, sets up the framework for a mitigation fund to help tenants facing eviction pay, overdue rent and avoid the eviction altogether. And as noted, there are already some funds, most notably the home based program that is operated by the Housing Justice Project and the United Way . And I support increasing funding to those programs. I just wanted to point out how much the mayor's office has opposed this legislation. And in addition to the previous letters that they have sent and memos they've sent, they just a few minutes before this meeting started, they sent us another letter opposing this legislation. And and one of the things that they've attempted to do is to counter oppose the window evictions, moratorium against mitigation funding and other rental assistance. I just wanted to clarify that they're both necessary and they both work together, work well together. And so it's good to have this amendment. And just to echo what was just said. This amendment creates the framework for mitigation funding. But to make those funds a reality, we will need to push for resources in the budget in November. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. I just have a question about the mitigation fund and how it it interacts with the effective date of this legislation. As I understand it, this legislation as currently drafted, the effective date would be about ten days before April. And because I am I am truly concerned about the impact of this legislation on small landlords. I'm wondering, is there concerns that. The mitigation, either this mitigation fund or the the capacity of current rental assistance funds will be able to meet the need for those those ten days before this goes into effect. Do we have information about that? So thank. You. Councilmember Herbold, my understanding from talking to central staff and and executive departments is that we will not be in a position this winter to offer resources through this fund, that this fund we're really this is really a forward looking resource to next winter. So when when this whatever window we decide on, we are considering an amendment later to determine what the window would be. There wouldn't be resources on this until we go through another budget cycle. Councilmember Swan Homebase currently has funds though. I mean, this is additional. Right. Right. But this particular fund I was saying. But but that's not. Because there aren't existing. Just in response to the concern that was raised, I'm saying. It's my understanding that as it relates to how this this legislation would be implemented, the home funds, the ability to access those funds is is very different because of the timing of of how this how a tenant would assert a defense under just cause. And it's my understanding that they would not be eligible for the home based funds. But I might be wrong. Just shake your head or nod your head. They are eligible. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Seeing any additional comments or questions? Seeing none. I also want to underscore my support for this. Thank you, Councilmember Lewis, for working with our office as well on this amendment. Given the existing tenant support models such as Home Base Fund and we know that they have a proven track record of being successful, improving fund and providing funding for tenants to avoid eviction. I think this makes a lot of sense. And in cases where tenants may not qualify for the support, this amendment creates the fund to meet those needs. So it's, I think, a common sense amendment and really was echoed, I think, by the testimony today. And it also came from some of the calls that we've received in our office. And I appreciate you advancing this. The intent is to create this really as an upstream tool to support tenants and avoid evictions in the first place and to address any concern about impacts to the affordable housing providers, many of which are non-profits, which somebody else testified on earlier today. So I'll also be supporting this amendment with that. All of those in favor of amendment to please note I and raise your hand. I i any the opposition and the oppose none. Wonderful. The amendment passes with seven votes and will be included in the underlying bill. Amendment three. Councilmember Peterson, would you like to speak to this amendment? Thank you. Thanks, everyone, for coming out today and the people who were watching at home. I appreciate the desire to address this troubling situation with evictions, and I'm happy the state legislature has made progress on this issue. The city council passed. City councils have made progress on this issue. I appreciate hearing from one of the tenants who was evicted in the winter, Alicia, who had the courage to come and speak to Councilmember Silence Committee. I've received many calls and we've received many emails on this legislation, and I've considered the various viewpoints and perspectives. And I'm. This amendment is to exempt small landlords, those who own four or fewer units. We've heard a lot from small landlords since the legislation was introduced, both phone and email. They they were not invited to our committee table, which was disappointing, I think when we're advancing a piece of legislation that's ever been tried before. I think it's valuable to hear from all the stakeholders. We we would learn things from that. And that's the amendment I think is important to exempt them because they do face economic hardships as well in terms of being able to provide those units to the housing market. They do have a mortgage. They do have utility bills, insurance, property taxes. And five months is a long time if they were not able to collect those. So I would encourage my colleagues to consider this this amendment. I think that it's important that we recognize the we well, we'll be able to talk more to the legislation again as a whole, but happy to answer questions about this amendment. Thank you. Councilmember Peterson. Any comments or questions on the amendment? Okay. And would you like to move the amendment? Yes, I'd like to move. The amendment back in has been moved on second. And are there any additional comments councilmembers want? This is unfortunately an example. Of. A politician proposing a policy to benefit those who already have more than most at the expense of poor and working class people with really no data or evidence to support it. Now I want to talk about the amendment and explain why I oppose it. But just very quickly, because a comment was made on the structure of the committee table. This is a committee chair. I chaired the Sustainability and Renters Rights Committee, and Councilmember Peterson is claiming that small landlords were not invited to the table. First of all, just to be clear. Most of the small landlords we've spoken to, including the ones who oppose this legislation, say they've never evicted any of their tenants. So there's a whole bunch of what if kind of fears that they have, which are understandable, on the other hand, but also on the other hand, are not the basis for policymaking. In my view. What ifs are not the basis for policymaking. Hard core data, which are so overwhelmingly showing that the most vulnerable are the ones being damaged by not having strong laws against eviction. That's the basis for policymaking. And the the people we had at the table were the tenants union of Washington State and the most impacted, including Alicia, who you quoted, who was evicted in the winter and her as a consequence of the eviction. Her. Her life took a dramatically devastating turn where she lost family members. So I don't apologize for the structure of the committee table. I'm proud that it is one of the committee tables where people who never have an opening in city hall are invited. And we will continue to do that. We have we have hard data of thousands of people who are being evicted. And, as I said, a totally hypothetical specter of an imaginary landlord who only owns four rental homes and is on the verge of winter bankruptcy. I just it's hard for me to fathom that if you own four units, how are you on the verge of bankruptcy? I don't understand. I mean, you know, really, I mean, it's possible, but really, what are the statistics there? My office met with small landlords. It's not like we haven't met with them who testified about their concerns about this legislation in the committee meeting. And as I said, none of them had ever evicted their tenants. We were unable to come to agree on the policy, but I do appreciate their time and willingness to discuss it. But the point remains, the small landlord that this amendment is intended to help is entirely hypothetical. But the tenants whose lives are being destroyed and for whom this amendment would not help. That's very real. Those tenants are very real. The biggest problem, though, with this amendment is the impact it would have on the renters who are unfortunately renting with the worst slumlords in our city. Slumlords overwhelmingly divide up their rental properties into different LLC used to hide their common ownership. So while this amendment technically says that different LLC is owned by the same person would still count as a large landlord, the practical reality is that it's almost impossible for renters to know what other properties their landlord owns. Do any of you who are renters know what other properties your landlord owns and do you have the resources to go and find out? I'll tell you something. My office, with all the resources we have from being in City Hall, we attempted to track down all the properties owned by some of those large slumlords who are we know are abusing their tenants and found that it is extremely hard and actually impossible to do it without completely devoting your resources. We simply don't have access to that information. So if we don't have access to that information, how is it that renters facing eviction, who are the most marginalized anyway? How their world being turned upside down? How are they supposed to find out all this information? How are they going to know if they're protected by this moratorium or not? In fact, many tenants facing eviction, totally despondent about their power to prevent the eviction, don't even come to eviction court. The attorneys who help those renters in the court will tell you that they end up helping a fraction of the renters because most renters don't come to court. So in reality, this amendment will end up meaning whether it's intended as such or not, that they absolutely were slumlords in Seattle who were actually evicting people would effectively be exempted from the legislation in the name of protecting good small landlords, and therefore I will not support this amendment. Any other comments or questions? Additional comments or questions. Okay. So, colleagues, I appreciate this and thank you for calling out the intent or versus not intent, because the last council meeting we talked about in wanting to make sure we didn't impugn the motives of anyone. Appreciate that distinction. I see you reach for the microphone because I remember. I was just going to say that I really appreciate the the intent of this amendment. I just don't see how it can be implemented, given that it is it is a virtual unknown which landlords own fewer than than four units. So I appreciate the attempt to exempt small landlords. And regretful that we don't have more time to work. Out that that part of the policy. Thank you, Councilmember. Any additional comments? Okay. So then I'm going to go Ken Crawford, but unless you'd like to. Address the concerns. So. Are you? Is there a concern that the landlords might register under a limited liability company or a limited partnership because that data is available from the Washington Secretary of state? Are you really saying that the most vulnerable tenants are going to go into a Washington Secretary of State website and look at. The let's not debate up here, but if there is a question, do you have a response to that, where the data is specific to that question? Okay. Look at me or both of you. Okay. No problem. I already said that my office tried to compile such data. It is virtually impossible to do it with all the resources we have. I don't know what more evidence you need to show that. For the most vulnerable tenant, this is this is basically an impossible task you're putting on them. Okay. Any additional comments? Councilmember Morales. Well, I will just say that the. Work that. We did shows that the of the. Buildings that are registered. To almost 29,000. Buildings. Are registered with four units or. Less. Which means that this would exclude. 87% of the renters in the city. So I do think that that's that's a significant impact on what this legislation is trying to achieve. So, you know, and we know. We've heard most of our small landlords. Do try to work with. Tenants to prevent eviction. Do offer. Some kind of assistance. Or extension. We now have a mitigation fund that has been put in. Place to try to make sure that landlords are not affected. By this. But as we've said, those landlords aren't the problem. The problem are the landlords who do take things too far and are willing to push people out. So I think that it's. Important that we consider the scope. Or the, you know, how this particular amendment would really limit the scope of what we're trying to do here. So this is not something that I could in good conscience support. Councilmember, I appreciate you bringing this forward. I, too, have heard some concerns. Initially, I was intending to support this amendment because similar to sort of the argument that was made around some of our labor standards, we never really expect our employers to know how many franchises they have. And so that argument was sort of used in a similar way, but different here. And we continue to pass labor standards, given the statistic that Councilmember Morales just shared. I'm sorry, I didn't have a chance to check in with you before that. I unfortunately will be voting no on this. But I appreciate where you're coming from with this. And if I'm happy to keep working with you as we think about future amendments, if that sounds good to you and future legislation. We have central staff available to answer you. No central staff is available to answer questions. Ideally, this couldn't be done in the committee, but what we could do is hold this amendment if that works and we could come back and have central staff answer some questions. Well, I as a sponsor of the bill, I would prefer that the bill is voted on today, because. I'm not mentioning holding it off today. I'm just mentioning it till the end of our amendments, and then we can come back to it and have that question answered. Okay. I see. Central staff. Come on in. Welcome, Ali. And Ali, if you don't mind introducing yourself for the record. Welcome. Good afternoon. Council members. I was running down the hall, so I may have missed the question. So thank you. Thank you, Ali. So I appreciate that. It's helpful to have these statistics. I just wanted to understand, when a committee I thought I thought you had mentioned a number in the range of 200,000 or so rental units. Just trying to get the scope of those that are four and under. Or do we have those? If we don't have those readily available, that's fine too. So it is a somewhat of I think we're not necessarily comparing apples and apples here. The rental registration inspection ordinance, I'm not sure if the numbers you were quoting, Councilman Morales, is the type of structure. So if it's a unit, we have units that are in detached buildings, units that are duplexes, triplexes complexes and units that are in multi-family buildings, not necessarily all owned by the same people. So what your amendment would do would exclude units that are owned by a landlord who owns more than excuse me, like the only owns four units or less. Those could all be in one unit, so the four plex could be excluded if the same owner all owned all four. But it could be four units spread across four single family homes, four multifamily buildings where they own condos or that sort of thing. So it's hard to know exactly the universe of units we're talking about exempting here. Yeah, and I'll just clarify that. What I was referring to is data offered by SDI. That we have, that this would exclude 28,882 of. 33,000 buildings that are registered through that ordinance. Units of four or more councilmembers. Yeah, and it's not clear because of owner who owns them, it's hard to know if some of those units in smaller buildings are owned by LLC that own 25 units. I'm just not I haven't seen the data you're referring to to know if I can sort that out. But essentially I don't I don't think I don't know that we're comparing apples and apples here. That's okay. Thank you for that answer. Councilmember White, did you have one more thing? Yeah. I just wanted to say that. Yeah, I was thinking exactly what Ali was saying in terms of the accuracy of the numbers. But I think having that having clarified that, it doesn't change the fact that it is an almost impossible obstacle to overcome for tonnage to know the exact detail of whether their landlord is going to fit this category or not. In in a way, this is kind of a means testing in a sense that, you know, it's sort of it's putting the burden is the same in the sense that it's putting the burden on the of the detrimentally affected party to figure out whether they are eligible for this protection or not. It is best to just make the protection available across the board. And I'll tell you something, the experience of not just tenants, but also small business owners with whom we've been talking a lot, who are also facing rent gouging from their landlords, is that sometimes when they are even and this is, I'm quoting, a small business owner , they were being gouged by a landlord in Columbia City, and they started looking for spaces all around the city. And they found that so many of the properties are actually effectively owned by the same exploitative landlord, and they're all spread out. So I don't know how we can put this burden on on tenants and the most vulnerable tenants. And really there's a racial component to this also because black families and black children are the most impacted. Any other comments or questions? Okay, Council colleagues. I think that we have heard a number of concerns about this. I am interested in getting the actual data. I'm sorry that that was sprung on you, Ali. And we appreciate you running down the hall. I think that there is a rational argument for excluding small landlords, and I wish that I had that that actual number in front of us. I also think that there's a reason that we have excluded small businesses in the past when it came to some of the labor standards, and we didn't make that distinction for workers. So today I'm going to support Councilmember Peterson in looking at the smaller businesses, and we'll see how it goes and continue to advance the conversation today. So all of those in favor of including Councilmember Peterson's amendment, please say I and raise your hand. I opposed. No, no. Okay. So it's 4 to 3. Okay. And we can continue with the amendments. Councilmember just in terms of process, I'm not sure what you mean by continue with the amendment. You already voted for the amendment. What what does that actually mean? And there's three. More amendments to come. No, no, I mean, on that amendment, you said that you. We will continue the conversation on that. What the continue the conversation about the amendments to. The rest of. The year having voted on the prevailing side. There is the chance before the end of today to go back and take a look at that. I'm not sure, Ali, if that did exist. You're looking at me like a dozen, but I do. I would be concerned if it was 80 something percent and if there was a chance for us to go through this and come back. I'm happy to do that. But I would like for us to take a quick second if you have any feedback on that before we move the committee. Before we move the amendment forward. I can I can I can try to see if I can get SDI on the phone to understand that data more precisely. But I think because the way this amendment is drafted, it includes if you are the owner or you have an ownership interest in in any unit. And so I don't know that we would be able to tell by looking at the rental registration and inspection ordinance data who has an ownership interest in all of the fees that are included. And so so it is difficult. So essentially, just like the way the ordinance itself, the main the main purpose of the ordinance presents provides a defense eviction proceedings. It would a landlord would have to claim that they own less than four or less than five units, fewer than five units, and that therefore this defense shouldn't apply in that situation. And then if they were lying, they would be lying in front of a court. I mean, I'm not obviously this is an oversimplification of how these court proceedings would work, but I don't know that I will be able to in the next 10 minutes. What I can instead offer is that, as was mentioned previously, this bill will go into effect, assuming it is signed within ten days by the mayor and goes into effect 30 days after, that will really only be relevant for a short period of time. So what I can do is work on trying to figure out what data we have and is available and if necessary. The Council could revisit this prior to next November or whenever the period starts, because I just I don't know if I'm going to be able to give you a satisfying answer in the next however long this meeting last. Okay. Yeah. Council President Pro Tem Council President Parker. I said, Madam Chair, to the question about this item being included in the bill, let's go through the other amendments and let me see what we can get from as DCI. And then having voted on the prevailing side, there may be a chance for us to come back to this. Okay. So moving forward, I'd like to ask Councilmember Herbold, it looks like you have an amendment. Amendment number four. Would you like to move your amendment? I would like to move amendment forward, please. Thank you. Councilmember, could you please speak to your amendment? Did I have a second? Thank you. Perfect. So this is amending a previous language that was added to the bill. Currently, a reason for termination that is exempt from the bill includes unlawful behavior, and this amendment would expand unlawful behavior to a particular type of lease violation that specifically impacts the health or safety of other tenants or the owner. This has been brought forward because of concerns from folks who operate nonprofit housing, specifically through conversations I've had with the Associate Director of the Archdiocesan Housing Authority through six Catholic Community Services. And again, it's a it's a very narrow exemption, not for any rule violation, but specifically rule violations that have a negative impact on the health or safety of other tenants or the owner. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Are there any other comments or questions? Council members. Well, this is still procedural, right? This is just amendment. I'm sorry. This is on the amendment number four. And if you have questions for her amendment specifically. Oh, no, but I would like to speak in favor of it. Okay. Please go ahead, Councilman Lewis. Yeah. So, you know, I think that this amendment and I appreciate Councilmember Herbold bringing it forward also goes a long way to strengthening our case in the event that we do have a legal challenge related to this ordinance. I think anything that we can incorporate into it that gives more flexibility is more cognizant of existing rules. And existing things that make this look more reasonable in court does bode well for the legislation as a whole and having it survive that challenge. I think this is a very reasonable addition to make sure that that we're not putting landlords in a position where there is some ongoing activity affecting the health and safety of the building, but they are unable to, for a period of several months, enforce an eviction. So I do support this amendment and hope to see it pass. Thank you. Councilmember Lewis, any additional comments or questions? Councilmember Morales. Yeah. So I. Just want to make sure I understand my my concern with this is that these kinds of notices. Can be used for retaliation, for retaliatory purposes, for discrimination. And there is. Already. You know, with the just cause. Laws that we've had, there's there's already a concern that these kinds of leases, these kinds of tools are being used against tenants. And I keep coming back to the fact that the folks who are here. Have said themselves like this. Mostly doesn't. Apply because you try to work with your tenants. And small landlords are really trying hard to make sure that their tenants are able to stay and work out the situation that you have. So, you know, I question how well we could. Enforce something that's this broad. And I feel like the legislation that we have already includes criminal activity as a reason that folks can definitely be evicted. So I'm I'm I'm concerned about this amendment and I don't think I will be supporting it. Thank you, Councilmember. Well, it's Councilmember Silent and then Councilmember Herb, or do you want to respond? Yes. Thank you. I want to just highlight that this language establishes what the legal bar is. It's specifically an imminent threat to the health or safety of other tenants in the rental belt and substantial detrimental impact. So this would be something that would have to be proven in court in order to be held up against a tenant's attempt to use the moratorium. And so a landlord would actually have to demonstrate that it's both a substantial threat and that the danger is imminent. And again, this is this is these aren't just random words. They're words that are established in case law. And that, I think, bound really well the expectations we have for protecting the safety of other tenants. And again, I just want to say that this request has come. From a. Provider of low income housing, one of our nonprofit partners. This specific request for this language, and it does not in any way expand or extend the existing just cause eviction language. Councilmember one. Thank you, President Mosquito. I also appreciate the intent of this amendment, but I have similar concerns as to what Councilmember Morales expressed in committee. We amended the legislation to make an exception, as you were saying, go to the mimosa exception for criminal activity. If neighbors or building owners are being put in danger, if someone is cooking meth in their apartment or shooting guns. I mean, you know, obviously something that we would all agree is extremely dangerous. And there is an exception already in the legislation. And it is written in a way that is relatively objective, citing what counts as criminal. I understand that the phrase substantial, substantial detrimental impact may have caselaw background, but I still don't I still don't think that it really is necessary in terms of the fact that we have already put in protections in place to make sure that if there is any such imminent danger that it will be covered already and that the eviction will go through, a landlord who wants to evict the tenant will use whatever tool is available to them. But the problem is that, again, the tenants who are supposed to respond to an eviction order. Oh, how others want to how are they? Are they supposed to respond to claims that the tenant is having a substantial detrimental impact by attracting vermin with unclean habits or by hanging out with bad people? And these are what I'm using these words not as hyperbole, because this is what some tenants, you know, be here, tenants being evicted because they're accused that they attracted vermin and they're not they have no way to prove that they didn't or hanging out with bad people. How do you you know, how do you decide that and all? And, you know, in a fair world that could be arbitrated in eviction court, but overwhelmingly election court rules in a tenant absence or if the tenant is there, then it's still a extreme power imbalance. And I feel like this is does not express the just cause that we have modeled this after. So and I'll be voting no on this amendment. Thank you, Councilmember. Any additional comments or questions on amendment number four from Councilmember Herbal? None. All of those in favor of voting to include amendment number four. Please raise your hand and vote I. I opposed. No, no, no. Okay. The amendment will be included. And amendment number five. Councilmember Strauss. Would you like to speak to your amendment and move it? Yes. Thank you. Council President Pro Tem. My amendment number five narrows the no eviction period. And I would like to move this amendment at this time. Second. Would you speak to it? Yes. Thank you very much. This amendment would reduce the period in which eviction defense applies to three month period of December through February. These are the three months that when temperatures are the coldest. And I believe that the three months is a more feasible length of time for this defense to apply because, again, as we've heard, this bill will not prevent evictions from occurring. It will it is more so used as a defense for the eviction, as we've heard from the many small landlords who have come to testify and who have called, they are not the ones that are oftentimes most often evicting people, because the small landlords that I've had are always very willing to pick up the phone, have a conversation and work with me. So again, this three month window is more feasible time for the eviction defense to apply rather than for half the year. And this three month period also aligns with the recent changes in state law that allows a judge the discretion to require a 90 day payment plan before an eviction is issued. And so that for those reasons and that December through February through March, is are the coldest months of the year. And this is a winter evictions Bill. And those are the winter months of the year. That's why I moved this amendment. Thank you, Councilmember Strauss. Any additional comments or questions? Cosmo, so on. So this this bill would reduce the number of months of eviction moratorium from five months to three months. And right now, keeping in mind, there's no winter eviction protection at all. So if all that we're able to do is ban winter evictions for the three holders and by those months of the year, that would still be a huge victory and tenants rights. However, we worked with central staff. My office worked with central staff to look at average monthly rainfall and average monthly cold temperatures. And the data shows, again, you know, for a council that says that they want to be data driven, the data shows that the cold and wet months stretch from November to March. And also, if you're living in Seattle, do you really need data to tell you that the cold and wet months to march? I also would like to point out that, Alisha, weren't you evicted on Halloween or just after Halloween? So, you know, so if we reduce this to three months, Alicia and people like her were evicted in early November, one would not be covered by this. So I'm not sure what the logic is. If we're going to do it, why don't we do it right and cover it for the whole winter? There's no logic behind it other than pandering to landlords, the landlord lobby. And so I, I really think at the end of the day it comes down to, as you've seen through all the amendments going down, comes down to who politicians think they they need to support, they need to stand for the most vulnerable are the people who have everything and all the powers. I will be voting no on this amendment. Any additional comments? Councilmember Lewis. So I intend to vote for shortening the window to three months for a couple of reasons. One of the reasons that I mean, speaking for the same reasons that I spoke to Amendment four, the more narrowly tailored that the legislation is, the more likely it is to survive a court challenge. I like that the three month period is lined up to the 90 day mitigation period that was authorized last session under state law. I think that that's a good argument in favor of retaining this in the case of a preemption or takings challenge in state court. I think that it's also important to note that after a year of seeing how a 90 day moratorium operates and how administrative it is, we can entertain extending it to five months. I think that that would be a natural evolution of this policy. And for those reasons, I'm going to vote in favor of the amendment. Thank you, Councilmember Lewis. Any additional comments? Any additional comments? Thing, then all of those in favor of including Councilmember Strauss's amendment. Please raise your hand and vote I on Amendment five. I opposed no. Okay. The amendment does hang. Council Member Strauss, you have one additional amendment. He's made. That threat. Thank you. Council President Pro Tem. I think with the number of amendments in the substantive nature of each amendment, it demonstrates the need for further work to have occurred in committee. And so I raised that for the table today. Amendment number six I would like to move which moderate limits this eviction winter eviction prohibition to moderate income households. It's been moved in second and. Councilmember Strauss, would you like to comment on your amendment in more detail? Yes, thank you. As a renter, I have a very solid understanding of what making rent looks like every month and what transitioning between units looks like and in what the economics are. My amendment number six will allow the eviction defense to be used by only moderate income households as defined by 100% of the area median income or less 100% area median income is $76,000 for an individual or $108,600 for a family of four. Data on rent burdened households supports this 100% area. Median income threshold. Nearly half 49.1% of households at 50 to 80% AMI are rent burdened. 28.5% of households at 80 to 100% area median income are rent burdened. Only 4.8% of households over 100% area median income are rent burdened. And so this amendment would ensure that households making more than 100% area median income. Well, this amendment doesn't make sure. It is just clear that 100 households making more than 100% area median income are also the least likely to become homeless as a result of an eviction. I think that it is very important to provide protections for tenants who are not at the highest levels of our economic spectrum. And I want to ensure that this bill will not protect people who have the money without the who are high earning, but have not followed up on their their due diligence. Thank you, Councilmember Strauss. Additional comments or questions from the council colleagues. Yeah. Customers want please. Thank you. I first of all, just on the comment about the readiness of this legislation, I don't agree that the amendments, the slew of amendments demonstrates further work. What it demonstrates is the corporate landlord lobby still has a lot of pull on the council and demonstrates the need to build even more powerful movements. That's what it demonstrates. This is another amendment that will make it far more difficult for renters who need these protections the most to actually use them. The reality I mean, this amendment says that, you know, the rent household is a moderate income household as defined and so on. But the reality is that the renters who are being evicted are very, very low income people as just a quote, the tenants union who are coming to table. They said, as they correctly said, the evictions, the, you know, eviction itself is a means tested process because it's I mean, poor it's poor people who are getting impacted. It's not, in my opinion, go look at the data again if you want to be data driven. Find me another 130,000 earning salary, you know, salary earning person who is evicted, which is what council members make. You know, you make about $230,000. I take home only $40,000, but that's the reality. How many people who make on rent $30,000 are being evicted? It's just it's just it doesn't exist. This, again, this is all imaginary things that are pulled out of the hat and said, Oh, we need to make sure that this doesn't happen. That is not some great wave of well-off people being evicted. It just doesn't happen. And if it did and the court would order the rich person to make up all the unpaid rent for those winter months, you know, that would be a fact. So if this amendment doesn't practically exclude rich renters who are already or well-off renters who are already excluded by their ability to pay rent, then I'm not sure what it actually does. And here's what it actually does. It will what it will do. And this is what means testing does in general. This is not the first means testing example. What means testing really does is it forces poor and working class people to jump through additional hoops to access a protection that was meant for them. Without this amendment, a judge could use this moratorium to avoid the election of someone who failed to show up in court. Like so many desperate people who don't show up in court because they don't think the system is going to work because it doesn't work for them. So even in their apps, if this if this moratorium is a strong one, then even in the absence of tenants, a tenant could be protected from eviction. Imagine how much it would improve people's lives rather than sending them into a downward spiral. With this amendment, how would a judge determine eligibility in a renter's absence? It would be impossible. Means tests like this are well documented to severely limit the number of low income people who take a nap, taking advantage of services that are Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. You know, there's tons of data to show that people don't end up you know, the the pool of people who are eligible is far bigger than the pool of people who actually take advantage of it. These are again, these are also established factors. And this is not my opinion. And in fact, we locally there was an example when I first took office in 2014, we found out that a utility discount program for the Seattle City Light, which is supposed to give you subsidized rates for your electricity. That program has existed for years. But when we came, when we took office, it was very sparsely used. It was only 18% of eligible people were using it. Why? Because it was an opt in program, meaning you had to show proof that you were eligible for it. We pushed the mayor's office at that time and Murray to make it an opt out program with the help of a wonderful staff like Ali and right at City Light. And from the time we made it opt out, you know, the the rate of people actually enrolling in being enrolled in the program automatically because they're already poor has gone up tremendously. To quote L.A. Times business columnist, not a socialist business columnist, Michael Hiltzik Hiltzik. The word means testing, quote, can allow officials to pry into the most private aspects of applicant lives. The process tends to discourage applications, thus serving the goal of making the programs less useful for beneficiaries and quote, again, very systematic. I know Councilmember Chavez presented a proclamation last week which I supported to designate February 7th to be International Class Day. I cannot help but quote from the Clash song Know Your Rights, which says You have the right to food money, providing of course you don't mind a little investigation. Humiliation. This is. This. It's a reality. People, also people. And because of means testing, people who are eligible end up not using the program not only because they don't have the paperwork or they're, you know, they're despondent, but also because they feel humiliated. If they are automatically enrolled in the program, then it's not a question of self-respect. It's a question of your right. And so for that reason, I will oppose this amendment. Think. Thank you, Councilmember Swan, Councilmember Strauss and then Councilmember her. And thank you for your comments. Councilmember Swan I will also quote from Know Your Rights. Oh, here we go, guys. Look at that. Which is that you have the right to free speech as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try and use it. And so I think that using free speech, it's a it is. Go ahead. Ironic, right? I absolutely understand that and appreciate everyone's coming to council today to use their right to free speech. And so I also my point of returning this comment is just to say that this is also not an asset means test. It is just simply income. And I took that comment to be self reflecting, not on any other councilmember. That's the way I took it. Yes. Okay. I am going to call on Councilmember Herbold and appreciate all the good intentions that are up here being expressed, both in the underlying bill and and through the amendments. Councilmember Bill. Thank you. Before I get to my the substance of my comments about this particular amendment, I do want to speak to something that I'm sure that Councilmember Swan did not mean as I heard it, but I just want to clarify it for the public she referenced what what would. I. What would happen if a tenant didn't show up to court and how would a judge know what somebody's income was? Even with passage of this law, a tenant will still have to show up because not showing up and and speaking to this as a just cause will limit their ability to use us as a defense. So even using this ordinance that we are poised to to vote on will still require tenants to show up in court if if an eviction is filed. I think that's really important within the context of us all knowing our rights default. Please continue. I'm going to get on to that next. As it relates specifically to the question of means testing, the utility discount program has brought up been brought up a few times. You do have to income qualify to participate in the utility discount program. And I think I think utilities are actually a really good example for for an analogous situation. Some of our largest, most profitable companies are also some of the folks who have the largest unpaid utility bills. And it's not because they don't have the money to do it. It's just they want to they want to pay it when they're ready to pay it. And so I am actually really supportive of this amendment because I don't want folks of means to just decide, yeah, I can I can pay this in five months if I want. And in the meantime, members of our small landlord community are left holding the bag. Yeah, they might eventually get the money. They might get the money after five months, but I think that will actually have a really negative impact on some small landlords because sometimes people with a lot of money don't pay their bills also. And we know now from the analysis that the council member has done that there are very few people who who would be above this income threshold. For that reason I support the amendment. Thank you. Councilmember Hummel. Council members want. Just one sentence to talk about the utility discount program. Making it opt out did make a huge difference because we were able to order. And for example, I'm just giving you one example because I don't have time to go through the whole thing. But we were able to because of me, because of changing it from opt in to opt out, we were able to auto enroll Seattle Housing Authority residents. So that's a big example of how, you know. Income. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Swanson. Thank you all for the explanation here. Any. Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, any additional comments or questions? Okay. We're going to call for the vote on this. All those in favor of amendment number six by Councilmember Strouse. Please say I and raise your hand. Are all those opposed? Nay. Okay, the amendment does hang and we will now look at the bill as amended. Councilmember Swan, I do appreciate you both having a robust conversation in your committee and the process that you went through and also engaging with the council colleagues as folks brought forward amendment. My desire council colleagues was that we make sure that this got on the agenda today and that we got a pass out because this will be a significant policy win for the folks that you've been working with, the Renters Commission and tenants rights folks. I know that this bill has been amended and I appreciate the council colleagues for their work to include various amendments. But I think it's important for you to close this out as you talk. Talk about what this will mean to working families. Thank you, President Mosquito. And I agree with you. This is this is going to be historic legislation. And I am you know, I haven't I have not made any. I've not disguised my disappointment with the loophole that I've been put in. And I think the ultimately, the the what it demonstrates is, as I said, the need for even more powerful movements of ordinary people. But I just wanted to also highlight the fact that the fact that we're even discussing this legislation and having it voted out does show how much advocacy people have done. And I wanted to thank everybody who's here and also everybody who spent months advocating for the commission. But I also wanted to mention, you know, among the people we have here are also the activists who are involved in the India resolution. And I've decided that they can be more than just one thing, that they have to be involved in our community as a whole. And I think that's very important that we are bringing immigrant communities together. I also specifically wanted to highlight the Washington Community Action Network and Housing just as broad project for all the work that they have been doing for years because of whom we are at this stage. And I think that at the end of the day, what we have, what we will have achieved if this legislation is voted through, is landmark legislation that has no precedent in the in the in the country and in fact, very little president in the world , because as far as we know, only the country of France has something similar. So this is huge. And I think we should be proud of our movement for this. And I thank God to members for, you know, I'm assuming that have been forgotten. Some members will be voting yes. So I'm speaking a little in advance. Just very quickly, also, you know, just we should also be sober about the limitations of the legislation. It will not end evictions. It will delay them. And we know that delaying will provide a real lifeline and could potentially completely prevent evictions. But on the whole, this won't be enough. We also do need rent control and we need a major expansion of social housing so we can't stop fighting. Thank you, Councilmember. Thank you. Councilmembers the one and four process wise, we have now adopted amendments one through six in the base legislation. I would like for us to take up the amended bill as discussed today. Ready. Can we go? Councilor Bell 119726, as amended, is in front of us. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage of council 4119726 as amended sworn i. Strauss I. Herbal I. Lewis, I. Morales I. Peterson I. President Musharraf i. Seven in favor and unopposed. Thank you. I. Thank you. So council colleagues, there are a number of. Items that are still on our agenda today. Thank you for hanging with us for just a few minutes over 4 p.m. and we just have a few more items. Madam Clerk, would you please read it into the record? Let me just say this. Officially, the bill has passed. The bill has passed as amended, and the chair will sign it. And at this time the bill is not ready for presentation of the signature. But I will announce when the bill is here so that I will sign it in this full chamber before we leave today. Thank you. Counsel. Colleagues, Madam Clerk, would you please read into the record item number two from the Public Safety and Human Services Committee.