>>> GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE,
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR WAITING.
TODAY IS FEBRUARY 10th, 2020.
THE MEETING OF THE SEATTLE CITY
COUNCIL WILL COME TO ORDER.
IT IS TO: 05 P.M., I AM TO RHEA
MASCARA, WITH A CLERK IS CALLED
THE ROLE?
>> SAWANT ? PURPLE?
LEWIS?
MORALES?
PEDERSON?
PRESIDENT PRO TEM MASCARA.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> PRESENTATIONS, I AM AWARE OF
ONE SURPRISE PRESENTATION
TODAY, THANK YOU TO
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS FOR THE
SURPRISE PRESENTATION THIS
MORNING, VERY EXCITED TO HAVE
YOU TALK ABOUT THE PRESENTATION
FRONT OF US.
>> YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE HAVE IN OUR OFFICE A STAFF
MEMBER WHO HAS WORKED -- SHE
WILL BE GOING ON FAMILY LEAVE
THIS WEEK SO WE PASSED A
PROCLAMATION THIS MORNING
HONORING HER WORK IN THE AMOUNT
OF TIME, EFFORT, AND CHANGE
THAT SHE HAS PUT INTO THE
COMMUNITY THAT SHE GREW UP IN
AND THE BENEFITS SHE HAS
PROVIDED OUR CITY.
WE JUST WANT TO SAY PUBLICLY A
BIG THANK YOU TO EVERYTHING YOU
HAVE DONE ALLISON, THANK YOU
FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK.
WE ARE VERY EXCITED FOR THE NEW
CHILD IN YOUR LIFE.
>> WONDERFUL AND IF I AM NOT
INCORRECT WE ARE CLAIMING IT
ALLISON McLEAN DAY?
>> AND D.
>> VERY EXCITING,
CONGRATULATIONS TO ALLISON AND
HER GROWING FAMILY, SHE WAS
PART OF THE EFFORT TO CALL TO
HAVE A FINAL CONTRACT BARKAN
BECAUSE HER KIDDO IS BEING
CARED FOR AND SHE GETS TO GO
HOME AND TAKE CARE OF HER KID,
VERY EXCITED FOR HER, YOU TO
YOUR OFFICE.
>> THANK YOU.
>>> THERE MINUTES FOR TODAY ARE
NO MINUTES FOR APPROVAL TODAY.
MOVING ONTO ADOPTION OF THE
REFERRAL CALENDAR, I AM AWARE
OF TWO POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS,
FIRST UP I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE
THAT WE ADOPT THE INTRODUCTION
AND REFERRAL CALENDAR TO AMEND
MINUTES.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED,
SEEING THAT THERE ARE TWO
POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS I WOULD
LIKE TO GO TO COUNCILMEMBER HER
BOLD.
>> THANK YOU, I ALSO HAVE
ANOTHER ONE, I AM SORRY I DID
NOT QUEUE UP WE TALKED TO YOU A
LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT BUT DID NOT
OFFICIALLY QUEUE IT UP.
HOWEVER YOU WANT TO FIT IT IN.
>> GO AHEAD WORK
>> I MOVED TO AMEND THE
PROPOSED INTRODUCTION AND
REFERRAL CALENDAR BY
INTRODUCING APPOINTMENT 1547
ENTITLED REAPPOINTMENT OF
COLLEEN ECKEL HAWK AS MEMBER.
>> SECOND.
>> COMMUNITY, PLEASE COMMISSION
FOR THE TERM TO DECEMBER 21st
2022 AND REFERRING IT TO THE
PUBLIC SAFETY AND HUMAN
SERVICES COMMITTEE.'S NEXT
SECONDED.
>> I'LL ADD A COMMENT TO THIS,
JUST FOR THE REFERENCE, THIS IS
AGAIN AN AMENDMENT TO THE
INTRODUCTION AND REFERRAL
CALENDAR, AND IT HAS BEEN MOVED
AND SECONDED.
ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
SEEING NONE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF AMENDING
THE INTRODUCTION AND REFERRAL
CALENDAR TO APPOINT 1547,
PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY
I. ANY OPPOSED?
NONE?
ANY EXTENSIONS?, WE DON'T DO
THOSE.
THE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN INCLUDED
AND APPOINTMENT 1547 WILL BE
INCLUDED IN THE INTRODUCTION
AND REFERRAL CALENDAR SO THAT
IT CAN BE REFERRED TO.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD .
>> I AM FILIBUSTERING TRYING TO
GET THE BILL TITLE.
THERE IS A BILL ON THE
INTRODUCTION REFERRAL CALENDAR
THAT I WOULD -- TO ADD MYSELF
AS A SPONSOR, AND IN ADDITION
TO COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, AND I
AM GETTING THERE.
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO AMEND
THE PROPOSED INTRODUCTION AND
REFERRAL CALENDAR AS IT RELATES
TO COUNSEL BILL 1194 83, AN
ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE LAND
OF ZONING, NO THAT IS NOT THE
RIGHT ONE.
OKAY.
THERE IT IS.
TO BILL 11 9469, AN ORDINANCE
RELATED TO LAND USE AND ZONING
AMENDING SECTION 25.056 75 OF
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE TO
MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF NEW
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON
DISPLACEMENT OF LOWER INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS, CURRENTLY
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS IS LISTED
AS THE ONLY SPONSOR OF THIS
LEGISLATION, THIS IS CARRYOVER
LEGISLATION THAT I HAVE WORKED
ON LAST YEAR AND I WOULD LIKE
TO ADD MY NAME TO SPONSOR.
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED, JUST FOR
VERIFICATION, THIS IS A MOTION
TO AMEND THE INTRODUCTION AND
REFERRAL CALENDAR TO INCLUDE
COUNSEL MEMBER HERBOLD AS AN
ADDITIONAL SPONSOR OF THE BILL
THAT WILL BE INTRODUCED ON THE
INTRODUCTION AND REFERRAL
CALENDAR.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS COLLEAGUES?
IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED,
SEEING NONE.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR OF
AMENDING THE INTRODUCTION AND
REFERRAL CALENDAR TO INCLUDE
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ON
COUNSEL BILL 119469 SAY I?
SEEING THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER
OF VOTES IT HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED
AND AMENDED AND IT WILL INCLUDE
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ON THE
INTRODUCTION AND REFERRAL
CALENDAR.
THERE IS ONE MORE SUGGESTED
AMENDMENT TO THE INTRODUCTION
OF REFERRAL COUNCILMEMBER
>> THANK YOU, I MOVED TO AMEND
THE PROPOSED INTRODUCTION BY
INTRODUCING A RESOLUTION
ENTITLED A RESOLUTION
SUPPORTING THE TAXATION OF THE
IS THIS IS IN SEATTLE TO FIND
HOUSING AND ESSENTIAL SERVICES,
URGING THE WASHINGTON STATE
LEGISLATURE TO OPPOSE ANY
PREEMPTION OR BAN OR OTHER BAN
ON SEATTLE'S ABILITY TO RAISE
REVENUE THROUGH BIG BUSINESS
TAXES OR OTHER PROGRESSIVE
úRESOURCES AND REQUESTING THE
OFFICE OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL
RELATIONS, TWO WASHINGTON STATE
LAWMAKERS BY AFFORDING IT TO
THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT.
I AM GOING TO SECOND THE MOTION
TODAY, I WILL NOTE THAT I AM
NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF
AMENDING AGENDA TO INCLUDE THIS
ITEM, BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS
INCLUDED ON FRIDAY AFTER THE
INTRODUCTION OF REFERRAL
CALENDAR REQUIREMENTS, BUT I
WILL SECONDED SO YOU CAN SPEAK
TO IT.
AND THEN WE WILL SEE IF THERE'S
A VOTE.
IF NOT IT WILL RETAIN ITS PLACE
ON THE INTRODUCTION REFERRAL
CALENDAR FOR POSSIBLE VOTE IN
THE FOLLOWING WEEK.
>> THANK YOU.
I WANT TO SPEAK TO THE
RESOLUTION ITSELF, AND ALSO WHY
I FEEL LIKE THERE IS A DIRE
URGENCY TO VOTE ON IT TODAY.
THIS RESOLUTION STATES THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL SUPPORTS
PROGRESSIVE BUSINESS TAXES
RATHER THAN TAXES ON WORKING
PEOPLE, IT STATES THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL OPPOSES PRESUMPTION AND
URGES THE MAYOR TO PUBLIC WE
APPROACH PREEMPTION AS HE HAS
PUBLICLY SO FAR REFUSED TO DO
SO.
THE RESOLUTION IS SPECIFICALLY
REFERRING TO WHAT MANY OF YOU
MAY KNOW NOW, WHICH IS
STATEHOUSE BILL 2907, HOUSE
BILL 2907 IS PASSED, WOULD
ALLOW KING COUNTY TO ENTER
PASSING MAXIMUM TAX ON BIG
BUSINESS OF $121 MILLION A
YEAR.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE THREE
THINGS CLEAR TO ALL OF US, THE
HOSPITAL DOES NOT ITSELF CREATE
ANY NEW REVENUES, IF THE
HOSPITAL PASSES, PART OF THE
STATE LEGISLATURE SUCCESSFULLY
DEPEND ON KANE COUNTY SUCCESS
PAST WHICH THEY MAY OR MAY NOT
DO, THERE IS NO KNOWING IF THEY
WOULD DO IT OR NOT.
AND IF KING COUNTY CHOSE TO
PASS THE LARGEST POSSIBLE TAX,
WHICH WOULD BE ALLOWABL UNDER
THE NEW AUTHORITY THAT WOULD BE
CREATED, IT WOULD GENERATE
ABOUT 10% OF THE COUNTY'S
NEEDS, 10%, WHICH MEANS THE
VAST MAJORITY OF OUR NEEDS
WOULD STILL REMAIN UNFUNDED.
WE ARE, OF COURSE, AS A
MOVEMENT, IN FAVOR OF ANY BIG
BUSINESS TAXES EVEN IF IT IS
NOT ADEQUATE, EVEN IF IN BEST
CASE IT WOULD BE 10%, BECAUSE
WE WANT EVERY AFFORDABLE HOME
AND WE WANT EVERY POSSIBLE
SOLUTION TO ADDRESS THE DEEP
CRISIS IN OUR SOCIETY.
BUT, IT IS IMPORTANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE ONLY
REASON THIS BILL EVENING THIS
IS BECAUSE OF THE PRESSURE OF
OUR MOVEMENT.
THE TAX AND IS ON MOVEMENT HAS
ALREADY BILLED SERIOUS MOMENTUM
THIS YEAR, AND THIS IS A
MOMENTUM THAT BIG BIGNESS
CANNOT AFFORD TO IGNORE, THIS
IS ON COMING ON THE HEELS OF
THE INCREDIBLE VICTORIES THAT
WE HAD LAST YEAR, DESPITE BIG
BUSINESS ATTEMPTING TO STRAIGHT
UP DO A CARPET TAKEOVER OF CITY
HALL.'S HAS BEEN A ZONING LAW
PASSING OUT OF COMMITTEE LAST
FRIDAY WHICH SOME POLITICIANS
SAY THEY HAVE BROUGHT BUSINESS
TO THE TABLE, BUT WE HAVE TO BE
SERIOUS AND ASK THE QUESTION,
THE CORPORATIONS AND THE
WEALTHY INCLUDING JEFF BEZOS
FOUGHT TOOTH AND NAIL AGAINST
HAVING TO PAY A SMALL AMOUNT IN
TAXES.
THEN IN BOLDEN, THEY WENT ON TO
ATTEMPT TO BUY CITY HALL.
WHY WOULD THE SAME RICH PEOPLE
NOW COME TO THE TABLE AND
ACCEPT POTENTIALLY HAVING TO
PAY $121 MILLION FOR KING
COUNTY'S?
BECAUSE, THE REAL PRICE THAT
THEY WANT IS SOMETHING CALLED
THE PREEMPTION CLAUSE, WHICH IS
NOT IN THE BILL RIGHT NOW, BUT
AS WE HAVE SEEN IN THE STATE
LEGISLATURE, IT COULD COME INTO
THE NEXT ITERATION OR THE NEXT
ITERATION OF THE BILL.
SO, WE ARE HERE TO MAKE SURE WE
UNDERSTAND PREEMPTION IS I WILL
FINISH, A WONKY SOUNDING TERM,
BUT IF IT PASSES, IT WOULD BE A
VERY SERIOUS AND HISTORIC
ATTACK ON WORKING PEOPLE IN OUR
CITY, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A
STATEWIDE BAN ON RAISING ANY
NEW BIG BUSINESS TAXES.
THAT WOULD MEAN IN OTHER WORDS,
THAT IF THE PREEMPTION CLAUSE
PASSES IN THIS BILL, SEATTLE
COULD NOT RAISE TAXES ON BIG
BUSINESS THIS YEAR OR ANY OTHER
YEAR.
PREEMPTION WOULD BE AN ANTI-
DEMOCRATIC BAN ON TAXING THIS
BUSINESS RIGHT AT THE MOMENT
THAT OUR TAX AMAZON MOVEMENT IS
FINALLY COMING TO A POINT WHERE
WE HAVE BROUGHT ENOUGH UNITY
THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE
A SUCCESSFUL, VALID INITIATIVE.
AND, IT IS ALL IN THE CONTEXT
OF SEATTLE AND WASHINGTON STATE
HAVING THE MOST REGRESSIVE TAX
SYSTEM IN THE ENTIRE NATION,
THAT IS WHY I REALLY APPRECIATE
SEAT STATE SENATOR JOE WENT FOR
PUBLICLY OPPOSING SUCH A BAN,
AND I THINK CITY COUNCILMEMBER
TAMMY MORALE IS IN COUNTY
COUNCILMEMBER -- IN JOINING ME
IN AUTHORING AN OP-ED THAT WAS
JUST PUBLISHED IN THE STRANGER,
I THINK WE HAVE COPIES.
I ALSO THINK THE SEATTLE CITY
COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR THE JOINT
LETTER THAT WE HAVE SIGNED AND
COUNCILPERSON MOSQUEDA FOR
INITIATED THE LETTER.
BUT AS YOU YOURSELF SAID, WE
NEED EVERY TOOL IN OUR TOOLBOX,
AND WE ARE FACING A POTENTIALLY
EGREGIOUS AND HISTORIC ATTACK.
GIVEN THE STIFF DEADLINE OF THE
HOUSE OF VOTES, I DO NOT WANT
THE RESOLUTION THAT I HAVE
BROUGHT FORWARD TO BE
POSTPONED, AND IT IS
COMPLEMENTARY, THE RESOLUTION
IS COMPLEMENTARY TO THE LETTER
THAT WE HAVE ALREADY SIGNED.
I WOULD REALLY URGE THE COUNCIL
TO PASS THIS RESOLUTION TODAY.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>> SO, I WOULD ENCOURAGE FOLKS
TO REMEMBER THAT THE
CONVERSATION AROUND THIS BILL
IS HAPPENING IN OLYMPIA AND THE
MESSAGE THAT WE HAVE DELIVERED
AS A UNANIMOUS BODY TODAY VIA
THE LETTER THAT WAS SIGNED, IS
TO SUPPORT THE MESSAGE THAT
PREEMPTION TAKES AWAY A TOOL IN
THE TOOLKIT IN SEATTLE HERE.
I, VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE
WORDS THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED,
I KNOW WE HAVE HAD
CONVERSATIONS AT THE COUNSEL
TABLE OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS
ABOUT THE UNITED MESSAGE HERE,
MY CONCERN WITH AMENDING THE
AGENDA TODAY IS REALLY A MATTER
OF PROCESS, WE HAVE HEARD FROM
FOLKS THAT THEY NEED ADDITIONAL
TIME TO LOOK AT THE RESOLUTION,
AND IN THE MEANTIME, WE HAVE
ALL SIGNED ONTO A LETTER THAT
INCLUDES ALL OF THE
COUNCILMEMBERS THAT WERE
PRESENT IN THIS BODY TODAY,
FOLKS WERE SAYING THAT WE ARE
SENDING A UNITED MESSAGE, A
CONVERSATION ABOUT A MESSAGE
FOR PROGRESSIVE REVENUE AND AN
OPPOSITION TO PREEMPTION.
THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US
TODAY VIA THIS LETTER IN
COMBINATION WITH THE FOLKS WHO
ARE HERE SHARING THE MESSAGE IN
OLYMPIA AND WORKS THE FOLKS WHO
SUPPORTED THIS EFFORT IN THE
PAST TO RAISE PROGRESSIVE
REVENUE TO ENSURE THAT OUR
REGION GETS SIGNIFICANT DOLLARS
IN HAND, AND WE HAVE SAID SO IN
A LETTER THAT MAKE SURE THAT WE
ARE UNITED AROUND THE CALL FOR
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN REVENUE
TO BE BROUGHT IN TO ADDRESS THE
PROBLEM.
WE HAVE A COUNCIL THAT
UNANIMOUSLY SENT A LETTER
ASKING FOLKS TO KEEP MOVING THE
BILL FORWARD AS INTRODUCED TO A
LIEN AGAINST PREEMPTION, AND TO
FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE BILL AS
IT WAS INTRODUCED.
I ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT THE
MESSAGE THAT WAS SENT OVER THE
LAST FEW YEARS HAS BEEN THAT
THERE ARE PEOPLE WANT THERE TO
BE AGGRESSIVE REVENUE, WE ARE
TIRED OF USING SALES TAX AND
PROPERTY TAX, WE NEED MORE
PROGRESSIVE REVENUE TOOLS IN
OUR TOOLKIT.
AND THE LETTER ASKS OUR
COLLEAGUES IN OLYMPIA TO
INSTEAD OF CONSIDERING TOOLS
THAT TAKE AWAY TAXING AUTHORITY
TO GIVE US MORE PROGRESSIVE
TAXING OPTION SO WE CAN
ADEQUATELY RESPOND TO THE
CRISIS IN OUR COMMUNITY.
GOOD NEWS IS THAT THE BILL
ADVANCE FOR COMMITTEE ON FRIDAY
AND IT DOES NOT HAVE PREEMPTION
IN IT, IT CREATES A PROGRESSIVE
REVENUE THAT CAN BE A TOOL
COUPLED WITH ADDITIONAL REVENUE
STREAMS ADDITIONAL PROGRESSIVE
REVENUE STREAMS CAN GET US
CLOSER TO MATCHING THE
AUTHORITY.
I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THIS IS
NOT THE BILL THAT I THINK THE
CORPORATIONS, THE LARGE
CORPORATION WANTED TO
INTRODUCE, IT IS A BILL THAT
ACTUALLY HELPS US WITH THE
PROGRESSIVE REVENUE CALL, THE
WE WANTED TO BE MORE.
AND I APPLAUD REPRESENTATIVE
MacQUARIE WHO HAS BEEN THE
PRIME REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
BILL TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BILL
WAS INTRODUCED IN A STRONG WAY
AND TO SOLICIT IDEAS AND
ENCOURAGEMENT FROM THE
COMMUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT IT
STAYS STRONG.
I ALSO KNOW THAT THERE IS SOME
BUSINESS FOLKS WHO SIGN IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL AS IS AND I
THINK THAT IS HELPFUL TO SEE
THAT TYPE OF LEADERSHIP.
I WANT TO REITERATE THAT THE
COUNCILS LETTER DOES SEND A
STRONG MESSAGE, AND BOLTED OUT
IN THE VIEWPOINTS, THE DESIRE
TO HAVE MORE REVENUE THAT
CLOSELY ALIGNS WITH SUBSTANTIAL
NEEDS OF THE REGION AS OUTLINED
IN THE REGIONAL AFFORDABLE
HOUSING TASK FORCE AND THE MOST
RECENT McKINSEY REPORT CALLS A
CLEARLY OUR DEEP CONCERNS RUN
PREEMPTION AND THAT WE OPPOSE
PREEMPTION, SPECIFICALLY CALLS
FOR ALLOCATED SPENDING
THRESHOLD TO MAKE SURE THAT
SPENDING IS BEING FRONTLOADED
INTO HOUSING AND NOT INTO MATS
ON THE FLOOR THAT WE NEED
ENHANCED SHELTERS AND HOUSING
AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.
FINALLY, CLARIFIES THE REVENUE
BE ALLOCATED BOTH TO THE
REGIONAL HOMELESS AUTHORITY AND
TO THE COUNTY AND CITY SO WE
HAVE YOUR CLARITY IN THE
LEGISLATION FOR WHERE THOSE
DOLLARS GO.
SO, WE ALL STOOD APPEAR
STANDING BEHIND THE CALL FOR
REGIONAL SOLUTION.
WE HAVE ALL BEEN APPEAR
STANDING, UNITED AS A CALL FOR
MORE REVENUE.
WE HAVE ALL BEEN UNITED IN A
CALL FOR PROGRESSIVE REVENUE.
AND AGAINST PREEMPTION.
THAT MESSAGES CLEARLY SENT IN
THE LETTER.
I DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT ONE
VERSUS THE OTHER BECAUSE IT IS
NOT, AS YOU SAID CLEARLY JUST A
MOMENT AGO, THIS IS ABOUT
WANTING US TO BE ON THE RECORD,
THERE IS CLEAR GUIDANCE
ANYTHING IN THE LETTER THAT WE
HAVE TODAY, THAT IS NOT TO TAKE
AWAY FROM THE CONVERSATION
AROUND THE RESOLUTION IF THIS
DOES NOT MOVE FORWARD ON THE
INTRODUCTION AND REFERRAL
CALENDAR TODAY, IT IS A
PROCEDURAL ACTION ONLY AND I
WANT TO REITERATE THAT FOR OUR
COLLEAGUES AND THE VIEWING
PUBLIC AS WELL, THAT THIS IS A
PROCEDURAL ACTION AND IT WILL
CONTINUE TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO
HAVE A CONVERSATION IN THE
FUTURE.
I KNOW YOU KNOW THAT, WE HAVE
HAD A CHANCE TO HAVE A
CONVERSATION AROUND IT.
IN TERMS OF PROCESS, I THINK
THAT WE WILL NEED TO MOVE ON
AND HAVE THIS HAVE A VOTE FOR
THE INTRODUCTION REFERRAL
CALENDAR.
THE ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO
SAY, DID YOU HAVE ONE MORE
THING?
OKAY, THEN I WILL WRAP IT UP.
>> WELL, I JUST WANTED TO SAY
THAT I AM ALL FOR UNITY, BUT
WHEN IT ADVANCES PROGRESSIVE
CAUSES, AND I FEEL IT IS MY
DUTY TO CLARIFY THAT WHILE I
APPRECIATE ALL PROGRESSIVE
LEADERS, INCLUDING
REPRESENTATIVE MacQUARIE WHEN
THEY DO PROGRESSIVE ACTIONS, I
AM EXTREMELY CONCERNED THAT IS
THE PRIME SPONSOR OF THE BILL,
SHE HAS NOT ONLY NOT SPOKEN OUT
AGAINST PREEMPTION, SHE HAS
SPECIFICALLY TOLD, I AM QUOTING
FROM AN ARTICLE, THAT SHE IS
LEAVING THE DOOR OPEN FOR
PREEMPTION, AND THAT SHE IS
CONCERNED, HER MAIN CONCERN IS
THAT BUSINESSES SHOULD NOT BE
DOUBLE TAXED.
I AM SORRY, OUR STATE IS DEAD
LAST, DEAD LAST IN TAXING THE
BUSINESS.
TAXATION OF BIG'S SHOULD NOT BE
OUR CONCERN, AND I SPEAK AS AN
ELECTED OFFICIAL, MYSELF, NO
ELECTED OFFICIAL HAS SOME SORT
OF GUARANTEED RIGHT TO BE
CALLED PROGRESSIVE IF YOU'RE
NOT DOING PROGRESSIVE ACTIONS.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT ONE BILL AS
WE HAVE AGREED, THIS WILL BE AN
HISTORIC ATTACK, THIS IS NOT
TAKING ONE OR TWO AWAY FROM OUR
TOOLBOX, THIS IS TAKING AWAY
OUR ONLY TOOL.
SO, IT WOULD BE AN HISTORIC
ATTACK AND I AM WORRIED THAT IF
WE DON'T SPEAK OUT FROM THE
ROOFTOPS THAT THIS COULD BE A
DONE DEAL.
AND IN MY CONSCIENCE, I WANT TO
BE CLEAR THAT I HAVE DONE
EVERYTHING IN MY POWER AS AN
ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE TO SPEAK
OUT AGAINST IT, THAT IS WHY I
AM URGING THAT WE VOTE ON THIS
TODAY, AND ALSO WHAT WE HAVE
HEARD FROM PROGRESSIVE UNION
REPRESENTATIVES WHO HAVE HAD
MEETINGS WITH REPRESENTATIVES
LIKE MacQUARIE, THEY ARE
WORRIED THAT THERE COULD BE
THINGS AFOOT IN THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE WHICH
HAS A DEADLINE OF 5:00 P.M.
TOMORROW FORGIVEN ALL OF THOSE
DEADLINES, GIVEN WHAT A THREAT
THIS WOULD BE FOR THE FUTURE,
OUR CITY AND THE MOST VOLUBLE
PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY THE BLACK
COMMUNITY WHICH HAS BEEN PUSHED
OUT OF THE CENTRAL DISTRICT, I
FEEL IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE DO
THIS TODAY.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>> OKAY, COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
AND THEN I'M GOING TO WRAP US
UP.
>> VOTE TODAY, VOTE TODAY, VOTE
TODAY.
>> OKAY FOLKS, THE LAST TIME WE
HAD A CONVERSATION IN THIS BODY
I ASKED PEOPLE TO NOT CHANT.
I ASKED PEOPLE TO RAISE THEIR
HANDS LIKE THIS IF THEY AGREE
OR SIGNAL OTHERWISE THAT THEY
DISAGREE.
WE ARE GOING TO GET THROUGH
TODAY'S COUNSEL COMMITTEE, AND
WE HAVE TO HAVE A FOLLOW-UP
CONVERSATION SPECIFICALLY ABOUT
HOMELESSNESS AND HOUSING.
THERE IS ANOTHER OUTBURST,
UNFORTUNATELY I'M GOING TO HAS
HAVE TO ASK THE BODY TO BE
CLEARED AND I DON'T WANT TO DO
THAT BECAUSE THIS IS A
DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.
PLEASE DO WHAT WE DID IN THE
COMMITTEE LAST WEEK IF YOU WERE
HERE, WE HAVE FOLKS DO THIS AND
IT WORKED WELL, PEOPLE SHOW
THEIR SUPPORT, I AM ASKING FOR
PEOPLE TO RECOGNIZE THE UNITY
THAT WE ARE SENDING US A
MESSAGE.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD AND THEN
I NEED TO WRAP US UP, THIS IS A
PROCEDURAL CONVERSATION AND WE
ARE GOING TO MOVE ON TO A VOTE
ON THE AMENDMENT OF THE
REFERRAL CALENDAR.
>> THANK YOU.
JUST BECAUSE THE COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PRO TEM DID A GOOD
JOB OF THE OVERVIEW OF THE
LETTER, I WANT TO ACTUALLY READ
FROM A PORTION OF THE LETTER
BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THERE TO
BE ANY MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE
STRONG STANCE THAT THIS COUNSEL
HAS TAKEN AROUND THE ISSUE OF
PREEMPTION.
WE SUPPORT REGIONAL SOLUTIONS
USING PROGRESSIVE REVENUE
SOURCES TO SOLVE OUR CRISES AND
WE DESIRE A COMPREHENSIVE
SOLUTION THAT DOES NOT RELY ON
DECKARD STEPS TO SOLVE THIS
ENORMOUS PROBLEM, BUT WE CANNOT
CURRENTLY SUPPORT ATTEMPTS THAT
PREEMPT US OR STRIP US OF OUR
LIMITED RESOURCES, AND MAKE OUR
CITY'S TAX CODE EVEN MORE
REGRESSIVE.
THE CITY'S TAXATION POWER IS
ALREADY EXTREMELY LIMITED, AND
AS IT RELATES TO THIS TAXATION
TOOL, IN MANY WAYS,
UNDERUTILIZED.
TO ALLOW THE PREEMPTION IN THAT
CONTEXT SETS UP MUNICIPALITIES
LIKE SEATTLE TO BE ON A
SLIPPERY SLOPE TO FURTHER
LIMITING OUR ALREADY NARROW
TAXATION POWERS.
IN THE LONG-TERM, THIS WOULD BE
A MISTAKE.
INSTEAD, WE SUPPORT LEGISLATIVE
EFFORTS TO THE STATE REGISTER
TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
PROGRESSIVE TAXATION OFFICES TO
MUNICIPALITIES.
THIS IS A STRONG STATEMENT
AGAINST PREEMPTION, THANK YOU.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.
WE ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND
VOTE, COUNSEL COLLECTS.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR OF
AMENDING THE INTRODUCTION
REFERRAL COUNSEL TO INCLUDE THE
RESOLUTION AS OUTLINED BY
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT, SAY I.
ANY OPPOSED?
>> NAY.
>> THERE ARE NO EXTENSIONS.
THERE IS NOT THE VOTES TO
INCLUDE THIS IN THE
INTRODUCTION AND REFERRAL
COUNSEL, SO THE MOTION FAILS
TODAY.
I DID WANT TO REITERATE THAT
DOES NOT MEAN IT IS THE END OF
THE CONVERSATION, THIS IS A
PROCEDURAL ACTION JUST FOR
CHANGING THE AGENDA.
WE ARE AWARE THAT AND I THINK
THE CONVERSATION CONTINUES,
THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
FOR 2nd FROM THE LETTER.
WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON.
>>> HERE WE GO, ITEM NUMBER ONE
ON THE AGENDA, PLEASE.
>> OH, LET'S TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
THAT WILL BE FUN.
WE HAVE FOLKS DOWNSTAIRS AS
WELL.
SO, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE
SIGNED UP.
WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE LAST
FEW MEETINGS IS ASKED PEOPLE TO
SPEAK FOR 1 MINUTE, AND AS A
COUNSEL WE HAVE ONE MINUTE FOR
GROUPS AS WELL.
WILL HAVE ONE MINUTE FOR
EVERYONE, AND READ AS MANY
NAMES AS WE POSSIBLY CAN, AND
IF TIME ALLOWS AND I WILL
EXTEND IT.
AGAIN, WE HAVE ANOTHER MEETING
RIGHT AFTER THIS THAT STARTS 10
MINUTES AFTER, SO WE REALLY
NEED TO START TO TALK ABOUT THE
SELECT COMMITTEE.
QUEEN BEE IS THE FIRST PERSON,
TRAVIS JL JOHNSON AND JESSICA
FROM HICKEY.
THANK YOU.
GO AHEAD PLEASE GOOD AFTERNOON
CUNCILMEMBERS -- WOMEN IN
BLACK STAND -- OUTSIDE OF OUR
BLACK COUNSEL.
WE HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR 20
YEARS, AND HAVE MEMBERS OF MORE
THAN 1200 MEN, WOMEN AND
CHILDREN.
WITHOUT SHELTER AND HOUSING,
PEOPLE DIE.
THAT IS WHY WE SUPPORT THE
EVICTION MORATORIUM.
WITH THE EVICTIONS, THEY PUSH
PEOPLE INTO UNSAFE SITUATIONS,
AND HOMELESSNESS.
PLEASE COME COUNCIL MEMBERS.
PASS THIS MORATORIUM TO HELP
POOR PEOPLE IN OUR CITY.
PLEASE ALSO JOIN US THIS
WEDNESDAY AS WE STAND VIGIL FOR
JAMES HAYES, DOUGLAS MAYHEW,
AND DEDICATED TO TONYA KRISTI
JACKSON, RIGHT ACROSS THE
STREET AT NOON, THANK YOU AND
GOD BLESS YOU.
I HAVE ALREADY BEEN TO YOUR
OFFICE, HERE IS ANOTHER.
>> I RECOGNIZE IT, THANK YOU.
>> PLEASE, MAKE SURE
NICHOLASVILLE DOES NOT GET
EVICTED.
>> THANK YOU, MA'AM.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>> WELCOME, TRAVIS.
EXCELLENT.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OF
THE SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL.
MY NAME IS TRAVIS JOHNSON AND I
AM WITH NICHOLASVILLE.
WE OPPOSE THE WINTER EVICTIONS,
BOTH FOR RESIDENTS AND
ATTENDANCE IN THE NICHOLASVILLE
NORTH LIGHT.
PLEASE, REMIND THE MAYOR TO
KEEP HER WORD AND LET SOLUTION
LUTHERAN CHURCH OPERATE THE
CAMP AS A RELIGIOUS ENCHANTMENT
AND SPONSOR, CERTAINLY, THE
MAYORS LAST THURSDAY RENEWED
HER THREAT TO THE NICHOLASVILLE
NORTH PLEX BY THE END OF THE
MONTH.
WE ARE SOLVING AND SURVIVING
HOMELESSNESS.
THAT IS WHY WE ARE ASKING YOU
TO JOIN THE RESOLUTION TO
FORBID AND PREVENT PREVENT THIS
SEATTLE'S ABILITY TO TAX AMAZON
IN EXCHANGE FOR $1.2 MILLION.
THAT SOUND LIKE A LOT.
>> THANK YOU TRAVIS.
>> THAT IS ONLY ONE FOURTH OF
WHAT IS REALLY NEEDED FOR JUST
ENOUGH AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN
SEATTLE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>> WELCOME, JESSICA.
AND
>> THANK YOU.
I AM A LONGTIME RESIDENT OF
SEATTLE, I HAVE FACED
HOMELESSNESS TWICE AND I
VOLUNTEER A LOT OF MY TIME WITH
THE HOMELESS AND MULTIPLE CUP
CAPACITIES I HAVE HAD PEOPLE IN
MY OWN HOME WHO HAVE NOWHERE
ELSE TO GO.
FOR SHORT PERIODS OF TIME,
HOWEVER I AM ALSO A LANDLORD MY
HUSBAND AND I TOOK OUT A LOAN
IN ORDER TO BUY A SMALL SIX
UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING, AND WE
HAVE A MORTGAGE ON THAT LOAN,
AND WHEN PEOPLE CANNOT PAY
THEIR RENT, WHEN THEY HAVE
EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES, WE
WORK WITH THEM TO TRY TO KEEP
THEM IN THEIR HOMES.
WE WANT PEOPLE TO STAY IN THEIR
HOMES, WE DO NOT WANT OUR UNITS
MOVING OVER AND OVER.
HOWEVER ONE SUMMARY
CONSISTENTLY CANNOT PAY THEIR
RENT, WE DO NOT -- WE ARE NOT
EFFACE A CORPORATION, WE ARE A
HUSBAND AND WIFE TRY TO TAKE
ENDS MEET AND WE CANNOT AFFORD
TO COVER PEOPLE'S RENT FOR FIVE
OR SIX MONTHS.
THE CURRENT EVICTION PROCESS
ALREADY TAKES MONTHS AND COST
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.
WE DON'T WANT TO EVICT PEOPLE,
WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE ON THE
STREETS, BUT IF YOU PASS THIS
TODAY, SMALL LANDLORDS LIKE
MYSELF WILL FORECLOSE ON OUR
BUILDING.
>> THANK YOU JESSICA.
>> AND MORE PEOPLE WILL BE
HOMELESS.
>> BRUCE BAKER, FOLLOWED BY
STEVE ANDERSON FOLLOWED BY
JESSICA'S KOSLOW.
>> THANK YOU.
I HAVE BEEN A SMALL LANDLORD IN
SEATTLE FOR MANY YEARS., I HAVE
NEVER HAD TO EVICT ANYONE, BUT
IT SEEMS TO ME THIS KIND OF A
BILL ORDINANCE IS MISGUIDED,
AND IT ACTUALLY WILL CREATE A
BIGGER PROBLEM, IN FIVE MONTHS
A LANDLORD HAS BILLS TO BECOME
THEY HAVE A MORTGAGE TO PAY IN
TAXES THAT NEED TO BE PAID, AND
IN FIVE MONTHS YOUR BUILDING
GOES INTO FULL FORECLOSUR.
HELP IS AVAILABLE OTHER THAN IN
A SITUATION LIKE THIS FOR
TENANTS, HOMEBASE IS THREE
UNITED WAY CAN PROVIDE RENTAL
ASSISTANCE, LANDLORDS LIKE
MYSELF ALSO WORK WITH TENANTS
IF THEY ARE LATE, TENANTS HAVE
CALLED ME AND SAID SAY, I AM
GOING TO BE LATE WITH MY RENT
THIS MONTH, DRIVING SMALL
LANDLORDS LIKE US OUT TO
SEATTLE IS GOING TO ACTUALLY BE
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE FOR SEATTLE
AND SEATTLE RENTAL MARKET, IT
WILL ALSO MEAN THAT THERE WILL
BE A LOT OF EVICTIONS IN APRIL,
IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME, AND WILL
PROBABLY BE OVERWHELMING.
>> THANK YOU.
HAPPY TO TAKE ANY WRITTEN
COMMENTS AS WELL.'S STEVE, THEN
JESSICA, THEN LARRY WHITE.
>> THANK YOU, I DON'T HAVE ANY
PREPARED REMARKS, I WILL TRY TO
KEEP IT SHORT.
I AM A REAL ESTATE BROKER, ALSO
A SMALL LANDLORD, AND AS SUCH,
I AM IN CONTACT WITH LANDLORDS
EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK.
I AM VERY SYMPATHETIC THE CAUSE
OF HOMELESSNESS, AND I BELIEVE
SALVATION IS CRITICAL, BUT IT
SHOULD BE ADDRESSED THROUGH A
BROADER MEANS, THIS, I BELIEVE
IS GOING TO RESULT IN A LOT OF
LANDLORDS MOVING OUT OF THE
AREA, SELLING THEIR RESIDENCES,
AND I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THEY
ARE SELLING THEM AS PERSONAL
RESIDENCES TO NEW OWNERS WHO
DON'T INTEND TO RENT, I BELIEVE
THE ORDINANCE WILL REDUCE THE
AMOUNT OF HOUSING STOCK
OVERALL.
I HOPE THAT THERE IS ANOTHER
SOLUTION THAT YOU CAN AND THAT
IS MORE BROADLY BASED RATHER
THAN WORKING ON PARTICULAR
ASSET GROUPS TO SHOULDER THE
BURDEN OF HOMELESSNESS, BECAUSE
I HAVE BEEN HOMELESS MYSELF, I
KNOW IT IS IS LIKE TO THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU.
JESSICA, FOLLOWED BY LARRY AND
THEN COREY BREWER.
>> THANK YOU.
MY NAME IS JESSICA?
SO.
FIRST OFF, I AM IN FAVOR OF
TRAN04'S RESOLUTION, I
APPRECIATE THE LETTER YOU READ
AND I AM GLAD YOU ARE ALL
AGAINST PRESUMPTION.
SECOND IN HIS THAT I AM ALSO IN
FAVOR OF A MORATORIUM ON WINTER
EVICTIONS, I DO THINK MORE
NEEDS TO BE WORKED OUT SMALL
LANDLORDS, BECAUSE THERE DOES
SEEM TO BE A VALID CONCERN
ABOUT THEM NOT BEING ABLE TO
PAY THEIR RENT OR MORTGAGE.
THAT IS IT, THANK YOU.
>> LARRY, THEN COREY, THEN
BARBARA.
>> I AGREE COMPLETELY WITH HER,
I THINK THAT WE SHOULD VOTE ON
THIS FROM OUR HEART, THIS IS AN
IMMORAL THING TO EVICT PEOPLE
IN THE COLDEST TIME OF THE
YEAR.
AND THAT IS HOW IT SHOULD
PROCEED, IT IS A DON'T VOTE FOR
THE RICH, THEY DON'T NEED ANY
HELP, IT IS THE POOR THAT NEED
HELP.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>> THANK YOU.
COREY?
WE HAVE COREY BREWER, BARBARA
FINNEY AND THEN CALVIN TAYLOR.
>> YOU GUYS HAVE A VERY JOB,
THIS IS A WIDE RANGING PROBLEM,
PEOPLE KEEPING PEOPLE HOUSED
HIS THE GOAL, RIGHT?
LANDLORDS FIND EVICTION AS AN
ABSOLUTE LAST STEP IN A LAST
RESORT, WORST-CASE SCENARIO BY
IN LARGE, MISS SAWANT , YOUR
NEWSLETTER THAT I RECEIVED
TYPICALLY POINTS THE FINGER AT
CORPORATE LANDLORDS, TO THIS
WOMAN'S POINT HERE, A CAR ABOUT
SMALL LANDLORDS THAT IT IS
IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER.
THE IMPACT HERE IS EXTREMELY
SEVERE FOR THE SMALL MOM-AND-
POP LANDLORDS VERSUS THE
OPERATIONS, WHICH YOU SEEM TO
MAKE A DISTINCTION IN YOUR
MESSAGE, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE
THAT EXIST HERE.
I AM ASKING YOU TO LOOK AT THIS
úIS A SUPPLY AND DEMAND PROBLEM
FOCUS YOUR EFFORTS ON GIVING
PEOPLE WHO ARE IN TROUBLE
ASSISTANCE WITH MAKING THEIR
PAYMENTS, WE NEED A WIN-WIN
SOLUTION THAT LANDLORDS CAN
HAVE SOME BUY IN WITH, NOT THE
US VERSUS THEM.
>> THANK YOU.
YOU SO MUCH.
BARBARA, THEN CALVIN, AND
CASSANDRA ARMSTRONG.
>> MY NAME IS BARBARA FINNEY, I
LIVE IN DISTRICT 5, IT IS
BETTER THAT YOU ARE NOT READY
TO VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION TODAY
ON PREEMPTION, COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT 'S RESOLUTION ON TAXING
AUTHORITY, BIG IS HIS INTEREST
HIS ARE ADVOCATING FOR A
STATEWIDE BAN CALLED PREEMPTION
ON ANY FUTURE TAXES FOR
THEMSELVES.
DO NOT ALLOW SEATTLE TO BECOME
A CITY, A PERMANENT TAX SHELTER
FOR THE MONEYED INTEREST, AT
THE EXPENSE OF US, YOUR
CONSTITUENTS.
DON'T HAVE A ADVOCATE YOUR
AUTHORITY TO THE PEOPLE YOU
REPRESENT.
AND, PLEASE FOLLOW THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SEATTLE
RENTERS COMMISSION TO SUPPORT A
MORATORIUM ON WINTER EVICTIONS,
BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING
TO DO.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
CALVIN?
DO WE HAVE CALVIN TAYLOR
FOLLOWED BY CASSANDRA ARMSTRONG
AND TOM FRIEDMAN.
ANY OF THOSE NAMES HERE?
FOLKS MIGHT BE DOWNSTAIRS.
WILL COME UP, SIR.
WE THEN HAVE KATHY PARTY THE
AND CAITLIN NICHOLSON.
WELCOME, SIR.
>> HI, MY NAME IS TOM FRIEDMAN,
I'VE LIVED IN SEATTLE FOR OVER
45 YEARS, I HAVE TWO SINGLE-
FAMILY RENTAL HOUSES WHICH I
PLAN TO USE THE INCOME AS PART
OF MY RETIREMENT BECAUSE I AM
RETIRED.
I OPPOSE THIS NON-EVICT
ORDINANCE.
LET'S START WITH SOMETHING WE
CAN ALL AGREE ON, I THINK.
THAT IS TWO CRITICAL ELEMENTS
TO HUMAN EXISTENCE OUR FOOD AND
SHELTER.
IS SOMEONE CANNOT AFFORD FOOD
AND SHOWS A NEED, VARIOUS
GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS ARE ABLE TO
HELP THEM OUT.
WE DON'T EXPECT, AND WE
CERTAINLY DON'T MANDATE GROCERY
STORES TO PROVIDE THEM WITH
FREE FOOD FOR EVEN A DAY OR
WEEK, LET ALONE FIVE'S.
SIMILARLY FOR HOUSING, THERE
ARE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
AVAILABLE TO HELP THOSE IN NEED
TO PROVIDE OR SUBSIDIZE HOUSING
COSTS, IT IS SIMPLY NOT THE
LANDLORDS RESPONSIBILITY TO DO
THAT.
WE DON'T WANT TO EVICT ANYONE
EITHER, WE HAVE WORKED WITH
TENANTS TO GET THEM THROUGH
FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES.
IF MORE HELP IS NEEDED, THEN AS
A ROLE OF GOVERNMENT TO
SUBSIDIZE HOUSING COST, AND NOT
EXPECT INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY
OWNERS TO DO SO JUST BECAUSE
THEY OWN THE PROPERTY, ANY MORE
THAN TO EXPECT THE OWNER OF A
GROCERY STORE OR RESTAURANT TO
PROVIDE FREE --
>> I'M SORRY TO CUT YOU SHORT
BUT WERE HAPPY TO TAKE YOUR
WRITTEN STATEMENTS AS WELL.
WE HAVE CALVIN OR CASSANDRA
HERE?
HI, WELCOME.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO START MY
PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY BY
ACKNOWLEDGING WE ARE ON STOLEN
UNSEATED WARMISH LAND AND I
CALLED THE CITY COUNCIL TO CALL
ON A LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT AT THE
START OF ALL THESE MEETINGS.
I HAD TO CUT MY COMIC DOWN
SIGNIFICANTLY, PLEASE FORGIVE
ME IF I AM A LITTLE OVER MY
TIME.
I'M SPEAKING TODAY ON COUNSELOR
TRAN04'S RESOLUTION THAT WAS
SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE CALENDAR,
BUT THAT WAS MOVED AGAINST.
I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT HOW VITAL
IT IS TO YOU VOTE ON IT AS SOON
AS POSSIBLE IF YOU CARE ABOUT
IT AS MUCH AS YOUR LETTER
CLAIMS YOU DO.
I AM CALLING ON YOU ALL AS A
BODY THROUGH A RESOLUTION TO
SPEAK OUT AGAINST THIS
ANTIDEMOCRATIC ATTACK BY BIG
BUSINESS ON THE VOTERS OF
SEATTLE.
WE, THE WORKING PEOPLE OF
SEATTLE, ARE WATCHING.
AND I SINCERELY HOPE YOU DO THE
RIGHT THING.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>> HI THERE, I AM KATHY PARTIDA
I AM HERE TO SPEAK OUT ABOUT
THE NO WINTER EVICTIONS.
MY MOTHER, WHO IS 85, TOOK HER
MONEY AND VERY CONSCIOUSLY
INVESTED IT IN A FOUR PLEX
APARTMENT BECAUSE SHE FELT THAT
WAS A WAY SHE COULD PROVIDE
DECENT, CLEAN HOUSING FOR FOUR
FAMILIES.
BUT, SHE HAD TO TAKE OUT A BIG
LOAN.
AND IF SHE CANNOT, SHE DEPENDS
ON THAT RENT TO PAY HER
MORTGAGE.
IF SHE CANNOT PAY HER MORTGAGE,
SHE WILL DEFAULT AND NOW FOUR
FAMILIES WILL BE EVICTED, AS
WELL AS MY MOTHER BEING HURT.
I THINK YOU NEED TO TAKE A LOOK
AT THIS LEGISLATION, COME UP
WITH A SMART BILL, BECAUSE THE
ENTIRE NATION IS LOOKING AT
THIS.
SO, WE NEED TO CONSIDER THE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF
PEOPLE BEING HURT, ESPECIALLY
THE SMALL MOM AND POP
LANDLORDS.
SHE DOES NOT HAVE THE POCKETS,
AND I THINK THAT YOU GUYS CAN
REWORD THIS AND TAKE THAT INTO
ACCOUNT.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
OKAY.
CAITLIN NICHOLSON, FOLLOWED BY
JORDAN QUINN AND THEN THE
TENANTS UNION.
>> CHRISTOPHER I JUST WANT TO
ASK HOW MANY PEOPLE IN THIS
ROOM BELIEVE THAT POSTPONING
THE VOTE ON COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT 'S RESOLUTION.
>> MAN, YOUR COMMENTS NEED TO
BE DIRECTED TO THE COUNCIL AS
WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST.
>> ELEVATES THE FRONT, HOW MANY
PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM BELIEVE
THAT POSTPONING COUNCILMEMBER
TRAN04'S RESOLUTION WAS PURELY
PROCEDURAL AND NOT POLITICAL.
DOES ANY BELIEVE THAT IT WAS
PURELY PROCEDURAL?
OKAY.
YEAH, BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THAT
THE BAN IS INTENDED TO BE ADDED
AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE, THEN
RUSHED THROUGH FOR A VOTE
BEFORE NEXT WEEK WHEN YOU SAY
THE CONVERSATION CAN CONTINUE
WE DON'T NEED CONVERSATION,
WE'VE HAD PLENTY OF
CONVERSATION, WE NEED ACTION,
PEOPLE ARE DYING.
ON THAT NOTE, ALL THE SMALL
LANDLORDS IN THE ROOM, WE WOULD
LOVE TO FIGHT WITH YOU AGAINST
YOU LOSING YOUR PROPERTY,
BECAUSE YOU CANNOT PAY YOUR
HIGH MORTGAGES AND PROPERTY
TAXES.
IF YOU START A MOVEMENT TO
FIGHT TO TAX BIG LANDLORDS TO
CREATE A FUND TO HELP SMALL
LANDLORDS TO PREVENT THEM FROM
LOSING THEIR HOMES THAT THEY
ARE UNABLE TO PAY THEIR TAXES,
WE WILL FIGHT WITH YOU, FIGHT
WITH US WHEN WE ARE FIGHTING
FOR OUR LIVES, WE WILL FIGHT
WITH YOU.
>> THANK YOU, CAITLIN.
JORDAN?
FOLLOWED BY THE TENANTS UNION.
WELCOME, JORDAN.
>> MY NAME IS JORDAN QUINN, I
AM AN ACTIVIST WITH THE TAX
AMAZON UNIT, I THINK IT IS
SHAMEFUL TODAY WHAT THE
MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL HAS
DONE TO SHUT IT DOWN EVEN A
DISCUSSION ON THE RESOLUTION TO
OPPOSE STATE BAN ON TAXING THE
RICH.
I THINK THE FACT THAT THE
HOUSING CRISIS IS SUPER URGENT
MEANS THAT IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY
SENSE TO DELAY A VOTE ON
SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS
SUPPOSEDLY UNANIMOUSLY AGREE
ON, YOU WROTE A LETTER
UNANIMOUSLY SIGNING ONTO IT,
HOW HARD WOULD IT BE TO VOTE ON
THE RESOLUTION?
OTHERWISE, 10 YEARS RENTS HAVE
GONE UP 67% RIGHT?
YOU NEED A RENT CONTROL FOR THE
LAST 10 YEARS.
THE FACT THAT THERE IS A STATE
BAN ON RENT CONTROL HAS MET
THAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TAKE
NO EFFECTIVE ACTION ON THE
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS.
OF THE PREEMPTION GOES THROUGH,
IF THE STATE BAN ON TAXING BIG
BUSINESS GOES THROUGH, IT WILL
BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO ADDRESS
THE URGENT CRISIS THAT WE HAVE
IN THIS CITY AND IN THIS STATE.
THE TAX AMAZON MOVEMENT IS
FIGHTING FOR THE NEXT DECADE TO
BE DIFFERENT, WANT TO BUILD
THOUSANDS APART MENTALLY
AFFORDABLE GREEN HOUSING, YOU
CAN STAND WITH US TO DO THAT OR
YOU CAN STAND AGAINST US AND
WITH A BIG'S NEST.
WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?
>> THANK YOU.
TENANTS UNION?
ARE YOU ALL WITH THE TENANTS
UNION?
OKAY, GREAT.
WELCOME.
>> HI, COUNSEL.
MY NAME IS LAUREN THEM WARMER
WITH THE TENANTS UNION OF
WASHINGTON.
SO, SEEING THE HOUSING CRISIS
FIRSTHAND, WHICH WE ALL SEE
DAILY, WE SEE EVICTIONS DAILY
AS WELL, AND I HAVE WATCHED
THIS COUNSEL, I HAVE WATCHED
THE OLD COUNSELED CONSISTENTLY
NOT VOTE FOR THINGS THAT HELP
TENANTS, I AM ASKING YOU TO
STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH
TENANTS TODAY, AND TAKE A STAND
THAT YOU ARE VALUING, THANK
YOU.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, THANKS.
MY NAME IS VIOLET, I'M WITH THE
TENANTS UNION OF WASHINGTON,
AND I AM HERE TO SUPPORT THAT
YOU SEE THE RESOLUTION ON
PASSING FOR WINTER EVICTIONS,
I'M GOOD TO TELL YOU WHY,
BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE
WHO ARE JUST ABOUT TO BE
EVICTED, THEY HAVE NOWHERE TO
GO.
THIS IS IN THE WINTER.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IF I PUT
ON MY JACKET AND I GO OUTSIDE,
I AM OKAY, BECAUSE I GET TO GET
IN MY CAR AND GO TO MY HOUSE.
PEOPLE WHO ARE STAYING OUTSIDE
OR WHO -- THOSE OF THE PEOPLE
THAT WE ARE FIGHTING FOR.
>> THANK YOU, MA'AM.
>> WE ARE GOING TO TAKE HOUR
THREE MINUTES, OR IS IT FIVE
MINUTES?
>> I'M SORRY, WE ARE DOING ONE
MINUTE FOR EVERYONE BUT I DID
WANT TO CAPTURE YOUR NAME FOR
THE MAC RECORD.
>> IT IS VIOLET, WITH THE
TENANTS UNION OF WASHINGTON.
I THINK ANYBODY KNOWS THAT BY
NOW, MOSQUEDA.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> SHE WAS ASKING FOR ME, I WAS
ASKING FOR THE FIRST SPEAKER.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, HAPPY
TO TAKE THIS UP, WE ARE GOING
TO TAKE IT UP TODAY.
>> I'M JOHN PENNELL WITH THE
TENANTS UNION JUST FOR THE
RECORD WHEN YOU GET EVICTED,
YOU STILL OWE THAT RENT,
KNOWING IS LIVING FOR RENT
FREE, THEY HAVE TO PAY
EVENTUALLY.
SO JESUS, RELAX.
PEOPLE ARE DYING IN THE STREET
EVERY DAY BECAUSE THEY COULD
GET THROWN OUT INTO IT BY A
LANDLORD.
CALM DOWN YOU WILL GET YOUR
MONEY, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
OKAY, REVEREND ANGELA YANG AND
ZOE AMER.
WELCOME.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, THANK YOU
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND OF
THE ONES THAT ARE NEWLY
ELECTED, WELCOME.
I AM THE REV LINT ANGELA YATES,
AT THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, AND I
AM HERE TODAY FOR ONLY TWO
REASONS, LOVE AND COURAGE.
AND I REALLY BELIEVE THAT WE
CAN INSTILL LOVE ENCOURAGING
YOU.
YOU CAN MAKE THE CHOICE AND I
BELIEVE ALSO THAT WHEN WE MAKE
WRONG DECISIONS, WE CAN TURN
THEM AROUND.
YOU CAN MAKE A CHOICE TO PASS
TRAN04'S RESOLUTION AND PUT IT
ON TO OPPOSE THE UNDEMOCRATIC
EFFORT TO BAN THE BUSINESS TAX
TODAY.
THE WHOLE COUNTRY KNOWS THAT
WASHINGTON STATE, NOT ALABAMA,
NOT MISSISSIPPI, NOT ARKANSAS,
NOT EVEN GEORGIA, WE ARE AT THE
VERY BOTTOM OF THE 50 STATES
WITH THE NATIONS MOST
REGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM.
AND TODAY, YOU CAN BEGIN THE
PROCESS OF WRITING THIS WRONG,
YOU CAN LEAD BY SIMPLY HAVING
THE WEALTHIEST PAYDAY PAIR
SHARE.
SO, I INVITE YOU TO DO SO, AND
HERE'S THE THING.
YOU SAY THIS IS PROCEDURAL, BUT
IN 1960 GOSHAWK AT FIRST
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, THE LET
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. SPEAK
BECAUSE IT WAS PROCEDURAL.
AND THEY HAVE BEEN PAYING THAT
PRICE EVER SINCE, PLEASE VOTE
FOR TRAN04'S RESOLUTION AND NO
BAN ON TAXATION.
>> RED, ZOE AMBER.
>> HI, MY NAME IS ZOE AMBER.
MUMBLES MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL,
TODAY WE SIT HERE WARM IN CITY
HALL WHILE OVER 12,000 SATURDAY
SEATTLE RESIDENTS SLEEP ON THE
SIDEWALKS OUTSIDE CONDOS AND
AND LUXURY UNITS.
'S BRINGS INTO QUESTION THE
EXISTING OF SOMEONE HOUSING IN
SEATTLE.
ARE THE EVICTED IN SEATTLE
STILL SEATTLE RESIDENTS ARE
SUDDENLY BODIES ON THE STREET,
ANONYMOUS AND DISPOSAL.
AND MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE COST
OF RENTING IS VASTLY EXCEEDING
THE RATE AT WHICH WORKERS RAGES
ARE WELL WISING.
STUDY FOUND THAT IN SEATTLE
EVERY 5% RENT INCREASE BUT
ANOTHER 250 PEOPLE DIRECTLY
ONTO THE STREETS.
THE LAST ELECTION MADE THE
PEOPLE OF SEATTLE'S PRIORITIES
CLEAR.
WE WANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WE
WANT AN END TO THE CRUEL
TREATMENT OF OUR OWN HOUSE
NEIGHBORS.
OUR HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS
CRISIS HAS NO END IN SIGHT,
HALTING WINTER EVICTIONS IS THE
LEAST WE CAN DO.
I URGE YOU, THE COUNCIL, TO
PASS THIS NECESSARY
LEGISLATION, THANK YOU.
>> WITH THAT, WE HAVE GONE 20
MINUTES FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY,
WE HAVE A NUMBER OF FOLKS
SIGNED UP, I DO WANT TO END
PUBLIC TESTIMONY AT 3:00 P.M.
SO WE CAN GET TO THE VERY BILL
WITHOUT OBJECTION, I WOULD SEEK
TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO INCLUDE
A PUBLIC COMMENT UNTIL 3:00
P.M.
TO VENUS AN ADDITIONAL 13
MINUTES.
SEEING NO OBJECTIONS, WE
CONTINUE WITH THE LINEUP.
ALICIA LEWIS, AND THEN --.
>> THANK YOU, CITY COUNCIL FOR
HANDLING THIS VERY DIFFICULT
SUBJECT.
WINTER EVICTION IS VERY
DIFFICULT, I DO KNOW PEOPLE
EVICTED AND I DO KNOW
LANDOWNERS KNOW THE PRICE.
AND -- KNOW WHAT I KNOW, WE'VE
CONTRIBUTED TO LANDLORDS TAXES,
AMAZONS TAXES AND OTHER
COMPANIES.
WINTER EVICTION MUST STOP, IN
2017, I SAW THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
-- IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
FOR THE KING COUNTY, THE
GOVERNMENT DID NOT RESPOND OR
ANSWER, BUT FOR MY LAWSUIT, THE
JUDGE WILL NOT DECIDE BY
HIMSELF.
IN 2018 A CALL THE MEETING FOR
WASHINGTON PROGRESS EXECUTING
OTHERS -- STOPPED THE MEETING.
IN 2019,
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> WE ARE HAPPY TO TAKE YOUR
WRITTEN COMMENTS.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I AM HAPPY TO TAKE THE REST OF
YOUR COMMENTS.
WELCOME.
>> IT IS GOOD TO SEE YOU.
>> THANKS FOR ALWAYS ALLOWING
US FOLKS TO BE AT THE TABLE, IT
IS IMPORTANT THAT THIS TIME
BECAUSE WE DESERVE SAFE HOUSING
THAT PERMANENT AND AFFORDABLE
AND SOCIAL, I AM IN FAVOR OF
SAWANT RESIDENCE LUCIAN TO PUT
A MORATORIUM ON WINTER
EVICTIONS, I USED TO BE -- IT
IS NOT SAFE FOR THOSE OF US WHO
INTERSEX RAINBOW OUT THERE,
PLEASE PASS THIS RESOLUTION.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
ELISA?
>> HI, MY NAME IS ALICIA LEWIS,
I AM ALSO AN ACTIVIST WITH THE
TAX AMAZON MOVEMENT AND I AM
HERE TO DEMAND THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL AMEND THE AGENDA AND
TAKE A VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION
AGAINST THE STATE BAN ON
PROGRESSIVE TAXATION TODAY,
SINCE OUR MOVEMENT KICKED OFF
IN EARLY JANUARY, WE HAVE HAD
REGULAR MEETINGS OF 300+
ORDINARY, WORKING PEOPLE WHO
HAVE BEEN RALLYING, WE HAVE
BEEN DEBATING AND DISCUSSING
AND PUTTING IN THE STYLE OF
TRUE GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY ON A
PLAN TO ADVOCATE FOR A BIG IS
THIS TAX AS DESIGNED BY AND FOR
THE REAL MEANS OF WORKING
PEOPLE.
IN CONTRAST, HB 2907 WITH THE
THREAT OF PREEMPTION LOOT
LOOMING OVER EVERY SINGLE
COMMUNITY PASSES THROUGH EVERY
DAY, WAS NOT DRAFTED THROUGH A
DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, BUT IN THE
BACK ROOM OF OLYMPIA IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH BIG BUSINESS,
WE SAW IN LAST YEAR CITY
COUNCIL ELECTIONS HOW QUICKLY
AND SHAMELESSLY BIG BUSINESS IS
WILLING TO ACT TO PRESERVE
THEIR INTEREST, THAT IS WHY
THERE IS NO TIME TO WASTE AND I
WILL JUST SAY LASTLY, HIDING
BEHIND PROCEDURE TO DELAY A
VOTE UNTIL IT IS TOO LATE WILL
NOT BE FORGOTTEN.
>> THANK YOU.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>> OKAY, MY APOLOGIES.
A METZ AND CALVIN PRIEST?
>> HI, MY NAME IS EVA AND I
WANT TO ASK WHERE WAS PROCEDURE
WHEN IN 2018, WITH LESS THAN 24
HOURS, THE CITY COUNCIL
MAJORITY OVERTURNED THE AMAZON
TAX?
CTY COUNCIL URGENTLY NEEDS TO
PASS A RESOLUTION AGAINST THE
ANTI-DEMOCRATIC ATTACK ON
PROGRESSIVE TAXATION,
THREATENED AT THE STATE LEVEL,
PREEMPTION HAS BEEN A TOOL
PUSHED BY RIGHT-WING POLITICIANS
TO DISENFRANCHISE POOR PEOPLE,
PEOPLE OF COLOR, AND OTHER
MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES.
AFTER THE REAL ESTATE LOBBY
SUCCEEDED IN PASSING A STATE
BAN ON RENT CONTROL, WE
SUFFERED UNDER THAT BAND FOR 40
YEARS, THE THREAT COULD NOT BE
MORE SERIOUS IN A STATE WITH
THE MOST REGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM
IN THE COUNTRY AND AN URGENT
HOUSING CRISIS.
WE NEED REGRESSIVE TAXATION
EVERY DAY THAT CITY COUNCIL
FAILS TO STAND UP AND USE EVERY
TOOL POSSIBLY REALLY OPENS THE
DOOR TO BIG ISTHMUS WHICH IS
RAPIDLY MOVING IN THE STATE, SO
YEAH.
BUT ON THIS RESOLUTION TODAY,
ALSO PASSED A MORATORIUM ON
WINTER EVICTIONS, THANK YOU.
>> HI CALVIN.
AFTER CALVIN, THERE WILL BE
PEGGY YATES AND JUDY GIBBS.
HI, CALVIN.
>> I AM CALVIN PRIEST FROM
SOCIALIST ALTERNATIVE.
OUT LIKE TO CALL FOR AN
AMENDMENT TO THE AGENDA TO
BRING FORWARD THIS RESOLUTION
AGAINST THE STATE BAN.
THIS IS AN HISTORIC ATTACK ON
WORKING PEOPLE, IT WILL BE A
PERMANENT DAMAGE TO THE ABILITY
OF THE CITY AND OTHER CITIES TO
RAISE THE REVENUE NEEDED TO
ADJUST THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CRISIS, AND I DON'T THINK
ANYBODY HERE ACCEPTS THAT THIS
IS SIMPLY A PROCEDURAL VOTE,
THIS IS A COMPLETE ABDICATION
OF RESPONSIBILITY ON WHAT IS AN
HISTORIC ATTACK ON WORKING
PEOPLE, IT IS NOT PROCEDURAL,
WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE ARE
POLITICIANS GIVING COVER TO
CORPORATE COBBLE PETITIONS IN
OLYMPIA, IN PARTICULAR TO
NICOLE MacQUARIE WHO IS THE
SPONSOR OF THIS BILL.
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY SCANDALOUS,
AND I DON'T ACCEPT THAT THE
LETTER IS ENOUGH, BECAUSE BEING
ON RECORD IS VERY DIFFERENT TO
BE ON RECORD IN VOTING FOR THIS
RESOLUTION THAN IT IS TO SEND A
LETTER THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE
READ BY MOST PEOPLE.
AND IS EXTREMELY FORTUNATE IN A
GREAT MANY WAYS THAT
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT AND
MORALES ONE A ELECTIONS LAST
HER SINCE THEY ARE THE ONLY
ONES HERE TO PREPARED TO WORK
FOR THE WORKING PEOPLE.
>> HI, PEGGY.
PEGGY, AND JUDY GIBBS, THEN
ANGELA GERARD.
>> I AM JUDY GIBBS, I HAD A
MOTHER-IN-LAW APARTMENT FOR 12
YEARS, I HAVE HAD THE SAME
RENTER FOR 12 YEARS, AND MY
UNIT IS NOW A THIRD UNDER
MARKET VALUE, AND I THINK THAT
TELLS YOU WHERE I STAND.
I DON'T WANT EVICTIONS IN THE
WINTER OR ANY TIME.
BUT, I KNOW OTHER PEOPLE HAVE
SPOKEN ELOQUENTLY ON THE
EXPENSE OF THE LANDLORDS INCUR,
AND SOMEBODY BASICALLY IMPLIED
THAT IF THE LANDLORD CANNOT PAY
THE BILLS AND THE LANDLORD AND
ABOUT ON THE STREET, AND THE
TENANTS WILL AS WELL, AND I
BELIEVE THE ANSWER, AND I WILL
ALSO ADD THAT AS A SENIOR WITH
A MOTHER-IN-LAW APARTMENT, I
HAVE AT TIMES LIVED ON THE
RENT, I HAVE DEPENDED ON IT FOR
MY GROCERIES.
I THINK THE ANSWER IS TO TAKE
SOME OF THAT MONEY FROM THAT
YOU'RE GOING TO GET BY TAXING
AMAZON AND OTHER BIG
BUSINESSES, AND USING SOME OF
IT FOR MITIGATION.
CONTINUING TO EVICT PEOPLE IN
THE WINTER --
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
ANGELA?
THANK YOU.
ANGELA?
THEN EMILY MacARTHUR PICK DID I
MISS YOU?
DID I CALL YOUR NAME?
YES.
DID I CALL YOU?
I THINK SO, WE WOULD DO IT
RIGHT AFTER THIS.
OKAY.
>> HI, MY NAME IS ANDREW, MY
HUSBAND AND I WENT TO GOES
SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES. I CO-
AUTHORED AN OP-ED WITH SOME
OTHER SMALL LANDLORDS IN THE
SEATTLE TIMES TODAY AND I HOPE
YOU ALL HAVE A CHANCE TO READ
IT.
IS WINTER ADVECTION LEGISLATION
EVEN WITH AMENDMENTS IS NOT THE
WAY TO SOLVE EVICTIONS, ALONG
WITH OTHER RECENT LEGISLATION,
IT IS CREATING A MORE EXPENSIVE
ANYMORE CORPORATE RENTAL
MARKET.
I AM HEARING A LOT OF GUEST
WORKS FROM COUNSEL AND
MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT WHAT
IT MEANS TO OPERATE AS A SMALL
LANDLORD IN SEATTLE.
LET REMIND YOU, WE ARE ALL
REGISTERED IN THE DATABASE, WE
ARE EASILY ACCESSIBLE TO YOU,
IN THE CITY'S 2018 RENTAL
HOUSING STUDY, MORE THAN 4000
LANDLORDS RESPONDED.
THE MAJORITY ON ONLY A SMALL
NUMBER OF UNITS, 60% OF THEM
REPORTED AN ANNUAL INCOME OF
LESS THAN 75,000.
WHY ISN'T CITY COUNCIL USING RR
I/O TO INCLUDE SMALL LANDLORDS
IN DEVELOPING HEALTHY
LEGISLATION AND CAREFULLY
REVIEW THE IMPACT OF
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN RECENT
YEARS.
AND UPSET LANDLORD FROM WEST
SEATTLE CALLED ME THIS MORNING
TO RELAY HOW SHE AND HER
HUSBAND ARE LOW INCOME
LANDLORDS AND ARE SELLING ONE
OF THEIR HOUSES.
>> THANK YOU.
HAPPY TO TAKE YOUR WRITTEN
COMMENTS.
AND YES, PEGGY WE DID CALL YOUR
úNAME, PLEASE COME ON UP.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON COUNSEL, MY
NUMBER IS PEGGY HOLST, EMMA
NICHOLS FILLED FOUNDER AND
VOLUNTEER.
I OPPOSE WINTER EVICTIONS FOR
RESIDENTIAL TENANTS AND NICHOLS
BUILT NORTH LAKE.
THESE REMIND THE MAYOR TO KEEP
HER WORD AND LET GIFT OF GRACE
LUTHERAN CHURCH OPERATE THE
CAMP AS A RELIGIOUS ENCAMPMENT
SPONSOR, THE MAYOR'S OFFICE
LAST THURSDAY RENEWED THEIR
CRUEL THREAT TO EVICT OR SWEEP
NICHOLS BUILT NORTH LAKE
RESIDENTS BY THE END OF THIS
MONTH.
PLEASE, ALSO JOIN IN
COUNCILPERSON SAWANT 'S
RESOLUTION TO PROHIBITED --
SEATTLE'S ABILITY TO TAX AMAZON
AND OTHER LARGE CORPORATIONS.
I WAS VERY DISAPPOINTED TO SEE
THAT YOU ONLY HAD A LETTER, AND
WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE
RESOLUTION.
ALLOWING A PREEMPTION WOULD BE
DISASTROUS IN THE EFFORTS TO
SOLVE HOMELESSNESS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU PEGGY.
AIDAN?
DO WE HAVE AIDAN?
OKAY, EMILY MacARTHUR.
OKAY.
AND THEN AFTER THAT WILL BE AT
ONE, APOLOGIES FOR THE
MISPRONUNCIATIONS.
WELCOME.
>> THANK YOU, GOOD AFTERNOON.
THE SEATTLE OFFICE OF HOUSING
ALONG MA'AM, COULD YOU GET
CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE?
THANK YOU.
>> THE SEATTLE OFFICE OF
HOUSING, ALONG WITH MANY OTHER
NONPROFIT AGENCIES PULL
TOGETHER MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO
ACQUIRE OR CONSTRUCT PUBLIC
HOUSING FACILITIES.
THESE SAME TALENTED PEOPLE ALSO
KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY IS NEEDED
TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THESE
ASSETS.
TENANT RENT -- PART OF THE
REVENUE STREAM THAT IS NEEDED
TO FUND MAINTENANCE AND
OPERATION EXPENSES.
LESS RENT, LESS MAINTENANCE.
OUR PUBLIC ASSETS COULD SUFFER
DAMAGE AND DISREPAIR.
TENANTS COULD FACE HEALTH AND
SAFETY INCIDENTS.
WE HAVE RENTAL ASSISTANCE FUNDS
AVAILABLE THAT HELP TENANTS
THAT MIGHT RUN INTO A FINANCIAL
EMERGENCY AND CANNOT MAKE THE
RENT.
AND EVICTION BAN WOULD PUT FIVE
MONTHS OF RENT AT RISK FOR
THESE NONPROFIT PROVIDERS.
DO NOT PASS AND EVICTION BAN,
DO NOT PASS EDUCATION.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
HAPPY TO TAKE YOUR WRITTEN
COMMENTS AS WELL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND I BELIEVE I ALREADY CALLED
YEARNINGS, WE HAVE TWO FOLKS
LINED UP AND WE'LL SEE WHERE WE
ARE AT WITH TIMING.
>> MY NAME IS EMILY MacARTHUR,
AND A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT TOO.
I WAS EXCITED TODAY TO SPEAK TO
WHAT HAS BEEN HERALDED AS THE
MOST PROGRESSIVE COUNSEL EVER,
AFTER THE PROCEDURAL BUT THIS
MORNING I FEEL A LITTLE LESS
ENTHUSED, I THINK IT IS QUITE
SHAMEFUL TO APPEAL TO PROCESS
BUT I HOPE TO SEE ALL OF YOU IN
YOUR CAUSE ON WEDNESDAY TO JOIN
US AT THE STATEHOUSE TO STAND
AGAINST PREEMPTION.
I HOPE YOU'RE URGENTLY SPEAKING
OUT TO ALL OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS
AND USING EVERY TOOL IN YOUR
TOOLBOX TO SCREAM FROM THE
ROOFTOPS HOW DANGEROUS
PREEMPTION WOULD BE.
WE HAVE SCENES OF THE 1930s
THAT NOT BEING ABLE TO HAVE AN
INCOME TAX IN WASHINGTON HAS
PUT A STRANGLEHOLD ON OUR
CITIES, WE HAVE SEEN SINCE THE
1980s NOT BEING ABLE TO FIGHT
FOR RENT CONTROL HAS PUT A
STRANGLEHOLD ON OUR CITIES.
YOU ARE CURRENTLY SITTING, YOU
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO STOP
THIS AND I URGE YOU TO SPEAK
OUT AGAINST IT, AND I AM VERY
VERY SADDENED YOU ARE REFUSING
ON THE BASIS OF PROCEDURE TO
VOTE ON A RESOLUTION.
I ALSO URGE YOU TO PLEASE VOTE
FOR A COMMONSENSE LEGISLATION
ON WINTER EVICTIONS.
IT IS BASIC KNOWLEDGE, I THINK
THE LOSS OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT
HAVE ARTIE BEEN MADE FOR IT,
BUT PEOPLE DIE OUTSIDE, WE HAVE
SEEN 200+ PEOPLE DIE EVERY
YEAR.
>> THANK YOU, EMILY. LAST SPEAK
TODAY.
>> FIRST I ECHO EMILY'S
COMMENTS AND I THANK
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
>> CAN YOU GET CLOSER FOR US,
THANK YOU.
>> I SUPPORT BANNING WINTER
EVICTIONS BECAUSE IT IS
COMPASSIONATE BUT THE REPORTS
AND DATA FROM ORGANIZATIONS
LIKE THE CITY HAVE SHOWN TIME
AND TIME AGAIN THAT THE HOUSING
CRISIS IS THE SHIFTING
CHARACTER OF THE CITY AND
IMPACTS PEOPLE OF COLOR AND
SEVERELY.
CLIMATE CHANGE, BRINGS MORE
COLD SNAPS AND SNOWFALLS.
YOU ALL REMEMBER SNOW PROBLEMS
FROM LAST YEAR.
FINALLY WHEN PEOPLE ARE
HOMELESS THEIR ENTIRE LIVES
ARE ON THE LINE.
IT IS DIFFICULT TO GO BACK.
THE PROTECTIONS THAT ARE
OFFERED BY THE MANY LAWS THAT
ARE --
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> WONDERFUL, THANK YOU
COLLEAGUES FOR ALLOWING ME TO
EXTEND THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE FOLKS
DOWNSTAIRS, WE ARE GOING TO
MOVE ON AND I APOLOGIZE FOR
THOSE THAT WANTED TO TESTIFY.
WE ARE HAPPY TO TAKE PUBLIC
COMMENTS.
WE ARE HAPPY TO TAKE PUBLIC
COMMENTS.
>> I KNOW, SIR.
WE ARE HAPPY TO TAKE YOUR
PUBLIC COMMENT.
WHAT WE WILL SEE PLEASE IF YOU
CAN READ THE PAYMENT OF THE
BILLS.
>> APPROVING THE CLAIMS TO
JANUARY 27th 2020.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS ON THE PAYMENT OF
THE BILL?
>> CAN YOU CALL THE ROLL.
>> SAWANT, MORALES, PEDERSEN,
PRESIDENT GONZALEZ,.
>>
>> AGENDA ITEM 1. THE REPORT OF
THE SUSTAINABILITY AND RENTERS
RIGHT COMMITTEE.
NUMBER 26, RELATING TO
TERMINATION OF RESIDENTIAL
RENTAL TENDENCY PROHIBITING
EVICTION DURING THE WINTER
MONTHS.
THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THE
BILL PASSES RECOMMENDED WITH
SAWANT AND LEWIS AND PEDERSEN
BY EXTENSION.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM
CLERK.
WE HAVE 6 AMENDMENTS PROPOSED
TO THIS BILL.
SAWANT THIS IS YOUR BILL WOULD
YOU LIKE TO OPEN WITH COMMENTS
BEFORE WE TAKE THE AMENDMENTS?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> LAST NOVEMBER THE SEATTLE
RENTERS COMMISSION RECOMMENDED
THEY TAKE UP THIS ISSUE.
WINTER EVICTIONS ARE CRUEL AND
HARMFUL.
IN 2018 THE SEATTLE WOMEN'S
COMMISSION AND THE KING COUNTY
BAR ASSOCIATION STUDY LOSING
HOME AND THE COST OF EVICTION
IN SEATTLE.
THE STUDY FOUND 50% OF PEOPLE.
PEOPLE OF COLOR WERE EVICTED.
MOST SEATTLE TENANTS ARE
EVICTED FOR NOT PAYING THEIR
RENT IN FOR BEING SHORT ON RENT
AND IN MOST CASES THE STUDY
FOUND THAT THE EVICTED TENANTS
OWED ONE MONTH OR LESS FOR
RENT.
IN ONE CASE THEY WERE EVICTED
FOR OWING $10 AND THERE WAS AN
ARTICLE SHOWING A TENANT, SHE
FOUGHT HER I -- HER EVICTION
BUT ONE FOR $3 SHORT ON HER
RENT.
YOU CAN NOT MAKE THIS STUFF UP.
THE STUDY REVIEWED THAT FOUND 6
SEATTLE TENANTS DIED DURING OR
RIGHT AFTER EVICTIONS.
FOUR COMMITTED SUICIDE, ONE
DIED OF AN ACCIDENTAL OVERDOSE
A DAY AFTER BEING EVICTED AND
ONE DIED DURING THE EVICTION
PROCESS WHILE RECEIVING HOSPICE
CARE.
9 PEOPLE WHO DIED HOMELESS ON
THE STREET IN 2017 HAD AN
EVICTION FILED AGAINST THEM IN
THE THREE PRECEDING YEARS.
IT IS HAPPENING TO SO MANY
PEOPLE.
I URGE EVERYONE TO READ
"SEATTLE TIMES" THAT WAS
PUBLISHED OVER THE WEEKEND
WHERE HOUSING PEOPLE EVICTED IN
KING COUNTY.
THE DATA IS A BRUTAL
ENLIGHTMENT OF A HOUSING MARKET
THAT IS DOMINATED BY CORPORATE
LANDLORDS THAT CARE MORE ABOUT
PROFIT THAN HOUSING PEOPLE.
I RECOGNIZE THERE ARE GOOD
RENTAL UNITS THROUGHOUT, THEY
CARE ABOUT THEIR TENANTS AND
MAKE TIMELY REPAIRS AND DON'T
TRY TO GET AWAY WITH CHARGING
THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE RENTS AND
DO NOT EXPLOIT THEIR TENANTS.
THOSE LANDLORDS ARE NOT DOING
WINTER EVICTIONS, THEY ARE NOT
THE PROBLEM.
THE RENTER'S COMMISSION POINTED
OUT AND I WANT TO QUOTE FROM
THE LETTER.
DURING WINTER IN SEATTLE
TEMPERATURES REGULARLY FALL
INTO THE 30s OVERNIGHT.
ACCORDING TO ALL OF THE KING
COUNTY IN, A REPORT FOR 2019,
41% OF HOMELESS NEIGHBORS SLEEP
OUTSIDE EVERY NIGHT WITH AN
ADDITIONAL 19% SLEEPING IN
VEHICLES.
THEY DO NOT PROVIDE PROTECTION
AGAINST THE WEATHER.
MORE ON HOW BEING OUTSIDE IN
THE WINTER IS OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN
NOT FULLY ISOLATE WHAT
IMMEDIATE CAUSES OF DEBT WERE.
I REALLY THANK THE MEMBERS OF
THE RENTER COMMISSION FOR
DEMONSTRATING LEADERSHIP ON
THIS ISSUE AND I WANTED TO
POINT OUT THAT ONE OF THE
MEMBERS IN RENTERS COMMISSION
IS NOW A STAFF MEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
I WANTED TO RECOMMEND HIS WORK
AS WELL AND I WANT TO THANK
CITY COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF AND
ALSO CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE FOR
FULLY ENGAGING AND DEVELOPING
ON THIS ISSUE AND DEVELOPING
THE WORK THAT WE NEEDED AND
CITY ATTORNEY'S AND
LEGISLATION.
JUST TO GIVE A TIME LINE OF
WHERE WE CAME HERE, THE BILL
WAS RECOMMENDED BY RENTER'S
COMMISSION IN EARLY NOVEMBER,
INTRODUCING THE FIRST DRAFT.
WE DISCUSSED IT THOROUGHLY AND
THE SUSTAINABILITY AND
RENTERS'RIGHTS COMMITTEE.
THE BILL THAT WAS VOTED OUT WAS
AN AMENDED OF THE PREVIOUS
VERSION THAT TOOK INTO ACCOUNT
MANY CONCERNS THAT WE HAD HEARD
IN A THOROUGH MANNER.
AND IT WAS VOTED ON FEBRUARY
3rd BUT THE VOTE WAS DELAYED BY
THE COUNCIL HOLDING IT TODAY.
I HOPE WE ARE ABLE TO VOTE
TODAY JUST 1 POINT I WANTED TO
MAKE IN GENERAL ON THE
AMENDMENT AND THEN ON THE
SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS I WILL
SPEAK WHEN THEY ARE MOVED.
I AM DISAPPOINTED TO SEE MANY
OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT
COUNCILMEMBERS ARE BRINGING
FORWARD WILL ACTUALLY, IF
PASSED, IF THESE AMENDMENTS
PASS, WILL MAKE IT MORE
DIFFICULT AND RESTRICTIVE FOR
RENTERS TO BE PROTECTED BY THIS
EVICTION BAN.
LEWIS AMENDMENT THAT I SUPPORT
AND READY LAST WEEK AND I
WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT IT IS
SHOCKING TO SEE HOW E LICTED
OFFICIALS DEMAND ENDLESS DATA
FOR THE SMALLEST MEASURE TO
BENEFIT FOR WORKING CLASS
PEOPLE.
BUT REALLY, THERE ARE PROGRAMS
THAT ARE PUSHED FORWARD,
POLICIES THAT ARE PUSHED
FORWARD WITH NO DATA AT ALL.
THIS WEEK, HOMELESS PEOPLE
THERE ARE ENDLESS DATA THAT
THEY DON'T WORK AND THE CITY
SPEND $8 MILLION ON THAT.
I WELCOME THE SUPPORT OF MY
COLLEAGUES AS A BILL AS A WHOLE
BUT DISAPPOINTED THAT THE
AMENDMENTS WILL NOT HELP PEOPLE
FACING EVICTIONS BUT I WILL
WAIT FOR THE AMENDMENTS TO
COME.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT
THE BILL MOVE FORWARD, THIS IS
A REALLY GOOD VEHICLE FOR US TO
BUILD UPON.
IF AMENDMENTS DO HANG THERE IS
ALWAYS WORK TO DO WITH ANY
PIECE OF LEGISLATION BUT I WANT
TO COMMEND YOU FOR BRINGING IT
FORWARD ANDCOUNCIL COLLEAGUES
THAT I THINK WILL FIND WAYS TO
MAKE IT IMPLEMENTABLE,
MEANINGFUL AND ALWAYS THE FIRST
STEP TO CONTINUE TO GET WORK
ON.
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY FOR FOLKS
IN THE PRESS.
IF YOU ARE USED TO GOING TO THE
HALLS OF THE STATE CAPITOL THEY
HAVE A PRESS TABLE.
WE DO NOT HAVE IT.
YOU ARE WELCOME TO USE THE
TABLE HERE IF YOU NEED YOUR
LAPTOP, YOU ARE ABLE TO COME
HERE.
FOR SECURITY FOLKS HERE IF
THERE IS ANY PRESS A PLACE FOR
THEIR LAPTOP THEY ARE WELCOME
TO HAVE THAT.
>>> WE NOW HAVE 6 AMENDMENTS,
WE WILL TAKE THEM IN THE ORDERS
AS THEY APPEAR ON THE AGENDA.
>> I MOVE AMENDMENT ONE.
>> I AM SORRY.
DO I NEED TO MOVE THE BILL OR
ARE WE GOOD?
>> OKAY.
GREAT, GO AHEAD AND MOVE IT AND
I WILL SECOND IT.
>> I MOVE AMENDMENT ONE.
>> I SECOND IT.
>> THIS AMENDMENT IS A
TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.
DOES NOT MAKE CHANGES IT ADDS A
JUSTICE CAUSE TO EVICTIONS THAT
ARE IDENTICAL TO ONE INCLUDED
IN THIS LEGISLATION THAT
REGARDS A TIME WHEN A LANDLORD
IS LEGALLY REQUIRED TO EVICT
SOMEONE AND RESPONSIBLE FOR
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE.
THIS AMENDMENT ADDS A
CLARIFYING "WHERE AS" CLAUSE
AND WINTER EVICTIONS A DEFENSE.
IT IS THE CASE BUT THE LANGUAGE
MAKES IT MORE CLEAR.
>> QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ON
AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE BY
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
SEEING NONE.
IT IS MOVED AND SECONDED THAT
THE BILL BE AMENDED WITH NUMBER
1, NO COMMENTS, ALL OF THOSE IN
FAVOR OF AMENDMENT ONE VOTE.
OPPOSED.
>> THERE ARE 7. IT WILL BE
INCLUDED IN THE UNDERLINED
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.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO
YOUR AMENDMENT?
>> YES.
THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT PRO-
TEM.
>> WHEN WE DISCUSSED THIS
ORDINANCE IN COMMITTEE ONE OF
MY TAKEAWAYS FROM IT OR ONE OF
THE CRITICISMS OF THE ORDINANCE
WAS THAT THERE WAS A MECHANISM
TO PUT IN PLACE TO COMPENSATE
LANDLORDS IN THE EVENT THAT
THERE WAS AN ECONOMIC EVICTION
THAT POTENTIALLY PUT A SMALL
LANDLORDS IN THE POSITION WHERE
THEY WOULD HAVE TO FACE
HARDSHIP ESPECIALLY HOUSEHOLDS
THAT ARE DEPENDENT ON THEIR
INCOME AS WE MAKE AS A
LANDLORD.
A LOT OF THE COMMENTS WE HEARD
AT PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY
ADDRESSED THAT CONCERN WITH A
LOT OF LANDLORDS AND THE
CONCERNS OF PRIMARY SOURCE OF
INCOME IS RENTING A SMALL
NUMBER OF UNITS.
SO, UNDER THIS AMENDMENT WE
WOULD ESTABLISH A MITIGATION
FUND.
IT WOULD ONLY BE ACCESSIBLE TO
FOLKS WHO ESTABLISH THIS
DEFENSE.
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE TALK
ABOUT THIS MORATORIUM WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT AN EVICTION
PROCEEDING IN THE WAY IT IS IS
APLIED.
IN THE CASE THAT A TENANT
FACING EVICTION IS ABLE TO HAVE
THIS DEFENSE IT WOULD EXIST AS
A FUND THAT COULD BE ACCESSED
BY THE TENANT IN ORDER TO PAY
RENT OR ACCESS ADDITIONAL
RENTAL ASSISTANCE THE REASON I
RAISE THIS, IT IS NOT A FUND I
WOULD TAKE FROM RENTAL SUPPORT
FUNDS.
THE VISION OF THIS IS THAT WE
WOULD FUND HOPEFULLY IN THIS
FALSE BUDGET AN ADDITIONAL
RENTAL SUPPORT FUND THAT WOULD
APPLY IN THE EVENT THAT A
TENANT WOULD NOT RECEIVE IT
THROUGH EXISTING FUNDS.
I HAD STAFF COME UP WITH
BALLPARK PRICE, THE COST VARIES
-- THE ESTIMATE DEPENDS HOW
LONG THE LEGISLATION WILL COVER
IN EVENT OF 5 MONTHS IT WOULD
BE $1.6 MILLION.
THIS ESTIMATE IS BASED ON THE
CURRENT NUMBER OF EVICTIONS
FROM THE LOSING HOME REPORT IN
2017 BASED ON AN ESTIMATE FOR
THE WINTER PERIOD.
THAT EVICTION IS MINUS THE
NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO RECEIVED
HOME BASE ASSISTANCE.
AND THEN THAT COMES UP WITH THE
NUMBER OF AN ESTIMATED ABOUT
169 FOLKS IN A GIVEN WINTER
THAT COULD POTENTIALLY FACE
EVICTION IN THE WINTER MONTHS.
SO, I THINK IT IS A DOABLE
NUMBER TO FUND MITIGATION FUND
LIKE THIS.
I THINK IT GETS AT THE CORE
CONCERNS OF A LOT OF THE
LANDLORDS, PARTICULARLY SMALL
LANDLORDS IN A POSITION THEY
FEEL LIKE THIS EVICTION
MORATORIUM WOULD CAUSE THEM
SEVERE 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 IT IS ALL TOO COMMON
IN THIS COUNTRY RIGHT NOW WHERE
A OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF
AMERICANS ARE WITHIN COMPLETE
HOMELESSNESS OR BANKRUPTCY FOR
UNANTICIPATED $500 EXPENSE.
A FUND LIKE THIS CAN PROVIDE
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.
ANYMORE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS, COUNCILMEMBER SAVANT
AND HERBOLD.
>> I SUPPORT IT.
HELPING TENANTS AVOID THE
EVICTION ALL TOGETHER AND NOTED
THERE ARE FUNDS MOST NOTABLE
THE HOME BASE PROGRAM THAT IS
OPERATED PROGRAM I SUPPORT
INCREASING FUNDING FOR THOSE
PROGRAMS.
I WANT TO POINT OUT HOW MUCH
THE MAYOR'S OFFICE OPPOSED THIS
LEGISLATION AND IN ADDITION TO
THE LETTERS AND MEMOS THEY
SENT, EVEN MINUTES BEFORE THE
MEETING STARTED SENDING US
ANOTHER LETTER OPPOSING THIS
LEGISLATION.
ONE OF THE THINGS THEY
ATTEMPTED TO DO IS
COUNTEROPPOSE THE MORATORIUM
AGAINST MITIGATION FUNDING AND
OTHER RENTER ASSISTANCE.
I WANT TO CLARIFY THEY ARE BOTH
NECESSARY AND THEY BOTH WORK
WELL TOGETHER.
IT IS GOOD TO HAVE THIS
AMENDMENT AND JUST TO ECHO WHAT
WAS JUST SAID THAT THIS
AMENDMENT CREATES THE FRAMEWORK
FOR MITIGATION FUNDING TO MAKE
IT A REALITY WE WOULD NEED TO
PUSH FOR RESOURCES IN THE
BUDGET IN NOVEMBER.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE
MITIGATION FUND AND HOW IT
INTERACTS WITH THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THIS LEGISLATION, AS I
UNDERSTAND IT THIS LEGISLATION
AS CURRENTLY DRAFTED THE
EFFECTIVE DATE WOULD BE ABOUT
10 DAYS BEFORE APRIL AND
BECAUSE I AM -- I AM TRULY
CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT OF
THIS LEGISLATION ON SMALL
LANDLORDS I AM WONDERING IS
THERE CONCERNS THAT THE
MITIGATION, EITHER THIS
MITIGATION FUND OR THE CAPACITY
OF CURRENT RENTAL ASSISTANTS
FUNDS WILL BE ABLE TO MEET THE
NEED FOR THOSE 10 DAYS BEFORE
THIS GOES INTO EFFECT?
DO WE HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT
THAT?
>>
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
MY UNDERSTANDING FROM CENTRAL
STAFF AND EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS
IS THAT WE WILL NOT BE IN A
POSITION THIS WINTER TO OFFER
RESOURCES THROUGH THIS FUND.
THAT THIS FUND -- THIS IS
REALLY A FORWARD-LOOKING
RESOURCE TO NEXT WINTER.
WHEN THIS -- WHATEVER WINDOW WE
DECIDE ON WE ARE CONSIDERING A
AMENDMENT TO DETERMINE WHAT THE
WINDOW WOULD BE, THERE WOULD BE
NO RESOURCES IN THIS UNTIL WE
GO THROUGH ANOTHER BUDGET
CYCLE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAVANT.
>> HOME BASE HAS FUNDS --
>> YES, THIS PARTICULAR FUND
YES.
>> IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING AS IT
RELATES TO HOW THIS LEGISLATION
WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED THE HOME
BASE FUNDS IT IS DIFFERENT
BECAUSE OF THE TIMING OF HOW
THIS -- HOW A TENANT WOULD
ASSERT A DEFENSE UNDER JUST
CAUSE AND IT IS MY
UNDERSTANDING THEY WOULD NOT BE
ELIGIBLE FOR THE FUNDS.
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 UNDER SCORE MY
SUPPORT FOR THIS THANK YOU
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS WITH
WORKING WITH OUR OFFICE ON THIS
AMENDMENT.
GIVEN THE MODEL AS HOME BASE
FUND AND WE KNOW THEY HAVE A
PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF BEING
SUCCESSFUL FOR PROVIDING FUNDS
TO AVOID EVICTION.
I THINK IT MAKES A LOT OF
SENSE.
IN CASES THEY MAY NOT QUALIFY
IT CREATES A FUND TO MEET THOSE
NEEDS.
IT IS -- I THINK IT IS A COMMON
SENSE AMENDMENT AND ECHOED BY
THE TESTIMONY TODAY AND CAME
FROM THE CALLS WE RECEIVED IN
OUR OFFICE AND APPRECIATE YOU
ADVANCING THIS.
THE INTENT TO MAKE IT UPSTREAM
AND AVOID EVICTIONS IN THE
FIRST PLACE AND IMPACTS ON THE
HOUSING PROVIDERS MANY OF WHICH
ARE NONPROFITS THAT SOMEBODY
ELSE TESTIFIED ON EARLIER
TODAY.
I WILL ALSO BE SUPPORTING THIS
AMENDMENT.
>>> WITH THAT ALL OF THOSE IN
FAVOR OF AMENDMENT 2, VOTE AND
RAISE YOUR HAND.
>> NO OPPOSE.
IT PASSES WITH 7 VOTES AND
INCLUDED IN THE BILL.
AMENDMENT 3, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN WOULD YOU LIKE TO
SPEAK TO THIS AMENDMENT?
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR COMING OUT TODAY
AND PEOPLE WATCHING AT HOME.
I APPRECIATE THE DESIRE TO
ADDRESS THIS TROUBLING
SITUATION WITH EVICTIONS AND WE
ARE HAPPY THE STATE CITY COUNCI
[LOST AUDIO ]
>> THANK YOU, ANY COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS ON THE AMENDMENT?
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOVE THE
AMENDMENT.
>>
>> YES.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED.
ANYMORE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
>> THERE IS UNFORTUNATELY AN
EXAMPLE OF A POLITICIAN
PROPOSING A POLICY THAT BENEFIT
FOR THOSE THAT MORE THAN MOST
WITH NO DATA OR EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT IT.
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE
AMENDMENT AND EXPLAIN WHY I
OPPOSE IT.
BUT JUST QUICKLY BECAUSE A
COMMENT WAS MADE ON THE
STRUCTURE OF THE COMMITTEE
TABLE THIS IS A COMMITTEE
CHAIR, I CHAIR RENTERS'RIGHTS
COMMITTEE.
JUST TO BE CLEAR MOST SMALL
LANDLORDS WE SPOKEN TO,
INCLUDING ONES THAT OPPOSE IT.
NEVER EVICTED ANY OF THEIR
TENANTS.
THERE SAY BUNCH OF "WHAT IF"
FEARS THEY HAVE.
THEY ARE UNDERSTANDABLE ON THE
OTHER HAND AND ALSO ON THE
OTHER HAND ARE NOT THE BASIS
FOR POLICY MAKING IN MY VIEW.
"WHAT IFS" ARE NOT PART OF
POLICY MAKING, HARD CORE DATA
THAT IS SHOWING THE MOST
VULNERABLE ARE THE ONES DAMAGED
BY NOT HAVING STRONG LAWS
AGAINST EVICTION.
THAT IS THE BASIS FOR POLICY
MAKING AND THE PEOPLE WE HAD AT
THE TABLE WERE THE TENANTS UNIT
IN WASHINGTON STATE AND THE
MOST IMPACTED INCLUDING ALICIA
WHO WAS EVICTED IN THE WINTER
AND HER AS A CONSEQUENCE OF HER
EVICTION 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 AM PROUD IT IS ONE OF
COMMITTEE TABLES WHERE PEOPLE
WHO NEVER HAVE AN OPENING IN
CITY HALL ARE INVITED AND WE
WILL CONTINUE TO DO THAT.
[CROWD CHEERING ]
>> WE HAVE -- WE HAVE HARD DATA
OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE BEING
EVICTED AND AS I SAID, TOTALLY
HYPOTHETICAL OF A LANDLORD THAT
ONLY OWNS FOUR RENTAL HOMES AND
ON THE VERGE OF WINTER
BANKRUPTCY IT IS HARD IF YOU
OWN FOUR UNITS HOW ARE YOU ON
THE VERGE OF BANKRUPTCY?
I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
>> IT IS POSSIBLE BUT WHAT ARE
THE STATICS THERE.
MY OFFICE MET WITH SMALL
LANDLORDS, NOT LIKE WE HAVE NOT
MET WITH THEM.
TESTIFIED ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS
ABOUT THIS LEGISLATION IN THE
COMMITTEE MEETING.
NONE OF THEM EVICTED THEIR
TENANTS.
WE WERE UNABLE TO COME TO AN
AGREEMENT ON THE POLICY BUT I
APPRECIATE THEIR TIME AND
WILLINGNESS TO DISCUSS IT.
THE POINT REMAINS THE SMALL
LANDLORD THAT THIS AMENDMENT IS
INTENDED TO HELP IS
HYPOTHETICAL.
BUT THE TENANTS WHOSE LIVES ARE
DESTROYED AND FOR WHOM THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD NOT HELP.
THAT IS VERY REAL.
THOSE TENANTS ARE VERY REAL.
THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS THE
IMPACT IT WOULD HAVE ON THE
RENTERS WHO ARE RENTING WITH
THE WORST SLUMLORDS IN OUR
CITY.
SLUMLORDS OVERWHELMINGLY DIVIDE
UP THEIR PROPERTIES TO HIND
THEIR COMMON OWNERSHIP.
WILD THIS AMENDMENT SAYS THAT
DIFFERENT LLC'S OWNED BY THE
SAME PERSON COUNT AS A LARGE
LANDLORD, THE REALITY IS IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE FOR RENTERS TO KNOW
WHAT OTHER PROPERTIES THEIR
LANDLORD OWNS, DO ANY OF YOU
ARE RENTERS KNOW WHAT OTHER
PROPERTIES THAT YOUR LANDLORD
OWNS?
DO YOU HAVE THE RESOURCES TO
FIND IT OUT?
MY OFFICE, WITH ALL OF THE
RESOURCES WE HAVE FROM BEING IN
CITY HALL WE ATTEMPTED TO TRACK
DOWN ALL OF THE PROPERTIES
OWNED BY SOME OF THE SLUMLORDS
THAT WE KNOW ARE ABUSING THEIR
TENANTS AND FOUND IT IS
EXTREMELY HARD AND ACTUALLY
IMPOSSIBLE TO DO IT WITHOUT
COMPLETELY HAVE DEVOTING YOUR
RESOURCES.
WE DID NOT HAVE ACCESS F. WE
DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THAT
INFORMATION HOW IS IT RENTERS
FACING EVICTION WHO ARE THE
MOST MARGINALIZED ANY WAY,
WORLD BEING TURNED UPSIDE DOWN,
HOW ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO FIND
OUT ALL OF THIS INFORMATION?
HOW WILL THEY KNOW THEY ARE
PROTECTED OR NOT?
MANY TENANTS FACING EVICTION
DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THEIR POWER.
THE ATTORNEYS THAT HELP THOSE
RENTERS IN THE COURT WILL TELL
YOU THAT THEY END UP HELPING A
FRACTION OF THE RENTERS BECAUSE
MOST RENTERS DO NOT COME TO
COURT.
IN REALITY THIS AMENDMENT WILL
END UP MEANING WHERE IT IS
INTENDED OR NOT.
THE WORST SLUMLORDS THAT ARE
EVICTING PEOPLE WILL 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.
>> [CROWD APPLAUDS ]
>> ANYMORE QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS?
>>
>> I APPRECIATE THIS AND THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING OUT THE INTENT
AND VS NOT INTENT.
WE TALKED ABOUT WANTING TO MAKE
SURE WE DID NOT IMPUGN THE
MOTIVES OF ANYONE.
DID I SEE YOU REACH FOR THE
MICROPHONE COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD?
>> I APPRECIATE THE INTENT OF
THIS AMENDMENT.
I JUST DON'T SEE HOW IT CAN BE
IMPLEMENTED GIVEN THAT IT IS
VIRTUAL UNKNOWN.
SO, I APPRECIATE THE ATTEMPT.
REGRETFUL WE DON'T HAVE MORE
TIME TO WORK OUT THAT PART OF
THE POLICY.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER.
>> ANYMORE COMMENTS?
>> OKAY.
SEEING NONE.
I AM GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL
--
>> UNLESS YOU WANT TO COMMENT.
>> I WANT TO ADDRESS THE
CONCERN.
IS THERE A CONCERN THAT THE
LANDLORD MIGHT REGISTER UNDER A
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OR
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP?
THAT DATA IS AVAILABLE FROM THE
WASHINGTON SECRETARY OF STATE.
>> ARE YOU SAYING THE MOST
VULNERABLE TENANTS ARE GOING TO
GO TO WASHINGTON WEB SITE AND
LOOK AT --
>> LET'S NOT DEBATE UP HERE BUT
IF THERE IS A QUESTION DO YOU
HAVE RESPONSE TO WHERE THE DATA
SPECIFIC TO THAT QUESTION?
OKAY.
>> ARE YOU LOOKING AT ME?
>> BOTH OF YOU.
>> OKAY.
NO PROBLEM.
IT IS OKAY.
>> I ALREADY SAID THAT MY
OFFICE TRIED TO COMPILE SUCH
DATA.
IT IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO
DO IT WITH ALL OF THE RESOURCES
WE HAVE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT MORE EVIDENCE
YOU NEED TO SHOW THAT FOR THE
MOST VULNERABLE TENANTS THERE
IS BASICALLY AN IMPOSSIBLE TASK
YOU ARE PUTTING ON THEM.
>> OKAY.
>> ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
>> I WILL SAY THE WORK THAT WE
DID SHOWS OF THE BUILDINGS THAT
ARE REGISTERED ALMOST 29,000
BUILDINGS ARE REGISTERED WITH 4
UNITS OR LESS WHICH MEANS THIS
WOULD EXCLUDE 87% OF THE
RENTERS IN THE CITY.
I DO THINK THAT IS A
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON WHAT THIS
LEGISLATION IS TRYING TO
ACHIEVE.
SO, YOU KNOW, AND WE KNOW WE
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 MITIGATION FUND
THAT HAS BEEN PUT IN PLACE TO
TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT LANDLORDS
ARE NOT EFFECTED BY THIS.
BUT AS WE SAID, THOSE LANDLORDS
ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.
THE PROBLEM ARE THE LANDLORDS
WHO DO TAKE THINGS TOO FAR AND
ARE WILLING TO PUSH PEOPLE OUT.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE
CONSIDER THE SCOPE OR, YOU
KNOW, HOW THIS PARTICULAR
AMENDMENT WOULD LIMIT THE SCOPE
OF WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO
HERE.
IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I
COULD, IN GOOD CONSCIOUS,
SUPPORT.
>> I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING IT
FORWARD.
I HEARD, TOO, CONCERNS,
INITIALLY I WAS INTENDED TO
SUPPORT IT BECAUSE SIMILAR TO
THE ARGUMENT THAT WAS MADE
AROUND SOME OF OUR LABOR
STANDARDS WE NEVER EXPECT OUR
EMPLOYERS TO KNOW FRANCHISES IT
WAS USED IN A DIFFERENT WAY AND
DIFFERENT HERE.
GIVEN THE STATISTICS THAT
MORALES JUST SHARED.
I UNFORTUNATELY WILL VOTE NO ON
THERE BUT I APPRECIATE WHERE
YOU ARE COMING FROM WITH THIS.
I AM HAPPY TO KEEP WORKING WITH
YOU AS WE WORK WITH FUTURE
AMENDMENTS IN THAT SOUNDS TO
YOU, FUTURE LEGISLATION.
>> DO WE HAVE CENTRAL STAFF
AVAILABLE?
>> CENTRAL STAFF IS AVAILABLE
FOR QUESTIONS.
IT COULD BE DONE IN THE
COMMITTEE.
WHAT WE CAN DO IS HOLD THIS
AMENDMENT IF IT WORKS AND HAVE
THEM COME BACK AND ANSWER
QUESTIONS.
>> AS A SPONSOR OF THE BILL I
WOULD PREFER THE BILL IS VOTED
ON TODAY.
>> RIGHT.
>> I AM NOT MENTIONING HOLDING
IT OFF TODAY BUT TO THE END OF
OUR AMENDMENTS AND COME BACK TO
IT AND HAVE THE QUESTIONS
ANSWERS.
>> OKAY.
I SEE CENTRAL STAFF.
COME ON IN.
WELCOME, ALY.
>> AND IF YOU DON'T MIND
INTRODUCING YOURSELF FOR THE
RECORD.
>> WELCOME.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON
COUNCILMEMBERS.
I WAS RUNNING DOWN THE HALL.
I MAY OF MISSED THE QUESTION.
>> SO, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> SO, I APPRECIATE IT.
IT IS HELPFUL TO HAVE THE
STATISTICS I JUST WANT TO
UNDERSTAND WHEN AT COMMITTEE I
THOUGHT YOU HAD MENTIONED THE
NUMBER AND THE RANGE OF 200,000
OR SO RENTAL UNITS JUST TRYING
TO GET THE SCOPE OF THOSE THAT
ARE 4 AND UNDER.
>> OR DO WE HAVE THOSE.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE THOSE, THAT
IS FINE, TOO.
>> SO IT IS SOMEWHAT OF -- I
THINK WE ARE NOT NECESSARILY
COMPARING APPLES AND APPLES
HERE.
RENTAL REGISTRATION ORDINANCE I
AM NOT SURE IF THE NUMBERS YOU
ARE QUOTING COUNCILMEMBER
MORASLES THE TYPE OF STRUCTURE.
IF IT IS A UNIT.
WE HAVE UNITS IN DETACHED,
PLEXES AND MULTIFAMILY
BUILDINGS, NOT NECESSARILY ALL
OWNED BY THE SAME PEOPLE SO
WHAT YOU YOUR AMENDMENT WOULD
DO WOULD EXCLUDE UNITS THAT ARE
OWNED BY A LANDLORD WHO OWNS
MORE THAN -- EXCUSE ME, ONLY
OWNS 4 UNITS AND LESS.
IT COULD ALL BE IN 1 UNIT.
THE 4 PLEX COULD BE EXCLUDED IF
THE SAME OWNER OWNS ALL FOUR.
IT COULD BE FOUR UNITS SPREAD
FOUR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES,
MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS WHERE
THEY OWN CONDOS OR THAT SORT OF
THING.
IT IS HARD TO KNOW EXACTLY THE
UNIVERSE OF UNITS WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT HERE.
>> WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO IS
DATA OFFERED BY SSEI.
EXCLUDING THE BUILDINGS
REGISTERED THROUGH THAT
ORDINANCE, UNITS OF 4 OR MORE.
>> COUNCILMEMBERS -- I AM NOT
CLEAR BECAUSE OF OWNERS WHO
OWNS THEM.
IT IS HARD TO KNOW IF SOME OF
THOSE UNITS IN SMALLER
BUILDINGS ARE OWNED BY LLCs
THAT OWN 25 UNITS.
I AM JUST NOT -- I HAVE NOT
SEEN THE DATA YOU ARE REFERRING
TO KNOW IF I CAN SORT IT OUT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE ARE
COMPARING APPLES AND APPLES
HERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT DID YOU
HAVE ONE MORE THING?
>> YES, I WANTED TO SAY -- I
WAS THINKING WHAT ALY WAS
SAYING IN TERMS OF THE ACCURACY
OF THE NUMBERS.
I THINK HAVING CLARIFIED THAT
IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT
THAT IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE
THING FOR TENANTS TO KNOW.
IT IS A MEANS TESTING.
IT IS PUTTING THE BURDEN.
IT IS THE SAME AS IN THE SENSE
OF PUTTING THE BURDEN ON THE
EFFECTED PARTY TO FIGURE OUT IF
THEY ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS
PROTECTION OR NOT.
BEST TO JUST MAKE THE
PROTECTION AVAILABLE ACROSS THE
BOARD AND I WILL TELL YOU
SOMETHING, EXPEDIENTS AND
TENANTS WHO ARE FACING RENT
GOUGING FROM THEIR LANDLORDS, I
AM 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 EVER THE
PROPERTIES EXPLOITED THE
LANDLORD.
THEY ARE ALL SPREAD OUT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PUT THE
BURDEN ON THE TENANTS AND THERE
IS A COMPONENT TO THIS BECAUSE
BLACK FAMILIES AND BLACK
CHILDREN ARE THE MOST IMPACTED.
[CROWD APPLAUDS ]
>> 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 AM SORRY THAT WAS SPRUNG ON
YOU ALY AND WE APPRECIATE YOU
RUNNING DOWN THE HALL.
I THINK THERE IS A RATIONAL
ARGUMENT FOR EXCLUDING SMALL
LANDLORDS AND I WISH THAT HI
THAT ACTUAL NUMBER IN FRONT OF
US.
I THINK THERE IS A REASON THAT
WE HAVE EXCLUDED SMALL
BUSINESSES IN THE PAST WHEN IT
CAME TO SOME OF THE LABOR STAND
ARS AND DID NOT MAKE IT FOR
WORKERS.
TODAY I AM GOING TO SUPPORT
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN IN LOOKS
AT THE SMALLER BUSINESSES AND
SEE HOW IT GOES AND CONTINUE TO
ADVANCE THE CONVERSATION TODAY.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR OF
INCLUDING PEDERSENS AMENDMENT
SAY YEA AND OPPOSED.
>> OPPOSED.
>> NO.
>> IT IS 4-3. OKAY.
[CROWD BOOING ]
>> AND WE CAN CONTINUE WITH THE
AMENDMENTS.
COUNCILMEMBER --
>> JUST IN TERMS OF PROCESS I
AM NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN
CONTINUE WITH THE AMENDMENT.
YOU VOTED FOR THE AMENDMENT
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
>> THERE ARE THREE MORE
AMENDMENTS TO COME.
>> NO, I MEAN ON THAT AMENDMENT
YOU SAID YOU WOULD CONTINUE THE
CONVERSATION.
>> THE REST OF THEM.
>> YES, YES.
HAVING VOTING ON THE PREVAILING
SIDE THERE IS A CHANCE BEFORE
THE END OF TODAY TO GO BACK AND
LOOK AT THAT.
I AM NOT SURE ALY IF THAT DATA
EXISTS.
BUT I WOULD BE CONCERNED IF IT
WAS 80% AND IF THERE IS A
CHANCE FOR US TO COME THROUGH
THIS AND GO BACK I AM HAPPY FOR
THAT BUT I WOULD LIKE US TO
TAKE A QUICK SECOND IF YOU HAVE
FEEDBACK ON THAT BEFORE WE MOVE
THE AMENDMENT FORWARD.
>> I CAN TRY TO GET THEM ON THE
PHONE TO UNDERSTAND THAT DATA
MORE PRECISELY.
I THINK BECAUSE THE WAY THIS
AMENDMENT IS DRAFTED IT
INCLUDING IF YOU ARE THE OWNER
OR IF YOU HAVE AN OWNERSHIP
INTEREST IN ANY UNIT.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WOULD
BE ABLE TO TELL BY LOOKING AT
THE RENTAL REGULATION AND
INSPECTION ORDINANCE DATA WHO
HAS AN OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN
ALL --
>> THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
>> THAT ARE INCLUDED.
IT IS DIFFICULT.
ESSENTIALLY JUST LIKE THE WAY
THE ORDINANCE ITSELF, THE MAIN
PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE
PRESENTS -- PROVIDES A DEFENSE
AND EVICTION PROCEEDING.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO CLAIM THEY
OWN LESS THAN 5 UNITS FEWER
THAN 5 UNITS AND THEREFORE IT
SHOULD NOT APPLY IN THAT
SITUATION.
IF THEY WERE LYING THEY WOULD
BE LIING IN FRONT OF A COURT.
I OBVIOUSLY THERE IS AN OVER
OVERSIMPLIFICATION.
I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN CHANGE
THAT IN 10 MINUTES.
ASSUMING IT IS SIGNED WITHIN 10
DAYS BY THE PLAYER AND GOES
INTO EFFECT 30 DAYS AFTER THAT,
WE WILL REALLY ONLY BE RELEVANT
FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.
WHAT I CAN DO IS WORK ON TRYING
TO FIGURE OUT WHAT DATA WE HAVE
AND AVAILABLE AND IF NECESSARY
THE COUNCIL COULD REVISIT THIS
PRIOR TO NEXT NOVEMBER OR
WHEREVER THE PERIOD STARTS.
I DON'T KNOW IF I AM GOING TO
BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU A
SATISFYING ANSWER IN HOWEVER
LONG THIS MEETING LASTS.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO-TEM.
>> TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THIS
ITEM BEING INCLUDED IN THE BILL
LET'S GO THROUGH THE OTHER
AMENDMENTS AND SEE WHAT WE CAN
GET FROM THEM AND HAVING VOTED
ON THE PREVAILING SIDE THERE
MAY BE A CHANCE TO COME BACK TO
THIS.
OKAY.
MOVING FORWARD I WOULD LIKE TO
ASK COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD WOULD
YOU LIKE TO MOVE YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE
AMENDMENT FOUR.
CAN YOU SPEAK TO YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> DO I HAVE A SECOND.
>> SECOND.
>> THIS IS PERFECT.
THIS IS AMENDING PREVIOUS
LANGUAGE THAT WAS ADD 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 THE OTHER OWNER.
IT IS BROUGHT FORWARD BECAUSE
OF CONCERNS FROM FOLKS WHO
OPERATE NONPROFIT HOUSING
SPECIFICALLY THROUGH
CONVERSATIONS I HAVE HAD WITH
THE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR THROUGH
CCS COMMUNITY SERVICES.
IT IS A VERY NARROW EXEMPTION.
NOT FOR ANY RULE VIOLATION BUT
RULE VIOLATIONS THAT HAVE A
NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE HEALTH
OR SAFETY OF OTHER TENANTS OR
THE OWNER.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS?
>> WE ARE STILL PROCEDURAL OR
ARE WE DISCUSSING THE
AMENDMENT.
>> THIS IS ON AMENDMENT NUMBER
4 AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR
HER AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN
FAVOR OF IT.
>> OKAY.
GO AHEAD COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> I THINK THIS AMENDMENT AND I
APPRECIATE COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD BRINGING IT FORWARD
GOES A LONG WAY IN
STRENGTHENING THE CASE THAT WE
DO HAVE A LEGAL CHALLENGE
RELATED TO THIS ORDINANCE.
I THINK ANYTHING WE CAN
INCORPORATE INTO IT THAT GIVES
MORE FLEXIBILITY IS MORE AWARE
OF EXISTING RULES AND THINGS
THAT MAKE IT LOOK MORE
REASONABLE IN COURT DOES GO
WELL FOR THE LEGISLATION AS A
WHOLE AND SURVIVING THE
CHALLENGE.
I THINK IT IS REASONABLE
ADDITION TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
ARE NOT PUTTING LANDLORDS IN
POSITION THERE IS ONGOING
ACTIVITY FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY
OF THE BUILDING BUT THEY ARE
UNABLE.
ENFORCE AN EVICTION.
I DO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT AND
HOPE TO SEE IT PASS.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
LEWIS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS?
>> SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT I UNDERSTAND.
MY CONCERN WITH THIS IS THAT
THESE KINDS OF NOTICES CAN BE
USED FOR RETALIATION, FOR
DISCRIMINATION AND THERE IS
ALREADY WITH THE JUST CAUSE LAW
THAT WE HAVE, THERE IS ALREADY
A CONCERN THAT THESE KINDS OF
LEASES, THESE KINDS OF TOOLS
ARE TENANTS.
I KEEP COMING BACK TO THE FACTS
THAT THE FOLKS THAT ARE HERE
HAVE SAID THEM -- IT DOES NOT
APPLY AND MALLANDLORDS ARE
TRYING HARD TO MAKE SURE THEIR
TENANTS ARE ABLE TO STAY AND
WORK OUT THE SITUATION THAT YOU
HAVE.
SO, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ENFORCE
SOMETHING THIS BROAD AND THE
LEGISLATION THAT WE HAVE
INCLUDES CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AS A
REASON THAT FOLKS CAN BE
EVICTED.
SO I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THIS
AMENDMENT.
I DON'T THINK I WILL BE
SUPPORTING IT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
MORLES.
>> DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND?
>> I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT
THIS LANGUAGE ESTABLISHES WHAT
THE LEGAL BAR IS.
IT IS AN IMMINENT THREAT AND
SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENTAL IMPACT.
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.
SO, A LANDLORD WOULD HAVE TO
DEMONSTRATE THAT IT IS BOTH
SUBSTANTIAL THREAT AND THE
ADDITIONAL IS IMMINENT.
THESE ARE NOT JUST RANDOM
WORDS, THEY ARE WORDS THAT ARE
ESTABLISHED IN CASE LAW AND
THAT I THINK BOUND REALLY WELL
THE EXPECTATIONS THAT WE HAVE
FOR PROTECTING THE SAFETY OF
OTHER TENANTS.
AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO SAY THIS
REQUEST HAS COME FROM A
PROVIDER OF LOW INCOME HOUSING.
ONE OF OUR NONPROFIT PARTNERS
THE REQUEST FOR THIS LANGUAGE
AND IT DOES NOT EXTEND THE
LANGUAGE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
>> THANK YOU.
I ALSO APPRECIATE THE INTENT OF
THIS AMENDMENT.
I HAVE SIMILAR CONCERNS AS TO
WHAT COUNCILMEMBER MORALES
EXPRESSED.
MAKING AN EXCEPTION, MAKING IT
FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, IF
NEIGHBORS OR BUILDING OWNERS
ARE PUT IN DANGER IF SOMEONE IS
COOKING METH IN THEIR
APARTMENT, SHOOTING GUNS,
SOMETHING WE ALL AGREE IS
EXTREMELY DANGEROUS THERE IS AN
EXEMPTION ALREADY IN PLACE.
I UNDERSTAND THE PHRASE
SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENTAL IMPACT
THAT WE HAVE, CASE BACKGROUND
AND I STILL DON'T THINK THERE
ARE PROTECTIONS IN PLACE TO
MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS SUCH
IMMINENT DAMAGE THAT IT WILL BE
COVERED ALREADY IN THAT AND THE
EVICTION THAT WILL GO THROUGH.
A LANDLORD THAT WANTS TO EVICT
A TENANT WILL USE ANY TOOLS
AVAILABLE TO THEM.
HOWEVER THEY RESPOND -- HOW ARE
THEY SUPPOSED TO RESPOND TO
CLAIMS THAT THE TENANT IS
HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BY
ATTRACTING VERMEN, HANGING OUT
WITH BAD PEOPLE, I AM USING
THESE WORDS BECAUSE THIS IS
WHAT TENANTS ARE BEING EVICTED
BECAUSE THEY ARE ACCUSED
BECAUSE THEY ATTRACTED THAT
THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE THEY
DIDN'T.
IT RULES IN A TENANTS ABSENCE.
EXTREME POWER IMBALANCE.
IT IS NOT A JUST CAUSE THAT WE
MODELED IT AFTER SO.
ANY MORE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS
ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 4?
>> SEEING NONE.
ALL OF THOSE VOTING TO INCLUDE
NUMBER 4, RAISE YOUR HAND AND
VOTE.
OPPOSED.
OKAY.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS WOULD
YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR
AMENDMENT AND MOVE IT.
>> YES.
NARROWS THE NO EVICTION PERIOD.
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THIS
AMENDMENT AT THIS TIME.
>> SECOND.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO
IT?
>> YES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IT WOULD REDUCE THE PERIOD FOR
EVICTION TO APPLY TO 3 MONTH
PERIOD FROM DECEMBER THROUGH
FEBRUARY.
THE THREE MONTHS THAT WHEN THE
TEMPERATURES ARE THE COLDEST.
I BELIEVE THAT THE 3 MONTHS IS
A LENGTH OF TIME.
IT IS USED AS A DEFENSE FOR THE
EVICTION AS WE ALREADY FROM THE
PLANE 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 HAVE HAD ARE
ALWAYS WILLING TO PICK UP THE
PHONE, HAVE A CONVERSATION AND
WORK WITH ME.
AGAIN, THIS 3 MONTH WINDOW IS A
TIME FOR THE EVICTION OFFENSE
TO APPLY RATHER THAN FOR HALF
OF THE YEAR.
AND THIS 3 MONTH PERIOD ALSO
ALIGNS TO THE RECENT CHANGES IN
STATE LAW THAT ALLOWS A JUDGE
TO REQUIRE A 90 DAY PAYMENT
PLAN BEFORE AN EVICTION RITE IS
ISSUED.
SO, FOR THOSE REASONS AND THAT
DECEMBER THROUGH MARCH ARE THE
COLDEST MONTHS OF THE YEAR AND
THIS IS A WINTER EVICTIONS BILL
AND THOSE ARE THE WINTER MONTHS
OF THE YEAR.
THAT IS WHY I MOVE THIS
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS, ANYMORE QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS?
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
>> SO THIS BILL WOULD REDUCE
THE NUMBER OF MONTHS OF
EVICTION MORATORIUM FROM 5
MONTHS TO 3 MONTHS AND RIGHT
NOW, KEEPING IN MIND THERE IS
NO WINTER PROTECTION AT ALL.
IF ALL WE ARE ABLE TO DO IS BAN
THE WINTER EVICTIONS FOR THE 3
MONTHS OF THE YEAR THERE WOULD
BE STILL A HUGE VICTORY IN
TNANTS RIGHTS.
HOWEVER, WE WORKED WITH CENTRAL
STAFF TO LOOK AT AVERAGE
MONTHLY RAINFALL AND COLD
TEMPERATURES AND THE DATA
SHOWS, AGAIN, FOR A COUNCIL
THAT SAYS THEY WANT TO BE DATA
DRIVEN, THE DATA SHOWS THE COLD
AND WET MONTHS STRETCH FROM
NOVEMBER TO MARCH.
IF YOU ARE LIVING IN SEATTLE DO
YOU NEED TO TELL YOU THAT THE
COLD MONTHS ARE FROM NOVEMBER
THROUGH MARCH?
I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT
ALICIA WEREN'T YOU EVICTED ON
HALLOWEEN OR JUST AFTER
HALLOWEEN?
>> YES.
>> SO, YOU KNOW F WE REDUCE IT
TO THREE MONTHS ALICIA AND
PEOPLE LIKE HER WERE EVICTED IN
EARLY NOVEMBER WOULD NOT BE
COVERED BY THIS.
I AM NOT SURE WHAT THE LOGIC
IS.
IF WE ARE GOING TO DO IT WHY
NOT COVER IT FOR THE WHOLE
WINTER.
NO LOGIC BEHIND IT OTHER THAN
GOING TO LANDLORD LOBBY.
SO, I REALLY THINK AT THE END
OF THE DAY IT COMES DOWN TO AS
YOU HAVE SEEN, IT COMES DOWN TO
WHO POLITICIANS THINK THEY NEED
TO SUPPORT AND WHO THEY NEED TO
STAND FORWARD.
MOST VULNERABLE OR PEOPLE WHO
HAVE EVERYTHING AND ALL OF THE
POWER.
I WILL VOTE NO ON THIS
AMENDMENT.
>> ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
[CROWD APPLAUDING ]
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS?
>> SO, I AM INTEND TO VOTE FOR
SHORTENING THE WINDOW FOR THREE
MONTHS FOR A COUPLE REASONS.
ONE OF THE REASONS THAT --
SPEAKING FOR THE SAME REASONS
THAT I SPOKE TO AMENDMENT FOUR,
THE MORE NARROWLY TAILORED IT
IS, HARDER IN COURT.
IT SAY ARGUMENT IN OBTAINING
THIS FOR CHALLENGE IN STATE
COURT AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO
NOTE AFTER SEEING A YEAR AFTER
HOW A 90 DAY MORATORIUM IS WE
CAN ENTERTAIN TO EXTENDING IT
TO FIVE MONTHS.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE A NATURAL
EVOLUTION OF THERE POLICY.
AND FOR THOSE REASONS I AM
GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
LEWIS.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
>> ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
>> SEEING NONE.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR OF
INCLUDING COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS'AMENDMENT VOTE AND
RAISE YOUR HAND.
OPPOSED.
OKAY.
THE AMENDMENT DOES HANG.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS YOU HAVE
ONE MORE.
>> THANK YOU.
WITH THE NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS
IN THE NATURE OF EACH AMENDMENT
IT DEMONSTRATES THE NEED FOR
FURTHER WORK TO OF OCCURRED IN
COMMITTEE.
AND SO I RAISE THAT TODAY.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 6 MOVES IS TO
MODERATE HOUSEHOLD.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS WOULD YOU
LIKE TO SPEAK ON IT.
>> AS A RENTER I UNDERSTAND
WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE MAKING RENT
EVERY MONTH.
AND WHAT THE ECONOMICS ARE.
MY AMENDMENT NUMBER 6 WILL
ALLOW THE EVICTION TO BE USED
BY MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
DESIGNED BY 100% OF THE MEDIAN
OR LESS IT IS $76,000 FOR AN
INDIVIDUAL OR $108,600 FOR A
FAMILY OF FOUR.
DATA ON RENT BURDEN HOUSEHOLDS
SUPPORT THIS THRESHOLD, NEARLY
HALF, 49.1% HOUSEHOLDS AT 50-
80% ARE RENT BURDENED.
28.5 ARE 80-100% ARE RENT
BURDENED.
ONLY 4.8% OF HOUSEHOLDS OVER
100% MEDIAN INCOME ARE RENT
BURDENED.
THIS WOULD ENSURE THAT
HOUSEHOLDS MAKING MORE THAN
100% MEDIAN INCOME -- IT DOES
NOT MAKE SURE IT IS JUST CLEAR
THAT HOUSEHOLDS MAKING THAT
INCOME ARE THE LEAST LIKELY TO
BECOME HOMELESS AS A RESULT OF
AN EVICTION.
I THINK THAT IT IS VERY
FORTUNATE 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 NOT FOLLOWED UP ON
THEIR DUE DILIGENCE.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS?
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I APPRECIATE ON THE COMMENT
ABOUT READINESS OF THE
LEGISLATION.
I DON'T AGREE THAT THE
AMENDMENTS, THE SLEW OF
AMENDMENTS DEMONSTRATES FURTHER
WORK.
WHAT IT DEMONSTRATES IS THE
LANDLORD LOBBY HAS PULL ON THE
COUNCIL AND DEMONSTRATES
NEEDING MORE POWERFUL MOVEMENT
THAT IS WHAT IT DEMONSTRATES.
[CROWD APPLAUDING ]
>> THIS IS ANOTHER AMENDMENT
THAT WILL MAKE IT FAR MORE
DIFFICULT FOR RENTERS THAT NEED
THIS THE MOST TO ACTUALLY USE
THEM.
THE REALITY -- THIS AMENDMENT
SAYS TENANTS HOUSEHOLD IS
MODERATE HOUSEHOLD DEFINED AND
SO ON BUT THE REALITY IS THE
RENTERS WHO ARE BEING EVICTED
ARE VERY, VERY LOW INCOME
PEOPLE.
JUST A QUOTE TENANTS UNION WHO
ARE AT OUR COMMITTEE TABLE THEY
SAID, THE EVICTION ITSELF IS A
MEANS TESTED PROCESS BECAUSE IT
IS -- IT IS POOR PEOPLE WHO ARE
GETTING IMPACTED.
IT IS NOT OPINION.
LOOK AT THE DATA.
FIND ME ANOTHER $130,000 SALARY
EARNING PERSON WHO WAS EVICTED
THAT IS HOW MUCH COUNCILMEMBERS
MAKE.
I TAKE HOME ONLY $40,000.
HOW MANY PEOPLE MAKE $130,000
ARE BEING EVICTED.
IT DOES NOT EXIST.
AGAIN, IT IS ALL IMAGINARY
THINGS THAT ARE PULLED OUT OF
HAT AND SAY WE NEED TO MAKE
SURE IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.
THERE IS NOT A GREAT WELL OFF
PEOPLE BEING EVICTED.
IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.
IF IT DID THE COURT WOULD ORDER
THE RICH PERSON TO MAKE UP THE
WINTER MONTHS OF RENT.
IF IT DOES NOT EXCLUDE WELL OFF
RENTERS WHO WERE EXCLUDED BY
PAYING RENT I AM NOT SURE WHAT
IT DOES.
HERE IS WHAT IT ACTUALLY DOES.
WHAT IT WILL DO AND THIS IS
WHAT MEANS TESTING DOES IN
GENERAL.
NOT THE FIRST MEANS TESTING
EXAMPLE.
IT FORCES POOR AND WORKING
CLASS PEOPLE TO JUMP THROUGH
MORE HOOPS TO GET PROTECTION
THAT WAS MEANT FOR THEM.
[CROWD CHEERING ]
>> WITHOUT THIS AMENDMENT A
JUDGE COULD USE THIS TO AVOID
THE EVICTION OF SOMEONE WHO
FAILED UP IN COURT LIKE SO MANY
DESPERATE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT
SHOW UP IN COURT BECAUSE THEY
DON'T THINK THE SYSTEM WILL
WORK BECAUSE IT DOES NOT WORK
FOR THEM.
IF THIS MORATORIUM IS A STRONG
ONE EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF
TENANTS THE TENANT COULD BE
PROTECTED.
IMAGINE HOW MUCH IT WOULD
IMPROVE PEOPLE'S LIVES RATHER
THAN SENDING THEM IN A DOWNWARD
SPIRAL.
WITH THIS AMENDMENT HOW WOULD A
JUDGE DETERMINE ELEGIBILITY IN
A RENTER'S ABSENCE?
IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE.
MEANS TESTS LIKE THIS ARE WELL
DOCUMENTED TO LIMIT THE NUMBER
OF LOW INCOME PEOPLE WHO END
UPTAKING ADVANTAGE OF SERVICES.
NUTRITIONAL PROGRAM, THERE ARE
TONS OF DATA TO SHOW THAT
PEOPLE DON'T END UP -- THE POOL
OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ELIGIBLE IS
BIGGER THAN THE POOL OF PEOPLE
WHO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT.
THESE ARE, AGAIN, ALSO
ESTABLISHED FACT.
NOT MY OPINION.
LOCALLY THERE WAS AN EXAMPLE
WHEN I FIRST TOOK OFFICE IN
2014 WE FOUND OUT THAT DISCOUNT
PROGRAM FOR THE SEATTLE CITY
LIGHT, SUPPOSED TO GIVE YOU
SUBSIDIZED RATES THAT EXISTED
FOR YEARS.
WHEN WE TOOK OFFICE IT WAS VERY
SPARSELY USED.
ONLY 18% OF ELIGIBLE PEOPLE
WERE USING IT.
WHY?
BECAUSE IT WAS AN OPT-IN
PROGRAM.
YOU HAD TO SHOW PROOF.
WE PUSHED THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AT
THAT TIME, ED MURRAY, TO MAKE
IT AN OPT-OUT PROGRAM WITH HELP
OF WONDERFUL STAFF AND FROM THE
TIME WE MADE IT UP, THE RATE OF
PEOPLE ACTUALLY ENROLING, BEING
ENROLLED IN THE PROGRAM
AUTOMATICALLY BECAUSE THEY ARE
ALREADY POOR HAS GONE UP
TREMENDOUSLY.
TO QUOTE L.A.
TIMES COLUMNIST, NOT SOCIALIST,
MEANS TESTING QUOTE CAN ALLOW
OFFICIALS TO PRY INTO THE MOST
PRIVATE ASPECTS OF APPLICANTS
LIVES, DISCOURAGES APPLICATIONS
THUS MAKING IT LESS USEFUL FOR
BENEFICIARIES.
AGAIN, SYSTEMATICALLY.
I KNOW COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS
PRESENTED ONE TO BE
INTERNATIONAL CLASH DAY.
I CAN NOT HELP BUT QUOTE FROM
THE SONG.
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO FOOD
MONEY PROVIDING YOU DON'T MIND
A LITTLE INVESTIGATION,
HUMILIATION.
[CROWD APPLAUSE ]
>> THIS -- THIS IS A REALITY
PEOPLE ALSO -- PEOPLE BECAUSE
OF MEANS TESTING PEOPLE WHO ARE
ELIGIBLE END UP NOT USING THE
PROGRAM.
NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE
PAPERWORK BUT BECAUSE THEY FEEL
HUMILIATED.
IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF SELF-
RESPECT IT IS A QUESTION OF
YOUR RIGHT.
SO, FOR THAT REASON I WILL
OPPOSE THIS AMENDMENT.
[CROWD APPLAUDING ]
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT.
>> THANK YOU, I WILL QUOTE FROM
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS.
>> OH, HERE WE GO, GUYS.
>> IT IS THAT YOU HAVE THE
RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AS LONG AS
YOU ARE NOT DUMB ENOUGH NOT TO
USE IT.
I THINK THAT USING FREE SPEECH
-- IT IS A QUOTE.
I DO.
I ABSOLUTELY DO.
>> IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE
IRONIC.
I UNDERSTAND THAT AND
APPRECIATE EVERYONE 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.
>> I TOOK THAT COMMENT TO BE
SELF-REFLECTING NOT ON ANY
OTHER COUNCILMEMBER THAT IS THE
WAY I TOOK IT.
>> YES.
THAT DID NOT GO WELL.
>> I WILL CALL ON COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD AND APPRECIATE ALL OF
THE GOOD OPINIONS EXPRESSED.
>> THANK YOU.
BEFORE I GET TO MY SUBSTANCE OF
MY COMMENTS ABOUT THIS
PARTICULAR AMENDMENT I DO WANT
TO SPEAK TO SOMETHING THAT I AM
SURE THAT COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT
DID NOT MEAN AS I HEARD IT BUT
I WANT TO CLARIFY IT FOR THE
PUBLIC.
REFERENCED WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF
A TENANT DID NOT 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
SPEAKING TO THIS AS A JUST
CAUSE WILL LIMIT THEIR ABILITY
TO USE IT AS A DEFENSE.
EVEN USING THIS ORDINANCE THAT
WE ARE POISED TO VOTE ON, STILL
REQUIRE TENANTS TO SHOW UP IN
COURT IF AN EVICTION IS FILED.
I THINK THAT IS REALLY
IMPORTANT WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF
US ALL KNOWING OUR RIGHTS.
>> PLEASE CONTINUE.
>> AS IT RELATES SPECIFICALLY
TO THE QUESTION OF MEANS
TESTING, THE UTILITY DISCOUNT
PROGRAM HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP A
FEW TIMES.
YOU DO HAVE TO INCOME QUALIFY
TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM.
AND, I THINK UTILITIES ARE
ACTUALLY A GOOD EXAMPLE FOR THE
SITUATION.
SOME OF OUR LARGEST MOST
PROFITABLE COMPANIES ARE ALSO
SOME OF THE FOLKS WHO HAVE THE
LARGEST UNPAID UTILITY BILLS.
AND IT IS NOT BECAUSE THEY
DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO DO IT.
THEY WANT TO PAY IT WHEN THEY
ARE READY TO PAY IT.
SO, I AM ACTUALLY SUPPORTIVE OF
THIS AMENDMENT BECAUSE I DON'T
WANT FOLKS OF MEANS TO JUST
DECIDE YEAH, 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.
THEY MIGHT GET THE MONEY.
THEY MIGHT GET THE MONEY AFTER
FIVE MONTHS.
I THINK THAT WILL ACTUALLY HAVE
A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON SOME SMALL
LANDLORDS BECAUSE SOMETIMES
PEOPLE WITH A LOT OF MONEY DO
NOT PAY THEIR BILLS, ALSO.
WE KNOW NOW FROM THE ANALYSIS
THAT THE COUNCILMEMBER HAS DONE
THAT THERE ARE FEW PEOPLE WHO
WOULD BE ABOVE THIS INCOME
THRESHOLD FOR THAT REASON I
SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
>> JUST ONE SENTENCE TO TALK
ABOUT THE PROGRAM, THE MAKING
IT OPT OUT MADE A DIFFERENCE.
FOR EXAMPLE, ONE EXAMPLE, I
DON'T HAVE TIME TO GO THROUGH
THE WHOLE THING.
WE WERE ABLE TO BECAUSE OF
CHANGING IT FROM OPT-IN AND OPT-
OUT.
WE WERE ABLE TO ENROLE
RESIDENTS, A BIG EXAMPLE HOW --
>> PROPERTY INCOME ELIGIBLE.
>> YES.
>> EXACTLY.
>> OKAY THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT AND YOU ALL FOR THE
EXPLANATION HERE.
AND THANK YOU PEDERSEN.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS.
WE ARE GOING TO CALL FOR THE
VOTE.
ALL IN FAVOR OF AMENDMENT
NUMBER 6 BY COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS RAISE YOUR HAND.
THE AMENDMENT DOES HANG AND WE
WILL LOOK AT THE BILL AS
AMENDED.
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT I
APPRECIATE YOU HAVING A ROBUST
COMMENT IN YOUR COMMITTEE AND
ENGAUGING WITH COUNCIL
COLLEAGUES AS THEY BROUGHT
FORWARD.
MY DESIRE COUNCIL COLLEAGUES IT
GOT ON COUNCIL BECAUSE IT WILL
BE A POLICY WIN FOR THE FOLKS
YOU HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH
RENTERS COMMISSION AND TENANT
RIGHTS FOLKS.
I KNOW THIS BILL HAS AN AMENDED
AND I APPRECIATE COUNCIL
COLLEAGUES TO HAVE AMENDMENTS
BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO CLOSE IT
OUT AS WHAT IT WILL MEAN TO
WORKING FAMILIES.
>> THANK YOU.
I AGREE WITH YOU, THERE IS
GOING TO BE HISTORIC
LEGISLATION.
I AM -- I HAVE NOT MADE ANY --
I HAVE NOT DISGUISED MY
DISAPPOINTMENT WITH THE
LOOPHOLES THAT HAVE BEEN PUT
IN.
I THINK THE ULTIMATELY -- WHAT
IT DEMONSTRATES IS THAT -- THE
NEED FOR IT.
HIGHLIGHT THAT WE ARE
DISCUSSING THIS LEGISLATION AND
VOTING IT OUT DOES SHOW HOW
MUCH PEOPLE HAVE DONE.
AND I WANTED TO THANK EVERYBODY
WHO IS HERE AND ALSO EVERYBODY
WHO SPENT MONTHS ADVOCATING FOR
THIS.
RENTERS COMMISSION BUT I WANT
TO MENTION AMONG THE PEOPLE WE
HAVE HERE ARE THE ACTIVISTS WHO
WERE INVOLVED IN THE INDIA
RESOLUTION AND THEY CAN BE
INVOLVED IN MORE THAN ONE THING
BUT OUR COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE
ARE BRINGING IMMIGRANT
COMMUNITIES TOGETHER.
I SPECIFICALLY WANTED TO
HIGHLIGHT THE WASHINGTON
COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK AND
HOUSING JUSTICE PROJECT FOR ALL
OF THE WORK THEY HAVE BEEN
DOING FOR YEARS BECAUSE OF WHOM
WE ARE AT THIS STAGE.
AND I THINK AT THE END OF THE
DAY, WHAT WE HAVE, WHAT WE WILL
HAVE ACHIEVED FOR THE
LEGISLATION IF IT IS VOTED
THROUGH IS LANDMARK LEGISLATION
THAT HAS NO PRECEDENT IN THE
COUNTRY AND IN FACT, LITTLE IN
THE WORLD.
AS FAR AS WE KNOW ONLY COUNTRY
OF FRANCE HAS SOMETHING
SIMILAR.
SO THIS IS HUGE.
I THINK WE SHOULD BE PROUD OF
OUR MOVEMENT FOR THIS.
I THANK COUNCILMEMBERS FOR,
ASSUMING COUNCILMEMBERS WILL BE
VOTING YES -- I AM SPEAKING IN
DVANCED.
BUT QUICKLY I WANT TO SAY WE
NEED TO BE SOBER ABOUT THE
LIMITATIONS OF IT.
IT WILL NOT END EVICTIONS IT
WILL DELAY THEM.
WE KNOW DELAYING WILL PROVIDE A
LIFELINE AND POTENTIALLY
PREVENT CONVICTIONS BUT ON A
WHOLE IT WILL NOT BE ENOUGH.
WE DO NEED RENT CONTROL AND WE
NEED MAJOR EXPANSION OF SOCIAL
HOUSING SO WE CAN'T STOP
FIGHTING.
[CROWD APPLAUDING ]
.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT FOR THE PROCESS WISE WE
HAVE NOW ADOPTED AMENDMENTS 1-6
IN THE BASE LEGISLATION.
I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO TAKE UP
THE AMENDED BILL AS DISCUSSED
TODAY.
READY.
HERE WE GO.
COUNCIL BILL, 119726 MADAM
CLERK WILL YOU CALL THE ROLL OF
PASSAGE ON 119726.
7 IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.
[CROWD CHEERS ]
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ITEMS
STILL ON OUR AGENDA.
WE ARE JUST A FEW MINUTES OVER
4:00 P.M.
MADAM CLERK CAN YOU READ INTO
THE RECORD LET ME JUST SAY IT
OFFICIALLY.
THE BILL AS PASSED -- THE BILL
PASSED AS AMENDED AND THE CHAIR
WILL SIGN IT.
AND AT THIS TIME THE BILL IS
NOT READY FOR PRESENSE OF THE
SIGNATURE BUT I WILL ANNOUNCE
WHEN THE BILL IS HERE SO I WILL
SIGN IT IN THE CHAMBER BEFORE
WE LEAVE TODAY.
THANK YOU, COUNCIL COLLOGS.
MADAM CLERK CAN YOU READ ITEM
NUMBER 2.
>> THE REPORT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE
31930.
REAFFIRMING THE CITY'S GOOD
FAITH INTENT TO CONSIDER
RAISING IN THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING PROCESS FOR SEATTLE
POLICE OFFICER'S GUILD,
CONTRACT RENEWAL POLICY
ACCOUNTABILITY AND PROPOSALS
THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED.
WITH COUNCILMEMBERS HERBOLD,
LEWIS, MORALES WITH ABSTAIN
FROM PEDERSEN.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD THIS
IS YOURS CAN YOU COMMENT ON IT.
>> VOTED TO APPROVE A
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
WITH THE SEATTLE POLICE
OFFICERS GUILD, IT RUNS THROUGH
THE END OF 2020.
IN MARCH, JUST A LITTLE BIT
MORE THAN A MONTH AWAY,
NEGOTIATIONS FOR A NEW
AGREEMENT WILL BEGIN FOR A NEW
CONTRACT.
THE CODE REQUIRES THE CITY
COUNCIL TO HOLD A PUBLIC
HEARING IN ADVANCE OF THE
COMMENCEMENT OF NEGOTIATIONS
WITH THE POLICE OFFICERS GUILD
AND REQUIRES THE CITY TO
CONSIDER IN GOOD FAITH WHEN AND
HOW TO CARRY THE INTEREST
EXPRESSED AT THE PUBLIC
HEARING.
IT DOES NOT EXIST FOR ANY OTHER
BARGAINING UNIT IN THE CITY OR
FOR ANY OTHER CONTRACT
REQUIREMENT IN THE CITY AS IT
RELATES TO OTHER CITY
EMPLOYEES, ONLY EXISTS FOR
POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY AND FOR
THE POLICE OFFICER'S GUILD
BECAUSE OF THE PRIOR COUNCIL
HAS IDENTIFIED THIS AS BEING
SUCH AN IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT WE
NEED TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC
BEFORE WE ENTER INTO
NEGOTIATIONS.
AND IT IS INTENDED TO BRING A
AMOUNT OF TRANSPARENCY TO THE
PROCESS BEFORE WE ACTUALLY
BEGIN THE PROCESS.
SO WE ALL HAVE HEARD YOU BOTH
IN THE PUBLIC HEARING BUT WE
ACTED OR ABOUT TO ACT ON A
RESOLUTION THAT IDENTIFIES WHAT
THE PRIORITIES ARE.
AND, BY US IDENTIFYING WHAT THE
PRIORITIES ARE Y'ALL CAN HOLD
US MORE ACCOUNTABLE WHEN WE ARE
ON THE OTHER END OF THE
NEGOTIATING SESSION.
SPECIFICALLY THE RESOLUTION
SUMMARIZES THE COMMENTS MADE BY
THE COMMENT AT THE DECEMBER 5th
HEARING IN THE GENDER EQUITY
SAFE COMMUNITY'S NEW PERSONS
AND EDUCATION COMMITTEE.
INCLUDING LETTERS FROM THE 3
ACCOUNTABILITY BODIES, POLICE
COMMISSION, THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL, AND OFFICE OF POLICE
ACCOUNTABILITY REGARDING
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
THE RESOLUTION IS DESIGNED TO
MEET THE INTENT OF THE CODE AND
IT SUMMARIZING COMMENTS MADE
BOY THE COMMENT AT THE DECEMBER
5th HEARING IN THE GENDER
EQUITY SAFE COMMUNITIES NEW
AMERICANS AND EDUCATION
COMMITTEE.
SPECIFICALLY THE RESOLUTION
STATES WE WILL CONSIDER IN GOOD
FAITH WHAT WE HEARD ABOUT THE
NEEDS FOR IT AND CALL OUT THE
NEEDS NOT ONLY TO FACILITATE,
CONTINUED COMMUNITY POLICE
DIALOGUE BUT ALSO IDENTIFIES
SOME OF THE PRIMARY PRIORITIES
OF EACH THE CPC AND THE OPA AND
OIG.
AND I BELIEVE THE LEGISLATION
ITSELF SPEAKS FOR ITSELF AS FAR
AS WHAT THE PRIORITIES.
I AM HAPPY TO TAKE A MINUTE TO
TALK ABOUT THEM BUT OTHERWISE I
DON'T THINK WE NEED TO TALK
ABOUT THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE IN
ATTACHMENTS.
>> THANK YOU, ANY OTHER
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THE
RESOLUTION IN FRONT OF US?
SEEING NONE.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR OF
RESOLUTION 31930 PLEASE VOTE
YEA AND RAISE YOUR HAND.
OPPOSED.
NONE.
IT IS UNANIMOUS.
>> THANK YOU, SIR.
>> THE VOTES HAVE IT AND THE
MOTION CARRIES.
THE RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED AND
THE CHAIR WILL SIGN IT.
MADAM CLERK CAN YOU READ NUMBER
3 FROM TRANSPORTATION AND
UTILITIES COMMITTEE.
>> AGENDA ITEM 01527.
KEVIN WERNER AS MEMBER, LEVY TO
MOVE SEATTLE OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE FOR TERM DECEMBER 31,
2021.
THEY RECOMMEND IT BE CONFIRMED.
>> PEDERSON I THINK IT COMES
FROM YOUR COMMITTEE WOULD YOU
LIKE TO SPEAK TO IT?
>> YES.
WE MET KEVIN WERNER HE IS
MOVING FOR THE OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE.
HE WAS HIGHLY QUALIFIED AND
VOTED UNANIMOUSLY BY OUR
COMMITTEE AND HE INTERESTINGLY
HAS A SCIENCE BACKGROUND, NOT
AN ADVOCATE BUT A SCIENTIST.
>> EXCELLENT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR OF
APPOINTMENT 01527 VOTE YEA AND
RAISE YOUR HAND.
OPPOSED.
NO.
SEEING NONE, THE MOTION
CARRIES.
THE APPOINTMENT IS CONFIRMED
THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
FINANCE AND HOUSING COMMITTEE.
MADAM CLERK, ITEM NUMBER 4.
>> REPORT OF THE FINANCE AND
HOUSING COMMITTEE APT 01544,
JUDITH BLINDER AS MEMBER
SEATTLE CITY
EMPLOYEES'RETIREMENT SYSTEM
BOARD OF ADMINISTRATIONS FOR
TERM OF JUNE 30th, 2020.
THERE IS FROM MY COMMITTEE.
ONE OF TWO EMPLOYEES TO SIT ON
THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM BOARD OF
ADMINISTRATION LEFT THE CITY.
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE CITY
OF SEATTLE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO
APPOINT A BOARD MEMBER TO FILL
THE VACANT SEAT BY THE COUNCIL
UNTIL REGULAR ELECTIONS ARE
HELD IN JUNE.
JUDITH BLINDER CAME TO US AND
AN EXCELLENT CANDIDATE.
HAPPENED TO BE SECOND PICK FROM
LAST YEAR AND NOW WE ARE LUCKY
ENOUGH TO HAVE HER READY AND
WILLING TO SERVE.
CURRENTLY AT SEATTLE CITY LIGHT
AND HAS VAST EXPERIENCE IN
FINANCIAL ANALYST ROLES AND SHE
DID A GREAT JOB WHEN SHE CAME
TO OUR COMMITTEE.
ASKED HER A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS
AND WE UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMEND
HER CONFIRMATION ON TO THE
BOARD.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME AS THE
CHAIR OF THAT COMMITTEE?
SEEING NONE.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR OF
CONFIRMING APPOINTMENT 01544
RAISE YOUR HAND, OPPOSED.
NONE.
IT IS UNANIMOUS.
THE MOTION CARRIES.
APPOINTMENT IS CONFIRMED.
MADAM CHAIR CAN YOU READ AGENDA
NUMBER 5 ALSO FROM OUR
COMMITTEE.
>> APPOINT 1150, APPOINTMENT OF
BET SEE McFEELY AS MEMBER OF
LABOR STANDARDS ADVISORY
COMMISSION FOR A TERM OF APRIL
30th, 2020.
RECOMMENDED HER BE CONFIRM
FLOOD SHE IS A MAYOR APPOINTEE.
SERVES AS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY
RELATIONS AT SEATTLE GOODWILL,
ENGAGED MEMBER OF HER
COMMUNITY, SOUTH PARK
ASSOCIATION, RAINIER CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE, VOLUNTEERS AT THE ART
MUSEUM AND WILL BE A GREAT
ASSET TO THE LABOR STANDARDS
ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
WE HAVE GIVEN THEM A LOT OF
WORK TO DO.
APPRECIATE HER PARTICIPATION.
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR
ME?
OKAY.
SEEING NONE.
ALL IN FAVOR.
VOTE AND RAISE YOUR HAND.
OPPOSED.
NONE.
EXCELLENT.
THE MOTION CARRIES AND THE
APPOINTMENT OF BET SEE McFEELY,
APT 1150.
>>> COUNCIL COLLEAGUES I HAVE
AMENDED BILL, 119726 AS
DISCUSSED AND AMENDED BY THE 6
AMENDMENTS, IT IS PRESENTED AND
READY FOR ME TO SIGN.
FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD I WILL
SIGN COUNCIL BILL 119726 AS
AMENDED.
EXCELLENT.
WE ARE WRAPPING UP HERE.
COUNCIL COLLEAGUES ARE THERE
ANY OTHER RESOLUTIONS OR ITEMS
TO COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL?
SEEING NONE.
OKAY.
IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS TO COME TO THE
COUNCIL?
SEEING NONE.
I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO
CENTRAL STAFF IF THEY ARE STILL
WATCHING, ALY TO COME TO THE
TABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FOR
US.
I UNDERSTAND BETWEEN THIS
MEETING AND THE ONE WE ARE
ABOUT TO HAVE COUNCILMEMBER
LEWIS AS CLAIRE OF THE
HOMELESSNESS, CENTRAL STAFF WAS
BUSY WORKING OVER THE WEEKEND.
APPRECIATE ALL OF THEIR TIME
AND EXPERTISE AND ONE DAY WE
WILL HAVE A SITUATION WHERE NO
ONE HAS TO WORK ON THE WEEKENDS
TO HAVE THEM.
>> THANK YOU FOR BEARING WITH
US AS WE GOT THROUGH THAT
IMPORTANT DISCUSSION TODAY AND
APPRECIATE ALL OF THE
AMENDMENTS AND DIALOGUE THAT WE
HAVE HAD.
WITH THAT, TODAY'S COUNCIL
MEETING IS ADJOURNED.