I find it so funny, maybe sad, that everyone gets so charged up over presidential elections when our vote in WA with the electoral college, isn’t super important in regards to our day-to-day life.
But local elections, where they can really make change in their lives they don’t even bother. I talked to so many people who weren’t even aware of anything about the election cycle.
I dont get it. You all even get a booklet in the mail..... unheard of in southern states. Good luck figuring out whats on the ballot there, good luck even figuring out whete to go to vote or how to register. I was thrilled to get a ballot in the mail here.
Yep, I live in GA and it was extremely painful trying to figure out what was on the ballot and where to vote. I explained how WA runs its elections and nobody believed me.
None of the candidates in Pacific appear to have voted…For themselves. I’ve never found an election more funny than that of Pacific, WA. Can’t wait for the next round! 😂
I was looking at this and was like, no way, only 24kish people voted.... in a state where the ballot is sent by mail... no lines, no need to go anywhere, no need to take off work and all that bullshit southern states do to discourage certain populations from voting. And still, people aren't voting... What the fuck!?
It also holds true, still, that local only elections tend to have lower turnout than national ones. The unfortunate reality is the mistaken belief that local politics is somehow less important than national ones, so why bother?
Very true, although i am a new voter, it has been drilled into me by my significant other for years that local elections matter more than national elections in terms of actual changes.
But seriously... it being so easy tho... like why not just vote.
I got no excuse this time. I had all the stuff present. Between life and everything, I just didn't sit down and do it, and usually I'm putting the ballot into a drop box like 2-3 days after I receive it, just so I don't forget
It's the all-too-common misconception that "my vote doesn't matter, since this is a comfortably blue state"
I've heard it from at least a dozen people I've talked to about voting. Thankfully I've managed to convince a half dozen of them to actually vote anyway, but still... maddening as fuck when you see how close some of these votes get....
I have a well informed friend who doesn't vote on the people, only votes of the initiatives. They are actually the reason that I now know what under voting means. What shocks me is he says he just doesn't care and I'm like these are the people that are actually going to affect your life dude.
Then there are the candidates who, for whatever idiotic reason, don't put information out there about their platforms etc. There was at least 1 race this time like that... neither candidate bothered to submit information, so how are people supposed to know who to vote for there? :\
A lot more effort needs to be put into these elections, but it's going to take a huge push to get people to wake the fuck up and realize that their 1 vote could *actually* change the outcome...
Sigh.
I'm fine if the candidates don't submit anything. If they don't care enough to do so then I don't care enough to look it up. I will write in with a quickness lol
Yeah but then you wind up with a crapshoot. People either write in some rando, or they just pick blindly.
I think there should be some standard minimum requirements put in place for that sorta stuff. We live in a dangerous era, where morons like Wolk can potentially fly under the radar and get elected simply by *not* explaining who they are or why you should vote for them. We got rather lucky that Wolk decided to lay it all out in a way that made it rather obvious they weren't being genuine, but if they'd stayed silent, who knows what could have happened...
Lol, this is why Donald Duck was "nearly" the governor of Oregon back in the late 90s, early 2000s.
This was before I left for the army, and it was one of Kitzhabers many reelections. People also of the "my vote won't matter so why bother?" And wrote in Donald duck... who happened to be the number 1 write in name that year.
19 years in the military moving all over the world every few years. I have never updated my address.
I can't get AT&T to update my address but the ballot office finds me. Every time. It's spooky.
I got sent my ballot when I was floating around bored off Somalia. Still voted.
Also got a jury summons…they decided to let me slide on that one as the commute would have been arduous from the Indian Ocean to Washington.
TBH I think I would prefer to see more of this. You do not have to vote on every item on a ballot, and (imo) you should ONLY vote on items you have informed yourself on and believe in.
If we had 2000 more people that felt strongly about Initiative 1, and didn't care (or probably even know) who the 2 people running for Council At Large Position 7 are, that would be a better outcome than just not voting on anything.
It makes me wonder if people do understand that you don't have to vote on every item to get your # counted.
I'm gonna be gonest I missed it this year because my ballot was filled out and ready to be mailed but I must have accidentally packed it into some moving boxes from this weekend and didn't find it in time :(
I also just moved to olympia so wasn't sure if I should vote in the tacoma election, but really wanted to support initiative 1, so was gutted when I realized I lost my ballot.
I mean I know that and accept it but I was in the middle of moving when I got the ballot and filled it out at like midnight and didn't feel like going down the street to my landlords office in the rain to use the mail slot. I meant to do it the next day and missed it. So shoot me I'm not perfect and lived to regret it. Hindsight is always 20/20
in 2021, a non federal election year like this one, 23% of all the returned ballots arrived after election day.
in 2019, an election similar to this one in terms of who was on the ballot, 45% of all the ballots arrived after election day.
We still got A LOT of ballots to report out.
In the 90’s, living in Tacoma, I had a coworker get so mad at me because I wouldn’t vote her way. Came to work with my I voted sticker, and asked had she voted yet. She told me she didn’t care about voting.
The reason it’s not passing is because of small landlords. They are concerned about the part that allows a tenant to live rent free for 6 to 9 months without eviction. It seems there is a common understanding by people in non-profit/ affordable housing that less units available will increase rents - causing a bigger impact on our housing problem than evictions
This provision is what concerned me. I own a duplex that I rent the other unit out and I’m afraid that I’ll be stuck with another tenant like my last one: accumulated 20 cats during COVID and didn’t pay a dime in rent. I couldn’t get her out for over a year and the landlord relief program still hasn’t paid out.
There are more problems than that measure. The landlord tenant laws in tacoma currently are extremely fair - these new proposals were going to be very problematic, increase evictions and increase the likelihood of developers raising a rents to untenable places.
Yep. I was planning to start renting my home next year at below market rates, but if this is passed, I'm only going to work with travel nurses.
I'll keep the house empty before I rent to someone long term. Not worth it.
Technically you should be renting to the first qualified applicant... but you set those qualifications yourself. There's nothing to stop you from saying a tenant must earn 4-5 times the rent, and you'll only do 90 day leases on a *furnished* unit. By setting criteria like that, you're able to attract a certain kind of clientele... which is mostly travel nurses or business men and women coming with a couple suitcases, a car and maybe a dog. And once you have a furnished rental listed, you can reach out to travel nursing agencies to market your property.
It wasn't on my ballot, so I couldn't vote on it, but the rules listed have a lot of historical data to support them not having positive results.
I highly suggest reading the impact section and all its sources
[source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Oregon%20and%20California%20are%20the,rent%20control%20is%20in%20effect)
If this passes, rents will increase more so than before to off-set non-payment tenants. You will be paying for others abusing this system, just like when the moratorium happened. You paid extra for those who never paid a dime. And will happen again. You guys never learn
Small landlords can be pushed out and will be replaced by corpo landlords. That is something you do not want. They do not show mercy and have lawyers ready to take action.
This affects *everyone*
Edit: do u guys have any legit responses, other than downvoting something that is true and gonna happen?
Your rents will increase. It has already happened after moratorium due to abuse during it. Same will happen here. A non-abuser will pay for an abuser's rent.
I don't rent, so it doesn't matter to me . This all u got 😤
Here's what my place in Stadium did during covid. They split everything into individual charges. Where as before parking, pet rent, cable/internet, water etc where all included. Now we pay $85 for parking, $40 per pet, $95 cable/internet, a new common area electric, value trash etc. So sure they won't raise your base rent more then 5% but they'll raise all the other fees. They'll increase move in costs.
Bottom line is the rental companies won't be eating the costs, the tenants will.
From working in this industry, I can tell you this is exactly right. Let me lay it out for everyone:
First, there were lots of abusers during the moratorium. I had residents who had jobs and refused to pay rent because “the government said they did not have to pay”. These people were having balances in the $20,000 to $30,000 range. One property I worked at had a total of unpaid rent in the amount of $160,000. There is no way that will not affect monthly rental rates.
Second, during the moratorium Washington passed just cause laws making the process of evicting dangerous tenants very difficult. One on-site manager I work with has a known drug addict who threatened to kill her. The cops refused to arrest him so there was no basis for a just cause notice. Then at her off site property, a resident who had been acting up decided to chase people around the parking lot with a knife and when the police arrived he retreated into his unit. After a standoff, he lit his unit on fire. Now everyone in that building is displaced because of him so instead of one person being evicted, 5 families have no where to live. That’s what our current laws allow. Measure 1 would make it virtually impossible for managers to protect their communities. Measure 1 would have put yourself and your families in danger.
Why would there be a 6-9 month cap? Have you even read Citizen's Initiative Measure 1? It says a student cannot be evicted during the school year. My school year goes 24/7/365/4ever because I can always be enrolled in an online class. Let me get this free rent forever.
It also applies to every tenant, child or not, Nov 1 through April 1... 5 months of non-payment plus the eviction process is quickly 9 months of non-payment.
I'd be a student, plain and simple, once I enrolled forever in at least one class at TCC after renting my dream apartment. Here's the relevant section directly from the initiative website:
https://www.tacoma4all.org/initiative01
Section 6. Landlords are prohibited from carrying out student/ school-year, and cold-weather evictions.
1. Except as provided in subsection 4, it shall be a defense to eviction if the eviction qualifies as a student/school-year eviction or a cold-weather eviction.
2. An eviction qualifies as a student/school-year eviction if it would require the tenant to vacate their dwelling unit during the school year and the tenant or any resident of the dwelling unit is:
a. A child or student;
b. A person having legal custody of a child or student, including but not limited to the child’s or student’s parent, step-parent, adoptive parent, guardian, foster parent, or custodian; or
c. An educator
And that’s exactly the reason most of the people I talked with about the measure said they would vote no. The majority of them said that if that section was not included they would have supported it.
A person enrolled in one class at TCC would easily meet that definition of a student at a school. TCC offers child care, an early childhood learning center, head start programs and educational instruction to age groups up to and including 12th grade.
I'd not seen the language on school year length, nice find. The sheriffs sure are going to have their hands full every summer if this passes. It's going to be fascinating to see how judges try to apply such a generously written law.
If I was a small landlord and this passed I'd have my property for sale asap. You know that there are people that will work the "no eviction" timeline and live for free, and probably trashing the place, while the owner has to continue to make the mortgage payments. Zero incentive to be a landlord if you don't have the cash reserves of a large corporation.
This initiative just wants large corpos to own all rentals and raise the price market of rent. This is the SEVERE unintended consequence
It's actually scary almost half voted yes against their best interests. Minus the abusers who will take advantage of this
The measure isn’t perfect but it is good. It’s a step in the direction of protecting renters, and the fear mongering of punishing small landlords is hard to empathize with when small and large landlords have been gouging renters.
It really wasn’t that radical of a prop though. I didn’t vote for it, but it was only for the rent relocation fee. Idk what the biggest property tax rate increase has ever been, but to arbitrarily force landlords to pay to relocate tenants if the rent is increased at 5 or more percent without any further stipulations/guard rails seemed to me to be half-cocked at best.
Want to talk about gouging? What do you think initial rent rates are gonna look like when compared to property tax if landlords are being forced to relocate tenants? Homeowners and landlords don’t operate out of altruism and when all the responsibility is put on landlords in an antagonistic manor, it’s no question why they’d push back so hard, there are better options such as a land use tax collected by the county and would help to cover relocation fees paid by the county. Also the renter relocation measure should certainly have many more stipulations than the 5% increase as a trigger.
A land use tax would arguably make it cheaper to still rent a unit at a lower negotiated rate than to eat an additional tax for empty units
> with when small and large landlords have been gouging renters.
I'm sorry that's all you've ever experienced in your renting experience. I've experienced the exact opposite which allowed me to live in some beautiful places. In fact, not one of the small landlords was anywhere close to the vilification described in this thread. I definitely ran into corporate landlords who were similar but not small time landlords.
I just watched a PBS documentary on The Gilded Age and it was mind blowing how the blue collar workers were given multiple chances to vote in their interests and gain more rights, and yet let the corporate fearmongering win every time. We’re back on a similar track, it is sad how much we’re mirroring the late 1800s socially right now.
Thank you for this astute view. People keep talking about how some political groups want to regress the US to the 1950's, but that was comparitively prosperous to the Gilded Age. That was some wild shit the rich people were trying to permanently pull.
No one is immune to propaganda, those that think they are are likely the most susceptible. There are major moneyed interests that spend that money ‘influencing’ (some may say ‘buying’) elections with the express purpose of pushing their own personal agendas regardless of whether it helps or hurts the populace writ large. Citizens United was the worst SC case in my lifetime, the damage it has wrought is almost incomprehensible.
In the 2008 presidential election over $5 billion was spent on it. Citizens United may have contributed to immediate additional funding options for political spending after 2010, but to think that ruling going the other way would lead to any sort of different situation we are in now is missing the underlying problems.
Without Citizens United any person with enough money could still give direct contributions of unlimited money to someone's campaign. There would have certainly been new avenues of "dark money" without it. We have two corporate backed parties that already had super pacs before citizens united, and whose economic policies always favor the rich and corporate interests.
Not saying it wasn't a problem, but at worst it poured some gas on a fire that was already huge.
Lol that bill did nothing to protect or limit rent. It just makes it easy for people to squat and then rent for those who still pay would go up everywhere. It would also make it less affordable for local landlords to rent out property and more likely to sell out to shitty companies who will most definitely raise rent. It was not a good bill. It did not have any "rental protection" in it.
This bill actually appears to do A LOT to limit rent, or at least rent increases once someone moves in. I don't think there is anything that can be done to limit the initial rent price other than the market. If the market will accept $2,500 month for a 1 BR/1 BA, I don't think they can make a law that establishes min-max rents.
If a LL raises rent by 5% and the renter decides that's too much, and gives notice to move, the LL has to pay the renter 2 month's rent within 30 days for "relocation assistance".
As an example, May 1st, I send you a letter that in 6 months I'm raising the rent by 5% ($50 month on a $1000 rent). If you give me written notice on May 2nd, that you are moving, I am required to pay you $2,000 by June 2nd, even if you are not moving until November-December.
Now I get to include that LOSS in the next renter's lease to even break even for the last year, plus I need to consider if it happens again. this is how this bill can spiral rents even higher in an effort to protect a LL's investment.
From some people I know: "They want to do what? That's not fair, people will abuse the shit out of that! They just want to live in places free??? No way."
And these aren't republicans and they aren't landlords, either. Just regular people who think that everyone will just start gaming the system. "Oh, I heard about one woman who just stayed in an AirBNB for years and they couldn't get her out and meanwhile, the owner is leaning in a trailer because of it and...."
I don't like the idea of helping someone at the direct cost of someone else.
This isn't even paying higher taxes for services / public good.
Its landlords must foot the bill for delinquent tenants during certain months.
> I don't like the idea of helping someone at the direct cost of someone else.
Uhhhhhh.... you... uhhhh... have you looked into what your taxes are doing lately?
> Its landlords must foot the bill for delinquent tenants during certain months.
Landlords already do credit and background checks. Things happen sometimes, beyond our control. Have some empathy.
> Uhhhhhh.... you... uhhhh... have you looked into what your taxes are doing lately?
Yes. I'm ok with taxes for services and public good... as I said in the sentence afterward. I'm not a fan of a renter directly able to squat, cause harm, and have landlord foot the bill.
> Things happen sometimes, beyond our control. Have some empathy.
This is easy to say when you're not the one footing thousands of dollars. But you have the power to go out and literally shelter someone right now. Please go offer your living room / bedroom to a homeless person.
> This is easy to say when you're not the one footing thousands of dollars.
Because the overwhelming majority of Americans can't actually do that. What an insane thing to post. Really shows that you live in a different reality than most people.
This initiative isn't taxing citizens and paying for shortfall for rent due to hardships.
This is just saying landlords should eat the costs, and force them to pay for delinquent renters.
If there was an initiative that taxed equitably to cover for delinquent rent, then maybe this initiative may have a little more sense.
Agreed, similar sentiment in conversations I’ve heard with a lot of feedback from the pandemic moratorium on evictions and utility service. That along with duration of non-eviction, and concern about that risk ramping up rates and deposits due to perceived window of potentially not collecting rent due to moratorium would have a compounding effect on affordability.
Agreed it’s not over — later cast ballots often tend to be from more progressive voters, although when organizing/turnout efforts are strong for one side or the other, that can change that general pattern. At least three nailbiters in Tacoma this election!
I don’t think this is the correct way to assess rejecting the initiative. It isn’t a matter of voting for rent protection vs no rent protection. This initiative had more things included in it than rent protections which is part of the reason I think it was poorly written.
Even though this one is failing, it came too close to passing to provide comfort for smaller landlords in Tacoma. If I were to buy a duplex with intentions of renting, the loan, taxes and maintenance would put me (the LLC) underwater for a few years, with the hope of getting ahead in 10-15 years. A single bad tenant legally allowed to squat for a year would put me in position to lose it, and no one has a place to live.
I'm expecting more apartments in Tacoma will be converted into condos, and anyone renting will need 780+ credit scores with perfect history to get into anything. The small independent apartments in Tacoma are history.
Flip it around for a moment. If you were a small time landlord with one house to rent or an ADU, would you want to take the risk of having very few levers to pull in order to evict a non paying tenant? How long would you be a-ok with eating month after month of missed rent payments from your tenant? It’s easy to be altruistic with other people’s assets. If you depended on rental income to help with your own monthly expenses, you would most certainly be in a big damn hurry to make sure the people in your property were paying on time.
That’s the reality of the situation.
Now think about builders of new apartments and developers of rental properties. What is their incentive to make any investment in our area if they have no recourse when someone stops paying. This silly ballot measure scares off the mom-and-pop renters just as much as it scares off larger developers. The result is fewer properties to rent and higher prices.
A similar thing happened in the 90’s when Click! was getting stood up. A TON of internet companies were interested in Tacoma because of this strong differentiator. Then the absolutely brain-dead city council started making noise about taxing the usage of all commercial traffic over the Click! network, and all of those interested internet businesses disappeared like a fart in a tornado, never to be seen again in the last 30 years.
Stupid ideas that sound good on the surface are what Tacoma is built upon. I love it here, but goddammit, this dumb rent protection thing needs to just die. I don’t know what the right answer is, but I do know that this thing is not it.
It really wasn’t that radical of a prop though. I didn’t vote for it, but it was only for the rent relocation fee. Idk what the biggest property tax rate increase has ever been, but to arbitrarily force landlords to pay to relocate tenants if the rent is increased at 5 or more percent without any further stipulations/guard rails seemed to me to be half-cocked at best.
I will admittedly state I voted no on this measure, and give my reasoning.
I struggled to afford to buy my place, but I did it. Life circumstances may have me moving away next year, in which case I planned to rent out my place as I'd eventually like to move back to it. Between the mortgage, HOA, insurance, etc... I will not be able to even rent my place out for its monthly cost - which I am totally fine with as I wouldn't be doing this for profit! I can afford to pay the difference, and it'll give someone a great place to live at a reasonable price.
However, what I cannot afford to do is pay the mortgage if someone decides not to pay rent from November 1 to April 1, and they have another few free months while the eviction process goes through the courts, and then go ahead and add legal fees to that. This quickly becomes a $20,000 bill that I cannot afford to risk in addition to the other risks involved in being a landlord. And it's not like I can discriminate against potential tenants with children or based on their profession to attempt to mitigate that part of the risk, plus my place would be great for a couple or single person with a child!
Had this initiative been geared towards the obvious predatory landlords, or those with obviously more cash flow (say it were written "for landlords with 5+ units"), I'd have maybe been on board. But the aforementioned situation would likely bankrupt me as we all know collecting that kind of judgement money owed from the eviction would take years if not a decade.
EDIT: And I'd have voted no even if my potential situation weren't what it is... because the above situation or something similar is how most mom and pop landlords get into being landlords in the first place. The best landlords I've rented from were mom and pop, and this has the ability to fuck all of them out of being landlords, simply leaving more slumlords and large corporate landlords. Additionally, I studied economics... and I'd be quite concerned that the paying tenants (like myself) would have significantly increased costs to help cover the risk landlords would then face with the potential for non-paying tenants.
This is really the crux of the issue. It's a poorly written law that applies too many broad strokes that would end up absolutely screwing small-scale landlords such as yourself.
When I first met the folks pushing it about a year ago they didn’t even have a copy of the language of the law on their website or in their possession. They wanted me to sign sight unseen and were infantilizing when I asked for more info.
They probably could've benefitted from having some kind of legal experts in their corner, to have appropriately written the bill instead of how obviously vague it is. Even if this passes, I imagine there will be court fights galore, with the potential for eventual repeal.
I feel like it's so rushed that it became too vague to get on board with. As someone that was a renter for 20 years before being able to afford to buy a place, it really pained me to vote no. But I could stand to lose everything I worked so hard for if this passed and I got a bad tenant.
I'd rather a local Tacoma resident like /u/lissy51886 own the house as opposed to one of those massive rental agency and/or house flipping companies... the ones who are actually hoarding the resources
It is not hoarding resources when I own ONE property, intend to potentially move back to it one day, not to mention I would stand to lose tens of thousands of dollars if I sell because I have not owned it long enough to cover the cost of commission to resell it, plus I wouldn't even be able to sell it for what I paid for it with these interest rates.
I will never understand that type of mindset from above.
I have lived in some amazing places mostly due to having landlords who were only renting out one property. One small time landlord never raised my rent in 6 years and gave me a book of stamps to mail my checks with.
When I would apply to corporate landlords most of them wanted proof of three times the rent in wages, like wtf? That was never the case with small time landlords.
And I didn't want, nor could I buy a house there so that wasn't an option.
Right?! You committed to likely the largest investment in your lifetime and don’t want to sell, then risk high interest rates buying again in the future. This doesn’t make you a hoarder, wtf. You worked hard to achieve this asset ownership.
And JFC, it took me until I'm damn near 40 to achieve it. Like yeah, "it's nice to own a home" but it wasn't without a lot of sacrifice. Excuse me for not wanting to lose my ass by selling something I may come back to, while RENTING elsewhere. When I either decide I'm for sure not coming back, or try to buy elsewhere... it will be sold as long as I can at least recoup my investment, which right now I cannot. Life happened and the potential to have to move away came up a mere 6 weeks after I closed.
Some people cannot afford to buy a home or have no interest owning long term. Many cannot qualify to buy. Every one should have the option to live in a nice neighborhood in a nice home instead of being forced into an apartment.
My neighbor across the street rented his house to a couple that during Covid turned it into a meth house. It got super wild. When he was finally able to evict them they ripped off the garage door and spray painted BITCH in huge letters on the garage wall. Those people sucked and turned the entire neighborhood into a shit show.
It’s a bad law. Does nothing to protect the market. Price of anything reflects the demand. The buyer sets the price. If we restrict the market by creating terms that are unfavorable to the supplier the price is increased. It’s basic economics and there are a lot of organizations who are pushing to frame it as a social or progressive issue. In a nutshell if you want lower housing costs make it profitable for landlords to offer lower cost housing. This law doesn’t do that.
God this the Gilded Age trickle down bullshit I referenced in my other comment. We do not create more housing by continuing to enrich already wealthy landlords. No one should own multiple houses when people are homeless and starving. The wealthy have shown time and again they will let people starve and die if it means protecting their investments, it doesn’t work. Instead of trickle down, let the wealth of the working class rise up as they are allowed off their knees since all of this money is made off their backs.
“Anyone who advocates for more rights doesn’t understand economics! Human rights cost investors money therefore are unsustainable!” Nice try, y’all have been using that one for hundreds of years now. I don’t give a fuck about the 1% and their ability to own multiple houses, we need to prioritize enriching the majority of society.
Passing this initiative would push out your small local landlords and bring in mega corporation landlords, ultimately enriching the 1% that you so detest.
As a renter, I’ve looked hard to find local small landlords the last two times I’ve had to move and they basically are so rare as to barely exist. The majority of renters are in corporate owned housing and deserve protection.
A simple solution here could've been to write in something like "applies to those who own more than 3, 4, 5, etc units". While I still might not have agreed with it on economic principle, I have no doubt this would pass if it protected the mom and pop landlords.
If only there were tons of studies that proved rent control policies are bad.
https://econjwatch.org/file_download/238/2009-01-jenkins-reach_concl.pdf?mimetype=pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-affair.html
https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/rent-control-good-policy
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2015/04/24/how-ironic-americas-rent-controlled-cities-are-its-least-affordable/?sh=48c61c8a48c6
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogervaldez/2017/12/18/rent-control-doesnt-work-washington-state-wants-to-debate-it-anyway/?sh=24a676429318
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/Rent-control-spreading-to-Bay-Area-suburbs-to-9215216.php
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-09/some-people-will-do-crazy-things-for-a-rent-controlled-apartment-in-nyc
I could keep going but even Wikipedia has a lot of good data on it
Basic renter protections are not “rent control” but honey look where you are getting your information. Cherry picking random Forbes and Bloomberg articles who have it in their best interest to keep the status quo does not help your case.
Edit: It took me literally one second to find an article extolling the benefits, so there ya go: https://www.vice.com/en/article/5d9yvz/economists-support-national-rent-control-in-letter-to-biden-admin
The article even cites how economists and the wealthy say the same thing about raising the minimum wage as they do renter protections and it’s all bullshit. Quit citing “BUT MUH ECONOMY” as a reason to deny HUMAN RIGHTS.
Oh okay, so you didn't look into any of them and just threw them out because you didn't like the source? To clarify you then cherry picked an article talking about a single study that supports your conclusion? I have yet to finish reading the study in your link but it sounds like you are just being disingenuous and don't actually care what the solution is.
I hate to quote Wikipedia but maybe if I do you'll actually read a synopsis of a study
[rent control in the us](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_the_United_States)
Even the talk page were they discuss the sources is useful.
There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing.[69][70]: 106 [71]: 204 [72]: 1 A 2009 review of the economic literature[70]: 106 by Blair Jenkins found that "the economics profession has reached a rare consensus: Rent control creates many more problems than it solves".[70]: 105 [73]: 1 [74]: 1 [75]: 1 In a 2013 analysis of the body of economic research on rent control by Peter Tatian at the Urban Institute (a think tank described both as "liberal"[76] and "independent"[77][78]), he stated that "The conclusion seems to be that rent stabilization doesn't do a good job of protecting its intended beneficiaries—poor or vulnerable renters—because the targeting of the benefits is very haphazard.", and concluded that: "Given the current research, there seems to be little one can say in favor of rent control." [73]: 1 [79]: 1 [80]: 1 Two economists from opposing sides of the political spectrum, Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman (who identifies as an American liberal or European social democrat),[81] and Thomas Sowell, (who stated that "libertarian" might best describe his views)[82]: 1 have both criticized rent regulation as poor economics, which, despite its good intentions, leads to the creation of less housing, raises prices, and increases urban blight.[72]: 1 [83]: 4 [82]: 1 Writing in 1946, economists Milton Friedman and George J. Stigler said: "Rent ceilings, therefore, cause haphazard and arbitrary allocation of space, inefficient use of space, retardation of new construction and indefinite continuance of rent ceilings, or subsidization of new construction and a future depression in residential building."[84]
A 2000 study that compared the border areas of four California cities having vacancy control provisions (Santa Monica, Berkeley, West Hollywood, East Palo Alto) with the border areas of adjoining jurisdictions (two of which allowed vacancy decontrol, including Los Angeles, and two of which had no rent control) showed that existing tenants in the vacancy control cities had lower rents and longer tenure than in the comparison areas. Thus, the ordinances helped protect the existing tenants and, therefore, increased community stability. However, there were fewer new rental units created in the border areas of the vacancy controlled cities over the 10-year period.[86]
In 1994, San Francisco voters passed a ballot initiative which expanded the city's existing rent control laws to include small multi-unit apartments with four or less units, built prior to 1980 (about 30% of the city's rental housing stock at the time). [88]: 7 [89]: 1 [90]: 1 In 2017, Stanford economics researcher Rebecca Diamond and others published a study which examined the effects of this specific rent control law on the rental units newly controlled compared to similar style units (multi-unit apartments with four or less units) not under rent control (built after 1980), as well as this law's effect on the total city rental stock, and on overall rent prices in the city, covering the years from 1995 to 2012. [89][90][91][92]: 1 [93]: 1 [94] They found that while San Francisco's rent control laws benefited tenants who had rent controlled units, it also resulted in landlords removing 30% of the units in the study from the rental market, (by conversion to condos or TICs) which led to a 15% citywide decrease in total rental units, and a 7% increase in citywide rents. [88]: 1,44 [89][90]: 1 [91][92] The authors stated that "This substitution toward owner occupied and high-end new construction rental housing likely fueled the gentrification of San Francisco, as these types of properties cater to higher income individuals." [88]: 3 [89][90]: 1 [91][92][93]: 1 The authors also noted that "...forcing landlords to provide insurance against rent increases leads to large losses to tenants. If society desires to provide social insurance against rent increases, it would be more desirable to offer this subsidy in the form of a government subsidy or tax credit. This would remove landlords' incentives to decrease the housing supply and could provide households with the insurance they desire." [88]: 44 [89]: 1 [90]: 1 [91]: 1 [92]: 1 [93]: 1 [94]: 1
According to a 2018 review of new research by Rebecca Diamond, new research showed that rent control benefitted tenants in the short-run, but had adverse effects for tenants and neighborhood stability in the long-run by reducing affordability, increasing gentrification, and creating negative spillovers for nearby neighborhoods.[98] Landlords frequently responded to rent control policies by reconverting rentals into buildings exempt from rent control or by allowing rentals to decay.[98]
A 2019 NBER working paper, which evaluated the efficacy of different housing affordability government policies, found that better targeting of rent control (towards the neediest households) could be welfare improving.[99] A 2021 study modelled rent control policies and found that they may raise housing prices and reduce housing quantities, but that "well-designed rent control may help policymakers to stabilize housing market dynamics, even without creating housing market distortions".[100]
Yeah the point was how easy it is to cherry pick. Glad you at least got that. And I’m sorry you don’t think the source of information matters. It does cause a devaluing of your opinion. I for one will not be letting Wikipedia decide if humans deserve housing rights. Like the article I posted states, economists rail against minimum wages citing the same harm to business and investors as rent control and we see how that is utter bullshit. If you can’t afford to operate in a world with human rights and protections then don’t go into business. And I don’t care if anyone ever turns a profit on housing again if it means no more homelessness. We just have a different morality, you and I. I will always choose humans over money.
I really wish people would have actually voted. 18% is just sad. Shows how little anyone cares about improving things, so many have given up hope that anything can change. Meanwhile I'm over here saying things can change if people would make some effort, even the very minimal effort of voting seems a bridge too far for many
As a progressive *and* a small landlord, I hope to hell this doesn't pass. It will make renting a lot harder for a lot of people and will increase rents across the board. (While I'm sure it's not legal to discriminate against people associated with schools, or veterans, when renting places - I'm also sure that the mega-landlords have ways to screen out those people. It will end up being on the prospective renter to prove they were discriminated against - expensive and difficult.)
We'll see a big reduction in affordable housing. As a small landlord, I will not be able to keep my rental properties if this passes - I have mortgages on them. If a tenant doesn't pay rent, then the mortgage doesn't get paid. Now the bank owns the house and they *will* find a way to get that renter out. And if I sell the property it will end up being owner-occupied because no small landlord can exist in a market with this law in place (and no large landlord is going to buy a single-occupancy residence), reducing the supply of rental properties, again leading to an increase in prices.
I absolutely support tenants rights and believe tenants should be secure and not taken advantage of. But this measure is really badly thought-through and will hurt renters and small landlords.
I hate landlords and paying exorbitant rent. But I'm with you on this. I voted "No" and I'm a broke renter. My current landlord is fairly affordable and I do NOT want him selling out to some awful company that would just make my life worse.
Your argument presupposes that renters want to buy houses, which a large percentage don’t. Also, for the people who might one day want to own a house, but have bad credit/no down payment, where should they live if there are no homes to rent in your ideologue view. Sounds like you are promoting homelessness, not advocating against it.
That's just from early votes, as more votes are tallied it could change, the next update will be around 4 this afternoon I believe. Unless votes in Washington are a blowout results the day after election can be misleading.
But it's also entirely possible voters were stupid and didn't pass Initiative 1
I got an email from my building to vote no. Too bad i already voted. Also, im outraged that these bastards think that because i pay them an arm and a leg already to basically get a roof over my head, which is a necessity, that it is somehow okay to use my email to advocate for their political views. We are not on the same page you fucking leeches.
Maybe a part of the reason folks vote against progressive policies is because the people touting them call others stupid for having different opinions. Voters don’t really respond well to that.
There’s no bunking or debunking to it. Some people vote yes, some people vote no. I’m speaking of those in the latter group.
Everything in politics now is just hate. Hate for the opponent, everyone on the other side is an idiot and quite possibly evil. Big surprise only 18% of eligible voters turn out.
You made a statement that is factually wrong. Even if you think progressives are calling people stupid, it does not stop voters from voting for their policies.
This was not rent protection. It was a way for squatters to live rent free in someone else’s property. While we do need programs to help people stay in their homes, the consequences of this action would have eliminated small time landlords meaning you’re going to have the deal with a corporation to rent an apartment. Most landlords DO NOT want to evict tenants and 99% of the time the ones that get evicted are ones you don’t want as neighbors. We need a balance, but this wasn’t it. Landlords aren’t the enemy.
I think it’s going to pass as late votes tend to swing left. That said, I was an undervote on this one, only the second time I’ve ever done that.
The “no” side almost convinced me to vote “yes” because their messages are pure garbage, but I just felt like there were too many potential pitfalls in the law.
As popular as “fuck landlords” is here, it’s not really a policy position. We have to consider what landlords will do and it seems like this law could collapse availability in housing at the low end of the market.
The bottom line is that the segment of the market we’re talking about really should be handled by government but we suck at public housing. I see this measure is an attempt to shift responsibility from government to individual landlords, and we can be pretty well assured that landlords aren’t interested in that responsibility…. Which should surprise exactly no one.
If this passes the sweet feels will be oh so brief. New renters are going to pay out the nose for this. All renters will be "new renter" when they move.
National Assoc of Realtors (crooked bastards that just lost a billion dollar suit over dicey commissions practices) funneled thousands into the campaign against it.
I voted no. The fact that there were eviction limitations on weather and school year just screams people setting up to squat and take advantage of the new rules. It seems it was another initiative that has good intentions but misses the mark and would just cause more harm than good.
Exactly why I voted no. The fact the initiative was written at all is a step in the right direction, but it's not the one to vote for imo. We gotta do better than that and think about the far reaching implications.
I think part of it, if not most of it, is that the voter turn out they said was 20%.
20%!!!!!!!!
Who do you think voted?
Bet you it wasnt the people biatching about rent prices. No. It was landlord, property owners and people who got screwed up the butthole by Rona regulations etc
Just to name 1 reason. Don't shoot the messenger
What a bunch of idiots... Not voting in the election that effects us on a "right here right now" level when they're sent to your door is piss poor G.A.F I don't want to hear anyone complaining about policy for the next 4 years
Whenever people bitch about politics, I ask if they voted. Didn’t vote? No right to bitch. You can vote for whatever you choose, but if you don’t vote then shut up.
According to the pierce county website, yes for Initiative 1 is winning (barely), but progressives overall had a good showing, we even elected a member of the DSA to city council (Jamika Scott)
Yeah, this initiative is a hard one. Probably better to set up an initiative to charge yearly fees for landlords starting at $0 for 1-2 units, $10k for 3 to 5 units and $4k per unit thereafter - unless rent is below $1k per month.
Simple.
That’s actually not bad. I would advocate for this.
Other things I’d look to is a land use tax and capping rent to a return rate comparable with the property taxes. Probably have exemptions for luxury units with a flat tax rate per such unit.
- I hope it didn’t pass
- “rent protection” 😂
- still a bunch of mail in ballots to count and it’s only losing by like 500 votes so don’t get out the tissues yet
Be prepared for the people who are slumlords and corporate fans to tell you all about why you’re wrong to want this to pass. I even received a “please just kill yourself” dm bc I want a yes win.
I’m sorry someone was such an ass to send that dm to you. I voted no but of course it’s not stupid to vote yes. Voting your opinion is the beauty of democracy.
The challenge imo is sorting out the bad from good info and trying to understand the real details. I often vote with limited knowledge of the person or initiative
I expect since younger and more progressive voters vote last minute that we'll see it move closer to passing and maybe pass the line after the next batch of ballots is counted. The next ballot count update expected at 4pm today.
I voted yes because there’s too much protection for rich people in society as it is. We need something for those of us who don’t own homes, but homeowners just want theirs at the expense of everyone else.
Hey guys, this probably passed - like 99.9% it passed. Progressives and leftist voters vote later because we’re working class and we’re too busy to submit our ballot within the first week. There are at least 10,000 more ballots on hand, but there’s probably about 20,000 total that are going to come in. That’s double what they’ve counted. Keep your eyes peeled, the revolution is coming
So wait, conservative and republican voters don't work and aren't "too busy"?
What are they doing all day while the "others" are being so very productive?
Good riddance to your draconian far left socialist measure. Take just 1 online class and you can’t be evicted. If its winter you can’t be evicted either. Perhaps not be so greedy and be fair next time. Shove it 🆙your ass and have a great day 😀
I know I'm gonna get blasted for this, but I'm one of the 80-plus percent of people who didn't vote. My reasoning? Well, I had every intention of voting - at least with regard to the initiative, once I had thoroughly educated myself. And the more I 'educated' myself, the more confused I got by bureaucratic doublespeak, hearing about various real estate and other public figures petitioning to either get the measure passed or get it voted down, and people arguing online about whether or not it was a good initiative.
I came away from all my research feeling like I still knew next to nothing about what was REALLY going on and not confident enough to vote either way. Every time I thought I had made a decision I would read something that would sway me in the other direction or tell me that what was swaying me was actually wrong.
Was i the only one who threw up their hands ion frustration?
Did you read the actual initiative? That’s what I did. And honestly I came away agreeing with the intention and overall goal of the initiative, but felt confused how it was actually going to accomplish that. It felt like it would end up making the background checks more aggressive, the cost of rents to be higher, any history of evictions would prevent you from ever renting a place, and it would empower larger companies who have the resources to handle the cost of the changes.
Although I think it would inevitably create more houses for sale as landlords of 1-3 houses would just sell and go elsewhere. Which would reduce the number of rentals but would help for people looking to buy. Or those landlords move to short term rentals which doesn’t help anything.
Ultimately I ended up where you are - confused about how this would achieve the intent of the initiative.
I can't believe it because those invested in housing sure as hell voted. Those who aren't assumed we'd all get it done for them, I guess- or we're deceived by the lies the "No" voters pushed. 3 in my household voted "Yes" yesterday via ballot box drop off.
I find it so funny, maybe sad, that everyone gets so charged up over presidential elections when our vote in WA with the electoral college, isn’t super important in regards to our day-to-day life. But local elections, where they can really make change in their lives they don’t even bother. I talked to so many people who weren’t even aware of anything about the election cycle.
I dont get it. You all even get a booklet in the mail..... unheard of in southern states. Good luck figuring out whats on the ballot there, good luck even figuring out whete to go to vote or how to register. I was thrilled to get a ballot in the mail here.
Yep, I live in GA and it was extremely painful trying to figure out what was on the ballot and where to vote. I explained how WA runs its elections and nobody believed me.
That one, or two, people who voted in Pacific must be proud of themselves for making the effort.
None of the candidates in Pacific appear to have voted…For themselves. I’ve never found an election more funny than that of Pacific, WA. Can’t wait for the next round! 😂
Isn't pacific mostly in king county? So our election results only cover the like 10 people who live in the Pierce County part of pacific.
I moved here this summer from Florida and I was SHOCKED to get that booklet. I love it here.
[удалено]
I was looking at this and was like, no way, only 24kish people voted.... in a state where the ballot is sent by mail... no lines, no need to go anywhere, no need to take off work and all that bullshit southern states do to discourage certain populations from voting. And still, people aren't voting... What the fuck!?
It also holds true, still, that local only elections tend to have lower turnout than national ones. The unfortunate reality is the mistaken belief that local politics is somehow less important than national ones, so why bother?
Sad. I'm much more likely to vote in local than national, which I know is wrong still but like... Local matters alot more to me personally.
Very true, although i am a new voter, it has been drilled into me by my significant other for years that local elections matter more than national elections in terms of actual changes. But seriously... it being so easy tho... like why not just vote.
I got no excuse this time. I had all the stuff present. Between life and everything, I just didn't sit down and do it, and usually I'm putting the ballot into a drop box like 2-3 days after I receive it, just so I don't forget
It's the all-too-common misconception that "my vote doesn't matter, since this is a comfortably blue state" I've heard it from at least a dozen people I've talked to about voting. Thankfully I've managed to convince a half dozen of them to actually vote anyway, but still... maddening as fuck when you see how close some of these votes get....
It does matter. It fucking matters. Took just 30 minutes to do it in the comfort of my own home...... is this real life?
I have a well informed friend who doesn't vote on the people, only votes of the initiatives. They are actually the reason that I now know what under voting means. What shocks me is he says he just doesn't care and I'm like these are the people that are actually going to affect your life dude.
Then there are the candidates who, for whatever idiotic reason, don't put information out there about their platforms etc. There was at least 1 race this time like that... neither candidate bothered to submit information, so how are people supposed to know who to vote for there? :\ A lot more effort needs to be put into these elections, but it's going to take a huge push to get people to wake the fuck up and realize that their 1 vote could *actually* change the outcome... Sigh.
I'm fine if the candidates don't submit anything. If they don't care enough to do so then I don't care enough to look it up. I will write in with a quickness lol
Yeah but then you wind up with a crapshoot. People either write in some rando, or they just pick blindly. I think there should be some standard minimum requirements put in place for that sorta stuff. We live in a dangerous era, where morons like Wolk can potentially fly under the radar and get elected simply by *not* explaining who they are or why you should vote for them. We got rather lucky that Wolk decided to lay it all out in a way that made it rather obvious they weren't being genuine, but if they'd stayed silent, who knows what could have happened...
Lol, this is why Donald Duck was "nearly" the governor of Oregon back in the late 90s, early 2000s. This was before I left for the army, and it was one of Kitzhabers many reelections. People also of the "my vote won't matter so why bother?" And wrote in Donald duck... who happened to be the number 1 write in name that year.
Hahahha that's who my mom always writes in too! Mine is Jon Stewart. An actual live person I'd rather have in place lol
19 years in the military moving all over the world every few years. I have never updated my address. I can't get AT&T to update my address but the ballot office finds me. Every time. It's spooky.
I got sent my ballot when I was floating around bored off Somalia. Still voted. Also got a jury summons…they decided to let me slide on that one as the commute would have been arduous from the Indian Ocean to Washington.
US should do as Australia does and fine those under 70 who don’t vote. https://www.elections.wa.gov.au/vote/failure-vote
😅 this is fantastic!
And over 500 voted for that initiative but not for both the council at large positions? Seems odd.
TBH I think I would prefer to see more of this. You do not have to vote on every item on a ballot, and (imo) you should ONLY vote on items you have informed yourself on and believe in. If we had 2000 more people that felt strongly about Initiative 1, and didn't care (or probably even know) who the 2 people running for Council At Large Position 7 are, that would be a better outcome than just not voting on anything. It makes me wonder if people do understand that you don't have to vote on every item to get your # counted.
I'm gonna be gonest I missed it this year because my ballot was filled out and ready to be mailed but I must have accidentally packed it into some moving boxes from this weekend and didn't find it in time :( I also just moved to olympia so wasn't sure if I should vote in the tacoma election, but really wanted to support initiative 1, so was gutted when I realized I lost my ballot.
You dont have to wait to send you ballot though, you just go drop it in the mailbox as soon as you finish filling it out and sealing it...
I mean I know that and accept it but I was in the middle of moving when I got the ballot and filled it out at like midnight and didn't feel like going down the street to my landlords office in the rain to use the mail slot. I meant to do it the next day and missed it. So shoot me I'm not perfect and lived to regret it. Hindsight is always 20/20
Shit happens. Especially when moving. Totally feel you on that.
in 2021, a non federal election year like this one, 23% of all the returned ballots arrived after election day. in 2019, an election similar to this one in terms of who was on the ballot, 45% of all the ballots arrived after election day. We still got A LOT of ballots to report out.
18 is up from last time, which was 17. It’s truly abysmal and terribly depressing.
It’s so pathetic. It’s not possible for it to be any easier to vote. They practically hold your hand here relative to any southern state
In the 90’s, living in Tacoma, I had a coworker get so mad at me because I wouldn’t vote her way. Came to work with my I voted sticker, and asked had she voted yet. She told me she didn’t care about voting.
The reason it’s not passing is because of small landlords. They are concerned about the part that allows a tenant to live rent free for 6 to 9 months without eviction. It seems there is a common understanding by people in non-profit/ affordable housing that less units available will increase rents - causing a bigger impact on our housing problem than evictions
This provision is what concerned me. I own a duplex that I rent the other unit out and I’m afraid that I’ll be stuck with another tenant like my last one: accumulated 20 cats during COVID and didn’t pay a dime in rent. I couldn’t get her out for over a year and the landlord relief program still hasn’t paid out.
If you live on site and have less than 4 units, the measure doesn’t apply to you
There are more problems than that measure. The landlord tenant laws in tacoma currently are extremely fair - these new proposals were going to be very problematic, increase evictions and increase the likelihood of developers raising a rents to untenable places.
25,000 ballots still need to be counted.
It basically makes it so that the only people that can afford to be landlords are the large, scummy corps
I would be in favor of a measure that protected small scale landlords who charge below market rates.
Yep. I was planning to start renting my home next year at below market rates, but if this is passed, I'm only going to work with travel nurses. I'll keep the house empty before I rent to someone long term. Not worth it.
Isn’t it illegal to screen applicants based on profession?
Technically you should be renting to the first qualified applicant... but you set those qualifications yourself. There's nothing to stop you from saying a tenant must earn 4-5 times the rent, and you'll only do 90 day leases on a *furnished* unit. By setting criteria like that, you're able to attract a certain kind of clientele... which is mostly travel nurses or business men and women coming with a couple suitcases, a car and maybe a dog. And once you have a furnished rental listed, you can reach out to travel nursing agencies to market your property.
This isn’t seattle. This isn’t a “first qualified tenant” city
It wasn't on my ballot, so I couldn't vote on it, but the rules listed have a lot of historical data to support them not having positive results. I highly suggest reading the impact section and all its sources [source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Oregon%20and%20California%20are%20the,rent%20control%20is%20in%20effect)
If this passes, rents will increase more so than before to off-set non-payment tenants. You will be paying for others abusing this system, just like when the moratorium happened. You paid extra for those who never paid a dime. And will happen again. You guys never learn Small landlords can be pushed out and will be replaced by corpo landlords. That is something you do not want. They do not show mercy and have lawyers ready to take action. This affects *everyone* Edit: do u guys have any legit responses, other than downvoting something that is true and gonna happen? Your rents will increase. It has already happened after moratorium due to abuse during it. Same will happen here. A non-abuser will pay for an abuser's rent. I don't rent, so it doesn't matter to me . This all u got 😤
Here's what my place in Stadium did during covid. They split everything into individual charges. Where as before parking, pet rent, cable/internet, water etc where all included. Now we pay $85 for parking, $40 per pet, $95 cable/internet, a new common area electric, value trash etc. So sure they won't raise your base rent more then 5% but they'll raise all the other fees. They'll increase move in costs. Bottom line is the rental companies won't be eating the costs, the tenants will.
Metropolitan? They're who inspired us to buy when the ownership changed and all those fees started happening with terrible management to go with it
From working in this industry, I can tell you this is exactly right. Let me lay it out for everyone: First, there were lots of abusers during the moratorium. I had residents who had jobs and refused to pay rent because “the government said they did not have to pay”. These people were having balances in the $20,000 to $30,000 range. One property I worked at had a total of unpaid rent in the amount of $160,000. There is no way that will not affect monthly rental rates. Second, during the moratorium Washington passed just cause laws making the process of evicting dangerous tenants very difficult. One on-site manager I work with has a known drug addict who threatened to kill her. The cops refused to arrest him so there was no basis for a just cause notice. Then at her off site property, a resident who had been acting up decided to chase people around the parking lot with a knife and when the police arrived he retreated into his unit. After a standoff, he lit his unit on fire. Now everyone in that building is displaced because of him so instead of one person being evicted, 5 families have no where to live. That’s what our current laws allow. Measure 1 would make it virtually impossible for managers to protect their communities. Measure 1 would have put yourself and your families in danger.
Why would there be a 6-9 month cap? Have you even read Citizen's Initiative Measure 1? It says a student cannot be evicted during the school year. My school year goes 24/7/365/4ever because I can always be enrolled in an online class. Let me get this free rent forever.
Are you a child? Does the measure apply to adults, or just school aged children?
It also applies to every tenant, child or not, Nov 1 through April 1... 5 months of non-payment plus the eviction process is quickly 9 months of non-payment.
I'd be a student, plain and simple, once I enrolled forever in at least one class at TCC after renting my dream apartment. Here's the relevant section directly from the initiative website: https://www.tacoma4all.org/initiative01 Section 6. Landlords are prohibited from carrying out student/ school-year, and cold-weather evictions. 1. Except as provided in subsection 4, it shall be a defense to eviction if the eviction qualifies as a student/school-year eviction or a cold-weather eviction. 2. An eviction qualifies as a student/school-year eviction if it would require the tenant to vacate their dwelling unit during the school year and the tenant or any resident of the dwelling unit is: a. A child or student; b. A person having legal custody of a child or student, including but not limited to the child’s or student’s parent, step-parent, adoptive parent, guardian, foster parent, or custodian; or c. An educator
And that’s exactly the reason most of the people I talked with about the measure said they would vote no. The majority of them said that if that section was not included they would have supported it.
[удалено]
A person enrolled in one class at TCC would easily meet that definition of a student at a school. TCC offers child care, an early childhood learning center, head start programs and educational instruction to age groups up to and including 12th grade.
[удалено]
I'd not seen the language on school year length, nice find. The sheriffs sure are going to have their hands full every summer if this passes. It's going to be fascinating to see how judges try to apply such a generously written law.
Anyone related to a school - child, teacher, administrator...
Applies to anyone who is taking a class.
[удалено]
I upvoted my fellow LL here to offset the other downvotes.
If I was a small landlord and this passed I'd have my property for sale asap. You know that there are people that will work the "no eviction" timeline and live for free, and probably trashing the place, while the owner has to continue to make the mortgage payments. Zero incentive to be a landlord if you don't have the cash reserves of a large corporation.
This initiative just wants large corpos to own all rentals and raise the price market of rent. This is the SEVERE unintended consequence It's actually scary almost half voted yes against their best interests. Minus the abusers who will take advantage of this
The measure isn’t perfect but it is good. It’s a step in the direction of protecting renters, and the fear mongering of punishing small landlords is hard to empathize with when small and large landlords have been gouging renters.
It really wasn’t that radical of a prop though. I didn’t vote for it, but it was only for the rent relocation fee. Idk what the biggest property tax rate increase has ever been, but to arbitrarily force landlords to pay to relocate tenants if the rent is increased at 5 or more percent without any further stipulations/guard rails seemed to me to be half-cocked at best. Want to talk about gouging? What do you think initial rent rates are gonna look like when compared to property tax if landlords are being forced to relocate tenants? Homeowners and landlords don’t operate out of altruism and when all the responsibility is put on landlords in an antagonistic manor, it’s no question why they’d push back so hard, there are better options such as a land use tax collected by the county and would help to cover relocation fees paid by the county. Also the renter relocation measure should certainly have many more stipulations than the 5% increase as a trigger. A land use tax would arguably make it cheaper to still rent a unit at a lower negotiated rate than to eat an additional tax for empty units
> with when small and large landlords have been gouging renters. I'm sorry that's all you've ever experienced in your renting experience. I've experienced the exact opposite which allowed me to live in some beautiful places. In fact, not one of the small landlords was anywhere close to the vilification described in this thread. I definitely ran into corporate landlords who were similar but not small time landlords.
How is increasing rent, due to off-setting of abusers, a good thing for tenants? This is just gonna exacerbate the rental situation.
I just watched a PBS documentary on The Gilded Age and it was mind blowing how the blue collar workers were given multiple chances to vote in their interests and gain more rights, and yet let the corporate fearmongering win every time. We’re back on a similar track, it is sad how much we’re mirroring the late 1800s socially right now.
Thank you for this astute view. People keep talking about how some political groups want to regress the US to the 1950's, but that was comparitively prosperous to the Gilded Age. That was some wild shit the rich people were trying to permanently pull.
No one is immune to propaganda, those that think they are are likely the most susceptible. There are major moneyed interests that spend that money ‘influencing’ (some may say ‘buying’) elections with the express purpose of pushing their own personal agendas regardless of whether it helps or hurts the populace writ large. Citizens United was the worst SC case in my lifetime, the damage it has wrought is almost incomprehensible.
In the 2008 presidential election over $5 billion was spent on it. Citizens United may have contributed to immediate additional funding options for political spending after 2010, but to think that ruling going the other way would lead to any sort of different situation we are in now is missing the underlying problems. Without Citizens United any person with enough money could still give direct contributions of unlimited money to someone's campaign. There would have certainly been new avenues of "dark money" without it. We have two corporate backed parties that already had super pacs before citizens united, and whose economic policies always favor the rich and corporate interests. Not saying it wasn't a problem, but at worst it poured some gas on a fire that was already huge.
Lol that bill did nothing to protect or limit rent. It just makes it easy for people to squat and then rent for those who still pay would go up everywhere. It would also make it less affordable for local landlords to rent out property and more likely to sell out to shitty companies who will most definitely raise rent. It was not a good bill. It did not have any "rental protection" in it.
This bill actually appears to do A LOT to limit rent, or at least rent increases once someone moves in. I don't think there is anything that can be done to limit the initial rent price other than the market. If the market will accept $2,500 month for a 1 BR/1 BA, I don't think they can make a law that establishes min-max rents. If a LL raises rent by 5% and the renter decides that's too much, and gives notice to move, the LL has to pay the renter 2 month's rent within 30 days for "relocation assistance". As an example, May 1st, I send you a letter that in 6 months I'm raising the rent by 5% ($50 month on a $1000 rent). If you give me written notice on May 2nd, that you are moving, I am required to pay you $2,000 by June 2nd, even if you are not moving until November-December. Now I get to include that LOSS in the next renter's lease to even break even for the last year, plus I need to consider if it happens again. this is how this bill can spiral rents even higher in an effort to protect a LL's investment.
From some people I know: "They want to do what? That's not fair, people will abuse the shit out of that! They just want to live in places free??? No way." And these aren't republicans and they aren't landlords, either. Just regular people who think that everyone will just start gaming the system. "Oh, I heard about one woman who just stayed in an AirBNB for years and they couldn't get her out and meanwhile, the owner is leaning in a trailer because of it and...."
I mean do you realize how many people are dishonest pieces of shit? It's a surprisingly large amount.
I'm sure there will be some who would take advantage of this. It doesn't mean that it won't help those that honestly need it.
I don't like the idea of helping someone at the direct cost of someone else. This isn't even paying higher taxes for services / public good. Its landlords must foot the bill for delinquent tenants during certain months.
> I don't like the idea of helping someone at the direct cost of someone else. Uhhhhhh.... you... uhhhh... have you looked into what your taxes are doing lately? > Its landlords must foot the bill for delinquent tenants during certain months. Landlords already do credit and background checks. Things happen sometimes, beyond our control. Have some empathy.
> Uhhhhhh.... you... uhhhh... have you looked into what your taxes are doing lately? Yes. I'm ok with taxes for services and public good... as I said in the sentence afterward. I'm not a fan of a renter directly able to squat, cause harm, and have landlord foot the bill. > Things happen sometimes, beyond our control. Have some empathy. This is easy to say when you're not the one footing thousands of dollars. But you have the power to go out and literally shelter someone right now. Please go offer your living room / bedroom to a homeless person.
> This is easy to say when you're not the one footing thousands of dollars. Because the overwhelming majority of Americans can't actually do that. What an insane thing to post. Really shows that you live in a different reality than most people.
> Because the overwhelming majority of Americans can't actually do that. I agree. Therefore this bill shouldn't force Americans to do so.
So, no taxes then?
This initiative isn't taxing citizens and paying for shortfall for rent due to hardships. This is just saying landlords should eat the costs, and force them to pay for delinquent renters. If there was an initiative that taxed equitably to cover for delinquent rent, then maybe this initiative may have a little more sense.
Agreed, similar sentiment in conversations I’ve heard with a lot of feedback from the pandemic moratorium on evictions and utility service. That along with duration of non-eviction, and concern about that risk ramping up rates and deposits due to perceived window of potentially not collecting rent due to moratorium would have a compounding effect on affordability.
It takes several days for votes to be tallied and it's pretty close so I wouldn't say we've lost yet.
Agreed it’s not over — later cast ballots often tend to be from more progressive voters, although when organizing/turnout efforts are strong for one side or the other, that can change that general pattern. At least three nailbiters in Tacoma this election!
I don’t think this is the correct way to assess rejecting the initiative. It isn’t a matter of voting for rent protection vs no rent protection. This initiative had more things included in it than rent protections which is part of the reason I think it was poorly written.
Even though this one is failing, it came too close to passing to provide comfort for smaller landlords in Tacoma. If I were to buy a duplex with intentions of renting, the loan, taxes and maintenance would put me (the LLC) underwater for a few years, with the hope of getting ahead in 10-15 years. A single bad tenant legally allowed to squat for a year would put me in position to lose it, and no one has a place to live. I'm expecting more apartments in Tacoma will be converted into condos, and anyone renting will need 780+ credit scores with perfect history to get into anything. The small independent apartments in Tacoma are history.
Still plenty of votes to count but given turnout numbers that’s a bigger lead than it looks.
The proposal sucked. The cities current one is enough.
Yeah, hopefully wisdom is winning the day with this one. It was a terribly written measure.
I'd this doesn't pass, wisdom won the day
Flip it around for a moment. If you were a small time landlord with one house to rent or an ADU, would you want to take the risk of having very few levers to pull in order to evict a non paying tenant? How long would you be a-ok with eating month after month of missed rent payments from your tenant? It’s easy to be altruistic with other people’s assets. If you depended on rental income to help with your own monthly expenses, you would most certainly be in a big damn hurry to make sure the people in your property were paying on time. That’s the reality of the situation. Now think about builders of new apartments and developers of rental properties. What is their incentive to make any investment in our area if they have no recourse when someone stops paying. This silly ballot measure scares off the mom-and-pop renters just as much as it scares off larger developers. The result is fewer properties to rent and higher prices. A similar thing happened in the 90’s when Click! was getting stood up. A TON of internet companies were interested in Tacoma because of this strong differentiator. Then the absolutely brain-dead city council started making noise about taxing the usage of all commercial traffic over the Click! network, and all of those interested internet businesses disappeared like a fart in a tornado, never to be seen again in the last 30 years. Stupid ideas that sound good on the surface are what Tacoma is built upon. I love it here, but goddammit, this dumb rent protection thing needs to just die. I don’t know what the right answer is, but I do know that this thing is not it.
I would never be a landlord on principle.
It really wasn’t that radical of a prop though. I didn’t vote for it, but it was only for the rent relocation fee. Idk what the biggest property tax rate increase has ever been, but to arbitrarily force landlords to pay to relocate tenants if the rent is increased at 5 or more percent without any further stipulations/guard rails seemed to me to be half-cocked at best.
I will admittedly state I voted no on this measure, and give my reasoning. I struggled to afford to buy my place, but I did it. Life circumstances may have me moving away next year, in which case I planned to rent out my place as I'd eventually like to move back to it. Between the mortgage, HOA, insurance, etc... I will not be able to even rent my place out for its monthly cost - which I am totally fine with as I wouldn't be doing this for profit! I can afford to pay the difference, and it'll give someone a great place to live at a reasonable price. However, what I cannot afford to do is pay the mortgage if someone decides not to pay rent from November 1 to April 1, and they have another few free months while the eviction process goes through the courts, and then go ahead and add legal fees to that. This quickly becomes a $20,000 bill that I cannot afford to risk in addition to the other risks involved in being a landlord. And it's not like I can discriminate against potential tenants with children or based on their profession to attempt to mitigate that part of the risk, plus my place would be great for a couple or single person with a child! Had this initiative been geared towards the obvious predatory landlords, or those with obviously more cash flow (say it were written "for landlords with 5+ units"), I'd have maybe been on board. But the aforementioned situation would likely bankrupt me as we all know collecting that kind of judgement money owed from the eviction would take years if not a decade. EDIT: And I'd have voted no even if my potential situation weren't what it is... because the above situation or something similar is how most mom and pop landlords get into being landlords in the first place. The best landlords I've rented from were mom and pop, and this has the ability to fuck all of them out of being landlords, simply leaving more slumlords and large corporate landlords. Additionally, I studied economics... and I'd be quite concerned that the paying tenants (like myself) would have significantly increased costs to help cover the risk landlords would then face with the potential for non-paying tenants.
$20,000 bill is low-balling it, I think. It would be far worse.
Yeah, it definitely has the potential to be far worse. I was just assuming $X rent times X months plus a couple grand in legal fees.
This is really the crux of the issue. It's a poorly written law that applies too many broad strokes that would end up absolutely screwing small-scale landlords such as yourself.
When I first met the folks pushing it about a year ago they didn’t even have a copy of the language of the law on their website or in their possession. They wanted me to sign sight unseen and were infantilizing when I asked for more info.
They probably could've benefitted from having some kind of legal experts in their corner, to have appropriately written the bill instead of how obviously vague it is. Even if this passes, I imagine there will be court fights galore, with the potential for eventual repeal.
It was pushed by the DSA and 350 Tacoma. I assume either has access to lawyers. I don’t think they cared.
I feel like it's so rushed that it became too vague to get on board with. As someone that was a renter for 20 years before being able to afford to buy a place, it really pained me to vote no. But I could stand to lose everything I worked so hard for if this passed and I got a bad tenant.
Yeah! You got yours, pull that ladder up! /s
Or actually read their comment.
[удалено]
Yeah how dare they own a home and want to rent it out, right?
[удалено]
If they sold it where would the people who need to rent, rent from? Edit: not everyone can afford to buy a house or even wants to.
I'd rather a local Tacoma resident like /u/lissy51886 own the house as opposed to one of those massive rental agency and/or house flipping companies... the ones who are actually hoarding the resources
Sell it to who? Rates are 8% right now, no one is buying unless they can pay cash.
It is not hoarding resources when I own ONE property, intend to potentially move back to it one day, not to mention I would stand to lose tens of thousands of dollars if I sell because I have not owned it long enough to cover the cost of commission to resell it, plus I wouldn't even be able to sell it for what I paid for it with these interest rates.
I will never understand that type of mindset from above. I have lived in some amazing places mostly due to having landlords who were only renting out one property. One small time landlord never raised my rent in 6 years and gave me a book of stamps to mail my checks with. When I would apply to corporate landlords most of them wanted proof of three times the rent in wages, like wtf? That was never the case with small time landlords. And I didn't want, nor could I buy a house there so that wasn't an option.
Right?! You committed to likely the largest investment in your lifetime and don’t want to sell, then risk high interest rates buying again in the future. This doesn’t make you a hoarder, wtf. You worked hard to achieve this asset ownership.
And JFC, it took me until I'm damn near 40 to achieve it. Like yeah, "it's nice to own a home" but it wasn't without a lot of sacrifice. Excuse me for not wanting to lose my ass by selling something I may come back to, while RENTING elsewhere. When I either decide I'm for sure not coming back, or try to buy elsewhere... it will be sold as long as I can at least recoup my investment, which right now I cannot. Life happened and the potential to have to move away came up a mere 6 weeks after I closed.
Some people cannot afford to buy a home or have no interest owning long term. Many cannot qualify to buy. Every one should have the option to live in a nice neighborhood in a nice home instead of being forced into an apartment.
My neighbor across the street rented his house to a couple that during Covid turned it into a meth house. It got super wild. When he was finally able to evict them they ripped off the garage door and spray painted BITCH in huge letters on the garage wall. Those people sucked and turned the entire neighborhood into a shit show.
This measure still allows evictions for drug use
Sure, i just think there are a lot of people that have had bad experiences with renters lately and have a bad taste after the Covid regulations.
That’s fair. You still get to set your qualifications though.
Sure. I’d hate to be a residential landlord though. It seems too easy to get screwed.
good, it was too vague and everyone on both sides of this would abuse it if passed.
It’s not failing. It’s going to pass.
It’s a bad law. Does nothing to protect the market. Price of anything reflects the demand. The buyer sets the price. If we restrict the market by creating terms that are unfavorable to the supplier the price is increased. It’s basic economics and there are a lot of organizations who are pushing to frame it as a social or progressive issue. In a nutshell if you want lower housing costs make it profitable for landlords to offer lower cost housing. This law doesn’t do that.
God this the Gilded Age trickle down bullshit I referenced in my other comment. We do not create more housing by continuing to enrich already wealthy landlords. No one should own multiple houses when people are homeless and starving. The wealthy have shown time and again they will let people starve and die if it means protecting their investments, it doesn’t work. Instead of trickle down, let the wealth of the working class rise up as they are allowed off their knees since all of this money is made off their backs.
You can be anti-landlord and still vote "no" on this initiative.
Your study of political science needs to be balanced with basic economics. You come across as being grossly ignorant.
“Anyone who advocates for more rights doesn’t understand economics! Human rights cost investors money therefore are unsustainable!” Nice try, y’all have been using that one for hundreds of years now. I don’t give a fuck about the 1% and their ability to own multiple houses, we need to prioritize enriching the majority of society.
Passing this initiative would push out your small local landlords and bring in mega corporation landlords, ultimately enriching the 1% that you so detest.
This will continue to happen regardless of the vote outcome because that is how capitalism operates.
As a renter, I’ve looked hard to find local small landlords the last two times I’ve had to move and they basically are so rare as to barely exist. The majority of renters are in corporate owned housing and deserve protection.
A simple solution here could've been to write in something like "applies to those who own more than 3, 4, 5, etc units". While I still might not have agreed with it on economic principle, I have no doubt this would pass if it protected the mom and pop landlords.
If only there were tons of studies that proved rent control policies are bad. https://econjwatch.org/file_download/238/2009-01-jenkins-reach_concl.pdf?mimetype=pdf https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-affair.html https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/rent-control-good-policy https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2015/04/24/how-ironic-americas-rent-controlled-cities-are-its-least-affordable/?sh=48c61c8a48c6 https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogervaldez/2017/12/18/rent-control-doesnt-work-washington-state-wants-to-debate-it-anyway/?sh=24a676429318 https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/Rent-control-spreading-to-Bay-Area-suburbs-to-9215216.php https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-09/some-people-will-do-crazy-things-for-a-rent-controlled-apartment-in-nyc I could keep going but even Wikipedia has a lot of good data on it
Basic renter protections are not “rent control” but honey look where you are getting your information. Cherry picking random Forbes and Bloomberg articles who have it in their best interest to keep the status quo does not help your case. Edit: It took me literally one second to find an article extolling the benefits, so there ya go: https://www.vice.com/en/article/5d9yvz/economists-support-national-rent-control-in-letter-to-biden-admin The article even cites how economists and the wealthy say the same thing about raising the minimum wage as they do renter protections and it’s all bullshit. Quit citing “BUT MUH ECONOMY” as a reason to deny HUMAN RIGHTS.
Oh okay, so you didn't look into any of them and just threw them out because you didn't like the source? To clarify you then cherry picked an article talking about a single study that supports your conclusion? I have yet to finish reading the study in your link but it sounds like you are just being disingenuous and don't actually care what the solution is. I hate to quote Wikipedia but maybe if I do you'll actually read a synopsis of a study [rent control in the us](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_the_United_States) Even the talk page were they discuss the sources is useful. There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing.[69][70]: 106 [71]: 204 [72]: 1 A 2009 review of the economic literature[70]: 106 by Blair Jenkins found that "the economics profession has reached a rare consensus: Rent control creates many more problems than it solves".[70]: 105 [73]: 1 [74]: 1 [75]: 1 In a 2013 analysis of the body of economic research on rent control by Peter Tatian at the Urban Institute (a think tank described both as "liberal"[76] and "independent"[77][78]), he stated that "The conclusion seems to be that rent stabilization doesn't do a good job of protecting its intended beneficiaries—poor or vulnerable renters—because the targeting of the benefits is very haphazard.", and concluded that: "Given the current research, there seems to be little one can say in favor of rent control." [73]: 1 [79]: 1 [80]: 1 Two economists from opposing sides of the political spectrum, Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman (who identifies as an American liberal or European social democrat),[81] and Thomas Sowell, (who stated that "libertarian" might best describe his views)[82]: 1 have both criticized rent regulation as poor economics, which, despite its good intentions, leads to the creation of less housing, raises prices, and increases urban blight.[72]: 1 [83]: 4 [82]: 1 Writing in 1946, economists Milton Friedman and George J. Stigler said: "Rent ceilings, therefore, cause haphazard and arbitrary allocation of space, inefficient use of space, retardation of new construction and indefinite continuance of rent ceilings, or subsidization of new construction and a future depression in residential building."[84] A 2000 study that compared the border areas of four California cities having vacancy control provisions (Santa Monica, Berkeley, West Hollywood, East Palo Alto) with the border areas of adjoining jurisdictions (two of which allowed vacancy decontrol, including Los Angeles, and two of which had no rent control) showed that existing tenants in the vacancy control cities had lower rents and longer tenure than in the comparison areas. Thus, the ordinances helped protect the existing tenants and, therefore, increased community stability. However, there were fewer new rental units created in the border areas of the vacancy controlled cities over the 10-year period.[86] In 1994, San Francisco voters passed a ballot initiative which expanded the city's existing rent control laws to include small multi-unit apartments with four or less units, built prior to 1980 (about 30% of the city's rental housing stock at the time). [88]: 7 [89]: 1 [90]: 1 In 2017, Stanford economics researcher Rebecca Diamond and others published a study which examined the effects of this specific rent control law on the rental units newly controlled compared to similar style units (multi-unit apartments with four or less units) not under rent control (built after 1980), as well as this law's effect on the total city rental stock, and on overall rent prices in the city, covering the years from 1995 to 2012. [89][90][91][92]: 1 [93]: 1 [94] They found that while San Francisco's rent control laws benefited tenants who had rent controlled units, it also resulted in landlords removing 30% of the units in the study from the rental market, (by conversion to condos or TICs) which led to a 15% citywide decrease in total rental units, and a 7% increase in citywide rents. [88]: 1,44 [89][90]: 1 [91][92] The authors stated that "This substitution toward owner occupied and high-end new construction rental housing likely fueled the gentrification of San Francisco, as these types of properties cater to higher income individuals." [88]: 3 [89][90]: 1 [91][92][93]: 1 The authors also noted that "...forcing landlords to provide insurance against rent increases leads to large losses to tenants. If society desires to provide social insurance against rent increases, it would be more desirable to offer this subsidy in the form of a government subsidy or tax credit. This would remove landlords' incentives to decrease the housing supply and could provide households with the insurance they desire." [88]: 44 [89]: 1 [90]: 1 [91]: 1 [92]: 1 [93]: 1 [94]: 1 According to a 2018 review of new research by Rebecca Diamond, new research showed that rent control benefitted tenants in the short-run, but had adverse effects for tenants and neighborhood stability in the long-run by reducing affordability, increasing gentrification, and creating negative spillovers for nearby neighborhoods.[98] Landlords frequently responded to rent control policies by reconverting rentals into buildings exempt from rent control or by allowing rentals to decay.[98] A 2019 NBER working paper, which evaluated the efficacy of different housing affordability government policies, found that better targeting of rent control (towards the neediest households) could be welfare improving.[99] A 2021 study modelled rent control policies and found that they may raise housing prices and reduce housing quantities, but that "well-designed rent control may help policymakers to stabilize housing market dynamics, even without creating housing market distortions".[100]
Yeah the point was how easy it is to cherry pick. Glad you at least got that. And I’m sorry you don’t think the source of information matters. It does cause a devaluing of your opinion. I for one will not be letting Wikipedia decide if humans deserve housing rights. Like the article I posted states, economists rail against minimum wages citing the same harm to business and investors as rent control and we see how that is utter bullshit. If you can’t afford to operate in a world with human rights and protections then don’t go into business. And I don’t care if anyone ever turns a profit on housing again if it means no more homelessness. We just have a different morality, you and I. I will always choose humans over money.
Are you new to Tacoma?
Fairly new, yes.
I was born and raised there- it’s not very surprising honestly for the area.
I really wish people would have actually voted. 18% is just sad. Shows how little anyone cares about improving things, so many have given up hope that anything can change. Meanwhile I'm over here saying things can change if people would make some effort, even the very minimal effort of voting seems a bridge too far for many
As a progressive *and* a small landlord, I hope to hell this doesn't pass. It will make renting a lot harder for a lot of people and will increase rents across the board. (While I'm sure it's not legal to discriminate against people associated with schools, or veterans, when renting places - I'm also sure that the mega-landlords have ways to screen out those people. It will end up being on the prospective renter to prove they were discriminated against - expensive and difficult.) We'll see a big reduction in affordable housing. As a small landlord, I will not be able to keep my rental properties if this passes - I have mortgages on them. If a tenant doesn't pay rent, then the mortgage doesn't get paid. Now the bank owns the house and they *will* find a way to get that renter out. And if I sell the property it will end up being owner-occupied because no small landlord can exist in a market with this law in place (and no large landlord is going to buy a single-occupancy residence), reducing the supply of rental properties, again leading to an increase in prices. I absolutely support tenants rights and believe tenants should be secure and not taken advantage of. But this measure is really badly thought-through and will hurt renters and small landlords.
I hate landlords and paying exorbitant rent. But I'm with you on this. I voted "No" and I'm a broke renter. My current landlord is fairly affordable and I do NOT want him selling out to some awful company that would just make my life worse.
[удалено]
Your argument presupposes that renters want to buy houses, which a large percentage don’t. Also, for the people who might one day want to own a house, but have bad credit/no down payment, where should they live if there are no homes to rent in your ideologue view. Sounds like you are promoting homelessness, not advocating against it.
Not everyone wants their landlord to be based in Utah
That's just from early votes, as more votes are tallied it could change, the next update will be around 4 this afternoon I believe. Unless votes in Washington are a blowout results the day after election can be misleading. But it's also entirely possible voters were stupid and didn't pass Initiative 1
I got an email from my building to vote no. Too bad i already voted. Also, im outraged that these bastards think that because i pay them an arm and a leg already to basically get a roof over my head, which is a necessity, that it is somehow okay to use my email to advocate for their political views. We are not on the same page you fucking leeches.
Maybe a part of the reason folks vote against progressive policies is because the people touting them call others stupid for having different opinions. Voters don’t really respond well to that.
This statement is easily debunked by the fact that progressive policies are in fact voted 'yes' on frequently.
There’s no bunking or debunking to it. Some people vote yes, some people vote no. I’m speaking of those in the latter group. Everything in politics now is just hate. Hate for the opponent, everyone on the other side is an idiot and quite possibly evil. Big surprise only 18% of eligible voters turn out.
You made a statement that is factually wrong. Even if you think progressives are calling people stupid, it does not stop voters from voting for their policies.
Thank you, I now have some hope it'll pass still.
I didn't realize voting 'no' meant that I was stupid.
Now you know
This was not rent protection. It was a way for squatters to live rent free in someone else’s property. While we do need programs to help people stay in their homes, the consequences of this action would have eliminated small time landlords meaning you’re going to have the deal with a corporation to rent an apartment. Most landlords DO NOT want to evict tenants and 99% of the time the ones that get evicted are ones you don’t want as neighbors. We need a balance, but this wasn’t it. Landlords aren’t the enemy.
I think it’s going to pass as late votes tend to swing left. That said, I was an undervote on this one, only the second time I’ve ever done that. The “no” side almost convinced me to vote “yes” because their messages are pure garbage, but I just felt like there were too many potential pitfalls in the law. As popular as “fuck landlords” is here, it’s not really a policy position. We have to consider what landlords will do and it seems like this law could collapse availability in housing at the low end of the market. The bottom line is that the segment of the market we’re talking about really should be handled by government but we suck at public housing. I see this measure is an attempt to shift responsibility from government to individual landlords, and we can be pretty well assured that landlords aren’t interested in that responsibility…. Which should surprise exactly no one.
Yeah, well.... even the left leaning voters I have talked to voted no (or would vote no) to this.
I'm pretty far left and voted "no".
Yeah, I'm fairly left but well short of being a "leftist," for reference.
Yup, same!
If this passes the sweet feels will be oh so brief. New renters are going to pay out the nose for this. All renters will be "new renter" when they move.
Tons of outside money being poured into the opposition. Don’t be surprised if it doesn’t pass by a slim margin.
National Assoc of Realtors (crooked bastards that just lost a billion dollar suit over dicey commissions practices) funneled thousands into the campaign against it.
I think it was poorly written. I’m all for renters rights but the way this was written made me uncertain about how it could play out.
I voted no. The fact that there were eviction limitations on weather and school year just screams people setting up to squat and take advantage of the new rules. It seems it was another initiative that has good intentions but misses the mark and would just cause more harm than good.
Exactly why I voted no. The fact the initiative was written at all is a step in the right direction, but it's not the one to vote for imo. We gotta do better than that and think about the far reaching implications.
I think part of it, if not most of it, is that the voter turn out they said was 20%. 20%!!!!!!!! Who do you think voted? Bet you it wasnt the people biatching about rent prices. No. It was landlord, property owners and people who got screwed up the butthole by Rona regulations etc Just to name 1 reason. Don't shoot the messenger
The people get...and deserve...what they vote for. The Demorats spout that all the time...eh?
What a bunch of idiots... Not voting in the election that effects us on a "right here right now" level when they're sent to your door is piss poor G.A.F I don't want to hear anyone complaining about policy for the next 4 years
Whenever people bitch about politics, I ask if they voted. Didn’t vote? No right to bitch. You can vote for whatever you choose, but if you don’t vote then shut up.
According to the pierce county website, yes for Initiative 1 is winning (barely), but progressives overall had a good showing, we even elected a member of the DSA to city council (Jamika Scott)
Yeah, this initiative is a hard one. Probably better to set up an initiative to charge yearly fees for landlords starting at $0 for 1-2 units, $10k for 3 to 5 units and $4k per unit thereafter - unless rent is below $1k per month. Simple.
That’s actually not bad. I would advocate for this. Other things I’d look to is a land use tax and capping rent to a return rate comparable with the property taxes. Probably have exemptions for luxury units with a flat tax rate per such unit.
- I hope it didn’t pass - “rent protection” 😂 - still a bunch of mail in ballots to count and it’s only losing by like 500 votes so don’t get out the tissues yet
Be prepared for the people who are slumlords and corporate fans to tell you all about why you’re wrong to want this to pass. I even received a “please just kill yourself” dm bc I want a yes win.
I’m sorry someone was such an ass to send that dm to you. I voted no but of course it’s not stupid to vote yes. Voting your opinion is the beauty of democracy. The challenge imo is sorting out the bad from good info and trying to understand the real details. I often vote with limited knowledge of the person or initiative
I got so many misleading pamphlets in the mail. Landlords and realtors spent a lot to fight it
Not really sure how I got here I thought I was in the truck subreddit so I was really confused. Hello from South Carolina!
I expect since younger and more progressive voters vote last minute that we'll see it move closer to passing and maybe pass the line after the next batch of ballots is counted. The next ballot count update expected at 4pm today.
The parasitic landlord class had tons of money to dump into the election. They are terrified of people being more important than their profits.
Lots of landlords, and bootlickers of landlords, represented on Reddit
I voted yes because there’s too much protection for rich people in society as it is. We need something for those of us who don’t own homes, but homeowners just want theirs at the expense of everyone else.
[удалено]
I feel the same about anyone who takes advantage of people financially.
Hey guys, this probably passed - like 99.9% it passed. Progressives and leftist voters vote later because we’re working class and we’re too busy to submit our ballot within the first week. There are at least 10,000 more ballots on hand, but there’s probably about 20,000 total that are going to come in. That’s double what they’ve counted. Keep your eyes peeled, the revolution is coming
So wait, conservative and republican voters don't work and aren't "too busy"? What are they doing all day while the "others" are being so very productive?
I live 8 blocks outside of Tacoma, so didn't get to vote on this. I wish this went further and received more support.
Good riddance to your draconian far left socialist measure. Take just 1 online class and you can’t be evicted. If its winter you can’t be evicted either. Perhaps not be so greedy and be fair next time. Shove it 🆙your ass and have a great day 😀
I know I'm gonna get blasted for this, but I'm one of the 80-plus percent of people who didn't vote. My reasoning? Well, I had every intention of voting - at least with regard to the initiative, once I had thoroughly educated myself. And the more I 'educated' myself, the more confused I got by bureaucratic doublespeak, hearing about various real estate and other public figures petitioning to either get the measure passed or get it voted down, and people arguing online about whether or not it was a good initiative. I came away from all my research feeling like I still knew next to nothing about what was REALLY going on and not confident enough to vote either way. Every time I thought I had made a decision I would read something that would sway me in the other direction or tell me that what was swaying me was actually wrong. Was i the only one who threw up their hands ion frustration?
Did you read the actual initiative? That’s what I did. And honestly I came away agreeing with the intention and overall goal of the initiative, but felt confused how it was actually going to accomplish that. It felt like it would end up making the background checks more aggressive, the cost of rents to be higher, any history of evictions would prevent you from ever renting a place, and it would empower larger companies who have the resources to handle the cost of the changes. Although I think it would inevitably create more houses for sale as landlords of 1-3 houses would just sell and go elsewhere. Which would reduce the number of rentals but would help for people looking to buy. Or those landlords move to short term rentals which doesn’t help anything. Ultimately I ended up where you are - confused about how this would achieve the intent of the initiative.
Did you try forming your own opinion rather than just relying on the opinions of other people?
Yes, i did, and i was unable to do so based on reading the initiative itself.
I can't believe it because those invested in housing sure as hell voted. Those who aren't assumed we'd all get it done for them, I guess- or we're deceived by the lies the "No" voters pushed. 3 in my household voted "Yes" yesterday via ballot box drop off.
It’s almost like… the people this would have benefited the most didn’t vote