[WSBARP] [WSBARP Digest] evictions, UD and available housing

[Tom Lee]

I'll take heat for this, but the following was my response to a discussion
on pending LL/T legislation:

My colleagues diplomatically identified the flaws in this first volley
of landlord-tenant legislation. Nonetheless, I have a rather blunt
assessment regarding SB 5197, and the myriad landlord-tenant "reforms"
that are in the Legislative pipeline.

SB 5197 and its ilk do not address actual legal problems. SB 5197 and
its ilk do not address actual policy problems, especially not housing
affordability. SB 5197 and its ilk are purely political pieces of
legislation designed specifically to undermine a landlord's ability to
have any control over who landlords rent their property to, and how to
respond to the malfeasances of irresponsible or downright bad tenants.

The legislators introducing these reforms do not care about private
property rights, our opinions as experienced landlord/real estate
attorneys, or those inconvenient things called facts. This privileged
legislative cohort does not care about how absurd and difficult it is to
practice landlord-tenant law, representing actual people whose
livelihoods are on the line. I cannot express how frustrating it is to
re-educate the courts on sea changes in landlord-tenant law, while
expecting that my clients, citizens of Washington state, will receive
results consistent with the fair and impartial administration of
justice.

Moderation in all things, including moderation. Respectfully, I
encourage our lobby and friendly legislators to oppose all
landlord-tenant reforms in the session. Such efforts may be futile.
Nonetheless, the 2021 session wrought enough damage we are still trying
to implement. These proposed reforms are obviously political, and
designed to kill private landlords by "death through a thousand cuts."
Introducing new reforms is pure political theatre that undermines all
law-abiding citizens who pay their rent or mortgage, honor any sort of
contractual agreement, and fundamentally respect the rule of law.

I am my own boss: I can be blunt without fear of repercussion. However,
I know a number of colleagues share similar opinions. While I will
convey my opinions to my legislators through appropriate channels, I
appreciate you listening to my blunt assessment.

Respectfully,

Tom Lee
Attorney and Counselor at Law
R. Thomas Lee, PLLC



On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 6:08 PM Kaitlyn Jackson <kaitlyn at dimensionlaw.com>
wrote:

> Or just find rent assistance programs and deal with the issue at the
> source.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 23, 2023, at 5:50 PM, Andrew Hay <andrewhay at washingtonlaw.net>
> wrote:
>
> 
>
> While there is truth to the problem of individuals fleeing the renting
> market, I would say the discussion is less about horrible landlords owing
> poor tenants than it is about social priorities. I favor residential
> properties being owned and managed by individuals and families like Carmen
> far more than by the hedge funds and the investor class.  So it is sad to
> see individuals abandoning the rental market because of recent changes in
> the law and the growth of tenant advocacy.  However, I support both the
> tenant advocates and the recent law changes.
>
>
>
> Some ridiculous proportion of our country’s wealth goes to one percent of
> the population.  Brookings says the wealthiest one percent owns more than
> the entire middle class.  By Bernie’s math it is 99%.   In any case, the
> wealth gap is ridiculous.  The wealth gap is a product of social policy –
> whether it be taxation, market regulation, and state and federal
> legislation.  Little is being done to change this and the gap is growing
> not narrowing.
>
>
>
> The Landlord tenant-relation is a microcosm of this.  Landlords are
> invariably more wealthy than tenants.
>
>
>
> Roughly half of rental housing in the US is owned by investment trusts or
> hedge funds.
>
>
>
> Hedge funds and investment trusts make billions of dollars and pay little
> taxes – less than middle income people.  Hedge funds are essentially a
> vehicle for wealth to be taken from the 99 percent and given to the one
> percent.
>
>
>
> So half the housing in the US is owned by the very vehicle that
> perpetuates and increases the wealth gap.
>
>
>
> One a more narrow scale, the average monthly rent for a one-bedroom
> apartment in Seattle is $2,615.
>
>
>
> Minimum wage is $15 an hour which creates a gross wage of $2500 a month.
>
>
>
> The situation is not much better outside of Seattle.  The benefits of
> living in lower rental areas are offset by the high cost of auto transit,
> flimsy public transportation, and the stress and time loss of commuting.
>
>
>
> It doesn’t stop there.  Homelessness is increasing.  People are homeless
> because they can’t afford rent, have been evicted and can no longer rent,
> or have life issues – addiction, mental health, etc.   Our social
> infrastructure to support this population has decreased proportionally over
> time – and the numbers of homeless everywhere are increasing.
>
>
>
> People recognize the fundamental inequity of this. That has led to the
> changes in housing legislation that slow the pace of fast, cheap
> evictions.  This is a good thing.  I wouldn’t say it will stop the wealth
> gap from increasing but it treats a symptom of the wealth gap.
> Unfortunately treating symptoms is not a cure for the disease, but it is
> better than doing nothing and therefore better than maintaining the status
> quo.
>
>
>
> For people with one or two rentals, it is unfortunate that you have to
> abandon the rental market because you are better landlords than the hedge
> funds.  But you can always move into more secure investments like the stock
> market.  And find comfort in the 7% to 8% annual gains in that investment
> vehicle.  Ironically these returns are largely due now to the hedge funds
> and the wealth gap they perpetuate.
>
>
>
> The people really suffering from the current changes in rental realities
> are renters.  The recent changes in the balance of power that favor renters
> are only the first of many steps that need to be taken to support that
> group.
>
>
>
> *Andrew Hay*
>
> Hay & Swann PLLC
>
> 201 S. 34th St.
>
> Tacoma, WA 98418
>
> *www.washingtonlaw.net <http://www.washingtonlaw.net>*
>
> *andrewhay at washingtonlaw.net <andrewhay at washingtonlaw.net>*
>
> He/him/his
>
> 253.272.2400 (w)
>
> 253.377.3085 (c)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <
> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> *On Behalf Of *Carmen Rowe
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2023 6:29 PM
> *To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] [WSBARP Digest] evictions, UD and available
> housing
>
>
>
> I'll short-cut my response rather than try to cut & paste the digest,
> other than this brief excerpt:
>
>
>
>
> "Food for thought - the unlawful detainer statute was created for a quick
> and efficient way to resolve the issue of possession. It's no longer quick,
> it's no longer efficient, and it's no longer affordable for many landlords.
> Some are starting to consider walking away from unlawful detainers and just
> file full on ejectment cases because now they are likely faster and can
> resolve all issues more effectively than unlawful detainers can.
> KJ"
>
>
>
> Amen, Amen, Amen ... other than it's way beyond that, as someone else
> noted. Not some, but many, small housing providers are considering (and
> many have acted upon) leaving the market altogether. I did, and every
> person I personally know that had a rental property or two did. Those that
> had it for retirement quickly saw the potential for it to pull them down,
> not maintain them, and invested elsewhere.
>
>
>
> The latest mess just showed that the government is plenty willing to
> "take" private property to serve the greater good (I know it wasn't
> technically a "taking" as it said tenants still liable; but the odds of a
> tenant that far in arrears having the means to pay it back? In I would
> hazard to say the very vast majority of cases, the words are just air, any
> judgment worth less than the paper it was printed on). Never mind the
> ongoing increasingly extreme tenant-protection laws (King County leading,
> but where KC goes, the rest apparently eventually follows). No cause
> eviction was the final straw for many colleagues & friends & family I knew
> who had rental properties. With the solid market, they simply sold. Which
> also allowed one of the few remaining options for a straight-forward end to
> a tenancy.
>
>
> It won't get better. What used to be a viable secondary source of income
> (and sometimes, critically, a resource for retirement) just isn't anymore.
> And there goes a significant chunk of the housing market - which contained,
> by the way, the landlords who were likely the least of the problems the
> legislation meant to address, and the most likely to be
> accommodating/friendly/humane to their tenants, with whom there was a more
> personal connection by the nature of the person just having a few rentals.
> So you eliminate a significant chunk of the housing, and another chunk gets
> passed to the 'mass production landlords' who are the worse offenders.
>
>
>
> I could not agree more with that comment that this is a horrible trend
> long-term for homelessness, so the purported protections will do great harm.
>
>
>
> But I never seem to see any discussion on that. Only how horrible
> landlords are, how they "owe" it to the tenants, how they were somehow just
> living high on this side gig. Is there any balance to the discussion
> anywhere?
>
>
>
>
>
> Carmen Rowe
>
>
>
>
>
> Phone: (360) 669-3576 (direct cell)
>
> Email:  Carmen at GryphonLawGroup.com
>
> *Olympia/Lacey and primary mailing office:*
>
> 1415 College Street SE, Lacey, WA 98503
>
>
>
> *Seattle office: *2611 NE 113th St. Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98125
>
>
>
> *NOTICE REGARDING OPERATIONS AND COVID-19:* We see our community as
> working together to address COVID and its impact on our lives, health, and
> business. The nature of our practice lends itself well to virtual operation
> and we offer a range of flexible solutions to best work with your needs and
> preferences. We are here to support you.
>
>
>
> *Privileged and confidential: *This message is confidential. If you
> receive this message in error, please let us know, and please delete and
> disregard any information it contains. We thank you for your respect in not
> sharing this email with anyone.
>
>
>
>
>
> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not
> restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing
> attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and
> others.***
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>
>
> PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL:  This e-mail (including any attachments) is
> intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may
> contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended
> recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the
> intended recipient, you are notified that any review, dissemination,
> distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. Attempts to intercept
> this message are in violation of 18 USC 2511(1) of the Electronic
> Communications Privacy Act, which subjects the interceptor to fines,
> imprisonment and/or civil damages. If you have received this e-mail in
> error, please immediately notify us by e-mail, facsimile, or telephone;
> return the e-mail to us at the e-mail address below; and destroy all paper
> and electronic copies. Any settlement offer contained herein is made
> pursuant to Washington ER 408, and without admitting fault or liability on
> the part of this firm’s client(s) or its agents.  IRS CIRCULAR 230
> DISCLAIMER:  To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, I
> inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication
> (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and
> cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
> Internal Revenue Code; or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
> another party any transaction or tax-related matter addressed herein.
> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not
> restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing
> attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and
> others.***
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp



-- 

*TOM LEE*

Attorney

*R. THOMAS LEE, PLLC* | Attorney and Counselor at Law | A Professional
Limited Liability Company

Direct: 425-219-6736

rtl at rtleelaw.attorney | website: www.rtleelaw.attorney

This E-Mail message and any documentation accompanying this transmission
may contain *Attorney Work Product, privileged, and/or confidential
information and is intended solely for the addressee(s) named above*.  If
you are not the intended addressee/recipient, you are hereby notified that
any use of, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the
contents of this E-Mail message and/or attached documentation is strictly
prohibited and may result in legal action against you.  Please reply to the
Sender advising the Sender of the error in transmission and immediately
destroy the message and any accompanying documents.  Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230123/54735be4/attachment.html>