<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">I believe that the problem here is the pandemic, not the moratorium. And I agree that providing a secure physical environment should be a government priority. So property owners would be, in fact, asking the
government to make the problem worse, by prioritizing their ability to make money from the business of providing shelter, over the ability of people to stay in secure shelter even if they do not have the financial means to obtain it via the market.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">And I do hope that reasonable landlords and tenants are able to work out issues. But I am suggesting that that possibility is not helped, and solutions are more difficult to find, in an atmosphere among us
professionals that characterizes the landlord’s plight as sympathetic and the tenants’ plight as mere cynical manipulation of an overbearing government mandate. I think it is fair to insist that the tenants generally are acting rationally as well, within the
bounds of their life circumstances.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">I wish that unbiased rules were possible. But I think “bias” simply means differentiation and prioritization, which means that bias is unavoidable. It’s not that every rule will have “winners” and “losers”
so much as, every rule will make a distinction and prioritize one outcome over another. “Unbiased” does not equate to “protecting contract and property interests” even though that has in fact been the legal and rhetorical trend for a very long time.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">If for example all laws allowing private creation of corporations were abolished tomorrow, that would still provide consistency, in just as “unbiased” a fashion as the current laws. But it certainly would
upend the priorities that the current law establishes.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Eric<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Eric C. Nelsen<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Sayre Law Offices, PLLC<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">1417 31st Ave South<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Seattle WA 98144-3909<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">206-625-0092<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><a href="mailto:eric@sayrelawoffices.com"><span style="color:#0563C1">eric@sayrelawoffices.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:windowtext;background:aqua;mso-highlight:aqua">Covid-19 Update -
</span></b><span style="color:windowtext">All attorneys are working remotely during regular business hours and are available via email and by phone. Videoconferencing also is available. Signing of estate planning documents can be completed and will be handled
on a case-by-case basis. Please direct mail and deliveries to the Seattle office.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="color:windowtext"> K. Garl Long <Garl@longlaw.biz>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, December 17, 2020 3:01 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com>; Eric Nelsen <eric@sayrelawoffices.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBARP] Landlord Question - Next legislative session<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>The government should not favor one group or another. It should supply a secure physical environment and a consistent and unbiased set of rules. Property owners are not asking for more government, or for government funds, they just want government to stop
making the problem worse. As you suggest in your last paragraph, reasonable owners and responsible tenants can work out issues between them; without government money or mandates.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>KGL<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 12/17/2020 02:35 PM, Eric Nelsen wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">We are all generalizing, whether arguing in favor of tenants or landlords. Policy decisions are generally made by generalizations, after all. The devil is always in the details.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Little of the current situation is a policy outcome I want or agree with; the moratorium was imposed hastily in an emergency that has now consumed our country for almost a year, with every tool of governance forced to run with one foot
in a bucket because of gross incompetence and malicious indifference at the federal level coupled with insufficient local resources. It never should have taken this long, too many people have died, too many are going to die still, and governmental capacity
to act is still badly crippled. Governor Inslee was given a surgical problem, then blindfolded and handed a sledgehammer and told to take care of it. So we got a sledgehammer solution for a surgical problem.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I do agree that there should be a policy-level allocation of relief to mom-and-pop landlords to help ease the economic burden they have taken on. Personally, I would advocate for limiting relief to landlords who are individuals and closely-held
corporate entities (say, max 4 owners of the entity, with additional rules to prevent gaming this limit by having interlocking ownership or control), who own no more than six rental units total, and whose rental revenue amounts to 50% or more of their total
personal income. That helps individual small-time landlords that have been front and center of the argument for landlord relief, and avoids benefitting the corporations who typically hoover up the vast majority of “small business” relief. I would also condition
relief on release of tenant debt in some fashion. (Obviously those limitations are off the top of my head and could be tweaked.) The idea is, if you’re a bigger landlord than the described threshold, then you’re really an investor and you don’t get a bailout.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The “moral hazard” argument applies both ways. Personally I worry about the constant coddling of property by our legal system, to the point where investors of all kinds, real estate, stock, and whatever, have had literally
<i>decades</i> to develop a false sense of security by being constantly bailed out by the government from the natural consequences of investor-class and banker-class recklessness. And just now, there are critical policy reasons to prioritize human life and
shelter (that is, life and liberty interests) over profits (property). So that false sense of security is getting zinged and property owners are outraged, forgetting that for themselves, their life and liberty interests are basically already well-provided
for. No one owning a rental property is going without a roof over their own head.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Also, a money/contract relationship is not the same as a social human relationship. There is no
<i>moral</i> obligation to pay money, because morality arises from social relationships, and money is not that—or at least that’s how we’ve set it up over the centuries. If a landlord’s sole “relationship” to a tenant is based on the rent derived from providing
them shelter, then the relationship is about money. Don’t expect a tenant to make an allocation of their resources that benefits the landlord more than they absolutely must. That is, after all, the basis of all “laissez faire” and “invisible hand” preaching:
everybody is a self-interested money-calculator and morality based on non-monetary factors is irrelevant. I personally think laissez-faire and the invisible hand is garbage, but if property-owners want to talk in those terms, then they shouldn’t squawk when
someone else behaves the same way.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have pushed back before about the righteous tone on the listserv, about tenants spending their money on goodies and giving the landlord the finger. But if I have $1000 to spend and the choice is between taking care of myself or paying
money to a landlord when the law isn’t going to force me to, and my relationship to the landlord is based purely on money, then hell yes, I’m going to spend it on myself. And please note, that is the
<i>proper</i> response under invisible hand theories: do the self-interested thing and it will all balance out: the landlord is hurt but Netflix benefits.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But if the landlord is my friend, or has some other <i>social</i> claim to my loyalty, I’m far more likely to pay some rent because I will feel a moral obligation. Contrariwise, if the landlord is my friend, the landlord is far more likely
to understand and sympathize if I am genuinely struggling financially, and we have a social connection that opens the possibility of discussing what each of us needs to survive and finding a cooperative solution that gets us through the crisis
<i>together</i>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eric<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eric C. Nelsen<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sayre Law Offices, PLLC<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1417 31st Ave South<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Seattle WA 98144-3909<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">206-625-0092<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:eric@sayrelawoffices.com"><span style="color:#0563C1">eric@sayrelawoffices.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="background:aqua;mso-highlight:aqua">Covid-19 Update -
</span></b>All attorneys are working remotely during regular business hours and are available via email and by phone. Videoconferencing also is available. Signing of estate planning documents can be completed and will be handled on a case-by-case basis. Please
direct mail and deliveries to the Seattle office.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>***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.***<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>WSBARP mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com">WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp">http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>