A small step, to be sure, but the City Council voted 8-1 in favor of asking the state to let Seattle and other cities have rent control. I guess the next step would be some legislator from the city introducing it in the next session. Who would do that? Also, with a GOP state senate, I’m not sure what path that would take.
Still, this may be a thing to push Seattle (and non-Seattle, rent is high in a lot of places) elected officials further to the left. It’s a concrete thing if people support something in the legislature.
Also, remember when Judy Nicastro pushed for this sort of thing in the mind 90’s and all the political insider types just assumed nothing could ever happen? Fun times.
I miss Judy’s charm and proletariat/populist voice…
I’ve been both a renter (for years and years) and a landlord (briefly), and I don’t want to be either. There’s no substitute for finding a park and digging your own hole. That doesn’t mean free shelter; even without a mortgage payment, there are costs like taxes, utilities, and insurance that come to hundreds of dollars a month. For example, even if houses were free, a landlord would have to charge almost $1,000 a month to break even. That’s about what it costs me to live in my mortgage-free hole, if you also count routine maintenance. But ownership means no landlord hassles, no unpleasant rent increases (merely unpleasant tax and utility bill increases, or, if you live the country, expensive septic system repairs), and you can alter it to your taste. But you still don’t get to choose your neighbors, and some of them are bound to be jerks, simply because the majority of you stupid humans are jerks. All in all, I favor ownership over the alternatives. As Shakespeare wrote, “Neither a lender nor a borrower be.” If you’re a rent, you’re borrowing someone else’s hole; if you’re a landlord, you’re lending someone else your hole. My experience has been that, either way, you’re likely to regret it.
“… or, if you live (in) the country, expensive septic system repairs.” Funny you should mention that.
@3 Getting rid of shit is a big problem in lots of places. The world is drowning in unwanted shit.
But isn’t rent control to blame for HIGHER rents in San Francisco and elsewhere? Desirable places get capped, then either go co-op or turn into slums… Rent everywhere else has to double to keep up with demand. Rich people as usual gain the most and the poor are arguably worse off.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to FORCE developers to build twice as many units as they would prefer? The only guaranteed way to decrease cost is to flood the market with supply.