Spokane landlords, tenants meet in attempt to find compromise on controversial reforms

Spokane landlords, tenants and other stakeholders all gathered into the same room Tuesday night in a last attempt to forge compromise on a controversial rental reform package being considered by the City Council.

Opponents said the reforms are ill-formed and counterproductive. Advocates called the regulations needed, if insufficient, to help the city’s rent-burdened tenants.

The conversation was mostly civil. On several occasions, after a tenant described untenable housing conditions and a system they felt was broken, they were approached by landlords and their supporters, who offered them advice.

But as the scheduled two-hour meeting stretched into its third and fourth hours, the conversation grew heated with speakers increasingly turning away from Council members and Mayor Nadine Woodward and toward each other. Voices raised, speakers interrupted and accusations were leveled.

The City Council had originally planned to vote on the reform package during its Dec. 5 meeting but voted 6-1 to defer until Jan. 23 to allow for additional stakeholder meetings like the one held Tuesday.

The rental reforms originally proposed were expansive and had been met with opposition by landlords. Changes to the ordinance, including any that arose due to the additional stakeholder meetings, will be considered by the City Council during the Jan. 23 meeting prior to a final vote.

In large part, the reforms were intended to make it easier to seek a new rental, ensure rentals are habitable and meet various requirements, and support tenants if a landlord violates their rights.

The proposal

If passed as originally drafted, renters would no longer have to pay for a new background and credit check for every rental for which they apply. Universal background and credit checks, which would be usable for 60 days after a tenant pays once, would have to be accepted by all landlords.

The universal background check would not disclose arrest or conviction data older than a year, except for violent or sex crimes.

Landlords could still seek additional information from prospective tenants but would be required to pay for other checks themselves.

In addition, landlords would need to register rentals and annually certify that the units are fit for human habitation and meet state requirements. That certification would require an inspection of the property.

Landlords who own four or more rental properties would also need to pay the city of Spokane $10 per unit per year. Revenue from these fees would largely bolster city code enforcement.

The first time a property owner obtains a business license for a rental in Spokane, they would be required to complete an online training.

The reforms would implement a residential rental property mitigation fund, which would help pay for repair for damage caused by a tenant if the tenant is low income and receiving support from either a government or nonprofit program.

Spokane would also invest in attorney services in certain situations for tenants, focused on supporting those embroiled in legal fights over habitability or Residential Landlord Tenant Act violations.

Landlords would also have to provide tenants with information about their rights and responsibilities.

Additional anti-retaliation protections would be implemented, specifically protecting those who educate others about their fair housing rights or encourage them to exercise those rights.

Finally, landlords would be required to provide each tenant with either a digital or physical voter registration form and a change of address form.

The debate

Council President Breean Beggs, who had taken a lead role in putting together the reform package, was the sole vote against deferring a final vote until January.

“I am skeptical that we will make much progress on bringing people together, but I am totally willing to let other council members work on that and live my pain for the last few years,” Beggs said, shortly before voting against the delay.

Councilwoman Karen Stratton, who proposed the deferral, worked with Councilman Michael Cathcart in recent weeks to lead additional conversations with stakeholders.

This week’s meeting was the first in which all parties were brought to the same table to discuss their concerns. More than 100 people gathered in the Northeast Community Center at 5 p.m. on a Tuesday evening, with dozens more attending via Zoom, in a last effort to affect the trajectory of the reforms.

Supporters of the proposed reforms, largely renters and tenant advocates, said accountability is needed to fix an unfair system.

Spokane renter Michelle Pappas told the crowd that she and her son had fled domestic violence and had struggled to find a rental, even though she was working two jobs. When she finally located a new home, she said it was infested with mold, causing her, her son and her partner serious health problems for two years.

“There were multiple landlords on this unit, and all of them chose to ignore what was happening to me,” Pappas said.

Multiple renters said they had faced threats of eviction despite paying their rent.

One woman, who did not say her name, said that she had been kicked out of her apartment while pregnant due to a house fire. When she finally found a new home for her and her child, she said that there was no carbon monoxide detector and that sparks shot out of the outlets whenever something was plugged in.

“Who do we as tenants go to and ask for help, to actually get our voices heard?” she said.

She also claimed a property manager had attempted to evict her for nonpayment despite there being proof that rent had been paid.

“When is enough, where we hold property managers or landlords accountable for doing this?” she said.

Terri Anderson, Spokane office and statewide policy director for the Tenants Union of Washington State, argued the proposed reforms were just scratching the surface of the protections needed by tenants. She noted that nearly half of all renters are rent-burdened, meaning they pay more than 30% of their take-home income in rent, and that nearly 25% pay more than 50%.

“I see cities all across Washington passing laws way more restrictive, way more protective to tenants,” Anderson said. “There’s nothing in these regulations that are outrageous. I would describe them as very timid.”

Anderson argued additional reforms, such as longer notices prior to rent increases and giving tenants priority to purchase their rental if it was being sold, are needed.

Landlords, realtors and other opponents of the proposal, who made up the bulk of attendees, argued the additional regulations would be onerous, open to legal challenges and hurt tenants more than they would help.

Several who spoke said that universal background checks that limited the disclosure of criminal history would place their properties and neighbors at risk. Some questioned whether a $10 per door fee would be enough to cover the rental mitigation fund or argued that mandatory yearly inspections would violate privacy rights.

Multiple landlords said they would consider selling their rental properties if the reforms were passed, saying that regulations were becoming too burdensome to invest in Spokane.

Darin Watkins, director of government affairs for the Spokane Association of Realtors, said as many as 9,000 rental units in Spokane could be lost, pointing to a 2020 study that group funded.

In that study, authored by Whitworth University associate professor Vange Hochheimer, a survey of more than 700 members of the Landlord Association of the Inland Northwest indicated that 85% of landlords would consider selling their property if the reforms were passed.

Rather than additional regulations, the development of new housing and incentives for landlords are needed, Watkins argued.

“Just three days ago, we found that new housing in the county of Spokane is down 29% from last year,” Watkins told The Spokesman-Review. “We’re going the wrong way.”

Daniel Klemme, president of the Landlord Association of the Inland Northwest, said the rising cost of rent could be blamed on rising interest rates and housing costs, as well as burdensome regulations.

“We’re not ever willing to blame regulation?” he said. “You wonder, why did the landlord raise the rent? Why did the governor make everything worse?”

Several opponents to the reforms argued tenants and landlords would both be better served by the creation of an ombudsman position within the city. As a neutral party, an ombudsman could help tenants seek protections and resources that already exist but might be difficult to access, Watkins said.