New Seattle Legislation Advances Renter Protections Against Economic Eviction

A screenshot of a virtual Seattle City Council meeting with photos of all nine councilmembers displayed.
The Seattle City Council voted in favor increasing tenant protection against rent increases and easing income restrictions on affordable housing development by religious institutions using density bonuses. (Credit: Seattle Channel)

On Monday, the Seattle City Council had a busy — and consequential — day of voting on council bills related to renters’ rights in the face of steep rent increases. The Council also voted on an ordinance related to density bonuses for religious institutions building affordable housing. By the end of the session, the Council voted to pass all three pieces of legislation, although not without some discussion and last minute hashing out of details. All councilmembers were present for the votes with the exception of Debra Juarez (District 5) who was absent.

The new renter protection legislation comes at a time in which rental costs for housing in Seattle continue to surge. According to the website Apartment List, which provides information on rents from large apartment buildings, rents in Seattle are up roughly 12% in comparison to last September. However, during public comment period before the votes, some landlords objected to the new rules, arguing landlords need more flexibility to raise rents in order to be able to cover their expenses.

Two bills aimed at decreasing economic evictions passed into law

The two bills related to renters’ rights were both proposed by Councilmember Kshama Sawant (District 3). The first was related to rent increase notices. The legislation proposed landlords provide at least 180 days (6 months) notice before raising rents — a major increase from the 60 days previously required by the city, which is also the amount dictated by Washington State law. In her introduction to the bill, Sawant made reference to “skyrocketing rents” leading to “economic evictions” in Seattle, citing a federal study which linked increases in rental costs to higher levels of homelessness.

Councilmember Alex Pedersen (District 4) had proposed an amendment that would have exempted landlords of four units or less, which failed earlier in committee. Councilmember Sawant contested the idea that the legislation would negatively impact small landlords, affirming the opinion that “small landlords are not seeking to gouge tenants.”

The proposed bill, which was initially requested by the City’s Renters’ Commission, passed 7-1, with Pedersen opposed.

The new rental increase notice period might be the longest for a major U.S. city: San Francisco and Los Angeles both require 90 days notice for rental increases of 10% or more, while Portland, Oregon requires 90 days notice for increases of five percent or more. In other cities, like New York and Chicago, notification periods are dependent on the tenant’s length of residence in their home instead of the amount of the rent increase; however, at 90 and 120 days both offer notice periods shorter than Seattle’s.

The second bill related to rental rights also seeks to assist tenants’ facing economic eviction. In this case, tenants faced with a rent increase of 10% and more who earn 80% or less of area median income (AMI) are eligible to receive a relocation assistance payment from their landlord equivalent to three months of their current rent, an amount intended to help pay for first and last month’s rent, as well as a security deposit, on the their new home.

Councilmember Sawant offered an amendment that would have removed requirement that tenants provide proof of income eligibility (i.e., means testing) in order to qualify for relocation assistance, commenting that such a requirement could create a barrier for some of the lowest income and most vulnerable tenants who may struggle to produce the needed documentation. Only Councilmembers Teresa Mosqueda (At Large) and Tammy Morales (District 2) voted along with Sawant in favor of her amendment, leading it to fail. Councilmember Andrew Lewis (District 7) commented that he believe the income requirement would be necessary to protect the legislation against future lawsuits, such as those faced by Portland, which also passed tenant relocation assistance in cases of rents increasing by 10% or more and has since been sued by landlords.

However, Sawant’s underlying relocation fee ordinance passed 8-0 with no opposition.

“Today’s victories demonstrate the growing momentum of our renters rights struggle,” Sawant said a press release. “They are a huge step forward in our movement’s demand for a full Renters’ Bill of Rights. Today’s victories will benefit tens of thousands of renters in Seattle, who are facing skyrocketing rent increases from profit-hungry corporate landlords and the venture capitalists and big banks who are fuelling a speculative bubble. We won because renters organized alongside my Council office, unions, socialists, communities of color, the LGBTQ community, and others to demand their rights.”

The bill is set to take effect one month after being signed into law by the Mayor.

The relocation fee and 180 days notice bill join a suite of other recent legislation aimed at protecting tenants, including an eviction defense package passed in June, which allows tenants to claim a Covid-related financial hardship to avoid eviction, bans eviction of students and school staff during the school year, and guarantees legal counsel for low-income tenants facing eviction. Facing pressure from housing advocates, Mayor Jenny Durkan also extended Seattle’s eviction moratorium though the end of 2021. The extension will allow time for the distribution of rental assistance, which has been lagging in King County. Burien and Kenmore also extended their eviction moratoriums through the end of the year; Governor Inslee has only offered a one-month extension.

A return to state law income requirements for the affordable housing built using density bonuses for religious institutions

The third major piece of legislation passed was related to density bonuses for faith based institutions building affordable housing. Last July, I reported for The Urbanist on how Black faith leaders had opposed an amendment to a religious density bonus bill that decreased the threshold for qualifying affordable housing from households earning 80% of the area median income (AMI) to 60% AMI. At the time Donald King, President and CEO of the Nehemiah Initiative Seattle, which provides technical assistance to Black churches seeking to build affordable housing, penned an open letter to City Council President M. Lorena González (At-Large) calling the switch to the 60% AMI requirement “a poison pill” that would result in the bill excluding “those it’s meant to benefit.”

Written and passed at the state level with an 80% AMI income requirement for affordable housing, many churches were unprepared financially to meet the 60% AMI requirement for all units in their planned housing developments. In her remarks leading up to the vote on the bill, Councilmember Mosqueda referred to how increasing the 80% AMI requirement would allow for religious institutions to access both public and private funding for affordable housing development, widening their range of options. “We don’t want to be in a position where we are even unintentionally reducing the ability for us to build more affordable housing units,” Mosqueda said, urging her fellow councilmembers to approve the 80% AMI requirement.

However, some councilmembers, notably Councilmember Lisa Herbold (District 1) who had sponsored the original amendment to reduce the AMI requirement to 60% were still not on board with the switch. Herbold offered up a new amendment that would have kept the 60% requirement in place except for in urban villages assessed as being at high risk of displacement, a category which includes the Central District where many historic Black churches are located. This time, however, Councilmember Herbold’s amendment failed in a tight vote with Councilmembers Herbold, Pedersen, and Sawant all supporting the measure, and Councilmembers Mosqueda, Morales, Dan Strauss (District 6), González, and Lewis all rejecting the amendment.

The same five councilmembers who rejected the amendment all supported the ordinance in a vote that landed 5-3. The legislation will come into effect July 2022.

Looking ahead

All together, the City Council session proved to be particularly exciting for supporters of stronger tenants’ rights and more financial flexibility for religious institutions seeking to build affordable housing on their property. Councilmember Morales commented during that the session that the renter protection legislation did not amount to rent control, which is forbidden in Washington State under current law; however, the legislation does appear to provide some of the strictest renter protections against cost increases in the U.S., setting up Seattle as a test case for how such protections impact renters and the housing market.

Councilmember Sawant has vowed to put rent control on the docket in an effort to push the Washington State Legislature to remove the statewide rent control ban that has been in place since 1981. “Today’s victories add momentum to our fight for a full Renters’ Bill of Rights, which includes citywide rent control with no corporate loopholes,” Sawant said in her statement.

We hope you loved this article. If so, please consider subscribing or donating. The Urbanist is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that depends on donations from readers like you.

Natalie Bicknell Argerious (she/her) is Managing Editor at The Urbanist. A passionate urban explorer since childhood, she loves learning how to make cities more inclusive, vibrant, and environmentally resilient. You can often find her wandering around Seattle's Central District and Capitol Hill with her dogs and cat. Email her at natalie [at] theurbanist [dot] org.

Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

A 6-month notice is ridiculous as nobody knows what the market is going to be 6 months in advance. This is going to lead to virtually every landlord giving the following perfunctory notice to all of their tenants 6 months before each lease end:

“Pursuant to SMC 1234.5678, this is official notice that your rent will be increasing by 50%. Depending on market conditions, we may choose to offer you a discount, so your effective rent may not actually increase by that much. We will let you know how much of a discount we are willing to offer 45 days before your lease expiration.”

Then, when the 45 day notice comes, it turns out that rent is going up by only 4%, not 50%. This will simply become routine.


I don’t think that will be the case as then they will be subject to the economic eviction ordinance. I think there are several likely outcomes here; smaller landlords sell because they don’t want to take on the added risk so more and more rentals become managed by larger entities who can absorb that risk or they will be taken off the market entirely and turned into higher end units. Regular rent increases will become standard. Since landlords won’t know if the city is going to be pass new taxes or whether maintenance will be required they will be more proactive about increasing rent to mitigate against future uncertainty. Instead of rent remaining stable for 2-3 years and then having a 15% jump you’ll just get a steady 8% every year. Renter criteria will go up making it harder for those below the 80% threshold to qualify. There is no incentive for a landlord to be flexible with renters who are considered higher risk now as the council has put the entire burden of taking on such a renter on the landlord. The net result will place more strain on housing supply as there will be less “affordable” rentals and higher qualification criteria for riskier tenants.

I would argue this is exactly what Sawant and the council want as public subsidized housing will become the only option for many of these low income tenants but time will tell.


They shouldn’t be subject to the economic eviction ordinance if the actual increase is less than 10%. But I probably wouldn’t use the word “discount” for that purpose. Maybe “your actual increase may be less, depending … “


Other than that, I think you’re spot-on.

Sally Kinney

There is no public subsidized housing being built, and applicants must wait at least 3-5 years to get into a unit, so your argument that that is what Sawant and the Council want makes no sense.


Just because it’s not currently being built does not mean it’s not their end goal. She ends almost every speech calling for publically owned housing so she has plenty of incentive to create an outcry for it.

Gene Degeberg

Mb238’s comments make perfect sense, especially if one looks to this legislation as part of a long-range plan. This is death by 100 cuts and just another nail in the coffin of privately-owned rental housing. Smaller housing providers, burdened with unreasonable and capricious rules will bail or perhaps sell to a developer or improve the property to move it from “affordable” (and subject to these new rules) to “luxury dwellings”. If they have just ONE UNIT rented at 80% of AMI, according to the “Notice of Intent to Sell” ordinance, the property owner must inform the City of Seattle and give them or Seattle Housing Authority, the option to purchase the property.

With that in mind, I do believe that Sawant and many others on the Seattle City Council, would like the government to be the only housing providers in the City.

After all, landlords are thieves, having more than one house is hoarding and rent is theft. Right, comrade?


I forgot about the economic eviction ordinance part. Yes, I think mb238 is exactly right.

As a simple example, until recently, I owned a rental unit myself. I recently decided to sell it and re-invest most of the proceeds with big landlords, which offer a higher return on investment than what I was getting managing my own property. Granted, city politics wasn’t the only reason for my decision, but I won’t lie and say it didn’t play a part. The big landlords I’m reinvesting the money in all operate away from Seattle, where the decisions by Sawant and others cannot affect them.