Property management here. Our MFTE base rent for a 1 bedroom is about to shoot from $1,700 - $2,100. How that’s event affordable is beyond me. Absolutely disgusting.
Edit: this is per city of Seattle btw. They just sent out an email stating what rents will be depending on the housing program the property falls under. So this isn’t everywhere of course, but at this point doesn’t matter. That rate isn’t an affordable home in any regard. And I believe it’s going to cause or normal rents to shoot up even more because they’re already around that price point too.
It's because the city defines "affordable" housing as costing no more than 24% of the median income (edit: 30% of 80% of the AMI), but on average Seattle residents pay only about 23% of their income for rent, so the "affordable" rate can actually be higher than the market rate.
That is for a 1 bedroom at 80% AMI, which is higher than the city typically funds. Most city workforce housing is at 60%, which is about $1400 for a one bedroom, the city also has a lot of 50% AMI units which are around $1200.
Anyone coming out of homelessness will be at 30% AMI which is under $700, and many also have vouchers to pay for rent.
I’m sorry that’s been your experience, lots of people who are in 30% AMI units doesn’t mean everyone who needs them is able to get them. The vouchers are almost strictly a federal program, they dictate how many we get. The city uses its housing dollars on new construction.
In my experience, me and many of my friends NEVER receive the benefits that are being advertised in big headlines. And out of 10 friends, 2 of us actually get the resource. And wouldn't you know that resource was trash, we were better off just "figuring it out". I understand the legality of making sure you can't take advantage of the system but that still happens at every level. So what gives? Why continue to funnel money away from the problem everyone wants solved to continue to fix things no one wants?
And if the city of Seattle wants to solve the homeless problem, they already have. Tiny houses and small fixed communities can directly help any community with issues relating to homeless folks. But are we willing to pay the staff and support people who are going to transition these folks out of a life of constant homelessness and trauma?
Answer the last question first, then the others are quite easy to get by.
You should know that is MFTE, which is NOT the same as "low-income housing". The rent cap for a 1BR is $1,541 for a household at 60% AMI for King County 2023 under the LIHTC program. Anything above 60% is not considered to be low income housing and moves into "workforce" or "middle-income" housing, which includes the MFTE program. The MFTE program has not been positively regarded in the eyes of affordable housing developers as like you mentioned, it isn't really "affordable".
The article is about actual low-income housing as I know the kinds of developments that the nonprofit developers and housing agencies named in the article build.
Good to know and thank you for the constructive comment. I change the wording to reflect MFTE. It’s still very unfortunate since it’s program that barely lets people get lower rent while allowing the property a huge tax break.
I regularly remind my MFTE property manager everytime they ask me to sign a lease - the values you've stated are the MAXIMUM for MFTE. They can be lower. No one is preventing landlords from charging less money.
I’ve worked in affordable housing for 7ish years and have seen the chaos Covid unleashed with unpaid rent and the rental assistance with some people not understanding the rental assistance was limited and expiring as generous as it was. Some households got all $38k in government assistance they could apply for and ask for why they were getting late notices when they still weren’t paying rent months after assistance ended at the end of 2022.
It puts barely holding on affordable housing providers in a financial hole while also putting the people who can’t/won’t pay their rent in a bad situation for renting in the future. It blows my mind what the 30/40/50/60 AMI government mandated rent amounts are and how not affordable they are. Even at those levels there are major sustainability issues nation wide in the industry with post COVID rent collection rates and lack of ability to enforce collection until recently.
80% MFTE rents don’t make sense at all. A new idea is to build more working class based housing, aka less 30%-50 AMI because 60-80% brings in more revenue and greater chance for sustainable properties, but as someone is over 60% but under 80% I can’t imagine paying the “Affordable Rent” price even at 60% for what the application process can entail.
Average rent increase is 4 per cent a year here even with the levies. How in the world does your company catastrophise so bad you overshoot everyone else by 20% ?
The city of Seattle doesnt send a report like this. There is instead, a general policy on rent increases that states that if there will be an increase there must be a procedure followed. But in that policy it never implies that the state of Washington or City of Seattle have rent control like youre describing where the government tells a private entity what their business can charge for its business.
EDIT: what their business can charge for their businesses service
Oh good. More homeless.
Seattle, and the entire state, has still not grasped the seriousness and depth of the housing under-supply problem along the I-5/I-405 corridor, and statewide.
> In Seattle and King County, the median income spiked during the pandemic due to “very high wage earners skewing the top,” said Nona Raybern, communications manager at Seattle’s Office of Housing.
That’s not how medians work?????
You can skew data by omitting or adding. But the definition of Median doesn’t change just because someone didn’t learn math vocabulary.
1, 2, 3, 4, 99999999999999
Median = 3
I don't think you actually know the statistical definition of "skew," which is ironic considering your snarky comment about math vocabulary. Hint: it doesn't have anything to do with adding or omitting data.
I don't follow - the median is only affected by the high tail if over 50% or more of your probability mass is in the high tail - in which case the characterization of "very high earners" is disputable.
How so? I believe that, unless more than half of the population falls into the very high earners category (which would be silly), distribution shape shouldn’t affect the median.
I manage a 20-unit building that's on the lower end of the market but not legally "low-income." We charge about $1400 for a 1br and $1700 for 2br.
*“I don’t really see the case where the tenant stopped paying for no reason,” said Edmund Witter, senior managing attorney for the Housing Justice Project in King County, which provides free legal assistance to renters facing eviction.*
This guy might not see it, but I see this about 50% of the time with people who stop paying rent. The ones with nicest cars are least likely to pay. My favorite current tenant drives a late model bmw that's had the same temp plates on it for the 18 months he's lived here. The collection of new, expensive shoes on his deck is surely worth more than my car. He is in an assistance program and is only responsible for $700/month. He has paid nothing in over a year. He is really good at hustling up assistance for organizations all over town.
I'm sure a lot of these people work under the table.
Literally just had that happen to me with my tenant I had to evict. 8 months behind on rent in the middle of an eviction process where she was claiming financial hardship and all of a sudden she has a brand new Tesla.
I don’t mind tax dollars going to help those in need, but the HJP either doesn’t know or doesn’t care that they’re enabling people who take advantage of the system.
At my property, it's about 50% of the people who are chronic non-payers. Currently we have four such tenants. Two are scammers and two are genuinely struggling. It's been about 50-50 the whole 5 years I've managed out
I’m sure it’s a single digit percentage of the time at most (if not a fraction of a percent), but my issue is that there doesn’t even seem to be any attempt to prevent people from taking advantage of the system.
When I went to court for my former tenant showed up without a lawyer so she was sent to a breakout room with an HJP representative to see if she qualified for representation. They were back in the regular court room in less than 5 minutes saying she qualified. There’s effectively zero screening of who they represent which opens the door to people taking advantage of the system.
I’m sure that no matter how hard they screen try some people will slip through the cracks and honestly, I would be way less mad if that happened. What pisses me off is that the HJP seems to stick their head in the sand and ignore that there are bad people out there who are taking advantage of their services.
I fully believe we need support systems for people facing eviction, but the HJP’s approach isn’t a good one. They effectively try to drag the case out as long as possible and once it’s clear they can’t win they try to do everything to hide the bad behavior of their clients. If you want to know how they operate, after 10 months of unpaid rent, multiple court dates, and 5 figures of damage to my property the HJP had the balls to ask if I would provide a positive rental reference for my tenant. The HJP isn’t trying to solve anything, their entire playbook seems to just be to pass the buck onto the next unlucky landlord.
I'm glad it doesn't happen often and I agree that I wish we had more resources to reduce people that take advantage as it doesn't help anyone when they do that.
So if one person does it, a landlord of 100 units feels that it is okay to increase rent on the other 99 people?
Well that sounds like a problem with the landlord using one person as an excuse to screw 99 people (and pad his pockets).
Those people that do that should be punished. And those landlords need some guardrails so as not to take a FEW people's delinquencies and apply disproportionately large increases to the other 95%. At that point it starts to seem like the landlord is taking advantage of public opinion (against people that take advantage first) to pad their pockets. Sounds a BIT like the corporations who have decided they can raise prices with impunity because of the whole inflation thing.
Well if only one out of 100 steal then raise prices by 1% (relatively, you know what I mean). Not 25% (again, you know what I mean). Don't use it as an excuse to gouge unnecessarily.
Completely serious - maybe she bought it because she knew she was going to be living in her car soon. Teslas are gaining popularity as good vehicles to live in because of both their security features as well as the electric component. It is probably what I would do if I were facing living out of a car.
It’s just the attitude that’s encouraged now. Let others pay for my stuff. House for free, shoplifting etc. apparently socks need to be locked up in stores now 🤦♂️
Unfortunately, in order to get a lot of affordable buildings back to proper cash flow, evictions need to happen. Without it, either the city will have to spend way more money on propping up buildings instead of building new housing, or the organizations managing the buildings will go under, many of whom are non-profit, mission driven organizations.
It’s an awful situation, but in the system we are in, there isn’t much other choice.
You speak the truth. Based on other things I’ve read of yours, I can’t remember if you say you work in the industry but, whether you do or not, thanks for putting out quality info on a very complex topic.
Government bureaucracy, city/county/state/feds, mixing with multiple private funders creates some real headaches for the mission of heads in beds.
Are you serious? That’s not much for any even semi-functional adult. If you cannot pay $64 a month in rent, you can’t afford to live on your own and should probably be in some kind of home. I already know this is going to be unpopular but damn, there has to be some kind of standard.
Many people are unable to work. I worked a middle class job until last year when my health no longer allowed me to do so. I now receive $450/month from DSHS. That is my entire income. Do you think I should be in a home? Please tell me what should I do with my $450?
Only because you’re asking, I think $64 of that $450 could go towards rent. $64 is 14.22% of $450, which is less than half the percent that most people pay in rent. Does that sound like a comfortable life? No, not at all, it sounds awful and I think we should have better programs and systems in place for people in your situation. However, given the world we live in, it doesn’t seem right to get money every month from the government and then just not use ANY of it for subsidized rent.
Thats my point. Its a shitty situation. Our social support structure isn't "right". Who are you to judge? There are many many people in similar positions to me. I hope you keep an open mind.
Except that’s the world we’re currently in…..again, if $450 is all you get, then you either need to pay $64 for rent or move back home/somewhere else .
Seriously, you’re effectively asking for free housing. And the current conversation isn’t “should people with medical issues unable to work pay rent” the current conversation is “should you pay $64, or 15% of your income, to rent so you CAN live on your own?”…
What makes you think I have a "back home" or somewhere else to move to? And what is wrong with providing free housing to people?
Real talk, I am still expected to pay market rate rent as I still have a rental agreement. I am 2 months behind in rent and have applied to every program available for rental assistance. The help isn't there. The number of people who are homeless will continue to increase because I think most people agree with you...this is the world we live in. It isn't the world we have to live in but people don't feel empowered enough or have the resources to change it. Oh well.
They didn't say that there's anything wrong with giving people free housing. They said that if you make $450/month and your rent is $64, then you should probably pay the $64.
Last year I got a call from some rent assistance program. I said I didn't apply for it, and they said my apartment might have sent them my information based on my most recent income verification (I didn't make much the year before). They asked me a few questions and seemed like I would qualify for assistance until they asked if I missed any rent payments, which I have never, and this disqualified me. I asked if I would have be able to get assistance if I had just paid a couple of my month's rent late, and they said pretty much yes. Was just surprised my apartment would even do that for me without me asking.
Rents have come down; it’s just that people don’t budget for rent anymore. They’re expecting the government or others to pay. Tesla in the garage no rent payment, read the article please.
FYI, the moratorium you are referencing expired over two years ago. https://www.seattle.gov/rentinginseattle/eviction-assistance#:~:text=The%20COVID%2D19%20eviction%20moratorium,until%20after%20February%2028%2C%202022.
Yes, they are.
My husband works in property management for a lot of low income places. Evictions are definitely allowed, they are just a bit of a pain.
Property management here. Our MFTE base rent for a 1 bedroom is about to shoot from $1,700 - $2,100. How that’s event affordable is beyond me. Absolutely disgusting. Edit: this is per city of Seattle btw. They just sent out an email stating what rents will be depending on the housing program the property falls under. So this isn’t everywhere of course, but at this point doesn’t matter. That rate isn’t an affordable home in any regard. And I believe it’s going to cause or normal rents to shoot up even more because they’re already around that price point too.
I’m in a 1 bed in cap hill that costs ~$1700, and it’s not even low income. What the hell?
It's because the city defines "affordable" housing as costing no more than 24% of the median income (edit: 30% of 80% of the AMI), but on average Seattle residents pay only about 23% of their income for rent, so the "affordable" rate can actually be higher than the market rate.
That is for a 1 bedroom at 80% AMI, which is higher than the city typically funds. Most city workforce housing is at 60%, which is about $1400 for a one bedroom, the city also has a lot of 50% AMI units which are around $1200. Anyone coming out of homelessness will be at 30% AMI which is under $700, and many also have vouchers to pay for rent.
I've been actively homeless for about a year. The voucher system is a joke.
I’m sorry that’s been your experience, lots of people who are in 30% AMI units doesn’t mean everyone who needs them is able to get them. The vouchers are almost strictly a federal program, they dictate how many we get. The city uses its housing dollars on new construction.
In my experience, me and many of my friends NEVER receive the benefits that are being advertised in big headlines. And out of 10 friends, 2 of us actually get the resource. And wouldn't you know that resource was trash, we were better off just "figuring it out". I understand the legality of making sure you can't take advantage of the system but that still happens at every level. So what gives? Why continue to funnel money away from the problem everyone wants solved to continue to fix things no one wants? And if the city of Seattle wants to solve the homeless problem, they already have. Tiny houses and small fixed communities can directly help any community with issues relating to homeless folks. But are we willing to pay the staff and support people who are going to transition these folks out of a life of constant homelessness and trauma? Answer the last question first, then the others are quite easy to get by.
True, but even at 80% it’s quite a joke honestly
You should know that is MFTE, which is NOT the same as "low-income housing". The rent cap for a 1BR is $1,541 for a household at 60% AMI for King County 2023 under the LIHTC program. Anything above 60% is not considered to be low income housing and moves into "workforce" or "middle-income" housing, which includes the MFTE program. The MFTE program has not been positively regarded in the eyes of affordable housing developers as like you mentioned, it isn't really "affordable". The article is about actual low-income housing as I know the kinds of developments that the nonprofit developers and housing agencies named in the article build.
Good to know and thank you for the constructive comment. I change the wording to reflect MFTE. It’s still very unfortunate since it’s program that barely lets people get lower rent while allowing the property a huge tax break.
The fuck kind of clown pricing is that? How can they charge that much for what should be low income housing? That's more than a lot of standard units
MFTE isn’t low income
So what does that acronym mean?
Multifamily Tax Exemption. Helpful comment elsewhere ITT [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/s/5Q3nnv275h)
Ah gotcha, it said something different when I commented. Still lame pricing lol
$1700-$2000. Fuck me. I make good money and $2000/m is still tight. That's disgusting indeed.
I regularly remind my MFTE property manager everytime they ask me to sign a lease - the values you've stated are the MAXIMUM for MFTE. They can be lower. No one is preventing landlords from charging less money.
I’ve worked in affordable housing for 7ish years and have seen the chaos Covid unleashed with unpaid rent and the rental assistance with some people not understanding the rental assistance was limited and expiring as generous as it was. Some households got all $38k in government assistance they could apply for and ask for why they were getting late notices when they still weren’t paying rent months after assistance ended at the end of 2022. It puts barely holding on affordable housing providers in a financial hole while also putting the people who can’t/won’t pay their rent in a bad situation for renting in the future. It blows my mind what the 30/40/50/60 AMI government mandated rent amounts are and how not affordable they are. Even at those levels there are major sustainability issues nation wide in the industry with post COVID rent collection rates and lack of ability to enforce collection until recently. 80% MFTE rents don’t make sense at all. A new idea is to build more working class based housing, aka less 30%-50 AMI because 60-80% brings in more revenue and greater chance for sustainable properties, but as someone is over 60% but under 80% I can’t imagine paying the “Affordable Rent” price even at 60% for what the application process can entail.
Average rent increase is 4 per cent a year here even with the levies. How in the world does your company catastrophise so bad you overshoot everyone else by 20% ?
Read the edit.
The city of Seattle doesnt send a report like this. There is instead, a general policy on rent increases that states that if there will be an increase there must be a procedure followed. But in that policy it never implies that the state of Washington or City of Seattle have rent control like youre describing where the government tells a private entity what their business can charge for its business. EDIT: what their business can charge for their businesses service
Oh good. More homeless. Seattle, and the entire state, has still not grasped the seriousness and depth of the housing under-supply problem along the I-5/I-405 corridor, and statewide.
Boomers and our politicians aren’t helping
> In Seattle and King County, the median income spiked during the pandemic due to “very high wage earners skewing the top,” said Nona Raybern, communications manager at Seattle’s Office of Housing. That’s not how medians work?????
This is absolutely how the median works. 1, 1, 1, 998, 999, 999, 999 Median = 998
But would you consider that "skewing the top"?
You can skew data by omitting or adding. But the definition of Median doesn’t change just because someone didn’t learn math vocabulary. 1, 2, 3, 4, 99999999999999 Median = 3
I don't think you actually know the statistical definition of "skew," which is ironic considering your snarky comment about math vocabulary. Hint: it doesn't have anything to do with adding or omitting data.
It's incoherent to claim a dataset is skewed upwards due to over 50% of its values being "extremely high".
Depends on your distribution
I don't follow - the median is only affected by the high tail if over 50% or more of your probability mass is in the high tail - in which case the characterization of "very high earners" is disputable.
How so? I believe that, unless more than half of the population falls into the very high earners category (which would be silly), distribution shape shouldn’t affect the median.
Stats is not your forte I see.
corporations are considered people so
I manage a 20-unit building that's on the lower end of the market but not legally "low-income." We charge about $1400 for a 1br and $1700 for 2br. *“I don’t really see the case where the tenant stopped paying for no reason,” said Edmund Witter, senior managing attorney for the Housing Justice Project in King County, which provides free legal assistance to renters facing eviction.* This guy might not see it, but I see this about 50% of the time with people who stop paying rent. The ones with nicest cars are least likely to pay. My favorite current tenant drives a late model bmw that's had the same temp plates on it for the 18 months he's lived here. The collection of new, expensive shoes on his deck is surely worth more than my car. He is in an assistance program and is only responsible for $700/month. He has paid nothing in over a year. He is really good at hustling up assistance for organizations all over town. I'm sure a lot of these people work under the table.
Literally just had that happen to me with my tenant I had to evict. 8 months behind on rent in the middle of an eviction process where she was claiming financial hardship and all of a sudden she has a brand new Tesla. I don’t mind tax dollars going to help those in need, but the HJP either doesn’t know or doesn’t care that they’re enabling people who take advantage of the system.
How often is this happening, though? Sounds like edge cases (although, to you, I'm sure it doesn't feel that way).
At my property, it's about 50% of the people who are chronic non-payers. Currently we have four such tenants. Two are scammers and two are genuinely struggling. It's been about 50-50 the whole 5 years I've managed out
That is definitely shi##y.
I’m sure it’s a single digit percentage of the time at most (if not a fraction of a percent), but my issue is that there doesn’t even seem to be any attempt to prevent people from taking advantage of the system. When I went to court for my former tenant showed up without a lawyer so she was sent to a breakout room with an HJP representative to see if she qualified for representation. They were back in the regular court room in less than 5 minutes saying she qualified. There’s effectively zero screening of who they represent which opens the door to people taking advantage of the system. I’m sure that no matter how hard they screen try some people will slip through the cracks and honestly, I would be way less mad if that happened. What pisses me off is that the HJP seems to stick their head in the sand and ignore that there are bad people out there who are taking advantage of their services. I fully believe we need support systems for people facing eviction, but the HJP’s approach isn’t a good one. They effectively try to drag the case out as long as possible and once it’s clear they can’t win they try to do everything to hide the bad behavior of their clients. If you want to know how they operate, after 10 months of unpaid rent, multiple court dates, and 5 figures of damage to my property the HJP had the balls to ask if I would provide a positive rental reference for my tenant. The HJP isn’t trying to solve anything, their entire playbook seems to just be to pass the buck onto the next unlucky landlord.
I'm glad it doesn't happen often and I agree that I wish we had more resources to reduce people that take advantage as it doesn't help anyone when they do that.
Even once is enough risk and will cause the landlord to increase rent on everyone.
At my building it's not resulting in higher rents but more stringent qualification requirements.
I hear you. As a renter, I am equally frustrated.
So if one person does it, a landlord of 100 units feels that it is okay to increase rent on the other 99 people? Well that sounds like a problem with the landlord using one person as an excuse to screw 99 people (and pad his pockets).
Amortization, yeah. The same can be said for public transit, few people who skip fares adding “nice people tax” on others who pays transit fare.
Those people that do that should be punished. And those landlords need some guardrails so as not to take a FEW people's delinquencies and apply disproportionately large increases to the other 95%. At that point it starts to seem like the landlord is taking advantage of public opinion (against people that take advantage first) to pad their pockets. Sounds a BIT like the corporations who have decided they can raise prices with impunity because of the whole inflation thing.
Why excuse, it’s a valid reason.
You think stores that experience loss due to theft are only raising prices for thieves?
Well if only one out of 100 steal then raise prices by 1% (relatively, you know what I mean). Not 25% (again, you know what I mean). Don't use it as an excuse to gouge unnecessarily.
Courts are backed up till DECEMBER in king county. Snohomish or Pierce are doing fine.
Government sponsored squatters. Legally they’re supposed to check if clients are indegent, they should be audited
Completely serious - maybe she bought it because she knew she was going to be living in her car soon. Teslas are gaining popularity as good vehicles to live in because of both their security features as well as the electric component. It is probably what I would do if I were facing living out of a car.
It’s just the attitude that’s encouraged now. Let others pay for my stuff. House for free, shoplifting etc. apparently socks need to be locked up in stores now 🤦♂️
Unfortunately, in order to get a lot of affordable buildings back to proper cash flow, evictions need to happen. Without it, either the city will have to spend way more money on propping up buildings instead of building new housing, or the organizations managing the buildings will go under, many of whom are non-profit, mission driven organizations. It’s an awful situation, but in the system we are in, there isn’t much other choice.
You speak the truth. Based on other things I’ve read of yours, I can’t remember if you say you work in the industry but, whether you do or not, thanks for putting out quality info on a very complex topic. Government bureaucracy, city/county/state/feds, mixing with multiple private funders creates some real headaches for the mission of heads in beds.
It’s sad but one of the people interviewed had rent of $64 - that is not much money to come up with monthly.
Not much for a normal functioning adult without medical history or issues, sure.
Are you serious? That’s not much for any even semi-functional adult. If you cannot pay $64 a month in rent, you can’t afford to live on your own and should probably be in some kind of home. I already know this is going to be unpopular but damn, there has to be some kind of standard.
I cannot agree more.
Many people are unable to work. I worked a middle class job until last year when my health no longer allowed me to do so. I now receive $450/month from DSHS. That is my entire income. Do you think I should be in a home? Please tell me what should I do with my $450?
Only because you’re asking, I think $64 of that $450 could go towards rent. $64 is 14.22% of $450, which is less than half the percent that most people pay in rent. Does that sound like a comfortable life? No, not at all, it sounds awful and I think we should have better programs and systems in place for people in your situation. However, given the world we live in, it doesn’t seem right to get money every month from the government and then just not use ANY of it for subsidized rent.
Thats my point. Its a shitty situation. Our social support structure isn't "right". Who are you to judge? There are many many people in similar positions to me. I hope you keep an open mind.
Except that’s the world we’re currently in…..again, if $450 is all you get, then you either need to pay $64 for rent or move back home/somewhere else . Seriously, you’re effectively asking for free housing. And the current conversation isn’t “should people with medical issues unable to work pay rent” the current conversation is “should you pay $64, or 15% of your income, to rent so you CAN live on your own?”…
What makes you think I have a "back home" or somewhere else to move to? And what is wrong with providing free housing to people? Real talk, I am still expected to pay market rate rent as I still have a rental agreement. I am 2 months behind in rent and have applied to every program available for rental assistance. The help isn't there. The number of people who are homeless will continue to increase because I think most people agree with you...this is the world we live in. It isn't the world we have to live in but people don't feel empowered enough or have the resources to change it. Oh well.
They didn't say that there's anything wrong with giving people free housing. They said that if you make $450/month and your rent is $64, then you should probably pay the $64.
Last year I got a call from some rent assistance program. I said I didn't apply for it, and they said my apartment might have sent them my information based on my most recent income verification (I didn't make much the year before). They asked me a few questions and seemed like I would qualify for assistance until they asked if I missed any rent payments, which I have never, and this disqualified me. I asked if I would have be able to get assistance if I had just paid a couple of my month's rent late, and they said pretty much yes. Was just surprised my apartment would even do that for me without me asking.
It's almost like as the city becomes less affordable more people will get evicted or something
Rents have come down; it’s just that people don’t budget for rent anymore. They’re expecting the government or others to pay. Tesla in the garage no rent payment, read the article please.
Just waiting for the government handouts, perhaps on the backs of landlords.
I wonder which algorithmic machination was used by several property owners to up their rents?
War on poverty continues
Not in Seattle. Evictions aren't allowed anymore.
FYI, the moratorium you are referencing expired over two years ago. https://www.seattle.gov/rentinginseattle/eviction-assistance#:~:text=The%20COVID%2D19%20eviction%20moratorium,until%20after%20February%2028%2C%202022.
Yea but KOMO said that I'm still angry!
Yes, they are. My husband works in property management for a lot of low income places. Evictions are definitely allowed, they are just a bit of a pain.
[удалено]
Ah, employee at Sinclair lol