You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
-
.
There’s a long forgotten axiom from the 19th century writer and liberty theorist Lord Acton which says (approximately, given my fuzzy memory):“All power, whether granted to or seized by government WILL eventually be abused.”
The city government of Seattle should have that axiom chiseled in stone over the entrance to their building. See this article, of special interest to Seattle landlords and wannabees, but also as a warning to landlords and master-leasing specialists everywhere:
–Dee
.
This is another horrible law being crammed down the throats of landlords who have THEIR money and time invested in a property and the government needs to keep their nose out of their business.
Sounds like this law will also force you to rent to people with vouchers – even if it is 100% against your rental policy procedures.
The only ways around it would be to say that you will not accept any application unless the tenant pays a $50 cash per person application fee at the time the application is turned in. Might even need to crank that up to $100 per person. I think that could weed out some people who apply – like people with vouchers.
You can also jack up the security deposit. Or require first, last and security deposit. This will automatically keep some people away.
Will the law apply to lease/options? Probably.
What gives the government the right to tell you who you can and cannot rent YOUR own property to?
I remember when Dallas and some surrounding communities passed a law that Landlords have to register their properties with code enforcement and pay $55 a year per property to do so. And code enforcement has to inspect your property in between tenants to make sure it meets code. If you try to by pass this rule, no electricity will be turned on at the house. They even require you to either send in a copy of your lease or the deed before utilities will be turned on. When this law passed, I started selling off my rental properties. I knew it would only get worse.
.
I sincerely hope that this idiocy by the Seattle city government does not spread to any other cities or states, but my crystal ball is as cloudy as anyone else’s. Unfortunately, bureaucracies at any level of government have a perverse incentive to build their empires — the more missions, the more employees, rules and budget it takes to chase those missions, and more employees means a far bigger paycheck for their upper echelons of management, and opportunities to benefit unaccountably under the table from whatever constituencies those missions recruit and cultivate. It seems often to not matter how ludicrous, perverse or downright evil such missions might be. The urge for bureaucracies to metastacize seems almost universal.I’ve not seen this discussed yet in David Tilney’s master leasing email group. If they are lucky, perhaps the Seattle example won’t spread. If not, probably the only individual landlord’s choice would be to sell out, and move one’s assets and operations elsewhere, just as Jackie described. The risk of property destruction by tenants with zero incentive to take care of the property seems like inviting an arsonist with no hope of insurance.
–Dee
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
