Renting in the Peoples Republic of Seattle

[Elliott]

Landlords must rent first-come, first-served, Washington state high court says
Nov 15, 2019 at 3:45 pm

By

• Eilis O'Neill

• 
  

On Thursday, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Seattle law that requires landlords to rent on a first-come, first-served basis. It’s called the “first-in-time” rule.

Landlords first have to write and publish a list of requirements for prospective tenants.
The state doesn’t determine those, so they can be anything that the landlord wants that’s legal: a minimum credit score or income, or requirements around rental history or even things like “applicant removed shoes while visiting unit.” Then, the first person who fulfills all those requirements and turns in an application has to be offered the unit.
The goal of the rule is to eliminate the scenario in which a landlord sifts through a stack of qualified applicants and chooses someone they like the most for whatever reason.

Landlords must rent first-come, first-served

On Thursday, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Seattle law that requires landlords to rent on a first-come, first-served basis. It’s called the “first-in-time” rule.

www.kuow.org

You think that will cause rents to rise?

 

[George Hatch]

I'd open a property mgt firm and solicit and qualify the applications first, then market those tenants to the landlords.

 

[Overimprovement]

You think that will cause rents to rise?

Yes, because it will cause landlords to exit the market, decreasing supply. This is similar to rent control in many ways. Sure that's not far behind. I've been to Seattle 3 times, beautiful area, so sad to see it getting ruined.
Sorry, its my apartment building. If I see someone's car hasn't been washed in forever, trash falls out when they open the door, and the kids cause $200 in damage just from the apartment tour, I am saying 'next'.

This gov't intervention in the free market has got to stop.

 

[Digger88]

I'd open a property mgt firm and solicit and qualify the applications first, then market those tenants to the landlords.

yep, already done. they advertise on local radio all the time in my hood

 

[Tim The Enchanter]

Tenants have rights but so do landlords. Seems they are making it hard to do business as a landlord, trampling their rights.
Convert your buildings to condo, sell out, wash your hands of the whole mess.

 

[Mark K]

My B-I-L manages a large real estate office in Seattle. We were discussing this a couple years back and he said that its not had a big effect on the mom/pop rentals. All you have to do is mention to few people that you 'might' have an opening in a month and you can pick and chose at will. If you advertise, you're screwed but advertising is usually not necessary. He said the larger property management companies are also figuring out ways around it.

He's lived there his whole life and is starting to hate it. He used to refer to the city as 'San Francisco Lite' but now the local politicians want to out-socialize and out-regulate SF.

 

[alebrewer]

Agreed - if it is private property (which rental property is), I should have the right to rent it to whomever I desire. In effect, this law is saying that, if someone else gets their 'documents' in to me before my mother does, I have to kick my mother to the curb (not that I would charge my mother rent, but you get the point). Just one step closer to Socialism - individuals own the resources, but government regulates what must be done with them.

 

[George Hatch]

Perhaps less controversial to say authoritarian vs libertarian

With socialism the govt owns the unit, with fascism the govt "merely" controls it. Both can take it to authoritarian extremes.

 

[alebrewer]

Perhaps less controversial to say authoritarian vs libertarian

With socialism the govt owns the unit, with fascism the govt "merely" controls it. Both can take it to authoritarian extremes.

In a socialistic economy, the govt CAN own the factors, but not necessarily, although the govt does control the use of the factors (much like fascism). In a communistic economy, the govt DOES own the factors, as well as the use/distribution of those factors. I personally see fascism as an economic system where the factors are owned by individuals (capitalism), but are absolutely controlled by a small govt - often by a dictator. As opposed to a 'mixed' economy, wherein some factors are owned/controlled by govt and some factors are owned/controlled by individuals - much like the US. It all becomes a bit blurry, however, as the definitions become a bit fuzzy and intermingled.

As to being less controversial - I'd have thought you knew me better by now than to think I'm concerned about that... controversy, if handled like adults, is not a bad thing.

 

[George Hatch]

Just a figure of speech. I'm getting to thinking about these issue less in terms of our own political parties and more in terms of what/how they're trying to exercise power. That balance between individual vs group interests.