Sloppy, lazy push for alternative form of rent control

How long should renters have to prepare for a rent increase in the state of Washington? That’s the question at the center of an editorial in The Seattle Times.

Currently, state-wide, landlords are required to provide 30-day notice when raising rents. They can give as much notice as they want. I know some landlords give a couple months notice, some give 6 months notice, others give just the 30 days notice. But 30 days is the minimum requirement.

That’s not the case in the City of Seattle where a local ordinance requires 60 days notice before bumping up rent.

But The Seattle Times editorial board suggests that isn’t enough – they want to see 90 days as the minimum. They argue this would be beneficial for a number of reasons:

1) Helps allow you to financially prepare for the increase.

2) Gives you more time to find a new apartment and actually move. You also have more time to save money for that move.

3) It would help what they say is the most vulnerable: retirees, low-income families, and others on fixed incomes.

They point to an apparent “surge” in cost of living in King County, according to Apartment Insights Washington, rents for a one-bedroom, one-bathroom apartment in King County went from an average of $1,031 in 2010 up to $1,311 in 2014.

State Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle, plans to reintroduce a bill that would push this concept: 90 day minimum for notice.

The Times editorial board writes, “The key to any new housing policy is to consider if it makes sense during up and down economic cycles. In this case, giving people advance notice when rents rise could make the difference between a financial crisis or needed time to find a new home.”

I understand where they’re coming from. Who wouldn’t want more time? In theory, I like the idea, but I can’t endorse it because The Times is just not making a case other than it being easier for folks. Well, it’d be easier on folks to have it be a 120 day heads up or 150 days or five years.

They argue that this kind of notice, increasing it by 60 days state-wide, would not disrupt the renter’s market. But they don’t offer a shred of evidence to back that up. They just say it, so it must be so. But you and I should require some actual data to back that up. Unfortunately, the editorial doesn’t offer that. Sorry, but I’m not just taking the word of editorial writers who don’t even seem to have any expertise in real estate.

Next, you need to start rejecting the lazily presented data of King County rents “surging” because they don’t actually make that case.

The truth is, a few trendy neighborhoods where high density buildings are being constructed are skewing the average rents in the county.

What the editorial doesn’t mention is that the firm that collected the data based their average rents on talking to apartment complexes with 50 or more units, which means there’s going to be a bias towards the bigger buildings. It turns out bigger buildings are being built in the most expensive Seattle neighborhoods. They’re not being built, overwhelmingly, in Northgate or Rainier Beach or SeaTac or Milton, where the cost of living is extremely reasonable. Instead, you have a few, super-expensive neighborhoods that are skewing all the data. Take those neighborhoods out and the average rent looks more palatable.

But the most important reason to not simply sign on to this idea that the state needs 90 days notice for rent increase is the editorial doesn’t indicate people are actually being displaced as a result of not enough time. They simply say it will help the most vulnerable, but they don’t offer an ounce of data that suggests the most vulnerable are actually having a hard time. They don’t prove this is needed and we should be a little careful before allowing the government to just make a law when there’s no demonstrated need.

It’s not to say the data isn’t out there. Maybe it is. But if it is, the sloppy editorial doesn’t bother to mention the single biggest reason to actually support their policy idea.

Why is that important? Well, if you don’t have any data to back up a policy prescription, what would stop them from moving forward with a different number? Let’s say 120 days. Or a year. The bar is so slow, you’re just empowering people who may be driven by ideology to push policies that don’t actually tackle a problem, but instead, push an agenda. Right now, we’re facing housing advocates with an agenda that includes rent control.

If you make it impossible to raise rent, that’s basically a way to institute a form of rent control. If we’re so easily swayed by an argument that lacks a single bit of meaningful data to support the law’s need, you should expect that people will take advantage of us.