6 ms·

As someone who also lives in Seattle, I'd be curious to see any verifiable citations to such a wild claim

abhinai 4mo ago
He said “anecdotally”. In any case, I was wondering that if I know a friend who does this, how could I ever present a verifiable citation for it? You may have to rethink your ask.
- CursedSilicon 4mo ago
  Anecdotes aren't usually admissible as evidence, is the thing
  - itake 4mo ago
    https://www.discovery.org/a/nightmare-tenant-in-bellevue-confronted-by-landlord/ https://www.discovery.org/a/nightmare-tenant-in-bellevue-con... I’m on phone but if you search “Kim Seattle landlord” you can get more details of various articles on the situation.
    - abhinai 4mo ago
      That is such a sad article.
- mmooss 4mo ago
  Sure, but the comment upthread could provide evidence that "it is still common enough that it has become a real problem".
- albedoa 4mo ago
  Okay. I can anecdotally tell you that user jandrewrogers does not know of any cases in Seattle where tenants with high incomes that could easily pay just don't. Our anecdotes cancel each other out. > how could I ever present a verifiable citation for it? There would likely be at least one (1) report of such a wild claim due to how wild it is. We wouldn't need anecdotes!
lelandfe 4mo ago
I only know of one https://komonews.com/news/local/twitter-shutdown-seattle-office-after-not-paying-rent-new-york-times-reports-elon-musk-ceo-tech-jobs-amazon-facebook-washington-state-employees-workers-tweets https://komonews.com/news/local/twitter-shutdown-seattle-off...
- CursedSilicon 4mo ago
  I mean, Elmo's SpaceX is busy lying about being "In Redmond" too (they're in Redmond Ridge, a significantly more rural area about 6 miles away)
cyberax 4mo ago
There are such people. I have a unit in Seattle that sits empty because I don't want to risk getting stuck with such tenants. In Seattle, you can't: 1. Evict people from November to April (it's "winter"). 2. Evict people with schoolchildren during the school year. 3. Run background checks on prospective tenants. 4. You _must_ rent to the first qualifying tenant. 5. You must offer 3 months in rent as compensation if you decline to renew the lease. 6. The maximum rent increase is capped. Oh, and eviction process takes about 1.5 years now because the courts are overloaded and the tenant can use procedural tricks to drag out the process. If you want names, this case made newspapers: https://wealthandpoverty.center/2025/02/11/the-bellevue-squatting-case-reveals-a-broken-eviction-system-in-king-county/ https://wealthandpoverty.center/2025/02/11/the-bellevue-squa...
- itake 4mo ago
  I explicitly bought in Lynwood so I’d have the option to rent out my house and avoid king county
- pixelatedindex 4mo ago
  Apart from maybe being a little more flexible on evictions, none of the other reasons seem problematic. For instance not renting to the first qualifying tenant is a common root for discrimination. Why wouldn’t you rent to the first qualifying candidate? The giving tenant three month rent thing is for a very small circumstance - for example huge rent increases if the tenant income is low, condo remodeling, etc. The wording is: “landlords who issue a housing cost increase of 10% or more (within a 12-month period) must pay relocation assistance if the affected household earns 80% or less of the Area Median Income and chooses to move.” Maximum rent increase being capped also makes sense - I’ve been hit with 15-20% rent increases with no choice but to move. It seems like you don’t like the tenant having any rights, and you want to impose your will upon them.
  - nikkwong 4mo ago
    This is an insanely bad take. > For instance not renting to the first qualifying tenant is a common root for discrimination. Why wouldn’t you rent to the first qualifying candidate? You should be able to select freely who you want to have live in your house. If you're a building owner, there are reasons that you might want to be able to have freedom of choice in choosing who you have live in your building. When the government forces you to choose the first applicant who meets your selection criteria, your selection criteria becomes incredibly strict—720+ credit score, makes 4x the rent, etc. Especially when evicting a bad tenant becomes basically impossible, landlords work even harder to vet candidates, meaning there are a lot of false negatives that aren't offered housing. Seriously, you can't evict a tenant just because its winter? You know how many people take advantage of that — read my sibling comment in my thread. I myself in Seattle have dealt with multiple tenants who have done this so they could have free rent as their lease expired. What do you think this does to my tenant selection process? I up the bar. > Maximum rent increase being capped also makes sense - I’ve been hit with 15-20% rent increases with no choice but to move. You act like there's an oligopoly that dictates rent prices from their mountaintop that we all have to abide by. We live in a free market, and small landlords compete with large buildings for tenants. Creating these types of caps just makes the system less efficient — focuses efforts on the false pretense of tenants rights rather than the true equalizer like building more housing. And honestly, it just drives small landlords out of the market who can't handle it. This just leaves corporate landlords who are certainly less tenant friendly and will further this tenant vs landlord arms-race. We should be creating incentives and making it easy for individual homeowners to become landlords (at least in Seattle) if we want the paradigm to improve.
itake 4mo ago
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/seattle-area-landlord-trying-to-evict-serial-squatter-over-two-years-of-non-payment/ https://www.nationalreview.com/news/seattle-area-landlord-tr... One news article mentioned he worked in the medical field and when he was approved to move in, his income was $300k+). The state actually ended up helping cover the lost rent and paid for the tenant’s legal bills for fighting the eviction. https://www.discovery.org/a/nightmare-tenant-in-bellevue-confronted-by-landlord/ https://www.discovery.org/a/nightmare-tenant-in-bellevue-con...

He said “anecdotally”. In any case, I was wondering that if I know a friend who does this, how could I ever present a verifiable citation for it? You may have to rethink your ask.

CursedSilicon 4mo ago
Anecdotes aren't usually admissible as evidence, is the thing
- itake 4mo ago
  https://www.discovery.org/a/nightmare-tenant-in-bellevue-confronted-by-landlord/ https://www.discovery.org/a/nightmare-tenant-in-bellevue-con... I’m on phone but if you search “Kim Seattle landlord” you can get more details of various articles on the situation.
  - abhinai 4mo ago
    That is such a sad article.
mmooss 4mo ago
Sure, but the comment upthread could provide evidence that "it is still common enough that it has become a real problem".
albedoa 4mo ago
Okay. I can anecdotally tell you that user jandrewrogers does not know of any cases in Seattle where tenants with high incomes that could easily pay just don't. Our anecdotes cancel each other out. > how could I ever present a verifiable citation for it? There would likely be at least one (1) report of such a wild claim due to how wild it is. We wouldn't need anecdotes!

lelandfe 4mo ago

I only know of one https://komonews.com/news/local/twitter-shutdown-seattle-office-after-not-paying-rent-new-york-times-reports-elon-musk-ceo-tech-jobs-amazon-facebook-washington-state-employees-workers-tweets https://komonews.com/news/local/twitter-shutdown-seattle-off...

CursedSilicon 4mo ago
I mean, Elmo's SpaceX is busy lying about being "In Redmond" too (they're in Redmond Ridge, a significantly more rural area about 6 miles away)

cyberax 4mo ago

There are such people. I have a unit in Seattle that sits empty because I don't want to risk getting stuck with such tenants. In Seattle, you can't: 1. Evict people from November to April (it's "winter"). 2. Evict people with schoolchildren during the school year. 3. Run background checks on prospective tenants. 4. You _must_ rent to the first qualifying tenant. 5. You must offer 3 months in rent as compensation if you decline to renew the lease. 6. The maximum rent increase is capped. Oh, and eviction process takes about 1.5 years now because the courts are overloaded and the tenant can use procedural tricks to drag out the process. If you want names, this case made newspapers: https://wealthandpoverty.center/2025/02/11/the-bellevue-squatting-case-reveals-a-broken-eviction-system-in-king-county/ https://wealthandpoverty.center/2025/02/11/the-bellevue-squa...

itake 4mo ago
I explicitly bought in Lynwood so I’d have the option to rent out my house and avoid king county
pixelatedindex 4mo ago
Apart from maybe being a little more flexible on evictions, none of the other reasons seem problematic. For instance not renting to the first qualifying tenant is a common root for discrimination. Why wouldn’t you rent to the first qualifying candidate? The giving tenant three month rent thing is for a very small circumstance - for example huge rent increases if the tenant income is low, condo remodeling, etc. The wording is: “landlords who issue a housing cost increase of 10% or more (within a 12-month period) must pay relocation assistance if the affected household earns 80% or less of the Area Median Income and chooses to move.” Maximum rent increase being capped also makes sense - I’ve been hit with 15-20% rent increases with no choice but to move. It seems like you don’t like the tenant having any rights, and you want to impose your will upon them.
- nikkwong 4mo ago
  This is an insanely bad take. > For instance not renting to the first qualifying tenant is a common root for discrimination. Why wouldn’t you rent to the first qualifying candidate? You should be able to select freely who you want to have live in your house. If you're a building owner, there are reasons that you might want to be able to have freedom of choice in choosing who you have live in your building. When the government forces you to choose the first applicant who meets your selection criteria, your selection criteria becomes incredibly strict—720+ credit score, makes 4x the rent, etc. Especially when evicting a bad tenant becomes basically impossible, landlords work even harder to vet candidates, meaning there are a lot of false negatives that aren't offered housing. Seriously, you can't evict a tenant just because its winter? You know how many people take advantage of that — read my sibling comment in my thread. I myself in Seattle have dealt with multiple tenants who have done this so they could have free rent as their lease expired. What do you think this does to my tenant selection process? I up the bar. > Maximum rent increase being capped also makes sense - I’ve been hit with 15-20% rent increases with no choice but to move. You act like there's an oligopoly that dictates rent prices from their mountaintop that we all have to abide by. We live in a free market, and small landlords compete with large buildings for tenants. Creating these types of caps just makes the system less efficient — focuses efforts on the false pretense of tenants rights rather than the true equalizer like building more housing. And honestly, it just drives small landlords out of the market who can't handle it. This just leaves corporate landlords who are certainly less tenant friendly and will further this tenant vs landlord arms-race. We should be creating incentives and making it easy for individual homeowners to become landlords (at least in Seattle) if we want the paradigm to improve.

itake 4mo ago

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/seattle-area-landlord-trying-to-evict-serial-squatter-over-two-years-of-non-payment/ https://www.nationalreview.com/news/seattle-area-landlord-tr... One news article mentioned he worked in the medical field and when he was approved to move in, his income was $300k+). The state actually ended up helping cover the lost rent and paid for the tenant’s legal bills for fighting the eviction. https://www.discovery.org/a/nightmare-tenant-in-bellevue-confronted-by-landlord/ https://www.discovery.org/a/nightmare-tenant-in-bellevue-con...