| |
|
|
| Out
of Favor: |
|
The
landlord lobby, worlds apart from tenants,
is losing ground with local officials
A look at the Apartment Association of Seattle-King
County
Part Two of a Two-Part Series |
| by
Trevor Griffey |
A majority of Apartment Association of Seattle
and King County (AASK) members pay $75 a year
for membership, but roughly 30 percent pay
in the hundreds of dollars. AASK's newsletters
contain multi-page photo spreads of members
at various organizational functions - at meetings
receiving corporate-sponsored gift baskets
and gift certificates, at AASK-sponsored golf
tournaments, at elegant dinners, with powerful
elected officials. General membership meetings
cost $30 and include dinner options such as
"Halibut Mediterranean or Roast Prime Rib."
"The class differences are immense," says
Tenants Union activist Scott Winn. "We bring
Oreos to our monthly meetings." While the
contrast seems merely anecdotal at first,
Seattle City Councilmember Judy Nicastro suggests
that class differences have a deeper significance
in the realm of power politics.
"Most people in politics are upper middle
class," Nicastro says when explaining why
landlord associations have more influence
in government than tenant groups, "and AASK
is upper middle class... and they have money."
Few friends on the council
AASK has money and class on its side. It has
long held a monopoly position as public representative
of rental housing landlords. When AASK complains
that tipping the scales of power in the favor
of tenants will result in an affordable housing
crisis [see Part 1, Feb. 8], legislators listen.
But AASK may have gone too far. Because of
its constant opposition to even the most mild
regulation of the rental housing industry,
its extreme predictions and bitter name calling,
AASK is losing favor among some in the Seattle
City Council.
"They don't have a lot of friends here on
the council," says Peter Steinbrueck, who
chairs the City's Housing, Human Services,
Education, and Civil Rights Committee. "Every
time new protections for tenants are talked
about, AASK gets its back curled and invests
heavily in Council campaigns. I'd like to
see them more proactive in addressing legitimate
issues that tenants raise." Steinbrueck focuses
his criticism less on AASK, however, and more
on what he calls the unproductive atmosphere
of the entire affordable housing debate.
"Sometimes there's so much hostility and polarization
[between the Tenants Union and apartment owners]
that it gets in the way of mediating differences....
It seems like there's no room for compromises
or problem-solving solutions that can address
the issues fairly and squarely. I don't have
the energy myself, and I'm glad Judy [Nicastro]
has taken the lead, because it's a volatile
issue that generates high emotion on all sides."
Nicastro initially reached out to AASK after
narrowly winning an election in which the
association went all-out to oppose her. "I
was somewhat optimistic that we could have
a positive working relationship," Nicastro
explained. "That's not going to happen.
"They're a bunch of unproductive whiners.
I needed their input and they were not at
all helpful. I don't think they have much
honesty and integrity."
New kids on the block
AASK has been able to shrug off its opponents'
criticism in the past partly because it operated
as the sole landlord association in Seattle.
Politicians who wanted to tap into the growing
concern of housing affordability in Seattle
needed to reach out to them to seem balanced.
Soon after Paul Schell was elected mayor,
he sent an open letter to AASK requesting
their help in keeping rents affordable (AASK
replied with a request that the city not require
sprinkler systems for all apartment units).
When Nicastro held her Renters' Summit, The
Seattle Times columnist Susan Neilson
demanded that Nicastro include AASK, so as
to give local landlords representation.
But Nicastro, who is taking the lead on rental
housing issues as chair of the Landlord/Tenant
and Land Use Committee, recently found a new
landlord association she can work with and
is beginning to give AASK the cold shoulder.
The Olympic Rental Association (ORA), described
by AASK's president Alex Thole as a "rogue
landlord association," was originally founded
by former Washington Apartment Association
(WAA) member Tim Seth four years ago [WAA
is the parent organization of AASK; see Part
1].
As opposed to AASK, ORA is an all-volunteer
organization with much lower membership dues.
Based in Olympia, it has members all across
western Washington; roughly 25 percent of
them own property in Seattle. AASK's membership
has grown moderately in the past few years,
with nearly 2,500 members today. By comparison,
ORA has grown to represent nearly that many
landlords in just four years. Seth is quick
to point out, however, that comparing memberships
between ORA and AASK is "like comparing peas
and cantaloupes." Seth shies away from comparisons
between the two, arguing that he's just "providing
landlords with another association. We recommend
people belong to their local [WAA affiliate]
and us both."
Nicastro first met Seth when she called him
to raise issues with an action alert he sent
out about Nicastro's pending legislation titled
"City Hall Proposal Trashes Landlords." "[She]
won me over right away," says Seth. "She didn't
get defensive, she didn't argue excuses. She
said you're the first [landlord] to give some
constructive ideas."
ORA and AASK agree on most fundamental issues
to landlords. Both believe in supply-side
economics. Both oppose rent control. Both
oppose Seattle's Just Cause Eviction Ordinance.
But whereas AASK is famous for its hostility
to new regulations, ORA has a different approach.
"I'm a Republican," Seth says, "but it's inevitable
that there's going to be more and more regulation.
My philosophy is go to bed with them. My experience
as a [former] state employee is that you can
always find compromise."
Nicastro is working with members of ORA to
improve her rent retaliation legislation.
She is also working to put together a panel
of landlords and real estate leaders to discuss
mutually agreeable solutions to Seattle's
housing affordability problems. ORA is invited.
AASK isn't.
Still powerful
But don't expect AASK to go away any time
soon. They fell short of last year's goal
to increase their membership by 10 percent
(they grew by less than four percent). They
are losing credibility among some on the Seattle
City Council. But they still have enormous
influence in Olympia; they threaten lawsuits
against legislators who overstep their legal
bounds, and they're willing to spend big money
in local elections.
For over 10 years, AASK has tried to overturn
Seattle's Just Cause Eviction Ordinance (JCE),
not by lobbying Seattle's politicians, but
by lobbying the state Legislature to "pre-empt"
Seattle's legislation. "We need to get this
law abolished," noted Alex Thole as the Legislative
session began this year. In 1998, AASK got
JCE preemption passed in the Legislature,
only to have Governor Locke veto it. "Many
rental housing owners across the state feel
that Governor Locke has tilted toward the
Tenants Union," AASK activist and former Mayor
Wes Uhlman complained.
AASK has considered trying to introduce legislation
that would allow Seattle's law to stand, but
would prevent every other city in the state
from enacting JCE. According to AASK Executive
Director Jim Nell, those discussions haven't
gone anywhere yet. State preemption is the
same general tactic used to make rent control
illegal 20 years ago, and AASK makes no secret
of their willingness to use their connections
in Olympia to do the same when they don't
get their way.
AASK filed a class action lawsuit against
the City of Seattle in the mid 1990s, which
resulted in a multi-million dollar settlement.
It filed another suit which overturned legislation
meant to proactively find housing code violations
rather than wait for tenants to complain.
AASK threatened to take the city to court
for violating the state's ban on rent control
when it passed its 60-day notice ordinance
(for rent increases over 10 percent), and
it is not averse to flexing its legal muscle
when necessary.
And while AASK has been engaged in previous
elections, supporting everyone from militant
property rights advocates for the state Supreme
Court to moderate city councilmembers who
publicly oppose rent control, their $20,000
opposition to Judy Nicastro in 1999 and $61,000
opposition to the Proposition 1 Parks levy
last year were renewed statements of its ability
to spend when it feels the need.
For what it's worth, we should note that executive
director Jim Nell says that AASK's PAC never
opposed Judy Nicastro - it merely supported
her opponent, Cheryl Chow. Nell has no recollection
of anti-Nicastro information on literature
sponsored by AASK. And when Wes Uhlman, who
was then co-chair of AASK's Legislative Action
Committee, wrote a letter asking for donations
to Cheryl Chow's campaign, he was, according
to Nell, acting as an individual and not a
representative of AASK.
But if AASK's opposition to tenant-friendly
candidates isn't direct, it is still palpable.
"I would be surprised if they didn't get that
going again next year," says Lisa Herbold,
who worries about the potential for AASK to
target Councilmember Nick Licata next year.
"When groups like the Displacement Coalition
don't get what they want from Peter or Judy,
they come to Nick."
But Nicastro, who was and perhaps still is
AASK's Public Enemy Number One, is less concerned.
"No candidate should be nervous about AASK,"
she says. "The fact that they couldn't beat
me shows they're not as powerful as they think.
They should have beat me. That was shocking.
The fact that I [someone with no previous
name recognition] won should leave any candidate
without fear."
And despite AASK's opposition, the parks initiative
passed overwhelmingly last year. "Which is
not surprising," complained Alex Thole, "considering
that we were outspent nearly 10-to-1." In
an unusual political duel, AASK, which is
used to having the ability to far outspend
its opponents in the affordable housing world,
was outspent 5-to-1 by the zoo alone. Thole
notes, however, that despite that loss, "AASK-endorsed
candidates won 16 out of 26 State Legislative
races, four out of four Supreme Court races,
[and] one out of two on the Superior Court."
Undoing AASK: Modifying the ban on rent control
AASK's raison d'tre, its number- one
goal in any given year, is to ensure that
the state ban on rent control is never lifted
and never changed.
Yet the Seattle City Council's recent vote
to modify this ban, that "no city or town
of any class... may regulate the amount of
rent" on private property, demonstrates that
the ban is increasingly being seen as a stranglehold
that prevents important legislative actions
to remedy Seattle's affordable housing crisis.
"I think the rent control ban is the most
important issue for tenant rights and affordable
housing issues" says Judy Nicastro. "Some
issues are so important that it should be
for the local jurisdictions to provide. Rent
control is interpreted so broadly... it includes
[whether tenants have a right to] a lease.
That's contract law, and our City Attorney
thinks that's rent control."
Contrary to what AASK sometimes implies, there
is essentially no support on the City Council
for actually passing rent control as it's
commonly known. Also contrary to what AASK
implies, this is not an issue in which Judy
Nicastro is alone. A majority of the Council,
including Council President Margaret Pageler,
want to see the ban at least modified in some
way so as to provide Seattle the freedom to
craft its own remedies to its housing woes.
And yet it's a battle the City Council simply
can't win on its own. "We as a city have a
multitude of high priority legislative issues,"
explains Peter Steinbrueck, "and this is not
one of them."
"Given the full plate on our legislative agenda
and our limited resources, there's only so
much we can do," he says. "Our own Seattle
legislators are hesitant to take it up."
"The apartment associations have done a spectacular
job making rent control a dirty word," says
Nicastro. "They've scared everyone from using
it."
While AASK may have scared even Seattle politicians
from using the words "rent control," both
AASK and ORA may be more open to modifications
than they usually let on.
"He may deny this," Peter Steinbrueck told
Real Change, "[but] Chris Benis told
me that as opposed to eliminating the state
preemption bill [on rent control], if we had
proposals to modify it he would prefer that
rather than an outright exemption."
When asked if he would support modifications
to the state's ban on rent control to allow
Seattle to require that landlords provide
tenants with leases upon request, ORA's Tim
Seth said it "wouldn't hurt a hell of a lot."
"No one uses month-to-month up there anyway
with eviction for cause. The whole point of
month-to-month is to get someone out or change
the terms."
Whether and to what degree the ban ever gets
modified is a matter of the amount of popular
pressure on enough people in Olympia. While
it would require a statewide effort in part,
and while it's unrealistic to expect this
to happen immediately, it could start with
local organizations trying to get Seattle's
state legislators to be less apologetic for
the way landlords run things in Olympia.
"I don't know why the Tenants Union doesn't
make it their number-one issue," says Nicastro.
She went on to list other groups - the Seattle
Displacement Coalition, ACORN, the state Low
Income Housing Congress - who have similarly
failed to make it a top priority.
"If the public doesn't bring the issue to
light, it's not going to be an issue. If it
weren't for renters with courage, I wouldn't
even know [rent retaliation] is a problem.
All legislation comes from the public because
they're impacted and realize what's wrong,"
says Nicastro. "If there's no movement from
the public, it won't happen at all."
And if the public wants to stand up on this
issue, they should know who they're going
up against. |
|
|
