Too many in Tacoma can’t afford rent. Initiative 1 is not a fair solution to a crisis | Opinion
Let me begin by stating what I think most residents of Tacoma agree on: Too many residents struggle to pay their bills; there is not enough housing they can afford; and there are too few options when they fall behind on their rent or have an emergency. It is a crisis that we all recognize requires action to address.
That is why the Tacoma City Council passed new rental protections this summer. We extended the notice period for rent increases, capped late and move-in fees and protected residents from certain evictions. These efforts come along with the council’s commitment of over $100 million over the next two years to support housing and our efforts in the Home in Tacoma comprehensive plan update to expand housing choices.
Yet, while I agree that we need further action to address the housing crisis in our community, I do not support Initiative 1. While I understand the desires of the supporters of the initiative and respect their efforts to raise awareness on this issue, Initiative 1 does not get to the root causes of the housing instability crisis: a shortage of affordable housing, stagnant wages and limited assistance for those struggling to pay rent.
Instead of addressing these root causes, Initiative 1 shifts the burden of these challenges to landlords, requiring them to subsidize their tenants financially. It is based on the belief that all landlords can afford it, but that is not the story for one of my constituents, a landlord I will call Mary.
Mary is elderly and widowed and told me that the income she receives from her rental property is how she pays her bills. If her tenant did not pay rent in the winter or if she needed to pay the relocation assistance required by Initiative 1, she would be unable to pay for her groceries and medication. She has rented her property for years at an affordable price, but she fears she will need to sell it. If she does, her previously affordable rental would be sold, flipped, and likely rented at a price her tenant could not afford.
If Initiative 1 is approved, I believe Mary will not be alone in facing this difficult choice. It treats landlords all the same and assumes they can financially support their tenants. It does not take into consideration people like Mary, who provides affordable housing in our city, and her tenant, who may lose their home.
It is unfair to make Mary pay for the lack of housing options, stagnant wages and limited assistance we have for her tenant. Mary should be our partner, not our scapegoat.
With consideration and collaboration, we could craft policies that could support Mary and protect this affordable unit for her tenant, along with addressing root causes of the housing instability crisis, but Initiative 1 does not do this.
I’ll be voting no on Initiative 1 and would encourage you to examine the proposal for yourself to decide if it’s a policy that makes sense for our community.