Landlord: Don’t repeal Tacoma tenant protections in lame duck session | Opinion

Two years ago, voters in Tacoma decided that the most vulnerable people in our community deserved a modicum of protection; rolling back those protections now would be anti-democratic. Rents have more than doubled in the last decade, making Tacoma one of the most unaffordable cities in the country to live in. Compared to many major cities in the country, our protections are close to the bare minimum.

I am a small local landlord in Tacoma with eight units, and the tenant protections have had absolutely no negative impact on my properties.

These renter protections are completely reasonable financially and morally: modest annual rent increase standards and winter eviction deferments. A rollback will cruelly make even more of our neighbors homeless. With the Trump administration defunding SNAP, laying off thousands of federal workers and giant corporations beginning massive layoffs, the timing of this vote in a lame duck session is wrong.

Means testing the program is great for landlords who want to give their tenants homework, but it won’t help anyone. One of my tenants is in her 70s, has trouble reading, doesn’t own a computer and has struggled with cancer. If she can’t jump through these new hoops, should she be homeless?

My newest tenant and her child, before moving in, were homeless and couch-surfing for six months. She works full time at McDonald's, and they both struggle with the lingering effects of prior home instability. If she loses housing assistance because of a government shutdown, should I evict her in winter?

Of course not.

If protecting the “local mom-and-pop landlord” is the goal, then the means testing should be for the owner, not the renter. Shifting all the risk back to the tenants disproportionately serves to improve the bottom line of non-Tacoma based landlords, in many cases corporately owned and operated, disconnected from our community in Tacoma

I own properties here, but I also live here. And I don’t want to see another thousand (1% of Tacoma renters) homeless under the 705 underpass, just so that Blackstone’s bottom line improves by a fraction of a percent.

Allowing where and how we live to be dominated by these corporate pirates will affect everyone, not just renters. As our market becomes less tethered to the cost of building an actual house or unit, our property taxes will continue to skyrocket based off outside speculative investing. This bubble is also contributing to higher home insurance costs because forecasted replacement costs reflect area property value, not rebuild cost.

The solution to our current private market failure is a public housing option (social housing). The private housing market supply in the Puget Sound has been outpaced by prevailing population growth coupled with outside speculative real estate investing, leaving houses vacant and the supply of housing insufficient. Our government must invest in thousands of market-foundational units immediately, leveraging the ability to buy and build in bulk, together with a community focus rather than a monopoly mindset, to stabilize the market for everyone.

Investing in social housing puts downward pressure on entry level unit rents keeping our most vulnerable families home-secure. Adding supply also stabilizes housing market valuations which will put downward pressure on property taxes and lower property insurance costs.

Additionally, new housing developments are built with the latest building standards, which are much more resistant to changing climate and more economical to run. Building in bulk leads to fewer parking requirements (a leading cost driver in development). Tighter air control, denser insulation, and high efficiency HVAC decrease energy consumption per unit. The risk associated with social housing financing is also lower because the property collateralizes the debt.

But won’t regulation discourage investment in our housing market? Good.

If the only “investment” that these out of state corporations are bringing to Tacoma is “purchase, refinance, raise rent,” then we don’t need it. If developers want to come in and add supply to our markets: good, make carve outs for that. If outside investors want to purchase and play by the rules, fine (I certainly will).

But smoothing the way for super capitalists and algorithm-driven private equity from LA and NYC to hoover money out of the state only hurts our neighbors and ourselves.

If the Housing Authorities need a carve out, or special consideration, then that should be negotiated in good faith by all parties. Housing Authorities are the only entities separating several of my tenants from homelessness, so they have my full support.”

We need to invest in ourselves, in our neighbors and in our neighborhoods. We have seen initial signs of market stabilization following the tenant protections laws, the next step of social housing will continue that progress. Our private market is heavily aimed at the middle and upper class. We need social housing to fill the gap. If you want to help locals, then write the law to help locals.

Matthew Coryea has a degree in electrical engineering with a background in transit systems construction in West Virginia, New York City and Seattle. He spent a decade in the Army Reserve as an engineer captain. He has worked in property management and re-developing distressed homes into long-term rentals for the last five years.