Kirkland leaders approve ordinance protecting low-income renters
KIRKLAND, Wash. – Kirkland landlords will no longer be able to deny tenants based on their use of a Section 8 Housing Voucher after the City Council recently approved a new ordinance prohibiting such practices.
The Council’s decision was made following a public hearing on the issue last week. Under the new citywide ordinance, landlords will be required to apply the same standards for renting to all potential tenants.
The Section 8 Housing Voucher program provides low to very-low income families financial assistance and the ability to apply for privately owned rental housing. Under the program, a family pays 30 percent of the household’s income toward rent and the King County Housing Authority pays the landlord the difference.
"This is seen as another thing the city can do to assure access to housing for everyone who would like to live in Kirkland," the Kirkland planning department's Dawn Nelson said before the Council made its decision.
Kirkland’s new ordinance takes effect this week.
For all you here slamming Section 8 renters as scoum, drug dealers, meth heads, etc, I think you need to quit assuming things, to quit painting with a broad brush that EVERYONRE is like this. They are not.
In the 1970's, my Aunt was on Section 8. She was a single mother, received no child support & was raising three kids on her own. She used it as a "step up", eventually working to a point in her life where she was able to get off Section 8, lived in a beautiful house on Queen Anne overlooking Lake Union, and retiring to Lake Stevens many years later.
I have registered to be in the lottery for the next round of vouchers tpo be awarded. I too am a single mother, I raised my son & he is now a productinve, contributing member of society. I volunteer in the community, serve on the board of a local non-profiit., and have never had anything at all to do with any sort of drugs - hell, I do not even drink!
Please remember, not EVERYONE is what you stereotype them to be. Most people in situations such as my own or my aunt's simply want to hvae safe AFFORDABLE housing while trying to get in a better position financially & in life. We want to get ahead and get to a point where we are 100% self-supporting, and Section 8 is simpoly a tool to be utilized towards achieving that goal.
@LocalLady For those that truly use it as a stepping stone and to overcome some hard times, I understand that. That is what these programs are for. I just think the magnitude of abuse with this program is absurd. There are a lot of recipients that set themselves up to suck all they can out of the system, and many of our politicians seem unwilling to address this abuse of the system. I also know there are a lot of fine families that live in section 8 housing. But the areas nearest me with high concentrations of Section 8 are generally the areas that have much higher crime rates. I think we should have a better say in oversight of these programs since our tax dollars are funding them. Perhaps by getting rid of some of the chronic abusers of the system, section 8 wouldn't have such a negative connotation.
I expect we'll soon see the democratic majority on here applauding Kirkland. After all, this is what Obama sees as a model for the country's future. But if you're ok with paying 70% of these folks' rent AND having the problems that come along with section 8 in your own back yard, then I guess you're fully committed to this continued downward spiral. Well, let's hear it.
@jr. assoc. to the deputy director of gov. accounta It isn't 70% of the rent. Read again. Section 8 lets the family pay 30% of  their income toward rent. Not theat they pay 30% of the rent.
Everyone needs a safe place to live. EVERYONE. Is it Joe and Sue Smith's fault that the company he worked for went bankrupt and she doesn't get any extra hours at her part-time job? No. Section 8 doesn't somehow exqual "low life", but people sure assume it does.
since you can get an "exceptionally" nice "house" (not apartment or condo) in South King for under 1800, why would anyone want to live in Kirkland or any part of the Eastside? The whole point--to paraphrase one of the other posters--to move into an area is to better yourself, not make yourself out to be poor compared to your neighbors.
Wow, sucks to be a landlord in Kirkland. I don't know if people realize this, but to rent to Section 8, you have to deal with a bunch of government rules beyond the norm, including nicky-picky inspections that ask you to fix things that aren't broken. If a landlord chooses to deal with the hassle, usually in exchange for higher rent (e.g. they are asking for above-market prices, and no one is biting), then fine, they deserve the higher rent. I don't see how this is fair unless they drop the special requirements and inspections.
Would landlords be able to skirt by the rules by saying they do not believe their rental meets Section 8 requirements, rather than that they don't accept it?
@YwondyrOne thing to keep in mind is that the renter who is in possession of a Sec. 8 voucher has already been through heavy screening. Â They are also given a limit. Â The rent cannot be higher than a certain amount, and the renter must come up with the addition rent (usually the 30% of their income). Â With the rents higher in Kirkland compared to the more southern cities in the county, they may not have as many families using the vouchers. Â I think it is great to have low income/Sec 8 part of the protected classes. Â
To say this change is going to be troublesome for the landlords because of all the inspections is crazy talk. Â How many landlords have had new residents come to them with a laundry list of items to be fixed directly after they move in? Â Well these inspections are the same thing. Â The landlords are basically in contract with the housing authority as well as the renter. Â
Plus another point to make here is just because someone walks into your office holding a Sec 8 voucher does not automatically make them a resident. Â They go through the same the background verification as everyone else. Â
What is being changed by this law is that landlords can no longer state they "do not accept section 8".Â
...and the max limit for section 8 housing is est $1,800 per month. None of those high rises build with Affordable Housing Act or Low Income Housing Subsidies Act would actually qualify as low income property or affordable for section 8 residences. Â Therefore it's the Democrats practicing discrimination, arbitrary and capricious laws against the private apartment complex owners that are dumping the section 8Â tenants.Â
And the landlord takes another screwing!!! Usually section 8 housing leaves the place a wreck to the point of wanting to just throw a match at it rather than fix it up. Drugs, meth cookers, gang bangers, and a lot of other lowlife qualify for it and leave the place in shambles once they are evicted. The landlords need to band together and tell that city that they will be responsible for the cleanup after their section 8 mob leaves and stick to their guns. I would just stop renting and sell it rather than have the city control my business.Â
In fact, if a lawyer took this to court they can most likely get it tossed out because the implementation of this law is capricious and arbitrary.  The law is implemented against private apartment complex owner but are not implemented for high rise apartment complexes build with Affordable Housing Act with 12 yrs of tax exemption, which are owned by government pension funds or labor union pension funds.  Therefore the implementation of this law is arbitrary and capricious. The heartless ones are the people who sold the public on Affordable Housing Act and Low Income Housing Subsidies, then turned around and used those funds to build high rises displacing the section 8.  Effectively dumping the section 8 onto the private land lord with apartments.  Let see if any section 8 live in any of those new high rise apartments on 2nd, 4th or 6th ave in Seattle or on Broadway?
@NWDemocratYou do realize that Kirkland is NOT part of Seattle? That laws passed in Kirkland do not apply to Seattle? You lkeep going on & on about the unions & the builders stealing money, that the rules should apply to buildings on "2nd, 4th or 6th ave in Seattle or on Broadway? - while NONE of those locations are under Kirkland's pervue.
I dunno, call it heartless, but the whole point of spending money to live in a nice place is to be away from people not in your socio-economic class.Â
The city do not pay market going rates, they try to negotiate a lower payment. Â As a property tax payer, you get hosed all the way around. Many with section 8 cannot pay first months rent, the deposit for damages or last month to escape rental lease. Â They can only pay the partial of the first rent. Â Imagine if you have a mortgage on an apartment complex, do you think the bank will listen to your excuse with the city ordinance requirement of section 8 housing? Â Then you find out the Low Income Housing or Affordable Housing Acts were for those high rise million dollar down-town Seattle building. Â The labor unions captured all the skilled workers housing requirements with tax payer subsidized affordable housing for million dollar units, then dumped all the low income unskilled workers onto the private land lords. Â Remember it's the government, government pension fund and labor unions that own many of those high rises that practice the most discrimination against section 8!
Ridiculous. If I own a private rental I may not be willing to deal with the headache of Section 8, how is that fair?
So if a landlord deems a prospective renter to be less desireable than a different renter for all the normal reasons that are involved in the screening of potential renters, the Section 8 renter if not successful can claim discrimination? Seems like the law of unintended consequences applies here.
@PilonidalCystÂ
No, they are sayting that simply because you are on Section 8, that is not enough of a reason to deny them as a renter - which MANY landlords do.
@PilonidalCyst Pretty sure that is the intended consequence.  Why else would they pass it. Â
So, Kirkland is protecting low-income renters from any effort to become independent. Â What is required of those people on taxpayer charity that would make productive people feel that their hard-earned tax money is being spent effectively?
@Opus8no5Â
How is it denying them the chance to become independent? If anything, it is fgreeing up some of their income to go towards other thngs, such as utilities or perhaps college tuition leading to a degree & a better job.
I am disabled, and I currently receive $1280 a month. My rent is $100 a mpnth - I would LOVE to "only" have to pay 30% of my income - it would leave money for returning to school, paying medical bills, and trying to become independent once again as I was befpoe I became disabled. As it is, I am told I have "too much money" for all the programs I have applied to to date - they only look at the money you have as "income", not at what it is actually costing you to keep a roof over your head.
@Opus8no5
:.... I am disabled, and I currently receive $1280 a month. My rent is $100 a mpnth - I would LOVE to "only" have to pay 30% of my income ...."
My apologies - typo. My rent was just raised to $1000 a month. I hate not being able to "edit" after only 6 minutes as I usually do not catch my typos until it is too late.