In the fight for tenants rights in Washington state, we shouldn’t settle for Democrats’ “compromises”
By Jonathan Rosenblum
A number of Washington State advocacy groups are heralding SB 5160, which passed the state Senate and is awaiting a vote in the state House, as breakthrough tenants’ rights legislation. The bill would provide some tenants with a right to counsel when facing eviction. It also would give more tenants access to mediation, repayment plans, and protections against future discrimination due to COVID.
These are tangible steps forward. They also fail to meet the needs of renters across our state. Our movement must call out the Democrats who are failing to fight for what we need, and demand better.
Among other provisions, SB 5160 provides “Right to Counsel” for tenants facing eviction, but it caps this right at 200% of the Federal Poverty Line, which is (after taxes) $26,500 for an individual or $53,000 for a family of four. That puts that cap at the 32nd percentile of individual income in Washington state, and the 35th percentile of household income for a family of four. (After factoring in taxes; source: https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-by-state-calculator/ )
That means that only about 1/3 of Washington state workers actually would have access to counsel under SB 5160. Fully 68% of individual workers — including full-time minimum wage workers — would be excluded from coverage, as would 65% of households.
Calling something a “right” but then excluding most people from coverage does not make it a “right.” It’s an income-restricted benefit available to a fraction of tenants who actually need the help.
Also, under SB 5160, this limited access to counsel doesn’t go into effect until at least mid-2022, one year past the end of the eviction moratorium.
None of this is to deny that the passage of SB 5160 would represent progress in our state, would prevent evictions, and would save lives. But the question for our movement is: “Shouldn’t we be demanding that legislators do a lot more?” The answer is decidedly yes.
I recognize that many Democrats and some of their defenders in the community will trot out the tired admonition, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Let’s win this, and then come back for more next time.”
These people are misleading activists to think that a “next time” will magically appear next legislative session.
It’s reminiscent of the 1935 congressional debate over the National Labor Relations Act, which excluded agricultural workers (disproportionately Brown men and women), along with hospital workers (Black women), and domestic workers (Black women). US Rep. William Connery, chair of the House Labor Committee, explained, “I am in favor of giving agricultural workers every protection, but just now I believe in biting off one mouthful at a time. If we can get this bill through and get it working properly, there will be an opportunity later. . .to take care of agricultural workers.”
That was 86 years ago, and agricultural workers still lack federal labor protections. “Later” is really the establishment’s way of saying “never.”
Congressman Connery was not an agricultural worker, and it’s noteworthy that those arguing vociferously for legislative incrementalism are NEVER from the section of impacted communities that are excluded by this incrementalism.
In engaging around SB 5160 and other tenant legislation, our tenants movement must welcome all gains, but equally point out legislative weaknesses, demand what our working class needs, and call out elected officials who claim to support our goals but refuse to truly fight for them. In this case, our demand should be Right to Counsel for *all* tenants, no exceptions, no loopholes for landlords, no delays.
As it happens, Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant (whom I work for in City Council), has put forward Right to Counsel legislation that includes all tenants, and excludes none. There are zero loopholes in the bill, which is precisely why the corporate landlord lobby — with help from Democratic friends in the city and state — is gearing up to fight it. This bill is coming before City Council for a vote on Monday, March 29, and some Council Democrats already have openly called for amending the legislation to include, in some form, the so-called “means-testing” that the state bill includes. They point approvingly to SB 5160, essentially saying, “If ‘means-testing’ is good enough for progressive Democrats in Olympia, it should work here in Seattle.”
Let’s be clear: “Means-testing” is merely neo-liberal-speak for excluding tenants. It means denying the right to many. It means more evictions, more human suffering.
Our movement should fight full-on to win this Seattle Right to Counsel ordinance, without any “mean-testing” exclusions. And by winning true Right to Counsel at the city level, we’ll then be in a much stronger position to demand that Democrats amend SB 5160 to remove the current exclusions and limits that benefit corporate landlords and harm tenants.
That’s the way to fight for the most tenants’ rights now, not by settling for a decent, though much-watered-down state bill.
