A couple own a triplex. They live in one unit with their young children and rent out the other two units. The family frequently interacts with the tenants, and shares a yard. Landlords in that situation might feel it important to have a good gut feeling about an applicant before renting to them. Such a couple was among plaintiffs who challenged a Seattle law that took away essentially all landlords’ rights to use any discretion in renting.
Under Seattle’s First-in-Time ordinance landlords are required to post criteria for renting vacant units and to accept the first tenant that met these criteria. The law stripped landlords of any discretion. No matter how creepy appearing or behaving when a unit was shown, if the potential tenant met the landlords financial criteria, the landlord had to rent to the applicant.
King County Superior Court Judge Suzanne Parisien struck down the ordinance on constitutional grounds in a ruling last week. She held that the law violated the Washington State Constitution on various grounds.
Deciding to whom to rent is a fundamental property right. The First-In-Time ordinance denies this right, and without compensation.
The law also strips away another fundamental property right—the right to bargain. Under the First-In-Time ordinance, landlords are required to rent to the first qualified applicant, which may not be the best qualified applicant. Landlords cannot offer lower rent to a well qualified applicant who is willing to enter into a longer-term lease, or to applicants who are a bit short on the landlord’s criteria, but the landlords feels comfortable giving a chance.
Judge Parisien held that the law violates the constitutional private use requirement, because it takes property for private use, rather than public use.
She also held the ordinance was overbroad. The law eliminates all discretion because some may have an unconscious bias—a justification with no end, expanding the police power of government beyond reasonable bounds.
The judge held that the ordinance violates landlords’ free speech rights. Landlords are not permitted to direct those interested to call or email for details. Instead, the ordinance requires all criteria to be posted in any advertisement. Judge Parisien held the ordinance violates free speech rights by prohibiting advertisements based on content, and dictating how landlords can advertise.
The decision is expected to be appealed.
