Seattle speakers urge council not to roll back ethics rules, defend renters' protections

Dozens of residents and organized groups told the Seattle City Council on May 20 that proposed changes to the council's ethics rules would pave the way for rollbacks of local renters'protections.

Speakers came in person and remotely during the council's hybrid public comment period, which the clerk said had 25 in-person and 11 remote registrants. Many identified themselves as renters or members of labor and tenants'rights groups, and several asked the council not to modify the ethics code to allow members with landlord interests to vote on renter-related measures.

The comments focused on two linked concerns: that weakening recusal requirements in the council's ethics code would enable conflicts of interest, and that those changes are being pursued as part of a broader effort to roll back renter protections adopted in recent years. "Allowing these members to vote on renter related legislation is a clear conflict of interest and a first step toward removing hard won and necessary protections for the working class renters of this city," said Sydney Hammer, who identified herself as a renter and member of Workers' Strike Back.

Other speakers listed specific protections they said were at risk. One caller summarized the city's existing measures as including a $10 cap on late fees, a ban on winter and school-year evictions, longer notice periods for rent increases, limits on move-in fees, access to payment plans and right-to-counsel requests for tenants facing eviction. A speaker who identified as Acacia Pottschmidt said rolling back protections "is a surefire way for existing council members to jeopardize their incumbency because the people of the city are fed up."

Several organized groups were represented in testimony. Multiple people identified themselves as members of Workers' Strike Back and urged the council to resist what they described as pressure from corporate landlords. Others spoke from the political right, including Victoria Palmer, who identified herself as an executive board member of the King County Republican Party and thanked "the Democrats on the council that are working to bring back the livability of our beautiful city of Seattle." That comment was one of a small number of public remarks that framed the council's debate over ethics and housing from a different angle.

Speakers recounted personal experiences with eviction, withheld security deposits and unaddressed property repairs. "Every renter could tell a similar story," said Johnny Townsend, who described damage and withheld deposits after a rental unit leaked. Several commenters urged the council to keep protections for low-income renters, children and families.

Council members did not take substantive legislative action on the ethics rules or renters' protections during the May 20 meeting; the public comment period closed after the clerk confirmed the list of registered speakers. The council proceeded with other agenda business, including routine votes to adopt the introduction and referral calendar and consent calendar.

Public commenters repeatedly invoked accountability and elections as remedies: "Anyone who votes in favor of repealing these protections should lose their council seat," said a participant who identified as Dominic Wolfgang Wallace of Workers' Strike Back.

The public comment session included interruptions and chants from some audience members; the presiding officer warned that disruptive behavior would be addressed and reminded speakers of the one-minute time limit.

The council's next regular meeting is scheduled for May 27, 2025; the transcript does not record any council votes on the ethics or renters issues at the May 20 session.

Less critical procedural items from the meeting and ceremonial proclamations were addressed later in the session.