Seattle City Wire

The Seattle City Council voted to delay deciding on a "right to counsel" ordinance, which would provide no-cost attorney representation to anyone facing eviction.

The council is now set to vote on the legislation on March 29.

Council members who pushed to postpone a vote on the proposed ordinance argued that the bill, CB 120007, would benefit from additional consultation and refinement. They cited concerns about potential legal challenges that might result from failing to clarify ambiguous verbiage.

Kshama Sawant | Seattle.gov

"I am excited about voting in favor of this legislation. I think this is a really important bill, and I am supporting the request for a delay," council member Lisa Herbold said during a March 15 city council meeting. "I have been privy to some of the questions being asked about the bill and... I believe we can make this a better, stronger, more defensible bill in the next two weeks."

But the bill's sponsor, council member Kshama Sawant, opposed delaying the vote, warning that doing so could result in continued stalling, as well as opportunities for unnecessary loopholes to be established. She argued that the evidence proves the bill would provide a vital lifeline for low-income families facing the threat of homelessness.

"All this year and in the past three years, we've had presentation after presentation from the attorneys themselves, not just from tenants' rights advocates in general, but from attorneys themselves who have shown us powerful evidence,” Sawant said during the meeting. “In cities that have right to counsel, [there is] a positive impact not only on how it prevents eviction, but also on how eviction filings have gone down because landlords now know that they face not just a vulnerable tenant by themselves, but a trained attorney who is going to know exactly what to do to prevent that eviction.”

Nonetheless, while the general concepts behind the bill appear to be garnering strong support in the city council, concerns continue to persist about the possible cost of the program. The legislation currently would not include any eligibility requirements, meaning that income would not be a factor in determining who could receive the free attorney services.

"I think all the energy and intentionality of this is right on," council member Debora Juarez said at the meeting. "What I really want is a piece of legislation that I can vote yes on that can guarantee legal counsel to people who are eligible. And those are obviously going to be low-income people."

Juarez raised concerns that under the bill's current wording, an individual making $100,000 per year could theoretically decide to stop paying rent and then expect the city to pay the tab for an attorney to defend against a pursuant eviction. But Sawant said eligibility requirements are not needed because data already suggests that eviction almost exclusively impacts people who are economically disadvantaged.

The debate surrounding the proposal comes as the city continues to focus on preventing people from losing their homes amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. On Monday, Mayor Jenny Durkan announced that the city will extend moratoriums on evictions through at least June.

Sawant vowed to continue fighting for speedy passage of the ordinance to ensure that housing protections for low-income families will last well beyond the duration of the pandemic.

"We cannot trust the rhetoric of politicians. We have to fight for what we need," Sawant said at the city council meeting.