Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 1 of 53 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Rentberry, Inc., and Delaney Wysingle, Case No: 19-35308 Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. The City of Seattle, Defendant – Appellee. Supplemental Appendix Legislative Details, Council Bill 119507, re Ordinance 125840 Ordinance 125840 Declaration of Ethan W. Blevins Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Declaration of Delaney Wysingle Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 2 of 53 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL 600 Fourth Ave. 2nd Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Legislation Details File #: CB 119507 Version: 1 Type: Ordinance (Ord) Name: CB 119507 Status: Passed In control: City Clerk Ord. No. Ord 125840 On agenda: 6/10/2019 Final Action: 6/18/2019 Title: AN ORDINANCE relating to fair housing; establishing a one-year prohibition on use of rental housing bidding platforms; amending Section 7.24.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and adding a new Section 7.24.090 to the Seattle Municipal Code. Sponsors: Teresa Mosqueda Indexes: Attachments: 1. Summary and Fiscal Note, 2. Council Central Staff Memo, 3. Signed Ordinance 125840, 4. Affidavit of Publication Date Ver. Action By Action 6/18/2019 1 City Clerk attested by City Clerk 6/18/2019 1 Mayor returned 6/17/2019 1 Mayor Signed 6/14/2019 1 City Clerk submitted for Mayor's signature 6/10/2019 1 City Council passed Pass 6/6/2019 1 pass Pass 4/29/2019 1 Housing, Health, Energy, and Workers’ Rights Committee City Council referred 4/16/2019 1 Council President's Office sent for review 4/9/2019 1 City Clerk sent for review SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 Result Printed on 8/5/2019 SA001 powered by Legistar™ I Record No.: Version: Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 3 of 53 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL \ D\ 1 Legislative Summary cs 119507 CB119507 Type: Ordinance (Ord) 1 0rd. AN ORDINANCE rental relating to fair no: Ord 125840 In Control: housing; establishing housing bidding platforms; amending Code; and adding Status: City Clerk File Created: 04/08/2019 Final Action: 06/18/2019 one-year prohibition Section 7.24.020 of the Seattle Section 7.24.090 to the Seattle a new a Passed Municipal on use of Municipal Code. Date Notes: Filed with City Clerk: Mayor's Signature: Vet°ed Sponsors: Mosqueda 6/18/2019 6/18/2019 by Mal/0 ‘: Veto Overridden: Veto Sustained: Attachments: Drafter: patrick.wigren@seatt e.gov Filing Requirements/Dept History Of Legislative File Ver- Legal Date: Acting Body: Action: Notice Published: Sent To: Action: El Due Date: 5i°"‘ 1 Yes El N0 Return Result: Date: City Clerk 04/09/2019 sent for review Council Presidents Office Action Text: The Council Bill (CB) sent for review. to the Council Presidents Office was Notes: 1 Council President's 04/16/2019 sent for review Housing, Health, Energy, Office and Workers’ Rights Committee Action Text: The Council Bill (CB) was sent for review. to the Housing, Health, Energy. and Workers’ Rights Committee Notes: 1 City Council 04/29/2019 referred Housing, Health, Energy, and Workers’ Rights Committee Action Text: The Council Bill (CB) was referred. to the Housing, Health, Energy, and Workers’ Rights Committee Notes: Office of the City Clerk Page 1 Printed on 6/18/2019 SA002 Legislative Summaz Continued (CB 119507! A 1 Housing, Health, Energy, and Workers’ 06/06/2019 pass Pass Rights Committee Action Text: City Council Action Text: The Committee recommends that ln Favor: 2 Opposed: 0 06/10/2019 The Council Bill (CB) Council pass the Council Bill (CB). Mosqueda, Member Bagshaw passed was In Favor: Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 4 of 53 City Chair Pass passed by the following vote, and the President signed the Bill: 9 Councilmember Bagshaw, Councilmember Gonzalez President Harrell, Councilmember Councilmember , Council Herbold, Councilmember Juarez, Mosqueda, Councilmember O'Brien, Councilmember Pacheco, Councilmember Sawant 0 Opposed: City Clerk 06/14/2019 Mayor submitted for Mayor's signature Mayor Action Text: 06/17/2019 The Council Bill (CB) Signed was Signed. Mayor 06/18/2019 returned City Clerk 06/18/2019 attested Action Text: Office of the City Clerk The Ordinance (Ord) was attested City Clerk by City by City Clerk Clerk. Page 2 Printed on 6/18/2019 SA003 Aslia Venkataraman LEG Rent Bidding Prohibition ORD D2b CITY OF SEATTLE I j ORDINANCE [ l q j Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 5 of 53 COUNCIL BILL \OIU1-5 j relating to fair housing; establishing a one-year prohibition on use of rental housing bidding platforms; amending Section 7.24.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and adding a new Section 7.24.090 to the Seattle Municipal Code. AN ORDINANCE WHEREAS, online or application-based platforms that tenants to bid provide landlords the ability certain lease 10 housing units, oblige potential 11 landlords their choice of tenant based on the tenant’s bid and 12 recently appeared 13 WHEREAS, in many 14 amendments to the Seattle 15 and 16 landscape; 17 updating fair application-based 19 operation and online new communities 22 innovations they may have on 'I'empIuIc to understand has passed regulating rentals, revising in a new lax! rcvi.i'ctlNmw1IhL'r 21, 20/ 7 consumers to with the Seattle new and different rapidly the a variety of housing code, regulatory escalate the use of structure and Municipal Code; and technologies throughout Seattle, prior and innovations that may have to these new technologies and and to know more about how these services function and the Seattle’s rental to use them within 25 comply becoming entrenched; WHEREAS, the Council wishes ‘ (“Council”) criteria have and services, and it is unclear whether the services WHEREAS, the Council wishes impacts 24 Code housing protections, resulting of these 21 23 Municipal Council City WHEREAS, emerging technologies have caused on screening and allow and 18 20 provisions, housing markets, including Seattle’s; the past several years, the over on to list rental housing market before allowing impact landlords and tenants Seattle; and I SA004 Asha Venkataraman LEG Rent Bidding Prohibition ORD D2b WHEREAS, the Council passed Ordinance 125551 in March 2018, prohibiting landlords and tenants from potential Seattle using rental housing bidding platforms and city limits; Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 6 of 53 WHEREAS, Ordinance 125551 also included study have of the current on equitable or a potential impacts access request for the Office of Housing housing bidding platforms rental to Seattle’s rental housing market”; WHEREAS, in 2018, Rentberry, Inc. and Delaney Wysingle, Seattle for its prohibition against bidding platforms, arguing WHEREAS, March 15, 2019, on that the 12 stating 13 conduct, 14 not Section 1. prohibition and individual, sued The City of tenants’ use of rental housing- interfered with their freedom of speech; use Judge Richard of the online rental A. Jones ruled in favor of The housing bidding service City of Seattle, Rentberry provides is speech; NOW, THEREFORE, Findings A. Seattle’s 16 scarcity housing market has become very competitive over the past decade, causing issues for tenants. B. It is uncertain whether and how these 18 19 Seattle’s rental 20 depending on housing market, the scarcity as application-based and online services these services may have different effects of housing on impact markets supply. C. The benefits and drawbacks of such services to landlords and tenants have not been 21 22 that the potential have and could BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE AS FOLLOWS: ’15 17 landlords and an to “conduct a and 10 11 for real property located in studied in Seattle. Temp/ale lax! revixecl November 21, 2017 2 SA005 Asha Venkataraman LEG Rent Bidding Prohibition ORD D2b D. The of Seattle is committed to City platforms that require the ability Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 7 of 53 access of a computer and internet in order for certain communities to E. The impacts use on use of new communities to rental meaningfully identify technologies are ensuring equitable and innovations can access to rental to access rental housing, housing and obtain needed and may hinder housing. spread quickly, whether in line with Seattle’s values of equity and work toward or not their expanding housing. F. Studies suggest that the auction model of rental rents, and rental housing-bidding software will place an housing-bidding works to increase additional increased upward pressure on rents.’ 10 11 G. Rent increases have been shown to H. The Office of Housing is estimates it will be completed conducting the 15 125558, is amended 16 7.24.020 Definitions as study on rental housing~bidding and in June 2019. Section 2. Section 7.24.020 of the Seattle 14 Municipal Code, last amended by Ordinance follows: *>l<>l< 17 18 19 low—income households and households of color. 12 13 disproportionately impact “Rental agreement” means a “rental agreement” as defined and within the scope of RCW 59. 1 8.030 and RCW 59. 1 8.040 of the RLTA in effect at the time the rental agreement is ’ Dotzour, M., Moorhead, E., & Winkler, D. (1998). The Impact of Auctions on Residential Sales Prices in New Zealand. Journal Of Real Estate Research, 16(1), 57-72. Retrieved from http://aresj0urnals.org/doi/abs/l0.5555/rees. l6. l.803550373kr7t004?code=ares-site; Lusht, K. (1996). A Comparison of Prices Brought by English Auctions and Private Negotiations. Real Estate Economics, 24(4), 517530, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.111 1/1540-6229.00702; Ashenfelter, 0., & Genesove, D. (1992). Testing for Price Anomalies in Real Estate Auctions. National Bureau Of Economic Research, (4036), available at http://dX.doi.org/l0.3386/w4036; Lepone, A., Frino, A., Mollica, V., & Vassallo, A. (2010). The Impact of Auctions on Residential Sales Prices: Australian Evidence. Australasian Accounting, Business And Finance Journal, 4(3), 322, available ’['empla!e at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.l665933. Ins! I'¢.'\'i.t'L'(/ Nmwiiher 2!, 20/ 7 3 SA006 Asha Venkataraman LEG Rem Prohibition ORD Bidding D2b executed. At the time of the passage of the ordinance codified in this “rental agreement” regulations, as “all agreements which establish any other or “Rental housing bidding platform” tenants and landlords via Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 8 of 53 provisions concerning an application auctions wherein potential but not limited to housing costs publishing platform. a rental tenants 12 new 7.24.090 Use of online platforms 15 expire on application potential 16 introduced does not make 17 subsection 7.24.090.C, in which 20 housing impacts, 21 action. or expire case it shall if the Council needs Section 4. The 22 any a provisions approval person /as! reivixuzl November 2/, 20] 7 potential housing provisions including denial. or rental a Merely housing bidding expires. from Code Municipal housing bidding using services rental as follows: prohibited housing bidding limits. one year after the effective date of the ordinance City Council exercises its expire at the end of the to extend the more more time to time to review the of this ordinance are 4 authority under extension. prohibition in subsection 7.24.090.A complete study or the study discuss of rental potential declared to be separate and severable. If clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, subsection 'I'L-mg;/ale unit.” city up to 12 months if the Office of Housing requests by certain lease rules, * prohibited are City Council has the authority 19 23 * based rental Council Bill 119507 unless the C. The on facilitate rental to the date Section 7.24.090 tenants B. This Section 7.24.090 shall 18 platform and lease term, to landlords for for real property located in Seattle as online dwelling a person that connects means a Section 7.24.090 is added to the Seattle or A. Landlords and 13 14 or * Section 3. A and occupancy of submit competing bids 10 ll use “platform” or based housing advertisement This definition shall the the RLTA defined the terms, conditions, modify or chapter, or portion of this ordinance, or SA007 Asha Venkataraman LEG Rent Bidding Prohibition ORD D2b the application thereof to validity any person of the remainder of this or circumstance, is held ordinance, or the validity to be of its invalid, it shall application to not affect the other persons or Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 9 of 53 circumstances. 'l'empIaIc /ax! revixuzl November 21, 20] 7 5 SA008 Asha Venkataraman LEG Rent Bidding Prohibition ORD D2b Section 5. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 the Mayor, but if not shall take effect Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 10 of 53 Passed and signed by as by me and returned approved provided by the City Seattle by the Municipal j Council the Mayor days within ten days after approval by presentation, it Code Section 1.04.020. 4!» Bufla . day of in open session in authentication of its passage this ZSuY\€/ after its , j day 2019, of ,2019. President Approved by me this day of the City 3wu& of , Council 2019. flx..2® 10 11 Jen y A. Durkan, Mayor M T Filed 12 by me this \% day of j ,2019. 13 14 15 Monica Martinez Simmons, City Clerk (Seal) 'lL-Inp/are lax! I'L‘ ’i.\'L’tI Nnwzmher 2], 20] 7 SA009 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 11 of 53 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Rentberry, Inc., and Delaney Wysingle, Case No: 19-35308 Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. The City of Seattle, Defendant – Appellee. Declaration of Ethan W. Blevins in Support of Motion to Supplement the Record SA010 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 12 of 53 I, Ethan W. Blevins, declare as follows: 1. I’m over 18 years old and of sound mind. As lead counsel for the Plaintiffs in this action, Rentberry v. City of Seattle, Case No. 19-35308, I have personal knowledge of the facts stated below. 2. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate copy of the report issued by the City of Seattle’s Office of Housing regarding the impact and legality of rental bidding platforms. 3. Plaintiffs received this report Erica Franklin, the city attorney assigned to this matter, via email, attached as Exhibit 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED this 16th day of August, 2019. s/ ETHAN W. BLEVINS Ethan W. Blevins Pacific Legal Foundation 255 South King Street, Suite 800 Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (425) 576-0484 E-mail: EBlevins@pacificlegal.org Attorney for Plaintiffs – Appellants 1 SA011 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 13 of 53 Exhibit 1 Motion to Supplement Record/ Decl. of Blevins Seattle Ofc. of Hous. Rent Bidding Study Court: Ninth Circuit Case No. 19-35308 Pacific Legal Foundation 255 South King Street, Suite 800 Seattle, WA 98104 - 425.576.0484 SA012 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 14 of 53 Rent Bidding Study Date: July 3, 2019 To: Seattle City Council, Housing, Health, Energy & Workers’ Rights Committee, Chair Mosqueda From: Emily Alvarado and Bin Jung, Office of Housing OVERVIEW Seattle Ordinance 125551 established a one-year moratorium on rental housing rent bidding platforms and directed the Seattle Office of Housing (OH) to study the potential impacts of rent bidding platforms on Seattle’s housing market. The ordinance was passed after online and mobile application-based rental bidding platforms, Rentberry and Biddwell, entered the Seattle housing market in 2017. Rentberry was quickly criticized by the Associated Students of the University of Washington Student Senate (ASUW). ASUW brought up the issue with City of Seattle Councilmembers, after which City Council decided to move forward with a moratorium on rental bidding platforms. The Seattle City Council instituted Ordinance 125551 in April 2018. The brief duration of rental bidding platforms operating in Seattle prevented local data collection. As a result, the effect of rental bidding platforms on the Seattle rental housing market and on equitable access to housing cannot be analyzed. Rental bidding platforms have been in operation in other cities, which provides insight into how the City of Seattle could proceed. However, rental bidding platforms have been largely unpopular amongst renters and municipalities, and their establishment in cities is questionable. This study provides relevant information from other cities regarding rental bidding platforms where available, and identifies how the platforms could pose potential violations of City, State, and Federal laws and regulations if allowed to operate in Seattle. The report details: ▪ Background information ▪ Issues and potential violations ▪ Topics for further analysis BACKGROUND Rental bidding is a practice where prospective tenants compete for a rental unit by negotiating with the landlord on the amount of rent charged. Rental bidding has become more common over the past decade due to high demand for rental housing and the scarcity of rental housing, specifically at lowerincome ranges. Rental bidding platforms institutionalize the practice of rent bidding by creating an online auction marketplace for rental housing. Multiple sources have likened rental bidding platforms to “eBay for housing.” However, in the past few weeks, some rental bidding platforms have transitioned to focus more on advertising rental properties than on rental bidding. Previous conversations with trade organizations 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5700 PO Box 94725 Seattle, WA 98124-4725 206-684-0721 housing@seattle.gov seattle.gov/housing SA013 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 15 of 53 representing landlords had revealed that using rental bidding platforms as an additional advertising opportunity would be of interest to landlords, specifically smaller landlords who conduct their own advertising. A recent review showed a large percentage of listings posted on rental bidding platform websites were advertisements for properties listed on StreetEasy, Zillow, Craigslist, and realtor.com. Few listings were exclusive to the rental bidding platform, questioning if rental bidding would actually occur for the property. As rental bidding platforms continue to evolve, fewer challenges could be posed leading to less need to take further analysis or additional action. The design of rental bidding platforms varies. In general, landlords list available properties on the platform and set an initial asking monthly rent. Prospective tenants create user profiles, which can include information such as names, photographs, credit scores, background checks, personal references, work history, previous residences, and links to social media accounts. After finding a rental unit to their liking, prospective tenants offer a monthly rent bid to the landlord for their consideration. Bids are allowed to be submitted for a period of time, after which landlords select a tenant based on their monthly rent bid and additional screening criteria. The design of some rental bidding platforms allows prospective renters to see the number of bids placed and the current highest bid. Other platforms do not provide that information, and bidders provide a closed bid without knowledge of the current highest bid amount. After the landlord selects the winning bid, the landlord-tenant relationship and screening process move offline. However, some rental bidding platforms have incorporated automated landlord services such as background checks, lease signings, rent collection, and maintenance requests into their operations, and encourage landlords and tenants to conduct all business through their app. The objective of rental bidding platforms is to create an online marketplace that connects landlords and prospective tenants, and provides an opportunity to negotiate rents. Rent bidding platforms often profit by receiving a commission for successful lease signings. In the case of Rentberry, if the landlord selects an offer with a monthly rent greater than their initial listed price, Rentberry receives an additional monthly payment of 25% of the difference.1 Rent bidding platforms became active in the San Francisco Bay Area and major Australian cities in 2017, and were universally met with critique from tenant organizations and the media. Commentary from the San Francisco Rent Board, Australian tenant unions, and various media outlets underscored the potential for rental bidding platforms to exploit scarce rental markets, exacerbate housing affordability crises in their respective cities, and discriminate against low-income households and populations vulnerable to displacement.2 In response, rent bidding platforms asserted the technology could provide an opportunity to reset a housing market with inflated rents. These claims are unable to be validated, partially due to the fact that 1 2 Moffitt, 2016 Jacobs, 2019 2 SA014 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 16 of 53 rental bidding platforms were originally released exclusively in cities experiencing housing affordability crises and tight rental markets. Although rental bidding platforms have since expanded to other cities, any effect that rental bidding platforms have on weak or strong housing markets is difficult to disaggregate and attribute directly to rental bidding platforms. Currently, Seattle is also in a severe affordable housing crisis where the demand for rental housing, specifically affordable rental housing for low-income households, outstrips the supply. As a result, an analysis of the effect of rental bidding platforms in a weak Seattle market cannot be conducted until a surplus of affordable housing stock at all income levels is reached. In Seattle, the ASUW called on the City of Seattle to ban rental bidding platforms after the app Rentberry was released in 2017 and rental housing in the University District began to appear on the app. The ASUW statement noted existing high rents, the cost of housing as a significant part of the cost of education, and Seattle’s standing as one of the most competitive housing markets in the United States. ASUW also referenced Rentberry’s initial marketing to landlords that claimed that apartment rents would rise an average of 5% when listed on their app, and also noted that Rentberry changed this claim in response to public backlash. ASUW brought up the issue of rental bidding with City of Seattle Councilmembers, and in March 2018, the City of Seattle approved Ordinance 125551. The Ordinance established a one-year prohibition on the use of rental bidding platforms and requested a study from the Seattle Office of Housing on rental bidding platforms. Rentberry, Inc. and Delaney Wysingle, an individual that owned a rental property in Seattle, then sued the City over the prohibition. Rentberry and Wysingle claimed that the ordinance violated their right to free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. In March 2019, District Court Judge Richard A. Jones ruled in favor of the City of Seattle, concluding that the use of rental bidding platforms was a form of conduct, not speech. The Plaintiffs have appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court, and the appeal is currently pending. ISSUES AND POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS Ordinance 125551 detailed multiple concerns regarding rental bidding platforms, including: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Compliance with federal fair housing protections, state rental housing regulations, and Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) Equitable access to rental housing The effect of rental bidding on the housing market depending on the scarcity of housing supply A lack of information regarding benefits and drawbacks to landlords and tenants The issues and potential violations posed by rental bidding platforms as they relate to these concerns are presented below. Although focused on local implications, this section includes information and insight from other cities with rental bidding platforms in operation. In particular, the experience of the city of Melbourne, Australia provides an interesting case study. Compliance with fair housing protections – Housing discrimination against protected classes 3 SA015 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 17 of 53 Discrimination in housing is prohibited at the federal, state, and local levels. Laws and regulations at the state and city levels broaden the number of communities protected against housing discrimination. Rental bidding platforms could potentially violate anti-discrimination law if their design and operations do not comply with federal, state, and city regulations. Discrimination and implicit bias in housing is widely known and well-studied. Research on discrimination in online housing rental services is also growing, providing a foundation by which to understand the implications of rental bidding platforms. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 prohibits discrimination in housing based on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin. The Fair Housing Act was intended to supplement the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and marked the creation of federal enforcement provisions against discrimination in housing. In Washington State, it is illegal to discriminate against prospective and current tenants on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and veteran/military status. Furthermore, within the city limits of Seattle, it is illegal to discriminate based on political ideology, use of a trained guide dog, or use of a Housing Choice (Section 8) Voucher. These additional protections were added by the city and state to address systematic harm and move towards more fair and equitable access to housing. The design and interface of some rental bidding platforms mimic other housing rental apps, such as Airbnb and HomeAway, that have been criticized for allowing racial discrimination to occur on their platforms. A solid body of academic research, articles, social media testimonials, and anecdotal evidence on racial discrimination witnessed on Airbnb exists, and can inform best practices for other online housing rental apps. Airbnb is a cornerstone of the sharing economy, and positions itself as a platform that connects people who have particular goods, in this case, housing, with those who wish to obtain them. Airbnb requires users to create profiles with real names and pictures to create this community of people and facilitate a sense of trust and sharing amongst them. However, prospective guests who were Black, had disabilities, or were transgender have repeatedly been refused lodging on Airbnb in multiple cities nationwide and around the world. 3 The major criticism is that the use of real names and photos in user profiles triggers racial profiling and discrimination. All of these prospective guests listed are members of protected classes in the city of Seattle, and it would be illegal to discriminate against them. A 2016 study found that guests with distinctively Black names were 16% less likely to be accepted relative to identical guests with distinctively White names. The study conducted a field experiment where messages were sent to 6,400 listings on Airbnb across five cities. Messages sent by accounts with distinctively Black names received a positive response 42% of the time, compared to 50% of the time for accounts with distinctively White names. An additional analysis found that discrimination against accounts with distinctively Black names was limited to hosts who had never previously had a Black 3 Glusac, 2016 4 SA016 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 18 of 53 guest, suggesting that the host’s behavior is consistent with broader underlying pattern of discrimination.4 Federal and state government audits testing for racial discrimination since the Fair Housing Act was passed has shown an overall decrease in face-to-face discrimination in regulated offline, in-person housing markets. This is not to imply that discrimination does not exist. The Seattle Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has tested for, and found, discrimination against protected classes in the Seattle housing market. Offline housing markets can be audited and tested for housing discrimination, whereas testing for discrimination in online platforms is still a relatively new, but critical, monitoring practice. Furthermore, the anonymity of online markets in conjunction with key product design choices could work to discourage discrimination in housing rental platforms. For example, eBay uses online user handles rather than real names. These online user handles can offer fewer indicators of race or ethnicity, whereas platforms that make race, sex, disability, and other protected class characteristics visible may trigger explicit/implicit bias and discrimination. Compliance with fair housing protections – Subsidy discrimination Rental bidding platforms may be incompatible or inherently problematic with housing subsidy programs if the auction process consistently raises rents beyond voucher holders’ ability to pay, regardless of the affordability of the initial asking rent. Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) holders may be rendered uncompetitive in rental bidding platforms, which could be discriminatory, violate fair housing law, and impede equitable access to housing if available housing is listed exclusively on these platforms. As stated, the Revised Code of Washington prohibits discrimination of a prospective tenant based on source of income. Source of income refers to benefit or subsidy programs, such as housing and public assistance programs, veteran’s benefits, social security, or other supplemental security income. Housing Choice Vouchers, previously called Section 8 vouchers, are classified as a source of income. Furthermore, in 2016, the City of Seattle passed alternative source of income protections, which expanded fair housing protections for renters who use alternative sources of income and subsidies to pay for housing costs. This expanded the applicable subsidy programs to include short- or long-term subsidy offered by a government programs, private nonprofits, or any other assistance program that pays a tenant’s rent through a direct arrangement between the program and the property owner. The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program is a housing subsidy program administered by the Seattle Housing Authority (SHA). The program assists low-income families, individuals, seniors, and people with disabilities in finding housing in the private market. A monthly maximum rent amount is calculated for households participating in the program; households pay typically 30-40% of their monthly income towards the maximum rent, and the HCV pays the remaining portion. HCV holders must find housing with a rent that is either at, or below, the maximum amount listed on their voucher. 4 Edelman, Luca, & Svirsky, 2016 5 SA017 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 19 of 53 Use of a HCV requires coordination between the voucher holder, SHA, and the landlord of the rentable unit. After a voucher-holding household finds a suitable unit, the landlord of the unit must complete and return an SHA Leasing Kit for approval. SHA must determine the rent to be reasonable for the HCV holder and the neighborhood before approval. If there is a question about the rent, SHA may engage in a negotiation process with the landlord to set an affordable and reasonable rent. SHA then conducts a Housing Quality Standards (HQS) inspection of the unit to ensure it is decent, safe, and sanitary. If the unit does not pass inspection, the landlord is required to make repairs before a tenant move-in. The final lease is not signed until the Leasing Kit is received, the rent is approved, and a HQS inspection is completed. All three parties, tenant, HCV, and landlord will need to sign an agreement. The average time for a HCV household to move into an apartment is approximately two weeks, but that is subject to change. Variables such as return of the Leasing Kit, rent negotiation, and HQS inspection could extend the time it takes for a lease to be signed and a tenant to move in. There is no commitment between the landlord and tenant, and either party can cancel the process until a lease is signed. The necessity for time and coordination has been challenging for some HCV holders in their housing search. Most large property management companies utilize a dynamic pricing algorithm that relies on time-based pricing reflecting market supply and demand to set rents for their available units. Rents are subject to change throughout the month. HCV holders are unable to confirm their eligibility to move into a unit until the Leasing Kit is completed and approved by SHA and the unit passes SHA inspection. The rent amount is set when a HCV holder applies for an apartment and provides the landlord with a Leasing Kit. However, the time between the offer of a Leasing Kit and actual move-in is subject to coordination and approval by SHA. This may require a resetting of rent by the property management company as dictated by their pricing algorithm, which could restart the process or price out the tenant from the available unit. On rental bidding platforms, landlords select a tenant based on their rent offer and additional screening criteria. Although rental bidding platforms advocate that a landlord can conduct a holistic evaluation of the tenant, a rent auction could cause a landlord to judge higher rent offers with more weight than other screening criteria. HCV households are at a disadvantage in rent auctions due to their rent and income limits and although HCV holders are protected under multiple levels of the law, rental bidding platforms have yet to implement design interventions that prevent source of income discrimination. Low-income households at large are also implicated, echoing the major critique that higher-income households will have a competitive edge in rent auctions and that disadvantaged populations will be further isolated from housing opportunities. Lack of information on effect to Seattle’s housing market and to tenants and landlords Rental bidding platforms are a relatively nascent technology that appeared in select major cities in 2017. The brief duration of rental bidding platforms in Seattle prevented local data collection, and data on rental bidding platforms from other cities is also minimal. Rental bidding platforms appear to be utilized for their advertising capacity, but there is lack of information tracking the effect of rental bidding platforms on successful lease signings or the demographics of renters who secure housing on the 6 SA018 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 20 of 53 platforms. To OH’s knowledge, no studies or audits have been conducted to collect data on these platforms. The difficulty in disaggregating the effect rental bidding platforms have on the housing market from other market factors also contributes to the lack of information on the technology. Any study on the effect of rental bidding platforms on a housing market would require a rigorous methodology in order to draw significant and sound conclusions. Before the app Rentberry’s release in San Francisco, the company conducted a test to see what the effect of the app would be on landlords in the San Francisco/San Jose area. Rentberry concluded that landlords would be able to see a 5% increase on rents when using its rental bidding app.5 The sample size was ten landlords and Rentberry did not divulge its analysis, and so the results of the test should be viewed in isolation. After immediate negative press on the app’s ability to increase rents, Rentberry soon after stated that rents for housing units listed on its app had decreased by 5% within 10 test cities.6 No subsequent data has been released by Rentberry or any other app to demonstrate that rental bidding platforms result in lower rents, particularly in strong rental markets. Seattle has an extremely competitive housing market with a scarcity of affordable housing stock for lowincome households and populations vulnerable to displacement. More information about rental bidding platforms and their effect on the local housing market, landlords, and tenants will not be available unless rental bidding platforms are reinstated. However, clear concerns exist on how rental bidding platforms’ design and operation could violate federal, state, and local law, and negatively affect lowincome households and protected classes. These protections and issues are not unique to Seattle, and rental bidding platforms have also not demonstrated compliance with regulation and accessibility requirements in other cities. Equitable access – Digital inequality The design and interface of rental bidding platforms presents more issues regarding accessibility and equitable access to housing opportunities. Digital inequality is an established concern for those with limited internet access, English language learners, and populations with disabilities. New technologies offer opportunities to engage a broader and more diverse population than the traditional formats of posters, newspapers/television, phone calls, mailings, and in-person announcements/conversations alone. However, new technologies can be exclusionary if their design and interface do not consider and amend design for disadvantaged populations. In addition, equitable access is also questioned if housing opportunities are listed exclusively on rental bidding platforms. Multiple factors contribute to digital inequality including device and internet access, skill level and technological literacy, and support/technical assistance. Rental bidding platforms require a computer or smartphone with internet access to view the rental housing opportunities listed. Low-income households have lower rates of in-home broadband internet connectivity compared to higher-income households, and are more likely to depend on smartphones rather than computers to have internet 5 6 Kendall, 2017 Mims, 2017 7 SA019 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 21 of 53 access at home.7 Computer access maybe limited to shared machines in public spaces such as libraries, which present additional obstacles of time, availability, and age of technology. Smartphones may be ubiquitous, but internet speed and data packages can be costly and be an additional barrier to access. Furthermore, smartphones are only as valuable as one’s ability to utilize them. Technological literacy and skill levels with new technologies vary among English language learners, seniors, and populations with disabilities. Moreover, new technologies may also not always be available in formats or languages that are compatible to population needs, forcing people to seek out support or technical assistance in order to utilize the app. Rent auctions through an app are a time-sensitive process that requires consistent engagement with the technology. CASE STUDY: MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA The City of Melbourne’s experience with rental bidding platforms provides an interesting example by which to understand the entry of a technology into a contested environment and its ultimate resolution. Rental bidding platforms, including Rentberry, entered the Melbourne housing market in 2017. The City of Melbourne, located in the state of Victoria, had been experiencing massive population growth in the past years that outpaced the production of housing, leading to an affordability crisis. The pressure of the crisis was felt throughout the city. Media reports and articles reflected broad concern regarding the rapid increase of rents in rental housing, the decrease in homeownership opportunities, and the gentrification of neighborhoods. The City’s comprehensive plan charted the goal to accommodate and house over 1.6 million new residents in the next 35 years and highlighted initiatives to increase density and create more affordable housing.8 Similar to other cities, rental bidding platforms faced immediate criticism in Melbourne and other Australian states from residents, tenant unions, and media outlets. Tenants Union of Victoria, a governmental organization that promotes and protects rights of tenants and residents in the state, fiercely opposed Rentberry and the practice of rent bidding. Although Rentberry marketed itself to bring transparency to an opaque landlord-tenant rent negotiation, Tenants Union of Victoria stated rental bidding platforms aggravated a lack of transparency around rental prices in housing, and placed lowerincome populations competed with higher-income populations in a bidding competition.9 Housing issues and concerns are addressed by the Consumer Affairs unit in the state of Victoria. In 2016, Consumer Affairs Victoria commissioned a report on rental experiences for tenants, landlords, and property managers in the state. The report surveyed 1,836 tenants in Melbourne, and found that up to 20% of prospective tenants had offered to pay more than the listed renting price to give themselves a competitive edge over other applicants. In most cases, the prospective tenant offered a higher rent, but nearly a quarter of tenants reported that a higher rent amount was suggested to them by the real estate agent or landlord. The report also found that the practice of offering higher monthly rents became more 7 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2016 Victoria State Government, 2016 9 Robb & Zhou, 2017 8 8 SA020 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 22 of 53 common with higher income populations, with 50% of those in the middle to highest quintiles of income offering to pay more than the listed rent. 10 This study affirms that higher income households are able to be more competitive in rent auctions than low-income households by the sheer nature of being able to offer more rent. Although offering more rent was not illegal in Victoria, concerns were raised regarding the prevalence of the practice and its effect on low-income households in securing housing. As housing issues fell within the purview of consumer affairs, Consumer Affairs Victoria concluded that advertising a property at a price lower than what a landlord was willing to accept could have been deemed ‘false and misleading conduct,’ which was a violation of law.11 Therefore, rental bidding and rental bidding platforms posed to be a potential mechanism for false and misleading conduct by allowing landlords to list monthly rents they knew were not genuine asking amounts. In September 2018, the Victorian Government passed the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, which included a reform that prohibited rental auctions and required fixed rent amounts in advertisements for available housing units.12 There are clear differences in how the City of Melbourne and the City of Seattle address housing issues. Contrary to the state of Victoria, Australia, landlord-tenant issues in Washington State are generally regulated under the Residential-Landlord Tenant Act rather than the Consumer Protection Act. However, the example of Melbourne surfaces the question of whether rental bidding platforms comply with the wide range of state law. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FURTHER ANALYSIS Seattle’s housing affordability crisis is a critical issue for the City and its citizens. Recent revisions to the housing code and updates to fair housing protections expand equitable access to rental housing, and demonstrate the City’s commitment to equity. The following topics should be investigated if rental bidding platforms are to be allowed to operate in Seattle. First-in-Time case In 2016, the City of Seattle passed First-in-Time legislation, which required landlords advertising rental housing to offer tenancy to the first qualified applicant that met the established screening criteria. The objective of First-in-Time was to combat implicit bias resulting in housing discrimination. First-in-Time was overturned in 2018, and the City of Seattle successfully sought direct review by the Washington State Supreme Court. The outcome of this case may affect rental bidding platforms, in that rental bidding platforms would violate First-in-Time if it were to be restored. The Supreme Court heard oral argument on that matter on June 11, 2019. The timeline following the oral argument is to be determined as decisions typically require a few months, although they could take longer. 10 Ernst & Young, 2016 State Government of Victoria, 2016 12 Parliament of Victoria, 2018 11 9 SA021 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 23 of 53 Further analysis on the effect on landlords and tenants As stated previously, there is little data on the effect of rent bidding platforms in Seattle, given the limited time period they were in operation locally. Conversations with representatives from trade organizations representing Washington State landlords provided limited information on the effect of rental bidding platforms on membership operations. A representative of the Washington Multi-Family Housing Association (WMFHA), a professional trade organization that represents larger multi-family properties, stated that the organization’s constituency did not use rental bidding platforms when they existed in Seattle (B. Waller, personal communication, April 22, 2019). WMFHA’s constituency would also most likely not be interested in the service due to the large size of the buildings and the prevalent use of dynamic pricing algorithms to set rents. A representative from the Rental Housing Association of Washington, which represents small rental property owners and managers, remarked that the majority of their membership also did not use rental bidding platforms in advance of the moratorium, although a percentage may be interested in trying the platforms in the future if they were to be reinstated, if only for the advertising opportunity (S. Martin and H. Pierce, personal communication, April 25, 2019). Regarding the effect of rental bidding platforms on renters, future analysis could include which populations or demographics more frequently achieve winning bids in comparison to the demographics of all bidders. An online audit could also be done to evaluate housing discrimination and implicit bias on rental bidding platforms. The experience of Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) holders should be researched further to better understand if HCV holders are consistently rendered uncompetitive, or otherwise discouraged or prevented from using rent bidding platforms. Additional research on the geographic location of properties utilizing rental bidding platforms could also provide information on the effect of these platforms in different local markets, and the extent to which they can intensify real estate pressures in a neighborhood. Other Washington State law violations The compliance of rental bidding platforms with all provisions of the Residential-Landlord Tenant Act is to be determined, as is their compliance with all other Washington State laws. For example, Washington State requires real estate brokers to be licensed and regulated, and, in general, leasing property in exchange for compensation is something that requires a broker’s license. Whether rental bidding platforms may need to be comply with real estate broker requirements due to their operations should be determined. Finally, auctioneers are also required to be licensed in Washington State, and it is not clear whether a rent bidding auction may require an auctioneer license. Rent control The imposition of controls on rent or the regulation of rent in residential rental buildings that are not low-income housing is prohibited by RCW 35.21.830. The prohibition of rental bidding platforms may be in violation of this regulation if interpreted to be a control on how much rent private persons can charge for rental properties. 10 SA022 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 24 of 53 Additional services – Security deposits and background checks Some rental bidding platforms extend their scope to include automated landlord services such as security deposit and rent collection, and maintenance requests. For example, Rentberry allows prospective renters to bid on security deposit amounts in addition to the monthly rent. This could be a potential violation of City of Seattle Ordinance 125222, which limits the security deposit and nonrefundable move-in fees amount to the amount of the first full month’s rent. In Washington State, landlords must also notify prospective tenants by writing, or posting, what types of information will be accessed in the tenant screening, and what criteria may result in denial of the application prior to obtaining any information about a prospective tenant. This could pose a potential issue for rental bidding platforms that incorporate automated landlord services into their products. Currently, two major rental bidding platforms, Rentberry and Bidwell, include automated landlord services in their operations. Automated landlord service applications can also provide background checks using a third-party provider. In 2017, the City of Seattle passed Fair Chance Housing legislation, which prohibits landlords from committing unfair practices against renters based on arrest or conviction records, or criminal history. If rental bidding platforms were to be reinstated in the City, then all of their services would need to comply with this code and regulation. Landlords are prohibited from inquiring about criminal history, performing criminal history background checks, requiring disclosure about criminal history, or rejecting an applicant, or taking an adverse action based on a prospective tenant’s criminal history. Landlords are also required to provide Fair Chance Housing language on all applications for rental properties, including online applications. A lawsuit has been brought against City of Seattle regarding Fair Chance Housing, but the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has full authority to enforce the ordinance while litigation is pending. Recommendations The Office of Housing offers options for consideration but does not recommend either the reinstatement or prohibition of rental bidding platforms, namely due to the pending First-in-Time appeal and that decision’s direct consequence on rental bidding platforms. However, reasonable conclusions can be made on rental bidding platforms based on their design and potential violations to federal, state, and local law and regulation. Notwithstanding a firm recommendation, rental bidding platforms should show evidence of compliance and consideration with law and regulation before reinstatement in the City of Seattle. Specifically, rental bidding platforms should demonstrate how operations would comply with federal fair housing laws, Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) accessibility, and anti-housing discrimination regulation. In order to ensure compliance and encourage equitable access to all populations, the following recommendations are offered for consideration: ▪ SMC 7.24.090 – Use of online or application based rental housing bidding services prohibited 11 SA023 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 25 of 53 o ▪ ▪ ▪ Modify to be effective in perpetuity, or until rental bidding platforms can affirmatively demonstrate compliance with all federal, state and local laws, and fair and equitable operations SMC 14.08 – Unfair Housing Practices o Include requirements for rental bidding platforms to ensure compliance and equitable access such as: ▪ HCV accessibility ▪ Anonymous profiles ▪ Accessible formats for people with disabilities ▪ Multiple language support ▪ Listed screening criteria SMC 14.08.015 – Seattle Open Housing Poster o Require Seattle Open Housing Poster on all rental bidding platforms Modify rental bidding platforms operations to allow HCV holders to be competitive in the rent auction process 12 SA024 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 26 of 53 REFERENCES Controls on rent for residential structures—Prohibited—Exceptions. (RCW 35.21.830) Edelman, B., Luca, M., & Svirsky, D. (2016). Racial Discrimination in the Sharing Economy: Evidence from a Field Experiment. Harvard Business School, Working Paper 16-069 Ernst & Young, Australia. (2016). Consumer Affairs Victoria: Rental experiences of tenants, landlords, property managers, and parks residents in Victoria (EY Sweeney Ref No. 25463 and 25464). Retrieved from https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/hdp.au.prod.app.vicengage.files/5814/8781/7797/Victorian_Renting_Research_Report_-_RTA_Review_1.pdf Fair Housing Act of 1969, 42 U.S. Code § 3601-3619 and 3631 Glusac, E. (2016, June 21). As Airbnb grows, so do claims of discrimination. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/travel/airbnb-discrimination-lawsuit.html Jacobs, L. (Producer). (2019, March 25). Techlash City [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from https://www.citylab.com/solutions/2019/02/podcast-technopolis/583096/ Mims, C. (2017, April 2). Want that apartment? You may have to bid for it. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/want-that-apartment-you-may-have-to-bid-for-it-1491134407 Moffitt, M. (2016, May 16). SF startup lets would-be tenants bid for apartments. Retrieved from https://www.sfgate.com/technology/article/SF-startup-seeks-to-auction-off-rental-apartments7467415.php Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill: Parliament of Victoria (2018) Screening of prospective tenants—Notice to prospective tenant—Costs—Adverse action notice— Violation. (RCW 59.18.257) Seattle, Washington, Ordinance 125222 (2016) Seattle, Washington, Ordinance 125393 (2017) Seattle, Washington, Ordinance 12555 (2018) Source of income—Landlords prohibited from certain acts—Violation—Penalties. (RCW 59.18.255) Robb, K. & Zhou, C. (2017, April 1). Controversial US ‘rent-bidding’ start-up Rentberry to launch in Australia, tenant unions slam the idea. Retrieved from https://www.domain.com.au/news/controversial-us-rentbidding-startup-rentberry-to-launch-inaustralia-tenant-unions-slam-the-idea-20170401-gvbgtn/ State Government of Victoria. (2016). Issues Paper – Rent, bonds and other charges: Residential Tenancies Act Review. Retrieved from https://s3.ap-southeast13 SA025 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 27 of 53 2.amazonaws.com/hdp.au.prod.app.vic-engage.files/9614/8816/5263/RTA_Review__Issues_paper_-_Rent_bonds_and_other_charges.pdf U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2016). Digital Inequality and Low-Income Households. Retrieved from https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/fall16/highlight2.html#title Victoria State Government. (2016). Plan Melbourne. Retrieved from https://www.planmelbourne.vic.gov 14 SA026 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 28 of 53 APPENDIX In recent weeks, some rental bidding platforms, have transitioned to focus on advertising. Screenshot of Rentberry listing, 07/03/19 Original listing on realtor.com 15 SA027 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 29 of 53 Screenshot of Rentberry listing, 07/03/19 Original listing on roomster.com 16 SA028 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 30 of 53 Dummy email addresses and profiles were created on rental bidding websites in March 2018. 1. Rentberry Registration 2. Rentberry Phone Number Confirmation 17 SA029 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 31 of 53 3. Rentberry Transparency Statement 4. Rentberry Custom Offer Information 18 SA030 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 32 of 53 5. Rentberry Property Listings in Seattle 6. Rentberry Property Description 19 SA031 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 33 of 53 7. Rentberry Complete Property Description 8. Rentberry Rental Application Process Step One 20 SA032 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 34 of 53 9. Rentberry Rental Application Process Step Two 10. Rentberry Rental Application Process Step Three 21 SA033 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 35 of 53 11. Rentberry Terms of Service 12. Rentberry Registration for Landlords 22 SA034 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 36 of 53 13. Rentberry Rental Landlord Posting Requirements 14. Rentberry Rental Landlord Property Listing (Top Half) 23 SA035 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 37 of 53 15. Rentberry Rental Landlord Property Listing (Bottom Half) 16. Biddwell Registration Part 1 24 SA036 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 38 of 53 17. Biddwell Registration Confirmation 18. Biddwell Account Activation 25 SA037 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 39 of 53 19. Biddwell Property Search Information 20. Biddwell Budget Information Part 1 26 SA038 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 40 of 53 21. Biddwell Posting and Information about Bidding Process 22. List of Biddwell Property Listings 27 SA039 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 41 of 53 23. Biddwell Place an Offer 24. Biddwell Information for Hosts 28 SA040 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 42 of 53 25. Biddwell Landlord/Host Dashboard 26. Biddwell How to List a Property 29 SA041 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 43 of 53 27. Biddwell Offer Submission Process Step 1 28. Biddwell Offer Submission Process Step 2 30 SA042 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 44 of 53 Exhibit 2 Motion to Supplement Record/ Decl. of Blevins Email to Blevins from Franklin re: Rent Bidding Study Court: Ninth Circuit Case No. 19-35308 Pacific Legal Foundation 255 South King Street, Suite 800 Seattle, WA 98104 - 425.576.0484 SA043 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 45 of 53 Ethan W. Blevins From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Franklin, Erica R Wednesday, July 24, 2019 5:19 PM Ethan W. Blevins FW: Rent Bidding Report Rent Bidding Report.pdf Ethan, By way of responding to your recent inquiry about the status and content of the rent-bidding report, I am sending you a copy of the report, which was recently sent from the Office of Housing to Councilmembers Mosqueda, Juarez, Bagshaw, and Herbold. Please see the transmittal email below. Best, Erica From: Lundberg, Debi Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 3:39 PM To: Mosqueda, Teresa ; Juarez, Debora ; Bagshaw, Sally ; Herbold, Lisa Cc: Venkataraman, Asha ; Alvarado, Emily ; House, Erin ; Lin, Edward C Subject: Rent Bidding Report Seattle Ordinance 125551 established a one-year moratorium on rental housing rent bidding platforms and directed the Seattle Office of Housing (OH) to study the potential impacts of rent bidding platforms on Seattle’s housing market. Attached please find the Report. Please let us know if you have any questions. Debi Debi Lundberg Executive Assistant to Steve Walker City of Seattle, Office of Housing O: 206.684.0618 1 SA044 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 46 of 53 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Rentberry Inc., and Delaney Wysingle, Case No: 19-35308 Plaintiffs Appellants, v. The City of Seattle, Defendant Appellee. Supplemental Declaration of Delaney Wysingle SAO45 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 47 of 53 I, Delaney Wysingle, declare as follows: 1. I am over 18 years of age and of sound mind. As a landlord in Seattle, I have personal knowledge of the facts stated below. 2. As explained in my previous declaration, ER 41-42, I have rented out a single-family home that I own in Seattle from June 2015 to February 2018. I renovated my rental house from March 2018 through August 4, 2018, during which time the house was vacant. If not for the moratorium, I would have advertised my property and selected my next tenant through a rental bidding platform. Instead, I advertised my property on Zillow. 3. I found a tenant through Zillow who has occupied the property from August 2018 to the present. 4. I renewed the lease in June 2019, attached as Exhibit 1, rather than advertising the property, in part because the moratorium prevents me from using Rentberry to advertise the property. 5. The current lease term on my rental property terminates on June 30, 2020, several weeks before the moratorium?s expiration. 6. I continue to want to use Rentberry, including the bidding feature, to advertise my property before the current lease terminates in June 2020. 7. I joined Rentberry in May 2019; however, I still cannot post my property or receive bids because of the moratorium. SA046 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 48 of 53 8. When I tested whether I could list my property, the Rentberry website reported that ?This location is not supported,? as shown in the screenshot attached as Exhibit 2. 9. Alex Lubinsky, CEO of Rentberry, informed my attorneys that this lack of support is caused by the City of Seattle?s rental bidding moratorium. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED this 1 day of August, 2019. Delarfey W?ysringle SAO47 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, Page 49 of 53 Exhibit 1 Motion to Supplement Record/Supp. Decl. of Wysingle Cloverdale Rental Property Lease Renewal Court: Ninth Circuit Case No. 19-35308 Pacific Legal Foundation 255 South King Street, Suite 800 Seattle, WA 98104 - 425.576.0484 SA048 .' ' Page 50 of 53 Case: 19-35308, 08/16/2019, ID: 11400178, DktEntry: 10-2, LEASE EXTENSION K & Resident Name(s) 3808 S Cloverdale ST Address Unit# Seattle · WA 98118 City State Zip 6/1/2019 Building Name Date It is h ereby agreed that the current lease on the above referenced property will be extended for: a) __._ a month-to-month tenancy beginning b) ; OR _x__ a Lease for a term od ·'2- months beginning .J'u \ ~ l . . ,20J!L and ending J':"""-C- 3a , 20 20 If a Lease for a term greater than one year, have allignt:ltures notarized and attach a legal description of the Property. .. If Paragraph 1 b is checked above, Check One of the Following: c) _ _ Upon expiration of the above-slated initial term of Lease, this Agreement shall revert to a month-to-monih tenancy. on the same terms and conditions as this Agreement except as may be amended by Owner upon thirty days' written notice, OR d) _x_ Upon expir.iti"on of the above-stated initial term of Lease, all Resident's rights to occupy the premises shall cease without right to extend the term hereof. This Agreement shall not rev.a rt to a month-to-month tenancy following expiration of the term: The following rates are adjusted at the commen cement of the renewed lease term effective - - -- - -- - -- -- -- -AMOUNT ADJUSTED Rental Rate TOTAL ~ONTHLY AMOUNT JUE 0 $2,800.00 Storage - Unit #: Parking -: Space #: Other: ' 0 0 0 Other: . Other: 'For properties In City of Seattle ampunts adjusted totaling 10% or more require a 60 day notice of rent incease. ADDITIONAL CLAUSES: - - -- - -- - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- -- - - - -- - - -- ACKNOWLEDGMENT All other terms and conditions of the current lease an d attached addenda remain in full ettect throughout the te(t'rl of this exten~ion. ~ D~---'- -~~~~·-·-(month) 4~ _ __,w ffl 1Ja1e) (yeac) RHAWA recommends Owner I Agent re-provide any federal, state or city documents previously required at signing of original lease to tenant. Tenant acknowledges receipt of following forms as checked by Owner / Agent (initial): - - - -·- Mold Handout (Required as·of July 24, 2005) \ _ _ _ Lead Based Paint Pamphlet(Required for pr.e-1978 Properties) · RESIDENT Formal legal advice an