Landlords Outnumber Renters In Washington State Legislature At Least Three To One
- Hannah Krieg
- 5 days ago
- 4 min read
In a stirring act of bravery, Sen. Leonard Christian (R–Spokane Valley) demanded linguistic justice for Washington’s most underrepresented class when he introduced an amendment that would strike the dated, offensive word "landlord" and replace it with the group’s preferred moniker, "housing provider," in the text of the rent stabilization bill that went to a floor vote earlier this month.
“Realtors are on the leading edge of equal housing and protection—consumer protection,” Christian said. “And we get training, we agree, we work on this at a national, state, and even local level to make sure that everyone is treated well and everyone is treated equal.”
To that end, Christian said the real estate industry uses language carefully. Realtors retired the term "master bedroom" because of its racist and sexist undertones, and they stopped saying properties “have a great view” because it seemed exclusionary to the visually impaired, Christian said. In that spirit of evolving language, Christian suggested replacing "landlord," which he said carried a “negative connotation,” with "housing provider," a “much more friendly term.”
The amendment failed. Sen. Jessica Bateman (D–Olympia) said she “appreciated” Christian’s intent, but argued that the Senate should keep the term for “continuity purposes,” as all other state laws use "landlord." That’s very diplomatic of Bateman, but really, Christian ought to be shamed for trying to frame landlords as a marginalized group when landlords have almost three times as many seats in the Legislature as tenants.
As the House and Senate reconcile their different proposals for rent stabilization this week, now is a perfect time to count up just how many of those hammering out this historic deal are landlords who stand to financially benefit from gutting the policy. At least 31 out of 146 lawmakers—or about 21% of the Washington State Legislature—are landlords, according to their most recent financial affairs reports due April 15. Bear in mind, this is just based on those who clearly reported rental income; some lawmakers find sneaky ways to hide their passive income streams in their financial disclosures.
The list includes Rep. Steve Bergquist (D–Renton), who racked up between $200,000 and $499,999 last year renting out a seven-bedroom, 6,800-square-foot vacation home (equipped with an indoor basketball court) near Lake Easton, and Jeremie Dufault (R–Selah), who has made a fortune in commercial real estate. But it also includes more of the “mom and pop” types that lawmakers always bring up—like Rep. Larry Springer (D–Kirkland), who would probably bristle at the thought of being called a landlord for renting a house to his adult son, and Rep. Brian Burnett (R–Wenatchee), who also seems to keep his lording in the family.
On the other hand, only 11 lawmakers—or 7.5% of the Legislature—reported that they did not own any real estate.
The Legislature’s class composition does not reflect the reality of its constituency. The National Association of Realtors calculated a 64% homeownership rate in Washington State in a study released last month. By comparison, the Legislature’s homeownership rate tallies up to about 92%.
A fully representative legislature (on this one axis) would consist of 94 homeowners and 53 renters. So renters have about one-fifth the proportional power they should have in the state Legislature—assuming every lawmaker who doesn’t own a home rents. The ratio is so skewed, that three times as many lawmakers own two homes as those who own none at all.
Anyone who follows policy in Olympia probably isn’t too surprised. Landlords have ruled the Legislature for a long time, as Rich Smith illustrated in a similar survey for The Stranger in 2020. But the influence of the landed people is not limited to the number of actual landlords in the Legislature.
For one: #NotAllLandlords. There are certainly landlords in the Legislature who support tenant protections and empowerment: Rep. My-Linh Thai (D-Bellevue), Rep. Julia Reed (D-Seattle), Mia Gregerson (D-SeaTac) to name a few class traitors. In fact, the House, which is historically friendlier to renters, boasts a much higher percentage of landlords (26.5%) compared to the Senate (10%). Inversely, plenty of non-landlords legislate in the interest of the landed gentry, either to appease their donors or just for the love of the game: Sen. Marko Liias (D-Edmonds), Sen. Sharon Shewmake (D-Bellingham), and Sen. Jesse Salomon (D-Shoreline) for example.
Landlords control the legislature not just by direct infiltration, but by pumping money into campaigns. For example, in 2024 the Washington Realtors PAC spent more than $125,000 on state lawmakers' campaigns, the Associated General Contractors spent $82,800, the Washington Multi Family Housing Association PAC spent $63,000, and the Rental Housing Association PAC spent $22,900. The largest PAC, Washington Realtors PAC, donated to 42% of the Legislature in 2024. Almost 60% of all state lawmakers received donations from one or more of those four landlord PACs.
Between the real estate lobby and lawmakers one self-interest, progressive lawmakers often feel like they're pulling teeth when they champion legislation that benefits tenants. For example, the fight for rent control dates back to the 1970s, but it took until 2025 for the policy to survive scrutiny of both chambers. And “survive” might be a generous word, considering the battery the policy faced in the Senate earlier this month. Senators amended the bill to exclude renters who live in single-family homes not owned by a corporation and raised the cap on rental hikes from 7% to 10% plus inflation. If the landlords in the Senate had sat out, both amendments would have failed.
So you can call them "landlords," you can call them "housing providers," you can call them fucking Mother Teresa. It doesn't change the fact that they're the ones calling the shots.
Comments