Could a Washington city or county ban rent increases used to force a residential tenant to leave?

Plain-English summary

The Washington Attorney General concluded in 1992 that a city or county could not adopt an ordinance barring a landlord from ending a residential tenancy by raising rent. State statutes expressly preempted local regulation of residential rent amounts. The proposed ordinance controlled rent by limiting a landlord's ability to increase it when the increase would cause the tenant to leave.

The opinion acknowledged statutory exceptions for certain publicly owned or managed properties and low-income housing arrangements, but said they were not at issue in the question asked. It also excluded floating-home moorage sites from its analysis.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Could a city stop a landlord from raising rent enough to make a tenant move?
The opinion said the proposed local ban would regulate rent amounts and was preempted under the state statutes then in force.

Did the state statutes cover county ordinances too?
Yes. The opinion analyzed parallel city and county provisions and reached the same conclusion for both.

Did the opinion address public housing or floating-home moorage?
It identified statutory exceptions for certain public or jointly financed low-income properties and expressly assumed the question did not involve floating-home moorage.

Background and statutory framework

A senator asked whether a locality could prevent termination of a residential tenancy through a rent increase. RCW 35.21.830 and RCW 36.01.130 preempted local ordinances regulating residential rent amounts. The Attorney General read the proposed ban as a form of rent regulation within that preempted field.

Citations and references

• Statutes discussed: RCW 35.21.830; RCW 36.01.130.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/authority-local-governments-impose-rent-control

Original opinion text

Attorney General Ken Eikenberry

CITIES AND TOWNS--COUNTIES--LANDLORD AND TENANT--PREEMPTION--Authority of Local Governments to Impose Rent Control.

RCW 35.21.830 and 36.01.130 preempt local governments from imposing rent controls on residential structures or sites. An ordinance that prohibits landlords from terminating residential tenancies by increasing rent is a type of rent control and is preempted by these statutes.

April 28, 1992

The HonorableGary A. Nelson
State Senator, District 21

106-A Institutions Building

Olympia, Washington 98504-0421
Cite as: AGO 1992 No. 5

Dear Senator Nelson:

By letter previously acknowledged, you have asked for our opinion on a question that we paraphrase as follows:

Do RCW 35.21.830 and 36.01.130 prevent local governments from adopting ordinances that prohibit landlords from terminating residential tenancies by increasing the rent?

For the reasons set out in the following analysis, we answer your question in the affirmative.

ANALYSIS

RCW 35.21.830 and 36.01.130 were enacted in 1981. Laws of 1981, ch. 75, §§ 1-2, p. 328. RCW 35.21.830 provides:

The imposition of controls on rent is of state-wide significance and is preempted by the state. No city or town of any class may enact, maintain, or enforce ordinances or other provisions which regulate the amount of rent to be charged for single family or multiple unit residential rental structures or sites other than properties in public ownership, under public management, or properties providing low-income rental housing under joint public-private agreements for the financing of provision of such low-income rental housing. This section shall not be construed as prohibiting any city or town from entering into agreements with private persons which regulate or control the amount of rent to be charged for rental properties.

RCW 36.01.130 contains virtually identical language, but refers to counties rather than cities or towns.[1]

The first sentences of these statutes plainly express a legislative intent to preempt the field of rent control.[2] The second sentences plainly state that no county, city, or town may "enact, maintain, or enforce ordinances or other provisions which regulate the amount of rent to be charged" for residential properties. Where, as here, the Legislature affirmatively states its intention to occupy the field, there is "no room for doubt." Lenci v. Seattle, 63 Wn.2d 664, 670, 388 P.2d 926 (1964).[3]

The plain language of both statutes effectively preempts counties, cities, and towns from imposing rent controls on residential structures or sites (subject, of course, to the statutory exceptions which are not germane to your question). A clearly expressed intention to occupy the field of rent control must be given effect. The conclusion follows that counties, cities, and towns are prohibited from enacting ordinances that regulate or control residential rents.

The only remaining question, then, is whether the ordinance described in your opinion request regulates or controls residential rents. The described ordinance prohibits a landlord from terminating a residential tenancy by increasing the rent. The ordinance regulates the amount of rent charged to residential tenants by limiting the right of a landlord to increase rent if the increase would have the effect of forcing the tenant to vacate the premises.

We conclude that no county, city, or town may adopt an ordinance that prohibits a landlord from terminating a tenancy by increasing the rent.

We trust the foregoing will be of assistance to you.

Very truly yours,

KENNETH O. EIKENBERRY

Attorney General

J. LAWRENCE CONIFF

Senior Counsel

Assistant Attorney General

JLC:aj

[1]In 1991 the Legislature passed a technical amendment to RCW 36.01.130, removing the phrase "of any class" from the second sentence. Laws of 1991, ch. 363, § 43, p. 2079. This amendment was part of a general act eliminating formal county classes and has no effect on the issue addressed in this opinion.

[2]Neither RCW 35.21.830 nor 36.01.130 applies to floating home moorage sites. Laws of 1981, ch. 75, § 3, p. 329. We assume that your question does not refer to floating home moorage sites.

[3]The available legislative history is consistent with our interpretation: "Cities, towns and counties are prohibited from imposing rent controls on single-family or multiple unit residential structures or sites." Final Legislative Report, 47th Legislature (1981), at 49 (Substitute House Bill 264).