UW Study Attacks “Mom-and-Pop” Housing Providers, Tenant Advocates Claim Mom-and-Pops Are Lying

A recently released “study” by a sociology professor at the University of Washington claims that “the Seattle rental housing market is not driving out mom-and-pop” housing providers despite clear evidence to the contrary.

Dr. Kyle Crowder, Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Washington, and his researchers developed a “study” that used a “novel” approach to data development which he claims as proof that single-family affordable rental housing providers in Seattle have not been impacted in their ability to hold on to their affordable rental housing units despite the continued onslaught of new rental regulations.     

“In virtually every policy debate, opponents of new regulations on the housing market claim that adding new regulations will create new burdens that will drive ‘mom-and-pop’ landlords out of the market and that this will have the unexpected consequences of higher housing costs and reduced access for renters—especially vulnerable renters,” Dr. Kyle Crowder, Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Washington, said.

To conduct their study the researchers declined to use the most reliable and available data – the city of Seattle’s Rental Registration and Inspection Ordinance report from March of this year which showed a loss of 5,000 single-family housing rentals between 2020 and 2022 - as it didn’t meet their preferred conclusion, so they decided to create a “novel” or new – made-up – data set.

With this novel approach the researchers concluded that “in Seattle, there was no increase in the likelihood of small rental properties being sold following the passage of these ordinances, even after a period of court limbo ended and both ordinances’ constitutionality was eventually upheld.”

While it is expected that organizations representing tenant advocacy groups would purposefully manipulate information for their own policy objectives, it is surprising that a study such as the from Dr. Crowder would be allowed to be circulated without any peer review or stakeholder involvement.  

To its credit, the study did provide a fairly accurate narrative of RHAWA’s influence in the local and state rental housing debate.   

“The rental housing industry is a powerful political constituency in the United States with a long history of successfully aligning public policy with landlord interests”, the study states.  “In recent years rental industry groups have put “mom-and-pop” landlords at the center of their political efforts to squash new tenant protection laws.”

The recognition of RHAWA as a powerful political force is appreciated, but we hope this study will be readily dismissed due to its flawed approach.  Unfortunately, we can expect tenant advocates to use it to continue to develop their false narratives as they seek to impose new rental restrictions at the state and local levels.