The Spokane City Council was wise to delay action on its residential tenancies code, a sweeping proposed measure intended to provide more protections for renters while hoisting new fees and obligations onto landlords.

The next vote on the ordinance is now set for March, and we hope city leaders will take the next three-plus months to examine each proposed change to determine what is essential to address housing affordability and improve quality of life in Spokane. As many detractors have pointed out, some of the changes could have unintended consequences when put into practice.

For their part, many in the real estate community had begun mobilizing in opposition to the proposed ordinance, which initially was cast as an emergency measure that the Council was scheduled to address Dec. 9, with changes that would have gone into effect at the beginning of the year. Now is the time for those in opposition to come forward with changes that are more palatable to landlords. You aren’t likely to get another turn at the plate, so to speak.

The first matter that should be addressed is the rental relocation assistance program. As written, the ordinance would require a landlord to pay $2,000 in relocation fees for a tenant who has to leave due to a “do not occupy” order or who can’t afford a unit after a rent increase. The renter also would be due a deposit refund and refund of prepaid rent, and a landlord would have to pay all of that to a tenant within seven days.

The measure would require landlords to obtain a city business license for each individual property, rather than a single license for a multi-property company, and pay a $10 per-unit fee that would be put into a pool for relocation assistance for those renters whose landlords don’t provide them with the required payment in a timely fashion.

Philosophically, we feel the bar needs to be high for developing an additional government program, and during the next few months, all parties involved need to be convinced such a program serves the public good before it’s put in place.

More importantly, perhaps, is that such a burden could discourage development of additional units within the city, when developers easily can find developable land in neighboring cities with less onerous laws. In recent years, the city has pushed for greater density within its borders, and regulations that discourage development while handcuffing current landlords run counter to that approach.

The business community already has witnessed what happened when condominium laws became too stringent in Washington state. The liability became too great, and for the most part, developers just stopped building them. Those condos that are constructed are typically high-end, luxury units. If the apartment regulations followed suit and only high-end units are added to inventory, the changes would limit affordability, rather than assist in preserving it.

Ideally, those involved can find a middle ground in which tenants can live in a predictable and fair environment without burdening landlords with excessive additional costs. A do-no-harm approach must be taken by the Council, and approaching the process anew is likely necessary.