by Leo Brine
Last week, the state house and senate Local Government and Housing Committees held hearings on Rep. Jessica Bateman’s (D-22, Olympia) and Sen. Mona Das’ (D-47, Kent) “middle-housing” bills, which would let cities build denser housing in traditionally single-family neighborhoods.
If passed, the bills would require all cities with more than 20,000 residents to allow multi-family housing such as six-unit multiplexes, row homes, courtyard apartments and other medium-density housing options in areas within a half-mile of frequent transit service—places where buses or trains arrive at least every 15 minutes during peak hours on weekdays. Cities would also need to allow duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes in neighborhoods further than a half-mile from transit. Under the legislation, cities would have two years to update their comprehensive growth plans to allow this type of housing.
Bateman’s and Das’ bills (HB 1782 and SB 5760, respectively) would dramatically change Seattle’s zoning laws, permitting denser housing options in most parts of the city. Currently, most of Seattle’s residential land is exclusively zoned for detached single-family housing. Many of these single-family-only areas are within a half-mile of frequent transit stops, meaning that if the bills pass, most of Seattle’s neighborhoods would have to allow significantly denser housing options. We’ve reached out to the city’s Office of Planning and Community Development for a more detailed description of how the bills would alter Seattle’s housing landscape.
Seattle Councilmembers Andrew Lewis, Tammy Morales, Teresa Mosqueda, and Dan Strauss all signed on to support Rep. Bateman’s bill at the House Local Government Committee’s public hearing.
The bills do offer an alternative option for cities that don’t want to allow denser housing in all single-family residential zones. Cities could instead meet average minimum density standards within their urban growth areas. If a city opted for this approach, it could theoretically allow a high-rise apartment or condo complex far away from single family neighborhoods, meeting average density goals without allowing a mix of denser housing development throughout the city. However, that opt-out alternative only applies to single-family residential zones more than a half-mile from transit areas; Seattle has few of those, so even if the city chose the alternate route—which would accomplish the opposite goal of increasing housing stock citywide, by the way—it would still have to permit denser housing options in most places.
Mosqueda said she supports the bill’s statewide approach to addressing both housing affordability and supply problems. “I think this will help ensure we’re building housing for our region so that fewer people have to commute hours into their jobs or into city cores,” she said. “That will be good for environment as well.”
Mosqueda, who’s been pushing to allow more density in Seattle’s single-family neighborhoods, said that the legislation wouldn’t preempt or disrupt the city’s pre-existing Mandatory Housing Affordability law, which increased density allowances in some areas that are already multifamily (and slightly expanded some multifamily areas) while requiring developers who take advantage of upzones to build or fund affordable housing.
Sen. Das said, “there’s no silver bullet to fix the housing crisis, but we cannot keep saying ‘not in my backyard.’”
Das, who has tried to pass state legislation requiring denser housing options for four-years running, addressed one of the persistent fears about upzones: gentrification. Rather than causing displacement, she argued, the legislation will give “BIPOC community members an opportunity to get in the [housing] market with a condo or a townhouse” in the neighborhoods they live in, rather than having to uproot themselves to find housing they can afford in other parts of the state. “There’s no silver bullet to fix the housing crisis, but we cannot keep saying ‘not in my backyard,’” Das added.
Responding to concerns about displacement, Bateman pointed to last year’s HB 1220, sponsored by Rep. Strom Petersen (D-21, Lynnwood) and Rep. Nicole Macri (D-43, Seattle), which requires cities to adopt anti-displacement measures into their comprehensive plans. (Seattle’s next comprehensive plan update is slated for 2024.)
Hey! Did you know PubliCola runs entirely on contributions from readers like you?
If you’re reading this, we know you’re someone who appreciates deeply sourced breaking news, features, and analysis—along with guest columns from local opinion leaders, ongoing coverage of the kind of stories that get short shrift in mainstream media, and informed, incisive opinion writing about issues that matter.
We know there are a lot of publications competing for your dollars and attention, but PubliCola truly is different: We’re funded entirely by reader contributions—no ads, no paywalls, ever.
So if you get something out of this site, consider giving something back by kicking in a few dollars a month, or making a one-time contribution of any amount, to help us keep doing this work. If you prefer to Venmo or write a check, our Support page includes information about those options. Thank you for your ongoing readership and support.
Despite Das’ assurances, there is still concern that new developments will result in high-income residents moving into new housing, gentrifying low-income and vulnerable neighborhoods. On the other hand, people are being displaced and priced out of Seattle already under our current, inflexible zoning regime, where rents continue to increase largely because demand (the number of people, particularly wealthy people, living in and moving to the city) eclipses supply (the number of new units being built).
While previous efforts to allow more density statewide have failed, this year, Governor Jay Inslee is firmly in Das’ and Bateman’s camp. In fact, Inslee recommended the bills this year, increasing the pressure on Democrats. Last year, Inslee vetoed sections of a bill allowing more accessory dwelling units (like backyard cottages) after house Democrats, led by slow-growth North Seattle Rep. Gerry Pollet, watered it down and a coalition of affordable-housing groups wrote the governor a letter urging him to take a stand against NIMBYism.
The bill has brought together a broad coalition of supporters, including groups like the Builders Association of Washington, environmental organizations like the Sierra Club, businesses like Amazon and transportation advocates like Transportation Choices Coalition who want to increase housing options throughout the state. The Sierra Club’s Jesse Piedfort told the House Local Government committee that increased housing options “allow more people the opportunities to rent or own near transit, jobs, and schools, reducing car dependence and climate pollution while expanding opportunities for new neighbors and existing residence alike.”
Leaders from other Washington cities, including Federal Way Mayor Jim Farrell and Spokane Valley City Councilmember Arne Woodard, oppose the legislation, citing the need for “local control” over zoning. At the hearing, they testified that they worry the legislation would preempt their homegrown plans to address affordable housing.
Meanwhile, Amy Walen (D-48, Bellevue) introduced a far more ambitious housing bill (HB 2020) last week. It would require cities to enact affordable housing programs that would result in nine-story high-rises within a quarter mile of a light-rail station or major transit hub.
11 thoughts on “Pro-Housing Bills in Olympia Could Put Seattle’s Single Family Zones on Notice”
The exemption for lots under 4500 sq ft seems like it would make this a terrible bill that broadly upzones south Seattle but exempts much of north Seattle. I hope that provision doesn’t make it to the finish line.
More tax money for the city and more money for developers, yay… This will do next to nothing for the housing crisis. Very saddening. Too little too late.
I just wrote this article about what it might mean for Seattle, if we were to zone for more households. In short, this is an opportunity not only to provide more places for people to live, but to build up our neighborhoods and improve the quality of life for everyone.
The Mosqueda narrative is that people are being forced to commute long distances. That is a lie. Nobody is being forced to commute anywhere. You are free to move to any city. My friends just moved from Seattle to Texas and now they live close to their jobs. They no longer suffer from Seattle’s Progressive bullshit. Problem solved. I am sorry I crushed your Progressive lies. Just remember, I am not the one who makes you wrong. Steve Willie.
If enacted into law, these bills would effectively be a taking for SF homeowners who would lose value in their properties precipitously. In Seattle, ADUs and backyard cottages are already allowed and that is sufficient. Just because I’d like to live cheap on the beach doesn’t mean that those folks’ neighborhoods should see their zoning changed to accommodate my wishes.
Most of the time from what I have seen this type of legislation raises the property value of SFHs, not lowers it. In fact, I have seen that as an excuse to fight such laws under the theory that the increased property value forces SFH owners out of their homes because they can’t pay the higher property taxes. What evidence do you have that suggests duplex/triplex/missing middle housing reform lowers property values?
And their property taxes would go down!
Houses are not investments and it’s not the government job to keep their values.
Frank, their property taxes go up as the speculative value of the land increases. The value of the house stays the same, but not the assessed value of the property.
sp88ky: Property values would increase while the quality of life would decrease, at least for existing residents. That typically happens on a re-zone. However, the market dynamics where most of the City is effectively re-zoned at once will result in unintended consequences, which Progressives never think about. The first thing which happens is for investors to move in, buy up, and rent out the properties until they are ready to build higher densities. There goes the neighborhood. That just happened to a relative of mine in Oregon. She made money but had to put up with a new apartment complex next door until she could get out of there. Kids would scream all night, play loud music, skateboard in her driveway, scratch her car, steal her sprinklers. If Seattle residents want that sort of thing, then these bills in the legislature are definitely for you.
Comments are closed.