Want to fix WA’s housing crisis? Allow denser development in these single-family areas | Opinion
“Middle housing” is a very mild descriptor for one of the most contentious and significant public policy battles being waged in Olympia. The term refers to duplexes, townhouses and other similar housing types. But the fight is all about our state’s housing crisis, local control of land use and a growing acknowledgment that one of the basic pillars of our growth management approach has failed.
When supply and demand are dramatically out of balance bad things happen. Today there is no question that Washington’s supply of housing is far too low to meet demand, leading to homelessness and massive housing unaffordability. People with good jobs who want to buy homes are being forced to rent, making apartments unaffordable for those with more modest means. People are being forced to live farther and farther away from where they work, often in areas not served by transit, which affects traffic congestion and the environment.
According to a study commissioned by Challenge Seattle, a group of leading CEOs, “Washington state needs up to 120,000 new housing units simply to meet our current need, plus an additional 82,000 every year to keep pace with population growth.” We aren’t coming close to those numbers today.
As one of the elected officials who helped craft our growth management strategies 30 years ago — I voted for the second Growth Management Act in 1991 as a member of the state House, then served as the Chairman of the King County Council’s Growth Management Committee when we passed the county’s initial growth plans — I can tell you this is not what anyone intended.
The core tenet of growth management is to prevent unplanned sprawl by maximizing density in urban areas while protecting rural areas. Within the urban areas along the Interstate 5 corridor, the intent was to create high-density urban centers, linked by mass transit. To keep the economy strong and housing affordable, the state was tasked with estimating the number of jobs and housing needed over the next 20 years. Each local government was given jobs and housing targets to plan for and faced possible sanctions if they refused to do so.
It didn’t take long, however, for critics to point out that the amount of housing actually being built did not match the plans cities adopted. Homebuilders and others accused city governments of not allowing the needed densities. Under pressure from existing homeowners who didn’t want their neighborhoods to change, cities pushed back by pointing to their 20-year plans, arguing that they were not violating the Growth Management Act (GMA).
At this point the argument is moot. It doesn’t matter how we got here. After 30 years of GMA implementation, it is self-evident that we have not built enough urban housing, and we now face a housing crisis. A major building block of GMA — the use of local 20-year housing targets — has failed. The question now is what to do about it.
A massive coalition of business, labor, environmentalists, Republicans and Democrats have come together in support of a dramatic solution: replace local control of land use with mandatory up zoning in most urban areas.
House Bill 1110 would require every city with a population of at least 6,000, or any city located within King and Pierce county’s main urban growth area, to allow at least four units per lot on all lots zoned for residential use; and six units per lot in all residential zones near a major transit stop. Yes, on all residential lots.
This new development is intended to be middle housing, compatible with single-family neighborhoods, but that doesn’t pacify city officials facing a loss of land use control, nor will it ease the concerns of many homeowners when they hear that duplexes and townhouses are now permitted in their neighborhoods. The coalition supporting this bill is mighty, but cities have political influence too, and a similar bill failed last year. The outcome is far from certain.
As a former local elected official who once spent hours poring over zoning maps — and as a homeowner in a single-family neighborhood — I understand the objections to state-mandated up zoning. But what is the alternative? Abandon growth management and allow sprawl to devour our rural areas? Continue to rely on long-range targets we never reach?
We all love the concept of local control, but it is time to admit that most cities in urban areas are really just neighborhoods in a much larger community.
That community needs to build a lot more housing — now.
Chris Vance is a former Republican state legislator, King County Council member and State Party Chairman who left the GOP in 2017 and is now a member of the moderate Forward Party. Vance and his wife, Annmarie, live in Sumner.
This story was originally published February 7, 2023 at 5:00 AM.