Washington lawmakers are considering a bill intended to ease the state’s growing housing problems by adjusting how local jurisdictions plan for growth and providing money for programs directed at homelessness.
The legislation has drawn support from groups representing homebuilders and real estate agents who view it as a way to make local planning more market oriented. But it’s drawn concerns from county governments, including Clark County, about its feasibility and the possibility that it will create a new unfunded mandate.
The bipartisan bill, which is expected to be revised as the session progresses, would give local governments more latitude in using public funds and tax breaks to address homelessness and encourage the creation of more low-income housing. The bill would keep in place a document recording fee, which assesses a $40 surcharge on some real estate documents to fund homeless programs, in effect until 2027 instead of sunsetting in 2019.
The legislation also seeks changes to the state’s Growth Management Act, a 1990 law that tasks local governments with developing growth plans intended to prevent sprawl, protect the environment among other considerations.
Under the bill, if an area’s population grows at a faster rate than state projections, or if housing affordability falls as a result of lack of supply, local governments would be required to revise their growth plans to allow the development of more housing or adopt another strategy, such as zoning changes. The bill would also make local governments take land speculation and existing property owners’ willingness to sell or develop land into account in their planning.
“It’s a great time to be a homebuilder if there was land available to build homes,” Steve Gano, a lobbyist representing the Building Industry Association of Washington, told the Senate Local Government Committee during a hearing on Thursday.
Laura Berg, policy director for Washington State Association of Counties, told the committee that counties base their planning on past growth patterns, and the new requirements of the bill would amount to an unfunded mandate.
During a Clark County Council board time meeting on Wednesday, Community Development Director Marty Snell also expressed similar concerns.
“There is a likelihood that, when we have more to do and we don’t get it right, that there’s opportunities for folks to appeal that we didn’t get something right,” said Snell, a reference to lengthy legal battles that can grow out of planning processes.
Jamie Howsley, a local land-use attorney, wrote in an email to The Columbian that he sat on a state task force on buildable lands in 2014 and 2015 representing the Clark County business community. According to Howsley, while Clark County is “pretty good” in taking into account factors that restrict housing supply, many cities and counties pick and chose their assumptions when formulating their growth plans.
He wrote that land is frequently not developed because of a lack of infrastructure or willing sellers, as well as situations where the owner of a high-value home or structure is unlikely to sell off land around it to make way for more density.
According to Howsley, if the bill, which he personally supports, were to pass he expects that Clark County would have to increase its land capacity or adopt another strategy to accommodate growth.
“This issue isn’t going away,” said Mike Burgess, Clark County’s lobbyist.
Burgess said that the bill is in its early form and expects it to be revised substantially as the session continues. He said Clark County hasn’t taken an official position on the bill but will be monitoring it as he expects housing and homelessness to remain on the minds of many legislators.
