The amount of land available to build housing in Clark County has dipped recently, almost reaching a tipping point where it can affect housing costs and impact affordability, according to an analysis by the Building Industry Association shared with county officials during a recent work session. (Amanda Cowan/The Columbian files)Photo Gallery
At a recent work session, the Clark County Council heard what many homebuilders and people struggling to afford to keep a roof over their heads already know: There’s not enough land to build affordable housing.
“We as a region, we as a county are sort of in this very deep crisis in terms of where we’re at with housing affordability,” Jamie Howsley, a land-use lawyer with Jordan Ramis PC and government affairs director with the Building Industry Association of Clark County, told the council.
The subject of the work session was the Vacant Buildable Lands Model, a tool used to analyze growth in urban areas. It’s also used for updating the county’s Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, a document required under state law that guides growth over a 20-year period.
According to an analysis of county data presented by Howsley, Clark County doesn’t have enough land set aside to ensure that housing remains affordable. Howsley said the county needs to have land that will support at least 45,000 units of housing to maintain housing affordability. Dropping below that number represents a tipping point where the county effectively falls into a “crisis” he said.
He pointed to numbers showing the county hit that threshold in 2006, causing housing prices to climb. But in 2007, the county expanded its urban growth boundary, bringing in land to support more than 60,000 units of housing.
Recent county data shows that number hovering just above the 45,000 threshold at 47,696 units.
Howsley said that part of the problem is that the population projections provided by the state Office of Financial Management for planning were skewed by recession years when migration across the country significantly slowed.
He also pointed out that state’s Growth Management Act, which mandates that counties adopt land-use planning, has 13 goals that included the construction of a variety of housing affordable for varying income levels.
“I think in prior planning iterations, we’ve elevated some other goals above this housing goal,” he said.
He said it was time for the state, which is experiencing a housing shortage, to put its “thumb down” on the law’s housing goals.
Clark County Council Chair Marc Boldt expressed appreciation for Howsley’s points. But he said that when the county’s comprehensive plan is challenged before the Growth Management Hearings Board “it all goes away.”
That happened in 2016, when Clark County’s comprehensive plan was challenged before the Growth Management Hearings Board, a quasi-judicial panel that oversees planning disputes. Seattle-based land-use group Futurewise and local environmental group Friends of Clark County argued that Clark County’s comprehensive plan did not comply with the Growth Management Act by facilitating sprawl and failing to preserve farmland. The hearings board agreed.
“Clark County’s studies show that there is more than enough land to meet future needs for housing and jobs,” said Tim Trohimovich, Futurewise director of planning and law, in an email. “We encourage the county and cities to monitor the land supply and to adjust their plans and zoning as needed to encourage additional housing in cities and towns.”
Sue Marshall, board president for Friends of Clark County, also responded with an email, stating, “All interests and diversity of perspectives need to be heard in order to develop a balanced approach that protects those things we collectively value — parks, wildlife, farms, forest and water.”
Morning Briefing Newsletter
Get a rundown of the latest local and regional news every Mon-Fri morning.
