The following editorial originally appeared in The Seattle Times:
To hear Gov. Jay Inslee tell it, his plan to eliminate single-family zoning across the state is essential to creating more affordable housing and ending homelessness.
What’s missing is any guarantee that this monumental shift in local land-use policy will actually reduce housing costs, let alone produce more places available for those living on the streets. Instead, developers are likely to cater to the top end of the market, making housing pressures even worse, at least in the short term.
“We must pass legislation that removes antiquated barriers to middle housing options in our cities — such as duplexes and town homes — and provides more housing supply to make it available to all income levels,” Inslee said in his Jan. 11 State of the State speech.
His proposal, HB 1782, would direct cities with populations over 20,000 to allow duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, stacked flats, town houses and courtyard apartments in all lots that are zoned for detached single-family residential use and within one-half mile of a major transit stop. Cities must also allow development of duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes on all other lots zoned for single-family residential use.
Supporters — ranging across the political spectrum and including business groups and housing advocates — rely on the premise that increasing housing supply will inevitably lower prices.
That doesn’t ring true, and Seattle’s experience with mandating affordable housing tells a different narrative.
Less than three years ago, Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan signed legislation authorizing citywide implementation of Mandatory Housing Affordability into law. The results have been mixed, but illustrative. Given the choice of building affordable housing or paying a fee, the vast majority of developers pay the fee.
If this is a sign of things to come, it’s easy to wonder how Inslee’s plan would have the desired effect of creating so much new affordable housing that seniors can age in place, workers have a chance to live in the communities they serve, and local land-use and zoning laws rooted in inequity and racism are dismantled.
Even if new construction has some impact on prices, creating sufficient income-restricted, rent-restricted homes for lower-income folks will continue to require significant taxpayer money.
Inslee’s budget package includes targeted investments of $815 million in proven programs that promote housing stability, as well as funds for shelter and permanent housing, and expansion of behavioral-health services.
That’s where the Legislature should focus its attention. Land-use decisions are complicated, and fraught with pitfalls and unforeseen consequences. Unless lawmakers ensure that new middle housing would be affordable, HB 1782 looks less like an equalizer than a developer giveaway.
