Lawmakers at any level of government should be cautious about interfering with the free market. Fortunately, state Sen. Annette Cleveland, D-Vancouver, is demonstrating such caution in considering a rent stabilization bill in the Legislature.
Senate Bill 5961 is one of the most closely watched bills in Olympia this year, with rising prices and a tight housing market throughout the state contributing to growing homelessness and various social ills. Advocates argue, compellingly, that immediate help is needed for renters who are struggling to remain housed.
When the Senate Committee on Housing debated the bill last week, Cleveland remained noncommittal. Such prudence is to be lauded when it comes to a complex issue that will have a broad impact on developers, landlords and tenants.
In explaining her stance, Cleveland told The Columbian that she is continuing discussions with colleagues and stakeholders to fully understand the ramifications of the policy. “I agree that it is urgent for us to find relief for all who are struggling,” she wrote in a text message. “But my concern is that this policy will have unintended consequences that will be counter to that goal.”
As one housing advocate said: “If she doesn’t vote ‘yes,’ then the bill dies. Or if she doesn’t vote at all, then the bill dies.”
Such power can be abused, with lawmakers often trading votes for approval of other legislation. But in most cases, we appreciate such thoughtfulness. In an age when stridency and rhetoric often are mistakenly conflated with leadership, more elected officials should take a measured approach and seek the counsel of experts.
While Editorial Board members are not experts on housing policy, we do understand the risk of public policy that is well-meaning but not fully thought out.
To offer a couple examples, the Legislature in recent years has passed ideologically driven legislation regarding police accountability and long-term health care, only to subsequently backtrack when it became clear that the new laws were not working as intended. Fixing the supposed fix to a problem results in convoluted legislation that often exacerbates the issue.
Senate Bill 5961 would limit annual rent increases to 15 percent, with the option for local governments to impose a lower ceiling. It also would include a 15-year exemption for new construction, among other provisions.
Rent increases throughout Washington have routinely outpaced inflation, placing a burden on renters and contributing to a persistent housing crisis. But a rent ceiling would be unnecessarily punitive to landlords and, it seems, would discourage small landlords from entering or remaining in the market. If inflation eats away at the profit margin for the owner of one or two rental units, making it untenable for them to stay in business, it seems they have two options: Sell to a conglomerate or convert the units into short-term rentals; either outcome exacerbates the problem.
Rather than focusing on restrictions, lawmakers should aim to incentivize construction and the maintenance of rental units. Tax breaks, grants and access to low-cost financing would provide clearer paths to the intended goal. The carrot, after all, is more effective than the stick.
Such an approach does not provide the immediate help sought by the Senate bill. But it likely does not have the long-term drawbacks.
Cleveland has until today to make a decision on Senate Bill 5961 and determine whether the legislation will advance out of committee. Regardless of the outcome, her thoughtful approach should be lauded.
