Proposals are advancing in the Legislature to dramatically remake the way cities plan for growth and density. It appears the House proposal will be the vehicle to mandate changes in how cities with 10,000 or more in population allow for density around transit and in single-family neighborhoods.

HB 1782 represents a major shift in how land use and neighborhood development decisions are made. Importantly, and unfortunately, cities have not been meaningfully brought to the table to discuss these proposals. While individual cities may have had some conversations with proponents, most cities in the state have not had a voice or “agreed to” any of the proposals moving forward, despite what has been claimed. Land use policies are complex and should not be developed in isolation within the confines of the Governor’s Office and tweaked by legislative committee without engagement with local government partners.

Cities aren’t afraid of change—cities are the laboratories of change. But that change must involve the voice of the community. It is because cities are working hard to address their own housing needs—at the request and with funding by the state—that we know that blanket zoning solutions will not effectively address our housing crisis. It is critical to engage cities to develop a policy that will serve the needs of the state.

Elected city leaders are making the difficult decisions their residents entrusted them to make. Cities across the state are already authorizing a variety of missing middle housing types, including in over fifty cities allowing mixed single and multifamily housing in at least 75% of their traditional single family land base. If zoned capacity in traditional single-family neighborhoods was the impediment this bill suggests, we should be seeing a proliferation of these uses where they are allowed. We aren’t.

Setting aside the critical issues of local democracy, local decision-making, and good governance, these proposals are rife with technical concerns and potential unintended consequences. Cities will need to implement these policies, if passed, and share the goal of creating truly affordable housing.

Please review what this proposal would do in your city and contact your legislators to share your perspective from city hall.

Suggested talking points

• Cities are not a special interest group or just another “stakeholder.” We are the government closest to the people. We understand what it takes to make cities the places people call home.
• Regardless of what you think of the policy, making these decisions without more meaningful engagement with cities is not good public policy or “the Washington way.”
• Ask your legislators to oppose this bill until there is meaningful engagement with a broad array of cities.
• Cities across the state are integrating missing middle housing types into their neighborhoods.  [Tell your city’s story here]. We need the state’s help to get the market to respond to actions at the local level.

If you have any question on the bill, please contact AWC’s Carl Schroeder.