By AWC staff

As AWC staff work with cities across Washington on issues related to housing and homelessness, we have learned much about the unique perspectives and motivations of our city leaders. Although each community faces its own challenges, our councilmembers and mayors are not advocating for the status quo. We all want to improve the lives of residents by increasing access to housing.

Consider the substantial legislation that has been passed over the past five years pertaining to housing and land use (see “Common Cause,” at right). City leaders representing a significant majority of our state’s incorporated population have voluntarily implemented reforms encouraging investments in affordable and supportive housing, increased urban residential building capacity, and parking restrictions near transit.

What can city leaders do to encourage solutions while discouraging preemption?

Acknowledge our common ground

Join AWC in telling the governor and our state legislators that we appreciate their continued focus on our state’s substantial housing needs. Significant and sustainable investments are necessary to provide more diverse and affordable housing, as well as the much-needed investments to address homelessness.

Stand up for local decision-making authority

State leaders need to hear that they should engage directly with cities and with AWC regarding how best to achieve housing diversity, access, and affordability. Solving our housing challenges will require a more thoughtful approach than a blanket zoning policy. Merely creating new development authority through statewide rezones does not mean that the market will deliver that needed housing. And it certainly does not ensure any degree of affordability.

Explain that a one-size-fits-all approach to residential zoning in the state is a misguided way to achieve greater housing access or affordability in our communities. Rather, it would divert attention and resources from what will work: locally tailored solutions and greater investment to build more housing.

Statewide mandates that fail to respect the constitutional authority of locally elected decision makers and the intent of the Growth Management Act are not a solution. Cities have responded positively to legislative incentives to develop locally supported approaches to increase housing options and affordability. These are complex processes that involve community participation and evaluation of local circumstances and needs. We should be building more community engagement into the solution, not disenfranchising local residents altogether and moving decision-making to the halls of the Capitol.

We should be building more community engagement into the solution, not disenfranchising local residents altogether and moving decision-making to the halls of the capitol.

Show the diversity of our communities

Approaches that may work in the scorching real estate market in one land- constrained city within the Central Puget Sound, for instance, will not necessarily be the right approach in a similarly sized city in Central Washington—or even in a neighboring city. The housing market in the state is so varied that the UW Washington Center for Real Estate Research describes it as three states, due to the differing challenges across urban, micro-urban, and rural communities, with further market distinctions depending on location within the state.

Celebrate our shared successes

In partnership with state legislators, cities have been working with their communities, diving deep into their specific circumstances, and developing local housing action plans. At least 148 cities now allow “missing middle” housing types in their single-family zones, with many allowing them across the entire residential area. What is “missing” is the market response. If zoning changes were the magic cure, we would expect to see middle housing types proliferating in those cities, but that has not been the case.

Zoned capacity is not the key driver in the housing market crisis. Preemptive proposals fail to recognize or attempt to address any of the more significant contributing factors. Increasing housing construction requires more than merely authorizing it. Private developers need to be able to make a profit building and selling housing units. With a tight real estate market, there is little incentive to build innovative housing types and no incentive to sell or rent for below market value—which is not affordable for most Washingtonians. The current reality is that if we want more diverse and more affordable housing types, we need to invest in constructing or acquiring them with public funds. Cities welcome new financing options that would allow us to more directly engage in securing funding to get the right type of housing built for our communities—a key missing component of recent proposals.

Let recent state investments in collaborative partnerships with cities continue to pay dividends rather than derail the progress that is occurring. This approach is working, proving so promising that it was incorporated into President Biden’s housing agenda. Let’s build on and improve the work we have accomplished together, not toss it out.