Housing policy discussions get heated, but session ends with the biggest issue still smoldering

The 2022 session was a memorable one for housing policy. The session may be most remembered for the debate around the Governor’s request bills dealing with zoning mandates to promote middle housing: HB 1782 and SB 5670. The proposals were supported by a large coalition that believed requiring cities to upzone traditional single-family neighborhoods was the most important action that could be taken to increase housing supply and tackle the affordable housing crisis. 

As the legislative discussion unfolded, on one side—backing the Governor and an impassioned group of legislators—was the large coalition consisting of urbanist advocates, the environmental community, organized labor, AARP, Habitat for Humanity, and the home construction and realtor industries. On the other side were all but a handful of cities and a larger group of legislators who felt that it was unwarranted to remove the ability of residents to have input on development decisions in their community, a key principle of local democracy.

An interesting and unusual feature of the debate was the apparent decision by advocates that they did not want to have meaningful dialogue with cities, especially those that they felt disagreed with them.  Although there were high intensity disputes, both sides were never pulled together to try to reach a compromise. During 2021, AWC and many cities spent months collecting zoning information about what was already authorized in cities, whether the construction industry had responded to that development authority, and the data on the success or lack-thereof of these mandatory approaches in other states. Unfortunately, there was little opportunity to discuss this significant body of data with proponents.

When the middle housing mandate bills failed to advance halfway through session, HB 1660 became the focus of attention. The bill was aimed at increasing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by requiring that three housing units be allowed on every residential lot—a primary home and two ADUs. As with the middle housing bills, the Legislature decided that this level of preemption was unwarranted.

The Legislature did make some helpful, but ultimately minor, policy changes on discrete issues as detailed in the bill chart below.

As we work through the interim in anticipation of the 2023 session, we are hopeful that a different approach will be taken by zoning mandate proponents—one that engages with all cities, seriously considers the data we have gathered, and works to develop a compromise approach that will truly deliver more affordable and diverse housing in our cities.