As the legislative session winds down in Olympia, it isn’t too soon to start thinking about next year’s session. This year I think we did a pretty good job during the legislative session, defending the state’s preemption of local rent control measures, championing rural and urban collaboration with SB 6595, and forcing the non-profit industrial complex to explain the high costs of their product. Next year we’ll have to defend against rent control and a myriad of other measures to make it harder to make a living renting small and medium sized properties. But what are we for? What would a positive agenda for change in housing policy look like?

The best place to answer that question is start with some simple principles. What would are the underlying ideas be to support and measure policy proposals? At recent meeting talking about the next 18 months in housing policy at the state level there were three that emerged, more supply, fairness, and efficiency.

The Principles 

• Housing supply– We need more housing in Washington State of all kinds, in all parts of the state, for people of all levels of income. More housing supply reduces price pressures for consumers, creates jobs, many other public benefits.
• Fairness– The people of Washington State expect housing resources, especially subsidies, to be distributed fairly between rural and urban, and for fair opportunities for both people who provide housing and those who live in it, whether they rent or own.
• Efficiency – We aren’t currently using our land and housing resources efficiently to provide housing for as many people as we could. Too much regulation is resulting in higher costs, less supply, and higher prices.

Another sensible question is what are the barriers to progress?

The Barriers

• Non-Profit Housing Providers– Many of the larger non-profit housing providers in the state are consuming most of the resources in the state for multifamily housing in urban centers. They are likely to resist changes to the status quo.
• The Growth Management Act (GMA) – The GMA and its advocates are not representing the interests of the environment or for smart growth, but instead contributing to limit to creating needed housing inside and outside the Urban Growth Area (UGA).
• One Party Rule – The alignment of urban Democrats, non-profits, and defenders of the current GMA form a stubborn and often inflexible barrier to needed reforms of housing policy at the state and local level

Not an easy set of opponents, are they? Sadly, the best intentions of the non-profit system have produced gross inefficiency. The Growth Management Act is now being abused to choke housing supply in and outside of the UGA, and urban Democrats and progressives only know one answer, more money, more money, more money for non-profits and supply limiting regulation.

Any legislative proposals for next session will have to increase supply, fairly promote housing all over the state, and support the efficient use of land and financial resources. But proposals will also have to be built on alliances that can overcome resistance from those who support the status quo; this likely means working with a strong urban and rural alliance that can connect back to the housing needs of immigrant workers in those communities.

The 2019 session may seem a long way away, and there is an election in between. So now’s the time to start getting more detailed ideas and legislation put together and building relationships with rural communities in the state that would benefit from better housing policy.