Battle over ‘missing middle’ moves from City Hall to the Capitol
When state Sen. Mona Das explained why the state needs to require cities to provide higher-density housing in areas zoned for single-family homes, she offered her perspective on why those options typically have not been allowed.
“The exclusion of these housing types was rooted in inequity and was always a way to keep some families out of certain neighborhoods,” Das, a Kent Democrat, said at a recent Senate committee hearing on her bill, SB 6536.
But Olympia resident Phyllis Booth told the same committee she was proud to have defeated a similar proposal from the Olympia City Council.
Booth, who last year ran unsuccessfully for council, told senators that when she campaigned door to door, “I met plenty of people of color in affluent neighborhoods.”
Das’ bill has elevated a debate that has raged in Olympia over the past few years onto a statewide stage. It’s a battle that focuses on housing prices but also wraps in issues of class, race, the purposes of zoning, gentrification, and economics.
If the Senate doesn’t pass SB 6536 by 5 p.m. Wednesday, it will be dead for the 60-day legislative session.
But the debate over what affordable housing advocates call the “missing middle” – housing intended to fill the gap between single-family houses and large apartment buildings – is far from over. Washington housing activists note that it took Oregon multiple attempts before its lawmakers approved legislation last year to eliminate exclusive single-family zoning in a large swath of the state.
A look at what has unfolded in Olympia shows why the debate is in front of state lawmakers.
The Olympian reported Feb. 5 that the Olympia City Council has directed the city’s Planning Commission to draft an ordinance related to accessory dwelling units, duplexes, triplexes, and courtyard apartments. Accessory dwelling units have a kitchen, sleeping area, and bathroom facilities. They can be attached or detached from a single-family residence.
Last year, the state’s Growth Management Hearings Board invalidated Olympia’s previously drafted development regulations that allowed for more multifamily housing to be built in low-density neighborhoods. In two orders, the board said the city failed to comply with state law by not anticipating impacts on the environment, public facilities and services.
The state’s decision showed why SB 6536 should become law, said Olympia City Council member Dani Madrone.
“We need to move forward and, because Olympia does not exist in a vacuum, we need other cities to do the same. Not every city has the capacity to do what Olympia has done, both in terms of city resources and community advocacy. Most people who benefit from diverse housing options don’t have the time, energy or know-how to engage in the process.
“We need leadership from the state for a comprehensive approach. We’re already far behind the curve and we’re leaving people behind,” Madrone added.
Larry Dzieza owns a single-family home in southeast Olympia. He has been active in opposing the city’s attempts to overhaul land-use policies.
Dzieza said proponents of creating denser zoning want legislators to take action because they are more removed than city officials from the voices of their constituents. He said the result of an “odd marriage” between progressive elected officials and developers may be gentrification, the opposite of what the policy is designed to accomplish.
“It bothers me that the city of Olympia is willing to give up local control and support a bill that supersedes, preempts and invalidates the zoning of its own city. At the same time, they talk about affordability. Where are the affordability requirements? How can you say you want supply and demand to meet your needs, but there aren’t any requirements that it actually happens,” Dzieza said.
At a Senate housing committee meeting last month, Olympia resident Chris van Daalen urged lawmakers to approve SB 6536. He said Olympia’s “missing middle” ordinance was invalidated because of resistance from older, white residents.
“I live in Olympia and work in Tacoma, and, in both cities, hundreds of my neighbors have no home. This includes young people and seniors, and really everyone is struggling to find affordable housing that meets their needs, of different sizes and types of families now,” he said.
At the time of that hearing, SB 6536 required cities with a population of 15,000 or more to provide for the development of duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, sixplexes, stacked flats, townhouses, and courtyard apartments in areas zoned for detached single-family residences. The bill required those cities to authorize a triplex on each lot or parcel zoned for single-family houses.
The original version of Das’ bill also required counties and cities with a population of fewer than 15,000 to provide for the development of duplexes on each lot or parcel in single-family zoning areas.
At the Feb. 5 committee meeting, state Sen. Patty Kuderer, D-Bellevue, offered a new version of the bill and the panel approved it.
The new version changed the requirement for counties and cities with a population of 15,000 or more, requiring more housing options in areas zoned for single-family residences within half a mile of a major transit stop.
Also, the new version of SB 6536 eliminated the requirement for counties and cities with a population of 15,000 or more to authorize the development of a triplex on each lot or parcel zoned for detached single-family residential use. For counties and cities with a population fewer than 15,000, the requirement to allow a duplex on each lot or parcel also was removed from the bill.
“It’s a little bit of a step forward, but it really strips out much of the power of the bill,” said Margaret Morales, a researcher with the Sightline Institute, a progressive non-profit think tank based in Seattle. “There is no requirement anymore that something happen on every lot in single-family zones. The permission to do missing middle housing could apply to so few lots that it would not make a difference.”
Kuderer, who is chairwoman of the Senate housing committee, said Tuesday that the new version of the bill is an attempt to balance local control with the need to increase density.
“I like to give cities the flexibility to respond to the needs in their communities. They know their communities best. But sometimes they need a little nudging. It was an attempt to balance those two things,” she said.
Morales said cities have had the power for several years to change zoning so more housing can be built in single-family areas, but not many have done so and the shortage of housing has increased dramatically.
“Our housing prices are out of control, and so we need state leadership to stop this runaway train,” she said.
This story was originally published February 19, 2020 at 5:45 AM with the headline "Battle over ‘missing middle’ moves from City Hall to the Capitol."