Legislature is leading WA’s housing policy. That isn’t sitting right in Seattle

When it comes to housing, Seattle City Councilmember Cathy Moore thinks of herself as an “old-fashioned Democrat.”

To her, that means government should take the lead on funding affordable homes for its residents. She has been the member of the council most vocally questioning Mayor Bruce Harrell’s proposed comprehensive plan, which would bring the city in line with state housing mandates — and add a little more density in some areas.

Moore at times struggles to understand the push from some of her fellow Democrats in the Washington state Legislature toward empowering private developers as the path toward cheaper housing – by way of zoning reforms, changes to parking rules and added state oversight.

“Suddenly, now Democrats are big fans of developers, and that was really never the case,” she said. “And I remain puzzled by that.”

It’s that kind of mentality that mobilized Jessica Bateman, a Democrat from Olympia, who has successfully led the Legislature in housing policy that for years had been driven by local government. She’s one of the chief architects of the 2023 law requiring jurisdictions to allow fourplexes or sixplexes throughout their city and this year is championing policies to roll back parking requirements, allow for more development near transit and give the state stronger oversight of local housing policies.

Where the state for many years had relinquished its authority to drive housing policy, “we’ve since taken that back in a number of situations,” Bateman said.

It’s a shift born out of widespread housing shortages and frustration with the pace of action at the local level, as data continues to show housing costs rising where supply has lagged and plateauing or even falling where supply has increased.

Compared with even five years ago, the housing center of gravity in Washington has shifted to Olympia, where bipartisan momentum for more and faster development has accelerated.

For state lawmakers like Bateman, it’s a needed redirection of a process that’s been bogged down by the crush of feedback that follows — and sometimes kills — any new housing conversation.

For local elected officials like Moore, the new dynamic is a tightrope walk between the demands of her constituents and the requirements of the state.

She supports new density, she said, and understands that the state has a role to play in housing policy. But as she bears the wave of backlash that may not always reach state legislators, Moore has warned of policies that could be “shoved down our throat” by the state.

Ground-level opposition

In 2015, then-Mayor Ed Murray briefly proposed changing Seattle’s zoning laws to allow for at least duplexes and triplexes in every neighborhood. The proposal, unveiled right before a City Council election, ran into intense opposition and was quickly dropped.

Pro-density advocates noted the swift defeat of what they saw as a modest change and began shifting their strategy. The Sightline Institute, among the most well-recognized pro-housing development organizations, largely gave up on lobbying at the local level and instead focused on the state.  

“The politics at the local level make it difficult to do land use changes,” said Dan Bertolet, housing researcher for Sightline. “People come to City Hall and yell at you if you’re an elected official who wants to do that.”

In the years since, the need for more housing has become even clearer. Seattle needs an estimated 112,000 homes in the next 20 years just to keep pace. As housing costs continued to climb, pressure — both nationally and locally — to build more has heightened.

But as Seattle charts its housing path, city leaders continue to encounter much of the same opposition as it did in 2015.

Since Harrell released his more detailed plan, public pushback has grown. The bulk of the plan is based on bringing Seattle into compliance with state law by allowing up to six units on lots within residential neighborhoods. Harrell’s major addition to the state plan was to propose 30 “neighborhood centers” where low-rise apartment buildings would be allowed near commercial areas, such as Maple Leaf or Madison Park.

Residents of neighborhoods like Montlake and Greenwood have written petitions seeking to strike their nearest neighborhood centers from the plan. Several groups have filed formal appeals to how the city studied the possible impacts of such development.

On the campaign trail, Moore came out in favor of the highest-density option for the city’s growth plan. She also said she supported a Bateman bill allowing more housing in formerly single-family neighborhoods.

Now, as Moore hears strong opposition from some of her constituents to some parts of the plan, particularly regarding the neighborhood center in Maple Leaf, she’s taken a more skeptical posture. She’s receptive to her constituents’ concerns and wishes local representatives in the Legislature heard more of what she heard.

“They don’t necessarily have the same pressures, they don’t necessarily have the same facts on the ground,” she said.

Moore spent 36 years as a renter before she and her husband bought a home in the north end of the city. A former judge, she said she’d given little thought to housing policy.

“I’d never really thought about land use or housing,” she said. “I just thought, ‘Well, it’s nice to be able to have a house that we can sort of afford and raise our kids.’ “

She repeatedly says she’s not opposed to new development, but says local officials are misleading people when they argue it’ll mean more affordability.

Studies have shown that cities that build more housing have seen slower rent growth than those that have built less. In Austin, Texas, rents have fallen more than 20% from their 2021 peak after the city added 50,000 new rental units in 2023 and 2024 — more than twice what Seattle added.

Moore allowed that more supply can ease some cost pressures, but believes only the government will be able to provide truly cheap housing.

“I have not bought into the underlying premise that the private market is going to build us into affordability,” she said.

1 million more homes in 20 years

In 2023, Lt. Gov. Denny Heck declared it the “year of housing,” and the Legislature passed its broad rezone of neighborhoods across the state, authored by Bateman and Rep. Andrew Barkis, a Republican from Olympia, among other housing bills.

While a member of the Olympia City Council, Bateman watched with frustration as housing discussions were met with opposition and repeated complaints about poor engagement process — despite what she said was extensive outreach.

“There’s typically been the same refrain for a long time, which is, ‘the process wasn’t extensive enough,’ ‘you didn’t stakeholder this,’ ‘you didn’t get enough feedback,’ ” she said.

To her thinking, that largely served to bog down progress; the state needs 1 million more homes in 20 years and government can’t shoulder the $200 billion it would take to build enough housing on its own.

“I’m not surprised that we’re seeing these conversations happen with the Seattle City Council currently,” she said. “I’m disappointed, and it also reaffirms that we have to continue taking the statewide action.”

Jennifer Anderson, government affairs director for the Master Builders Association, said regulating housing at the state level makes the most sense because it’s a regional issue. Allowing cities to take full control creates a patchwork system — if one city underbuilds, its neighbor is likely to bear the brunt.  

“Our housing supply crisis and the lack of local responsiveness is really what has driven the Legislature to take the bold actions that they have taken in the last two years,” Anderson said.

Carl Schroeder, deputy director of government relations for the Association of Washington Cities, is skeptical of the state’s larger role in housing policy. He said the strategy was explicit: move policymaking to where lawmakers are more insulated from their constituents.

“The people who might be responsive or particularly responsive to individual community needs don’t have the capacity to do anything about it,” he said.   

At the same time, Schroeder acknowledged a certain level of defeat: “Generally speaking, the folks who want more direction and state engagement oversight are having more success.”

Polling has consistently shown the majority of Seattleites support more density, even when it’s in their neighborhood. Housing providers as well as high-powered business groups, like the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, have backed Harrell’s plan and occasionally urged him to go further.

Still, frustration at Harrell’s plan, particularly toward the neighborhood centers, has found a toehold in City Hall, as members demand more engagement by the city’s planning department with neighborhoods.

Moore allows that finding the government funding needed to create a more affordable housing landscape in Seattle would be significant. It explains her interest in a capital gains tax in the city, which she said could be used to help people become homeowners and keep people housed.

“I’m not necessarily opposed to changing zoning or opening up zoning, but the comp plan that’s been put before us, I think has missed a lot of opportunities to upzone where it makes the most sense to upzone,” she said.

For Bateman, though, the data is clear: More housing equals lighter cost burden, regardless of who builds it. State-level support for building more development is high and she doesn’t anticipate the state ever going back to ceding housing policy to local governments.

“That ship has sailed,” she said.