
Nine bills related to housing supply survived Wednesday’s cutoff to get out of their original chamber, from the list of 24 that survived the first committee cutoff.
All bills are technically still alive, but if they don’t defund or otherwise knee-cap transit, they are unlikely to get much interest for having the rules waived for them. Some bills dealing with the McCleary contempt-of-court order might even get consideration some time before the legislators go home for the year.
Bills passed out of House
ESHB 1514 passed out of the House 54-42-0-2 on February 27. It now awaits a hearing in the Senate Financial Institutions & Insurance Committee. The companion bill, SB 5520, failed to get a hearing in that committee.
SHB 1532 passed out of the House 79-18-0-1 on March 7. It is now waiting for a hearing in the Senate Human Services, Mental Health & Housing Committee. The companion bill, SSB 5143, made it out of the Senate Rules Committee but failed to get a vote in the Senate.
HB 1616 passed out of the House 79-16-0-0 on February 28. It is now waiting for a hearing in the Senate Human Services, Mental Health & Housing Committee.
HB 1627 passed out of the House 68-30-0-0 on February 28. It is now waiting for a hearing in the Senate Human Services, Mental Health & Housing Committee.
SHB 1763, by the House Finance Committee, and originally sponsored by Rep. Robinson et al, would expand the property tax exemption for nonprofit organizations providing housing to low-income individuals with developmental disabilities to include adult family homes for individuals with development disabilities in which at least 75% of the residents are low-income, removing the current requirement that all residents be low-income in order to qualify. A committee amendment sunsets the exemption in 2028.
SHB 1763 passed out of the House 90-7-0-1 on March 7. It is now waiting for a hearing in the Senate Human Services, Mental Health & Housing Committee.
.
Bills passed Senate
SSB 5077 passed out of the Senate 49-0-0-0 on February 27. It is scheduled for a hearing in the House Community Development, Housing & Tribal Affairs Committee on March 15.
Both Futurewise and the Association of Manufactured Home Owners testified against the bill. They pointed out the high cost of providing services to new developments in rural areas. They also suggested that zoning an area as manufactured housing community be a requirement for permitting a manufactured housing community, in order to give residents assurance they would be able to stay there long-term.
SB 5615 passed out of the Senate 30-19-0-0 on March 1, and is now in the House Environment Committee. The companion bill, HB 1846, didn’t get a hearing in the House Environment Committee.
SSB 5657 passed out of the Senate 49-0-0-0 on February 28, and is scheduled for a hearing in the House Community Development, Housing & Tribal Affairs Committee on March 5. Its companion bill, SHB 2044, failed to get out of the House Rules Committee.
Planning commissions review all plats for their conformance with the relevant comprehensive plan, and then send their recommendations to the legislative authority for preliminary plat approval. The plats then go back to the planning commission to confirm the final plat meets its recommendations. Even noncontroversial plats can then get gummed up by having to wait for a spot on the legislative authority’s agenda, which tends to add a few months in the middle of budget season. If there are no changes, this requirement for another vote by the legislative authority adds unnecessary cost and delay to housing construction.
SB 5674 passed out of the Senate 44-0-0-5 on March 3, and is now waiting for a hearing in the House Local Government Committee. A substitute version of its companion bill, HB 1862, passed out of the House Local Government Committee on February 15, but failed to get out of the House Rules Committee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb
I’m still wondering why there isn’t any discussion at all about this idea. Best guess is that after World War II, when most people could finally buy a car, everybody thought that mobility problems were pretty well solved.
Now that main limit on mobility is a continent full of cars stuck fender to fender and bumper to bumper to every horizon, I wonder if next shift should include transit oriented development with the transit designed right into it. Which already is a hundred percent the case with car-carrying streets.
For topic here- any special State legislation necessary, or is all this city and county?
Mark
The cities and counties control zoning, so nothing is stopping them from setting up the same standards that prevailed in streetcar suburbs.
In my view, the Growth Management Act should explicitly allow cities to have a high-density urban core near a transit center and rural zoning elsewhere in the city as long as the city’s overall population meets the 4 per acre standard. I could see such a concept as a great fit for many Pierce County cities, such as Edgewood, Milton and Sumner, as well as other places, even Edmonds.
I’m pleased that Senator Angel (“Devil or Angel, I can’t make uuu-up my mind….”) has provided women released from incarceration with a ramp up to rehabilitation. I do wonder why it is restricted to women though. If anything men released have a harder time finding places to stay away from the “underworld”.
But that would be more expensive, wouldn’t it?
Yes, it’s interesting. The recent survey of Seattle’s homeless found that a very high number of our young homeless came from foster homes, and I wonder if the standard is *well, you’re 18 – go figure out life*. I’d love to see some vouchers for them as well.
SB5674 (allowing cities to delegate final plats to administrative bodies) is one I highly endorse. The council votes are always pointless, because their realistic choices are either vote yes or get sued (for voting down a plat that complies with law and went through proper legal process)
I’m an engineer and once worked on a pair of plats, with separate owners, that happened to be next to each other. The city council voted to ban an access point to an arterial on one plat and run its access to the other plat, therefore making that second owner dependent on the first to get the plat done. It also resulted in a culdesac street length that exceeds the fire code. Anyways, the two owners agreed to work together to build it, but then owner 1 went bankrupt so owner 2 couldn’t build, then later owner 2 went bankrupt so owner 1 couldn’t build. In the end, the parcel next to the arterial was built as a much smaller development, that accessed that arterial street, so the city council’s vote didn’t even accomplish anything anyway.