Latest news with #SenateHousingCommittee
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Back to Basics
Happy Tuesday, and welcome to another edition of Rent Free. This week's newsletter takes a look at a few major housing developments in state legislatures. Stories include: How a California transit-oriented development bill survived a crucial committee hearing, while a missing middle bill wasn't so lucky Montana lawmakers continue to perform more miracles on zoning reform. Washington legislators pass statewide rent control. As the newsletter covered last week, two significant California housing bills, Senate Bill 79 and Senate Bill 677—which would respectively upzone land near transit and liberalize regulations on duplexes and starter homes—faced a make-or-break hearing before the Senate Housing Committee. One made it, the other broke. The committee rejected S.B. 677 and approved S.B. 79. The latter bill now heads to the state Senate's Local Government Committee. The immediate practical implication is that any serious reforms to the state's signature missing middle housing regulations are a dead letter this year, while debates about whether or not to enable more transit-oriented development will continue. The housing committee hearing itself included some tense, if exceedingly inside-baseball, drama. S.B. 79 passed over the objection of Senate Housing Committee Chair Aisha Wahab (D–Hayward), who has repeatedly expressed skepticism about the ability of market-rate (i.e. unsubsidized) housing to ease California's housing shortage. "Rolling the chair," as that is colloquially called, is considered an unusual and confrontational move. When testifying in favor of S.B. 79, Sen. Scott Wiener (D–San Francisco), the author of that bill and S.B. 677, also spent a considerable amount of time criticizing the unusually negative committee report on S.B. 79. This was a not-so-veiled swipe at Wahab, whose committee consultants prepared a report that included no recommendations for how to amend or improve S.B. 79, and instead just urged a simple "no" vote. Wiener compared the report to a line from Marge Simpson's aunt (he meant mother), who says in one episode, "It hurts to talk, so I'll just say one thing: you never do anything right." Wahab, during her own remarks at the housing committee hearing, spared no criticism of S.B. 79, which she said was unacceptable so long as it didn't include affordable housing mandates. "Bypassing affordable units perpetuates socioeconomic segregation, which is de facto racial segregation," she said at the hearing. While California's supply-side housing reformers can be happy that S.B. 79 did survive a hostile committee hearing, the nature of the debate is nevertheless a depressing reminder of just how little progress has been made conceptually on this issue. In the state with one of the worst housing crises in the country, lawmakers are still having this very rudimentary discussion about whether enabling more housing production generally will lower housing costs. This should be a no-brainer. Economic theory and real-world results from other, less regulated states make it abundantly clear that when more new housing is built, even when it's expensive "luxury" housing, average prices fall. The people who can't afford the newest, most expensive housing still benefit from falling rents on older, existing units. The alternative idea that new housing has to be built as money-losing, below-market-rate housing in order for it to improve affordability is not just false, but gallingly so. It's easy to see the absurdity of that position when it applies to any other good. Imagine a lawmaker arguing in the middle of a famine that new land can't be opened up for farming unless farmers are required to sell their crops at a loss. That California legislators, let alone the chair of the state Senate's Housing Committee, still don't grok that very obviously true idea is equal parts alarming and sad. On one of the most important issues facing California, legislators are still fighting over the basics. The good news is that lawmakers in other states have in fact grokked the basics on housing. In Montana, lawmakers have built on last session's housing reforms (the so-called "Montana Miracle") with the passage of a slew of bills that pare back local parking minimums and height limits, while capping impact fees charged on new housing developments. The parking reform bill, House Bill 492 authored by Rep. Katie Zolnikov (R–Billings), prevents city zoning codes from requiring parking for child care facilities, assisted living facilities, affordable housing, and residential units under 1,200 square feet. A second bill, S.B. 243 authored by Sen. Ellie Boldman (D–Missoula), would prevent local governments from setting height limits of fewer than sixty feet in downtown areas, industrial areas, and commercial clusters. Those two bills pair well with a law enacted in 2023 that allows mixed-use and multifamily residential buildings in commercial zones. While that bill ended explicit zoning bans on building apartments in downtown commercial areas, minimum parking requirements and height limits still made residential development practically infeasible. With S.B. 243, a developer would have every right to convert a centrally located commercial lot into a six-story apartment building. Provided the units are all under 1,200 square feet, H.B. 492 would free them from any obligation to add parking—which is often a development killer on smaller lots. "It's going to be a big deal. There are a lot of cities in Montana that maintain some pretty severe height limits. We should be building up," says Kendall Cotton, the president of the Frontier Institute, a Montana-based think tank. Another notable bill, S.B. 133, eliminates local governments' ability to charge impact fees for landscaping and caps increases on impact fees to the producer price index's increase in commodity prices. Montana's zoning reforms are notable both for their sweep and their simplicity. Contra the typical California zoning reform, Montana's bills are all a few pages long, and refreshingly free from endless carve-outs and caveats about labor standards and affordability mandates. That leaves less room for local governments to exploit loopholes and makes the bills more intelligible and usable for developers. State-level zoning preemptions are a pretty recent phenomenon in the Montana Legislature. When Danny Tenenbaum, a former Democratic legislator from Missoula, introduced a fourplex bill in the 2021 session, it didn't make it out of committee. But that defeat was followed by Gov. Greg Gianforte assembling a bipartisan task force in 2022 to look at ways to increase housing supply in the state. A number of recommendations from that task force, including preemption of local restrictions on duplexes and accessory dwelling units, managed to pass with the governor's backing in 2023. Now that lawmakers are more used to the idea of state-level preemption, it's easier to build support for subsequent bills, says Tenenbaum. "Once we passed a few bills and got people used to voting yes to putting some sideboards on what regulations local governments can impose, that made it a lot easier to bring other bills that set further limits on what red tape cities can use to slow down and block housing development," he tells Reason. Having passed the Legislature, Montana's housing reforms go to the governor for a signature. Once transmitted to his desk, Gianforte will have 10 days to sign them. Tenenbaum wrote a comprehensive rundown of all the bills that have passed the Montana Legislature this session for the Sightline Institute. Read Reason's interview with Gianforte about housing reform here. The slow, steady rehabilitation of rent control continued this past week, with the Washington Legislature giving final approval to a bill that caps annual rent increases to the lesser of 7 percent plus inflation or 10 percent. As Oregon Public Broadcasting reports, the bill faced opposition from both the legislature's Republican minority and some moderate Democrats who expressed credible fears that capping rents would reduce home construction. Those moderates briefly succeeded in raising the rent increase cap to 10 percent plus inflation. But this was then cut back down to 7 percent. The bill passed on the last day of the state's legislative session. Washington follows the example of its southern neighbor, Oregon, which in 2019 passed the country's first state-level rent control law. California followed suit later that year. Washington's bill includes a number of moderating provisions, including an exemption for buildings that were built in the last 12 years and two-, three-, and four-unit buildings when the owner lives on site. The bill also allows vacancy decontrol, meaning landlords can raise rents an unlimited amount on vacant units. This makes Washington's bill relatively more modest than some legacy local rent control policies as exist in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York, where rent increases are typically capped at one or two percent a year. That's not to say that it's costless. Economic theory and academic research are clear that to the degree that rent control suppresses rents, it will also suppress housing construction and/or housing quality. Today's moderate rent control policy can also become tomorrow's strict rent control policy. In 2019, New York drastically tightened longstanding rent stabilization policies covering New York City. The policy has certainly helped to suppress rents. New data from the New York Apartment Association, an advocacy group for property owners, show continually falling rental incomes, falling maintenance spending, and a sharp increase in financially distressed properties following the 2019 reforms. California is currently considering a bill to slash its own state-wide rent cap from 5 percent plus inflation to 2 percent plus inflation, and expand controls to many single-family homes and condominiums. Like dozens of states around the country, Washington had sworn off rent control. There were no state-level controls, and state law prohibited localities from adopting their own policy—always a sore spot for Seattle socialists. Washington's rent control bill leaves the prohibition on local rent control laws in place. Provided Gov. Bob Ferguson signs it, it'll join the movement to rehabilitate a once radioactive policy. Over at Commentary, Seth Mandel covers a contentious zoning fight in Linden, New Jersey, where the town's Orthodox Jewish community is objecting to new rules limiting the size of homes on smaller lots. The town's Jewish residents argue that limiting the size of homes is a ban on the kinds of large family-sized homes that Orthodox Jews with large families require. Mandel's article details additional zoning restrictions seemingly aimed at the Jewish community, including Linden continually expanding minimum lot sizes for houses of worship until none could be built in the town. That latter restriction would seem to be an easy target for a lawsuit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law that protects religious land uses from local and state land use regulations. Other Orthodox communities in New Jersey, with the aid of the U.S. Justice Department, have filed successful RLUIPA lawsuits against their towns' zoning restrictions. What stands out in the Linden case is that the zoning restrictions being deployed to allegedly exclude the Jewish community are hardly unique. Towns and cities across the country maintain egregious minimum lot size requirements, excessive regulations on small lot development, and more. Historically, zoning laws were used to exclude certain types of people. Today, their aim is a more general exclusion of people and businesses. That's a little less noxious than outright racial or religious discrimination. It's hardly inclusive. Read Reason's voluminous past coverage of zoning laws tripping up religious land uses. The U.S. Supreme Court mulls taking up a challenge to Los Angeles' COVID-era eviction restrictions. Over at City Journal, the Cicero Institute's Devon Kurtz argues that the Trump administration was right to shutter the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness. New York's mayoral candidates are warming to freezing rents at rent-stabilized buildings, reports Politico. Bay Area homeowners sue the city of Belvedere, saying the city has fined them $250,000 over permitting violations they claim were in fact the city bureaucracy's fault, reports the San Francisco Chronicle. Ned Resnikoff in The Nation on how YIMBYs are the real class warriors The post Back to Basics appeared first on
San Francisco Chronicle
26-04-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Has California learned anything from the rise of Trump? The fate of this bill will tell us
Following resounding losses by Democrats in the November election, party leaders such as Gov. Gavin Newsom have sought to align themselves with the burgeoning 'abundance' movement, which contends that blue states will only win back voters if they can prove their ability to govern effectively — including by providing access to basic goods, such as high-quality public education and widely available housing. How's that effort going in California? In short — not well. If you pay attention to California politics, you likely heard about the death this week of SB677, a bill to make it easier to split single-family-home lots for duplexes or fourplexes, and the near killing of SB79, which would allow multifamily housing up to seven stories near major transit stops — both from state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco. The bills' primary assailant was state Sen. Aisha Wahab, D-Fremont, chair of the Senate Housing Committee, who has leaned on the tired refrain that efforts to streamline new housing production are 'giveaways for developers,' partly because they reduce the ability of local governments to weigh in on projects. Wahab's insistence on fighting for California's failed status quo on housing, even as American democracy sinks around us, rightly drew outrage. But for an even bleaker example of how state leaders are failing to rise to the urgency of the moment, Californians should consider the response to AB1121 from Assembly Member Blanca Rubio, D-Baldwin Park (Los Angeles County). The seemingly uncontroversial bill would require California teachers in transitional kindergarten through fifth grade to be trained in the 'science of reading,' which emphasizes the importance of foundational literacy skills, including phonics — or sounding out words. It would also require schools to adopt an evidence-based reading curriculum in transitional kindergarten through eighth grade. Backed by decades of interdisciplinary research, this approach has proven to be particularly effective in teaching young kids how to read — regardless of their mother language. California schools and teachers currently have a fair amount of leeway in the curriculum they use, and the state doesn't track those materials or how effective they are. But a review of more than 300 of the state's largest school districts conducted by the California Reading Coalition found that fewer than 2% use programs aligned with the science of reading. The results speak for themselves. Nearly 60% of our third graders didn't meet state standards for English language arts and literacy in the 2023-24 school year. Meanwhile, poverty-stricken red states such as Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama have surged ahead of California in childhood literacy after adopting mandatory foundational literacy teaching and training. That California childhood literacy rates have fallen significantly beneath those of the poorest state in the nation should be considered a stain on the progressive values this state claims to stand for. Yet last year, California Democrats silently killed a bipartisan bill to mandate the science of reading, refusing to even discuss the topic publicly. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, and Assembly Member Al Muratsuchi, D-Rolling Hills Estates (Los Angeles County), who leads the Assembly Education Committee (and is running for state superintendent of public instruction next year) tabled the bill without a hearing amid fierce opposition from influential interest groups — including the California Teachers Association and Californians Together, which advocates for English language learners. Yes, you read that correctly — ensuring California kids receive the most effective reading lessons didn't even merit a discussion among Democrats in the face of union opposition. Rubio's bill faced similar hurdles this year. Most enraging is that the state's English language arts framework already underscores that foundational reading skills 'should be given high priority' among other strategies in early literacy instruction. State law also requires teacher candidates to demonstrate their fluency in evidence-based foundational reading methods to receive their credential. Meanwhile, literacy rates at some of California's lowest-performing schools improved significantly after adopting this curriculum. So what's behind the reluctance to implement this approach more widely? Martha Hernandez, executive director of Californians Together, told the editorial board that Rubio's bill was too narrowly focused on foundational skills and didn't take into account the needs of English language learners. But nothing in Rubio's bill precludes teachers from incorporating other reading strategies and approaches — it merely codifies the state's existing stance, which is that foundational skills should be prioritized. Meanwhile, Leslie Littman, vice president of the California Teachers Association, argued the bill would weaken local control over education. 'Teacher input, teacher voice, in the decision-making process with the curriculum and the development of that are vitally important,' she said. Littman also said the bill doesn't come with funding — though Rubio told the editorial board there's money for curriculum development and teacher training in Newsom's proposed budget. In short, the arguments against AB1121 are nonsensical. 'These are children's lives,' Rubio, a longtime elementary school teacher who was herself an English language learner, said. 'If they miss something in their educational career, it does affect them for the rest of their life.' That lawmakers have been wrangling for years over whether to even consider such a common-sense bill is absurd. How can California Democrats say with a straight face they're governing responsibly when kids here are being outperformed by students in far poorer school districts in the Deep South? How long will they continue to use abstract ideological concepts like local control to protect policies that clearly aren't working? On the Thursday legislative deadline for education-related bills to be scheduled for a hearing, Rubio's bill still hadn't been put on the calendar for the Assembly Education Committee. But, at the last minute, a deal was struck with Assembly leadership for a compromise bill — the details of which haven't yet been made public. It's comical that a compromise was necessary for such a critically important bill to even stand a chance of passing through the California Legislature. What, exactly, is politically challenging about ensuring that our youngest kids learn to read? Isn't California ranking far below Mississippi for early childhood literacy enough of a wake-up call? Mississippi, incidentally, also had the lowest rate of homelessness in the United States in 2023. It's a sad day when struggling families who want to stay housed and ensure their kids learn to read have a better shot in the dark-red Deep South than they do in California.
San Francisco Chronicle
26-04-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Is California capable of prying loose Trump's grip on the nation? The fate of this bill will tell us
Following resounding losses by Democrats in the November election, party leaders such as Gov. Gavin Newsom have sought to align themselves with the burgeoning 'abundance' movement, which contends that blue states will only win back voters if they can prove their ability to govern effectively — including by providing access to basic goods, such as high-quality public education and widely available housing. How's that effort going in California? In short — not well. If you pay attention to California politics, you likely heard about the death this week of SB677, a bill to make it easier to split single-family-home lots for duplexes or fourplexes, and the near killing of SB79, which would allow multifamily housing up to seven stories near major transit stops — both from state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco. The bills' primary assailant was state Sen. Aisha Wahab, D-Fremont, chair of the Senate Housing Committee, who has leaned on the tired refrain that efforts to streamline new housing production are 'giveaways for developers,' partly because they reduce the ability of local governments to weigh in on projects. Wahab's insistence on fighting for California's failed status quo on housing, even as American democracy sinks around us, rightly drew outrage. But for an even bleaker example of how state leaders are failing to rise to the urgency of the moment, Californians should consider the response to AB1121 from Assembly Member Blanca Rubio, D-Baldwin Park (Los Angeles County). The seemingly uncontroversial bill would require California teachers in transitional kindergarten through fifth grade to be trained in the 'science of reading,' which emphasizes the importance of foundational literacy skills, including phonics — or sounding out words. It would also require schools to adopt an evidence-based reading curriculum in transitional kindergarten through eighth grade. Backed by decades of interdisciplinary research, this approach has proven to be particularly effective in teaching young kids how to read — regardless of their mother language. California schools and teachers currently have a fair amount of leeway in the curriculum they use, and the state doesn't track those materials or how effective they are. But a review of more than 300 of the state's largest school districts conducted by the California Reading Coalition found that fewer than 2% use programs aligned with the science of reading. The results speak for themselves. Nearly 60% of our third graders didn't meet state standards for English language arts and literacy in the 2023-24 school year. Meanwhile, poverty-stricken red states such as Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama have surged ahead of California in childhood literacy after adopting mandatory foundational literacy teaching and training. That California childhood literacy rates have fallen significantly beneath those of the poorest state in the nation should be considered a stain on the progressive values this state claims to stand for. Yet last year, California Democrats silently killed a bipartisan bill to mandate the science of reading, refusing to even discuss the topic publicly. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, and Assembly Member Al Muratsuchi, D-Rolling Hills Estates (Los Angeles County), who leads the Assembly Education Committee (and is running for state superintendent of public instruction next year) tabled the bill without a hearing amid fierce opposition from influential interest groups — including the California Teachers Association and Californians Together, which advocates for English language learners. Yes, you read that correctly — ensuring California kids receive the most effective reading lessons didn't even merit a discussion among Democrats in the face of union opposition. Rubio's bill faced similar hurdles this year. Most enraging is that the state's English language arts framework already underscores that foundational reading skills 'should be given high priority' among other strategies in early literacy instruction. State law also requires teacher candidates to demonstrate their fluency in evidence-based foundational reading methods to receive their credential. Meanwhile, literacy rates at some of California's lowest-performing schools improved significantly after adopting this curriculum. So what's behind the reluctance to implement this approach more widely? Martha Hernandez, executive director of Californians Together, told the editorial board that Rubio's bill was too narrowly focused on foundational skills and didn't take into account the needs of English language learners. But nothing in Rubio's bill precludes teachers from incorporating other reading strategies and approaches — it merely codifies the state's existing stance, which is that foundational skills should be prioritized. Meanwhile, Leslie Littman, vice president of the California Teachers Association, argued the bill would weaken local control over education. 'Teacher input, teacher voice, in the decision-making process with the curriculum and the development of that are vitally important,' she said. Littman also said the bill doesn't come with funding — though Rubio told the editorial board there's money for curriculum development and teacher training in Newsom's proposed budget. In short, the arguments against AB1121 are nonsensical. 'These are children's lives,' Rubio, a longtime elementary school teacher who was herself an English language learner, said. 'If they miss something in their educational career, it does affect them for the rest of their life.' That lawmakers have been wrangling for years over whether to even consider such a common-sense bill is absurd. How can California Democrats say with a straight face they're governing responsibly when kids here are being outperformed by students in far poorer school districts in the Deep South? How long will they continue to use abstract ideological concepts like local control to protect policies that clearly aren't working? On the Thursday legislative deadline for education-related bills to be scheduled for a hearing, Rubio's bill still hadn't been put on the calendar for the Assembly Education Committee. But, at the last minute, a deal was struck with Assembly leadership for a compromise bill — the details of which haven't yet been made public. It's comical that a compromise was necessary for such a critically important bill to even stand a chance of passing through the California Legislature. What, exactly, is politically challenging about ensuring that our youngest kids learn to read? Isn't California ranking far below Mississippi for early childhood literacy not enough of a wake-up call? Mississippi, incidentally, also had the lowest rate of homelessness in the United States in 2023. It's a sad day when struggling families who want to stay housed and ensure their kids learn to read have a better shot in the dark-red Deep South than they do in California.
Yahoo
25-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
WA lawmakers strike deal on rent-cap bill: ‘We need affordability relief now'
Rent stabilization in Washington is one step closer to becoming a reality. House and Senate lawmakers struck a deal Thursday on House Bill 1217, also called the 'rent-cap bill.' The measure could be up for a vote as early as Friday evening. Housing advocates championed the lower chamber's version of the bill, which aimed to limit annual rent hikes to 7%. But the Senate proposed a higher lid of 10% plus consumer price index, a measure of inflation, upsetting many renters and housing advocates as a result. The latest agreement? Lawmakers on Thursday proposed a compromise: Rent hikes would be capped at 7% plus inflation or 10%, whichever is lower. The agreement also nixed a Senate adjustment that would have exempted single-family homes. Under the proposal, new construction would be exempt for 12 years. Nonprofit-managed affordable housing and public housing authorities also would be exempt. For residential rents, the limit would sunset after 15 years. Manufactured and mobile homes would enjoy a 5% rent-increase cap, a provision that wouldn't sunset. Landlords must provide written notice of a looming increase at least 90 days in advance. Before Gov. Bob Ferguson can weigh in, the bill will need to pass the House and Senate before Sunday, the last day of session. State Sen. Emily Alvarado, a West Seattle Democrat and the bill's prime sponsor, called the updated version a significant compromise. It was the product of many changes, some of which Alvarado said she wishes lawmakers 'didn't have to make.' 'But nonetheless, I think this bill is incredibly significant for the state of Washington,' she said at Thursday's conference committee meeting. 'Because there are 40% of the people in this state who rent or live in manufactured housing, and under current law, they have zero protections for how high their rent will go.' State Rep. Sam Low, a Lake Stevens Republican, said Thursday that the bill would be 'devastating for housing providers.' 'We need housing providers to be a part of the solution in the housing crisis that we have, and I hope that we can find a way through this, to find some common ground so that we have a solution and that works for everybody and not just one group over another,' he said during the meeting. State Sen. Jessica Bateman of Olympia said rent stabilization is key to Democrats' affordable-housing strategy this session. Lawmakers have made huge strides on housing-supply bills, she said in a news release, 'but that's not all we must do.' 'Washingtonians know our housing crisis is out of control, and we need affordability relief now,' said Bateman, who chairs the Senate Housing Committee. 'People struggling to afford their home deserve a bill that responds to their concerns and meets their needs, and this proposal steps up to provide Washingtonians the protections they deserve.'
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Rent stabilization bill makes progress in Olympia
Apr. 4—OLYMPIA — A Washington bill to limit residential rate increases may have a shot at passing this year, according to its primary sponsor, state Sen. Emily Alvarado, D-Seattle. "I am very hopeful, and I think there is momentum," Alvarado said. "I think the bill, where it's gotten to at this point, is a compromise. I think it's a balanced approach." House Bill 1217 would amend the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act to prohibit landlords from raising rent on a residence within the first year after a tenant moves in, and thereafter from raising the rent by more than 7% a year, or 5% for manufactured or mobile home tenants. It would also limit move-in fees and security deposits for manufactured home tenants to total no more than one month's rent, cap late rent payment fees at 1.5% of the monthly rent and prohibit landlords from charging higher rents for month-to-month tenancies than they do for longer leases. Under existing law, landlords must give written notice at least 60 days in advance if they intend to raise the rent on a residence. HB 1217 would change that to 90 days' notice. Washington law currently has no limitations on how much rent may be increased. A similar bill failed to reach a vote in the Senate Ways and Means Committee last year. That bill would have required 180 days' notice for rent increases over 3%, and capped move-in fees and deposits for residential renters. HB 1217 also contains exemptions for buildings more than 12 years old and rental units operated by a nonprofit or public housing entity. HB 1217 had a public hearing March 19 before the Senate Housing Committee, in which supporters said the regulation was necessary to keep costs from spiraling out of control, while opponents pointed out that in a housing market where construction already can't keep up with demand, limiting landlords' potential revenue will decrease availability even further, discourage investment in housing and unfairly target low-income renters. "Forty percent of the people in this state are renters or manufactured home owners, and they have zero protections right now about how high their rent can go," Alvarado said in the public hearing. "As an elected official, I will say that when I'm out talking to community members, the number one issue in this state ... is the cost of living. People can't keep up with rent. They can't keep up with groceries, they can't keep up with gas, they can't keep up with childcare. They're working hard; they're trying to retire, and they can't keep up." Tina Hammond, a 64-year-old disabled mobile home owner from Spokane, spoke in favor of the bill as well, saying that lot rent for her mobile home had jumped 12% in 2024 which had a serious impact on her quality of life, including her health. "I'm a mobile home owner since 2019 and I was sorely impacted by a 12% increase I experienced in February 2024," Hammond said. "I had to stop my medication for three months while I adjusted my budget to accommodate the increase. My adjustment was and is to turn off my heat at night ... This winter, my average morning is about 45 degrees. Even with these drastic measures, by the 15th of each month, I only have $5 or $10 remaining in my bank account." Emily Thompson, a partner at multifamily housing developer GMD Development in Seattle, said the requirements were too onerous and would prevent owners of rental properties from being able to keep up with their own costs. "The rental housing market is dealing with deep operational challenges over the last three years," Thompson said. "Our small portfolio of affordable Washington properties have $2.3 million in unpaid rent, (an) over 100% increase in operating costs and cumulative operating loss of around $4 million. Negative operations destabilize tenants. To further regulate operations right now is to focus on the wrong thing." Washington doesn't have enough capacity or funding for nonprofits to supply all the low- and moderate-income housing needs in the state, Thompson said, which means for-profit developers like GMD are vital to the community. Chris Rossman, president of the commercial real estate development association NAIOP Washington State, said passage of HB 1217 would mean less investment money coming into the Evergreen State and consequently less ability to build housing. "When we have these artificial impacts on the free market, a lot of these investment dollars tend to move elsewhere," Rossman said. "(Investors) want to be able to keep up with rising inflation. We've seen outsized cost increases in our insurance costs, in our labor, in our materials ... based on the amount of activity that we've seen in the market. Furthermore, increasing values in the market and property tax impacts have had a very high inflationary impact on operating these housing units." HB 1217 passed the House of Representatives on Feb. 10 and the Senate Housing Committee on March 26. The Senate Ways and Means Committee will consider it today.
