Housing Advisory Plan 2023-2028 — Washington State Affordable Housing Advisory Board
Summary
Housing Advisory Plan 2023-2028 of the Washington State Affordable Housing Advisory Board (AHAB), prepared with support from the Department of Commerce and BERK Consulting. The executive summary states that the state needs to add more than a million new homes to catch up with today's undersupply and accommodate population growth, and that nearly half of the new units will need to be affordable to households making less than 50% of the median family income. The plan is designed to address three purposes defined in RCW 43.185B.040 and gives recommendations for legislative actions or program changes. The Washington Low-Income Housing Alliance engaged residents through surveys and listening sessions, summarized in Appendix D.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Housing Advisory Plan 2023-2028 — Washington State Affordable Housing Advisory Board.”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2024-ahab-housing-advisory-plan-2023-2028-final-cfb6f60f-f7f7-4d99-b25-89a3e62870/
, SHA-256 91f463d56acd3cfda45201f7974f4e5484d569b5ad69df6e4740a6726f026480.Full text
We strengthen communities
Housing Advisory Plan
2023-2028
WASHINGTON STATE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ADVISORY BOARD
v3.4
Acknowledgments
Members of the Affordable Housing Advisory Board (AHAB)
Name Representing
Paul Trautman* AHAB Chair
Norma Hernandez Association of Washington Cities - East
Mary Hudson Association of Washington Cities - West
Doug Ito Residential Construction
Lowel Krueger Housing Authority
Cindy Proctor Non-Profit Housing Developer
Vijya Patel Real Estate Sales
Susan Boyd Apartment Manager
David Sharman Home Mortgage Lending
Ladon Linde* Washington State Association of Counties - East
Michael Jones Washington State Association of Counties - West
Michael Dotson* Home Mortgage Lending
Meg Martin* Homeless Shelter Operator
Conor Hansen* Residential Construction
Greg Dunfield For Profit Housing Developer
Jennifer Van Gerpen* Rental Housing Owner
Michone Preston General Public
Ami Manning* Permanent Supportive Housing Provider
* Participant in the Housing Advisory Plan Sub-Committee.
Stakeholder participants
Jeanette McKague Washington Realtors
Michele Thomas Washington Low Income Housing Alliance
Ryan Donohue Habitat for Humanity South King County
Korbie Jorgensen Haley Office of Rural Farmworker Housing
Olivia Hickerson Walk Thurston
Dennis Sills Plymouth Housing
Timothy Dalton Clallam County
Elizabeth Archambault Member of the public with lived experience of housing insecurity
Kyle Lucas Member of the public
Trudy Soucoup Homes First
Carl Schroeder Association of Washington Cities
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 2
Department of Commerce
Taylor Webb Policy Coordinator, Housing Division
Nathan Lichti Multifamily Housing Unit Managing Director, Housing Division
Ann Campbell Homeownership Unit Managing Director, Housing Division
Anne Aurelia Fritzel Growth Management Services Housing Programs Manager, Local Gov. Division
Laura Hodgson Senior Planner, Local Gov. Division
Dave Andersen Growth Management Services Managing Director, Local Gov. Division
Dave Pringle Legislative Relations Manager, Director's Office
Tedd Kelleher Housing Policy Director, Housing Division
Kirsten Jewell Housing Policy Manager, Housing Division
Melodie Pazolt Office of Apple Health & Homes and PSH Managing Director, Housing Division
Content development
BERK Consulting
Kevin Ramsey, PhD
Josh Lindon
Katherine Cortes
Kamal Raslan
Dawn Couch
Andrew Bjorn
Oliver Hirn
Sabrina Santos
Engagement
Washington Low-Income Housing Alliance (WLIHA)
Rachel Myers
Gian Mitchell
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 3
Executive summary
The lack of affordable housing options is an urgent crisis in communities throughout Washington. During the
next 20 years, the state needs to add more than a million new homes to catch up with today’s undersupply and
to accommodate new residents as the population grows. Nearly half of those new units will need to be
affordable to households making less than 50% of the median family income (MFI).
Governor Jay Inslee and Legislature have taken significant actions in recent years to address this housing
shortage. However, housing development is a complex challenge, and additional state and local actions are
still needed to ensure that an abundance of new housing options become a reality in Washington’s
communities. This Housing Advisory Plan provides a roadmap for understanding Washington’s housing
affordability crisis as well as recommended actions the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the
Legislature can take to support meeting the housing needs of all Washington residents.
The Affordable Housing Advisory Board (AHAB) prepared this plan with support from Commerce and BERK
Consulting. The AHAB members are appointed to advise Commerce and the Legislature to help address the
housing needs of all Washington residents. AHAB members represent a variety of housing professionals and
advocates with experience and expertise across various aspects of the housing system, including for-profit
and non-profit real estate development, construction, financing, apartment management, homeless shelter
operations, supportive services, low income and special needs populations, cities, and counties.
In addition to the analysis of the latest available data about housing needs in Washington, this Plan is informed
by the voices and stories of residents who experience housing instability. To support this effort, the
Washington Low-Income Housing Alliance engaged residents with lived experience and the housing providers
that serve these community members through surveys and listening sessions. Personal stories and quotes
from this engagement appear throughout the Plan, and in Appendix D, which summarizes the engagement
work and its findings.
Purpose of the Housing Advisory Plan
We designed this plan to address three purposes defined in RCW 43.185B.040:
Document the need for affordable housing in the state and the extent to which that need is being met
through public and private sector programs;
Facilitate planning to meet the affordable housing needs of the state;
Enable the development of sound strategies and programs for affordable housing.
The plan also provides a series of recommendations for legislative actions or program changes that can help
address persistent barriers to affordable housing production and meet the housing needs of all Washington
residents. The recommendations focus on practical actions the Legislature and Commerce can take during the
next five years (2023 to 2028), and they will inform AHAB’s annual legislative policy priorities. AHAB will
periodically update this plan to reflect current conditions.
Components of the Housing Advisory Plan
There are several components to this plan, and we describe each in Exhibit1. Many of these components
directly address the requirements of RCW 43.185B.040. Other components are included to facilitate local
planning and/or to inform the development of strategies for meeting housing needs.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 4
Exhibit1. Components of the Housing Advisory Plan and corresponding requirements
in RCW 43.185B.040
Plan Component Description Requirement in RCW
Progress Report on An evaluation of progress in Washington toward four housing goals based on
43.185B.040(1)(d)
Meeting Housing Needs 12 indicators of performance.
Barriers to Meeting A review of barriers to affordable housing production and meeting the
43.185B.040(1)(e)
Affordable Housing Needs affordable housing needs of all Washington residents.
Over 50 recommendations for state legislative actions or program changes
Recommendations for
that address barriers to affordable housing production and other obstacles to 43.185B.040(1)(f)
Meeting Housing Needs
meeting the housing needs of Washington residents.
Housing Market Trends and A summary of housing market conditions and trends statewide, including 43.185B.040(1)(a)
Needs Assessment employment, housing costs, affordable housing inventory, and current and 43.185B.040(1)(b)
(Appendix A) projected housing needs. 43.185B.040(1)(c)
Geographic Profiles of A compilation of the latest available data about housing needs for each
Housing Need (Appendix B) county and urbanized area in Washington, designed to support local planning.
A summary of responses to Commerce’s 2023 survey of all cities and
Local Government Survey
counties across Washington on the actions that they are taking to support
Findings (Appendix C)
housing production and affordability.
Qualitative insights about barriers to meeting housing needs gained through
Engagement Findings
engagement with service providers and Washington residents with lived
(Appendix D)
experience of housing insecurity.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 5
Progress toward meeting housing needs
Despite the housing affordability crisis felt in communities across the state, there are signs of some progress
in meeting housing needs. However, that progress is uneven and much more work needs to be done. This plan
includes an analysis of the latest available data to determine if conditions are getting better or worse. Key
findings include:
Housing insecurity continues to be a challenge:
• Homelessness per capita increased statewide, from a rate of 173 per 10,000 residents in 2016 to 180
per in 2022. Conditions worsened in nearly all counties, with a few notable exceptions (Clark, Cowlitz,
King, and Klickitat).
• As of 2021, more than one-third of all households in Washington were spending greater than 30% of
their income on housing. However, this share has decreased since 2015.
Rental housing is getting more affordable:
• The affordability of rental housing compared to local incomes has improved slightly between 2015 and
2022.
• The supply of rental units affordable and available to household with incomes 50% of MFI or below
increased slightly compared to demand between 2014 and 2019.
Homeownership affordability is getting further out of reach:
• When compared to median income, the cost of homes for sale skyrocketed in nearly every county in
Washington between 2015 and 2022.
Progress toward reducing racial and ethnic disparities is slow:
• BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color) households are more likely than white, non-Hispanic
households to live in unaffordable housing. However, the gap reduced very slightly between 2015 and
2019.
• White, non-Hispanic households are significantly more likely to be homeowners than BIPOC
households. However, this gap reduced slightly between 2015 and 2021.
While new housing production increased significantly, it is not well aligned
with housing needs:
• The rate of total housing production has increased dramatically over the past decade.
• Most counties are not producing nearly enough middle and multifamily housing to meet the needs of
moderate- and low-income households.
Washington has 155,214 affordable housing units designated for low- or
moderate-income households:
• Many, but not all, of these units are set aside for households with incomes at or below 50% of MFI. As
of 2019, there were more than 700,000 households at this income level. This means there is about one
unit for every five households in need.
• About 42% of these units are located in King County, and about two-thirds are located in the central
Puget Sound region. The availability of affordable housing in many other parts of the state is quite
limited.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 6
Recommendations for meeting housing needs
This study identified several barriers to meeting housing needs that can be addressed at least in part through
legislative actions and program changes identified in this plan. This section provides a very high level overview
of these recommendations. See the full plan for a full list of recommended actions.
Recommendations for increasing affordable housing production
Funding, financing, and resources
Providing affordable housing is expensive. This is true whether building new housing, preserving existing units,
or simply operating housing that already exists. This plan identifies several recommendations for overcoming
barriers associated with funding, financing, and resources:
• Increase access to funding support.
• Address challenges with managing financial incentives.
• Facilitate access to developable land.
• Increase financing options for affordable housing.
• Develop systems that support long-term fiscal sustainability for affordable housing operation.
Land use regulation and planning
Local zoning laws and development regulations constrain the locations where new housing can be built, as
well as the housing types and density levels allowed. Additionally, lack of predictable funding for local planning
activities limits the ability of local jurisdictions to effectively plan for and accommodate new growth. To
address these barriers, this plan includes recommendations to:
• Provide funding and guidelines to support more effective planning coordination.
• Provide additional statewide regulatory standards and guidelines to facilitate new development.
Administrative processes
Local administrative requirements associated with permitting, design review, and State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA) analysis can be complex and time consuming. This can add both cost and unpredictability to
proposed projects and, as a result, undermine financial feasibility. This plan recommends the following kinds
of actions:
• Set standards of practice for permitting workloads and support/incentivize review process and system
improvements.
• Incentivize jurisdictions to reduce or waive fees for multi-unit and affordable housing.
• Support guidance and technical assistance to help more developers navigate process complexity.
Construction
Construction costs have increased significantly in recent years due to scarcity of labor and supply chain
challenges, among other factors. State and local building codes can also drive the costs of construction.
Recommendations to address these barriers are to:
• Reduce barriers to manufactured and modular home placement in state building codes and Labor and
Industry permit approval process.
• Support construction job training and apprenticeship programs to meet demand for construction labor.
• Encourage innovation in housing design and ownership models through new guidance and assistance
programs.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 7
Other recommendations for meeting housing needs
While addressing barriers to the production of new affordable housing is essential, there are other barriers to
meeting the affordable housing needs of Washington residents. This Plan identifies recommendations on
three additional topics:
Reduce the loss of affordable housing stock:
• Consider increasing Housing Trust Fund flexibility for unit acquisition.
• Explore new funding and financing tools to support preservation of manufactured home communities
by eligible organizations.
Support low- and moderate-income homeownership:
• Expand programs that help low-income households become “homeowner ready,” such as through
credit repair and debt mediation.
• Reduce the risk of foreclosure through expanded counseling and assistance programs as well as
funding for home repair and maintenance.
Protect vulnerable manufactured home community residents:
• Implement measures to reduce closures of manufactured home communities and mitigate risks to
residents.
• Increase support for relocation assistance and relocation coordination programs.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 8
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................11
Glossary of key terms ............................................................................................................................................. 12
Overview of housing market conditions ................................................................................................................ 16
Progress toward meeting affordable housing needs .....................................................................................20
Overview ................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Washington State Housing Progress Report Dashboard ..................................................................................... 21
Progress indicators ................................................................................................................................................. 23
Barriers to meeting housing needs ................................................................................................................48
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 48
Barriers to affordable housing production ............................................................................................................ 49
Other barriers to meeting housing needs .............................................................................................................. 66
Recommendations for meeting housing needs..............................................................................................70
Funding financing and resources ........................................................................................................................... 70
Land use regulation and planning .......................................................................................................................... 71
Administrative processes ....................................................................................................................................... 72
Construction ............................................................................................................................................................ 72
Other recommendations for meeting housing needs ........................................................................................... 75
Appendices
Appendices are available for download as separate documents.
Appendix A: State of Washington Housing Market Trends and Needs Assessment
Appendix B: County and Urbanized Area Profiles of Housing Needs
Appendix C: Use of Housing Incentives by Washington State Jurisdictions
Appendix D: Community Engagement Summary Findings Report
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 9
Personal stories
Personal Story: Poke, San Juan County ................................................................................................................. 15
Personal Story: Abdul, King County ........................................................................................................................ 19
Personal Stories: Angela, Snohomish County ...................................................................................................... 22
Tiarha, Snohomish County ...................................................................................................................................... 22
Personal Story: Heather, Snohomish County ....................................................................................................... 47
Personal Story: Evan, San Juan County ................................................................................................................ 58
Personal Story: Juanita, King County .................................................................................................................... 65
Personal Story: Naydelin, Spokane County ........................................................................................................... 69
Personal Story: Jennifer, Cowlitz County .............................................................................................................. 74
Personal Story: Patricia, Walla Walla County ....................................................................................................... 76
Table of exhibits
Exhibit1. Components of the Housing Advisory Plan and Corresponding Requirements in RCW 43.185B.040 ...................... 5
Exhibit 1. Components of the Housing Advisory Plan and Corresponding Requirements in RCW 43.185B.040 ................... 11
Exhibit 2. HUD Median Family Income by County, 2022 ............................................................................................................ 13
Exhibit 3. Income Level Relative to HUD Median Family Income (MFI) as Defined in RCW 36.70A.030 ................................ 13
Exhibit 4. Gain/loss of Employment and Housing in Washington, 2005-2022 ......................................................................... 17
Exhibit 5. Progress Assessment Thresholds for Percentage of Households Experiencing Housing Cost-Burden ............... 23
Exhibit 6. Percentage of Households Experiencing Housing Cost-Burden............................................................................... 24
Exhibit 7. Progress Assessment Thresholds for Homeless Persons per Capita ..................................................................... 25
Exhibit 8. Homeless Persons per 10,000 Residents .................................................................................................................. 25
Exhibit 9. Progress Assessment Thresholds for Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Housing Cost Burden ............................... 27
Exhibit 10. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Housing Cost Burden ............................................................................................ 28
Exhibit 11. Progress Assessment Thresholds for Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Homeownership Rate ............................ 29
Exhibit 12. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Homeownership Rate............................................................................................ 30
Exhibit 13. Progress Assessment Thresholds for Annual Total Housing Production ............................................................. 31
Exhibit 14. Comparison of Average Annual Housing Production to Projected Housing Need ................................................ 32
Exhibit 15. Progress Assessment Thresholds for Annual Middle Housing Units Permitted ................................................... 33
Exhibit 16. Comparison of Annual Middle Housing Units Permitted to Projected Moderate-Income Housing Need............ 33
Exhibit 17. Progress Assessment Thresholds for Annual Multifamily (MF) Units Permitted ................................................. 35
Exhibit 18. Comparison of Annual Multifamily Housing Unit Production to Projected Low-Income Housing Need ............. 36
Exhibit 19. Progress Assessment Thresholds for Annual Units Built with MFTE Incentive .................................................... 37
Exhibit 20. Comparison of Annual Units Produced with MFTE to Projected Low-Income Housing Need.............................. 38
Exhibit 21. Progress Assessment Thresholds for Affordable and Available Rental Units Per Renter Household with Income
0-50% of MFI ................................................................................................................................................................................. 39
Exhibit 22. Affordable and Available Rental Units Per 100 Renter Household with Income 0-50% of MFI............................. 40
Exhibit 23. Progress Assessment Thresholds for Homeownership Affordability Index .......................................................... 41
Exhibit 24. Homeownership Affordability Index (HAI) ............................................................................................................... 42
Exhibit 25. Progress Assessment Thresholds for Transitional Renter Affordability Index ..................................................... 43
Exhibit 26. Transitional Renter Affordability Index (TRAI) ......................................................................................................... 44
Exhibit 27. Progress Assessment Thresholds for Subsidized Affordable Housing Supply ..................................................... 45
Exhibit 28. Subsidized Affordable Housing Supply Compared to Need ................................................................................... 46
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 10
Introduction
Gov. Jay Inslee and the Legislature have taken significant actions in recent years to tackle Washington’s
housing affordability crisis. However, the gap between the supply of affordable housing options and the needs
of Washington residents is immense. Addressing this need requires speeding up the construction of new types
of housing in communities across the state. Facilitating this change at the speed that it is needed will require
continued effort from both state and local governments in the months and years ahead.
This Housing Advisory Plan provides an assessment of current housing market conditions in Washington. It
also includes recommendations for actions the Legislature and governor can take to address barriers to
building the kinds of housing that residents most desperately need. There are several components to this plan,
and we describe each in Exhibit 2. Many of these components directly address the requirements of RCW
43.185B.040. Other components are included to facilitate local planning and/or to inform the development of
strategies for meeting housing needs.
Exhibit 2. Components of the Housing Advisory Plan and Corresponding
Requirements in RCW 43.185B.040
Plan Component Description Requirement in RCW
Progress Report on An evaluation of progress in Washington toward four housing goals based on
43.185B.040(1)(d)
Meeting Housing Needs twelve indicators of performance.
Barriers to Meeting A review of barriers to affordable housing production and meeting the
43.185B.040(1)(e)
Affordable Housing Needs affordable housing needs of all Washington residents.
Over 50 recommendations for state legislative actions or program changes
Recommendations for
that address barriers to affordable housing production and other obstacles to 43.185B.040(1)(f)
Meeting Housing Needs
meeting the housing needs of Washington residents.
Housing Market Trends and A summary of housing market conditions and trends statewide, including 43.185B.040(1)(a)
Needs Assessment employment, housing costs, affordable housing inventory, and current and 43.185B.040(1)(b)
(Appendix A) projected housing needs. 43.185B.040(1)(c)
Geographic Profiles of A compilation of the latest available data about housing needs for each
Housing Need (Appendix B) county and urbanized area in Washington, designed to support local planning.
A summary of responses to Commerce’s 2023 survey of all cities and
Local Government Survey
counties across Washington on the actions that they are taking to support
Findings (Appendix C)
housing production and affordability.
Qualitative insights about barriers to meeting housing needs gained through
Engagement Findings
engagement with service providers and Washington residents with lived
(Appendix D)
experience of housing insecurity.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 11
Glossary of key terms
Here are some key terms and concepts used throughout the Advisory Plan and appendices.
Household
A household is a group of people living together in a housing unit. Households can be families, unrelated
people living together, or individuals living alone. People who live in group quarters do not live in households.
Examples include residents of nursing homes, college dormitories, military barracks, or jails.
Housing affordability
The affordability of a home depends upon the income level of the household living in that home. The U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) considers a home affordable if the household is
spending no more than 30% of its income on housing costs. For a homeowner, housing costs include
mortgage principal and interest, taxes, insurance, and utilities. Rental housing costs include rent and utilities.
Housing cost burden
HUD considers households that spend more than 30% of their income on housing costs to be cost burdened.
Households that spend more than 50% of their income on housing are considered severely cost burdened. The
term moderately cost burdened is used to describe households that spend between 30% and 50% of their
income on housing costs. This study uses cost burdened households as a key indicator that housing costs and
incomes are not in alignment.
Median Family Income (MFI) and Area Median Income (AMI)
HUD estimates as Median Family Income (MFI) for each metropolitan area and county nationwide based on
the Census American Community Survey (ACS), which estimates median household income for all households
in a location (such as a city, county, or state); the ACS calls the statistic Area Median Income (AMI). This report
uses the abbreviation MFI throughout. Notably, studies of housing affordability often group households by
income level and estimate the median income of a four-person family household in the current year. MFI is
almost always higher than actual median household income because many households have only one
member.
Exhibit 3 maps variation in HUD’s MFI by county across Washington. In 2022, it ranged from $134,600 in King
and Snohomish counties to $60,800 in Okanogan County.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 12
Exhibit 3. HUD Median Family Income by County, 2022
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; BERK 2022.
Household income levels
Exhibit 4 shows four household income levels defined in RCW 36.70A.030. HUD provides data about
households by income level. When determining the thresholds for grouping individual households by income
level, HUD makes adjustments based on household size. However, none of the data released by HUD provides
breakdowns by income level above 100% MFI. Data for households with less than 100-120% MFI is not
available for all statistics presented in this report. An exception is Commerce’s data about projected housing
needs (available in Appendix A: Housing Market Trends and Needs Assessment), which breaks down
"moderate income" into two categories (>80-100% and >100-120% MFI), and shares data for households with
incomes >120% MFI.
Exhibit 4. Income Level Relative to HUD Median Family Income (MFI) as Defined in
RCW 36.70A.030
Household Income Level Income Relative to HUD Median Family Income (MFI)
Extremely Low-Income 0-30% MFI
Very Low-Income >30-50% MFI
Low-Income >50-80% MFI
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 13
Household Income Level Income Relative to HUD Median Family Income (MFI)
Moderate Income >80-120% MFI
These same income levels relative to MFI are used are used to evaluate the affordability level of a home.
Similar to household size adjustments for income levels, HUD adjusts housing affordability thresholds based
on the number of bedrooms in the housing unit. A studio apartment considered affordable to an 80% MFI
household would have a lower rent than a 3-bedroom apartment affordable at 80% MFI.
The rents for income-restricted rental housing are set to be affordable at specific income levels. A household’s
eligibility is typically determined by whether its income is below a specific income-level threshold. Washington
State Housing Finance Commission (WSHFC) publishes income limits by household size and corresponding
rent limits by unit size for all Washington counties.1 These are based on HUD MFI for each county and are
updated each year. However, some local requirements for income eligibility may vary from those published by
WSHFC or HUD.
1 See https://www.wshfc.org/managers/map.aspx to access income and rent limits.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 14
Personal Story: Poke, San Juan County
Poke grew up in the Seattle area and eventually moved to Alaska
where she lived for 35 years. During her time in Alaska, she
bought a home in Anchorage, and unexpected ownership costs
eventually sent her into bankruptcy. As she put it, “I had to give up
any middle-class aspirations I may have had.” Later, Poke bought
a house in Fairbanks that she was forced to sell during the 2008
recession because she could no longer physically maintain the
property.
“I had to give up any middle-class aspirations I may have had.”
She made the decision to move back to Washington in 2015 and
after rental housing on San Juan Island fell through, she couch-surfed for several months with family. She
knew she wanted to live in San Juan County, but struggled to afford rental housing as a retired person on a
fixed income. She thought buying a home would always be out of reach for anyone without millions of dollars.
She made 84% of Area Median Income and the cut-off for receiving housing assistance through programs like
OPAL Community Land Trust is 80% AMI. She had too high income to qualify for assistance but not enough to
live with financial security.
Poke was looking for other housing options in order to control her housing costs. She heard that a friend who
owned a home in a neighborhood with OPAL community land trust housing wanted to sell it; Poke contacted
him and he was willing to sell it to her. He could have made more selling it to somebody from off-island but
was pleased to sell it to an islander.
Poke is very happy with this house. It is extremely well built.
This is vital to Poke because she can’t afford to pay someone
to maintain the house and her health prevents her from doing
maintenance herself. She no longer worries about being turned
out of a rental home because the owner decides to raise the
rent or turn it into an Airbnb. However, she spends about 43% of
her gross income each month on housing costs and she
worries about the future cost of housing. Her home’s property
tax has increased 30% each year for the past two years and this
has made it increasingly difficult to afford her home on a fixed
income. Despite this, she loves her home, her neighborhood,
and the island.
Photo credit: Poke, 2023
Personal story credit: Washington Low Income Housing Alliance and Poke
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 15
Overview of housing market conditions
Washington is experiencing a housing affordability crisis. As of 2019, nearly 853,000 households statewide are
cost burdened and cannot afford their homes. More than 366,000 of these households are spending more than
50% of their income on housing costs.2 These severely cost-burdened households have limited, if any, money
available for other critical expenses such as food, clothing, transportation, education or health care.
Meanwhile, housing costs in markets across the state are rising faster than local incomes. Housing
affordability is getting further out of reach for many of these cost-burdened households. This chapter provides
an overview of housing market conditions in Washington. Appendix A: Housing Market Trends and Needs
Assessment provides a detailed analysis of housing supply and demand as well as an assessment of the
current and projected housing needs of Washington residents.
How did we get here?
While the causes of Washington’s housing affordability crisis are complex, much of the problem comes down
to a mismatch between the demand for housing and the limited supply available to meet that demand. We can
trace this most recent period of housing price escalation back to the Great Recession and housing market
collapse in 2008-2009. Many homebuilders went out of business, and the number of new homes produced in
Washington declined significantly compared to historic trends. Meanwhile, the economy in Washington
rebounded quickly and entered a sustained period of rapid job growth that attracted new workers and
population. Exhibit 5 compares these two trends by showing year over year gain and loss of employment and
housing between 2005 and 2022. It clearly shows the job losses during Great Recession (shown in 2009 and
2010) as well as the COVID-related job losses in 2021. It also shows the reduction in housing production,
which reached a low point in 2011. As shown in the very slow ramp up of net new homes, the housing
construction industry was slow to recover and significantly lagged behind the high demand for housing from
new workers. In fact, the rate of new home production has yet to reach its earlier peak in 2005-2007.
2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy Data, 2015-2019.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 16
Exhibit 5. Gain/loss of Employment and Housing in Washington, 2005-2022
Source: Washington State Employment Security Department, 2022; Office of Financial Management, 2022; BERK, 2022.
One way to measure the resulting housing shortage compared to demand is the jobs to housing ratio. In 2005,
Washington had a job to housing ratio of 1.04. This means there was slightly more than one job for every
housing unit in the state – a fairly balanced ratio and a baseline for comparison to more recent trends.
However, between 2005 and 2020 (just before COVID-related job losses), the state gained more than 726,000
jobs but only 529,000 housing units. This amounts to nearly 1.4 new jobs for every new housing unit. In order
to maintain the same baseline ratio of 1.04, the state would have needed to build an additional 170,000
housing units during this period. Instead, the state under-produced housing and did not keep pace with job
growth.
As market-rate housing costs have escalated, the need for new subsidized housing for low-income Washington
residents has increased substantially. However, with limited funding and financing tools available to support
subsidized housing production, the supply of this housing is far from sufficient to meet those needs. Appendix
A: Housing Market Trends and Needs Assessment details the gap in affordable and available housing to lower
earning Washington residents, as well as progress toward closing those gaps.
What is the outlook for the housing market in Washington?
As of 2023, housing market conditions in Washington are highly uncertain. This is due to recent changes in the
housing market, including:
• Rapid construction cost inflation due to increased labor costs, supply chain issues, increases in
materials costs and increased interest rates.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 17
• Increased interest rates, which have inflated cost for new mortgages. This can affect the willingness of
homeowners to move and the ability of new homebuyers to afford a home.
• Uncertainty in the Puget Sound area job market due to tech industry layoffs.
It is too early to assess the full impacts of these factors in housing market conditions. Regardless, they have
potential to complicate efforts to increase market housing production and support the development of new
subsidized housing for lower-income Washington residents.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 18
Personal Story: Abdul, King County
Abdul’s first experience with housing insecurity was in the spring of 2022 after he had a mental health crisis.
He was hospitalized until June of 2022. When he was discharged from inpatient care, he found himself
homeless for a few days. He was forced to return to a living situation with triggers that weren’t good for his
mental health just to get a roof over his head. Thankfully, a social worker at the hospital he was at connected
him with a counselor who was eventually able to get him into safe temporary housing.
“You don’t know what the tipping point will be for you.”
Abdul never thought he would experience housing insecurity. He was an
honor student. He didn’t know how to cope with the amount of stress he
was under in a healthy way. Since he’s been able to access safe supportive
housing, he’s rebuilding his life, healing, and is hopeful for the future. He’s
gone from only being able to work two days a week with the YMCA to
working three to five days a week. He’s working on reducing gun violence in
his community and he’s learning to be an advocate for Black men’s mental
health. He wants his
peers to know that it’s
important to take your
mental health
seriously. Leave
relationships that are
bad for you, talk things out, and seek mental health care
when you need it because, Abdul says, “You don’t know
what the tipping point will be for you.” Soon he’ll move
out of the temporary housing into his own housing with
a voucher.
Photo credit: Abdul, who just moved into their new home!
Personal story credit: Washington Low Income Housing Alliance and Abdul
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 19
Progress toward meeting affordable housing needs
Overview
This chapter presents an evaluation of progress in Washington toward four housing goals based on 12
indicators of performance. Indicators measuring conditions like housing affordability, housing disparities, or
housing affordability compare the latest data available to data from approximately 2015 to measure whether
conditions are improving or getting worse. Indicators that measure housing production, on the other hand,
compare the rate of new housing development to projections of housing need. All indicators are used to
measure progress statewide as well as in individual counties to show variation in progress across the state.
We summarized results in a Progress Report Dashboard. We share a visual of the Dashboard summarizing
statewide progress on the following page. Progress dashboards for each county in Washington are integrated
into Appendix B: County and Urban Area Profiles.
For indicators related to the goals of Reducing Housing Insecurity, Reducing Housing Disparities, or Supporting
Housing Affordability, the Dashboards summarize whether conditions are improving, worsening, or seeing little
change, as shown in the Dashboard legend. These indicators do not measure the rate of progress toward
achieving an end goal. Rather they simply compare conditions at two periods of time. Indictors related to the
goal of Increase Housing Production & Diversity, on the other hand, compare the annual rate of permitting to
the pace that needs to be sustained to support meeting projected housing needs.
The remainder of this chapter includes a description of each indicator, including data sources, calculation
method, notes for interpretation and limitations. We also provide a table of the data used to calculate each
indicator and summary progress assessment, both statewide and in each county.
Methodology Note: Margin of Error
For some counties with small populations, indicators based on data from the Census Bureau's American
Community Survey (ACS), including some HUD data, may have a very high margin of error (MOE). This is
because the data are estimates based on surveys of a sample of the full population. When survey samples are
smaller, the statistical reliability of estimates based on those surveys are lower. For example, ACS data may
estimate that a county has 100 homeowner households that are White, but an MOE of 24 households. This
means that there is a 90% chance that the actual value is somewhere between 76 and 124. When the MOE is
large as a percentage of the estimate value, an indicator based on that estimate is less reliable. This is because
any change over time could be due to either a real trend or error in the estimates. Therefore, a summary
progress assessment is not provided when the MOE is too high.
Some indicators are calculated using several different estimates. For these we first calculate the MOE for each
estimate as a percentage of the estimate value. (For example, if the estimate is 100 and the MOE is 24, then the
MOE percentage is 24%). Then we calculate a weighted average percentage for all of the estimates that
contribute to the indicator. If the weighted average is higher than 10%, the progress assessment is removed
and replace with a black dot indicating high margin of error.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 20
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN | PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS
Washington State Housing Progress Report Dashboard
Source: BERK, 2023.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 21
Personal Stories: Angela, Snohomish County
Angela was a hair stylist for 18 years. She’d never experienced housing insecurity until COVID hit and she had
to escape a domestic violence situation. The abuser threatened to kill her and her family. She lived in a shelter
for a time and is currently in temporary housing. She’s receiving assistance through the Aged, Blind & Disabled
(ABD) program while applying for Social Security Disability and is getting help through the Housing & Essential
Needs (HEN) program too. She worries for the future, though. She knows her current housing and assistance
through HEN is temporary. That housing insecurity causes stress, which impacts her mental health.
The support she’s receiving from her temporary housing provider has been good for her. She states, “It’s been
a good place to recover from trauma.” She’s frustrated with the state government though. After receiving
conflicting information from the Washington State Department of Social and Human Services regarding ABD,
it’s made it harder to trust what they say is true. She emphasizes that she had a job and managed her mental
health well prior to this incident, but the dual traumas of abuse and homelessness made her mental health
worse. She wants decision makers to know that this homelessness crisis isn’t because of “drugs” or otherwise
the fault of the individual. In her experience, it’s because of the cost of living and a lack of resources in the
social safety net for people in crisis.
Tiarha, Snohomish County
Tiarha and her young daughter first experienced homelessness after moving out of a rental apartment in June
2022. None of the alternative housing Tiarha could find was affordable. Barriers like application fees and
income requirements of three times the rent kept housing out of reach for them. She and her daughter were
forced to make do by couch surfing and living in a shelter for months. The precariousness of their situation
was stressful for her and her daughter. The shelter had strict rules about when you could shower and eat.
Violating those rules would put them on the street. Sometimes they couldn’t even get into the shelter because
of the lack of space.
During this time, Tiarha connected with a resource navigator who helped her apply for a Section 8 housing
voucher. Although it took months to receive the voucher, she finally obtained one and managed to find housing
after an exhaustive search. She and her daughter recently moved into an apartment and they’re very happy with
it. It meets their needs and has given them a sense of security and stability. Tiarha wants policy makers to
know that for many folks she met at the shelter with an eviction on their record or involvement with the
criminal legal system, it’s even harder to find housing. She wants to encourage folks struggling to find stable
housing not to lose hope and to keep going.
Personal story credit: Washington Low Income Housing Alliance, Angela, and Tiarha
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 22
Progress indicators
Goal: Reduce housing insecurity
Percentage of households experiencing housing cost-burden
The affordability of housing depends on two factors: The cost of the housing and the income of the household.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) considers a household "cost-burdened" if it
spends more than 30% of its income on housing costs, including utilities. Cost burdened households have less
income remaining for other necessities like food, transportation, education, and health care. Cost burden is
also an indicator of potential housing insecurity.
The Census Bureau ACS publishes estimates of cost-burdened households for each county and statewide.
This progress indicator compares the percentage of households that were cost burdened in 2015 to the
percentage that were cost burdened in 2021.3 The goal is to reduce housing cost burden. If the percentage
decreased between 2015 and 2021, then conditions improved. If this percentage increased, then conditions
worsened. Exhibit 6 shows the thresholds used for assessing how much conditions improved or worsened.
Exhibit 7 shows the data behind this assessment for the entire state and all counties.
Statewide, there was a moderate reduction in the percentage of households that are cost burdened, a sign that
affordability had improved slightly during the analysis period. Most counties also saw a moderate
improvement, while others saw little change. One reason for this general trend is that the 2015 cost burden
rate is based on surveys of households over a five-year period, 2011 to 2015. In 2011, Washington was still
recovering from the Great Recession, and the income of many households was still reduced due to
unemployment and lower labor force participation.
Exhibit 6. Progress Assessment Thresholds for Percentage of Households
Experiencing Housing Cost Burden
Metric: Significant Moderate Conditions Worsened
No Change
Change in percentage of Improvement Improvement Worsened Significantly
households experiencing cost
burden, 2015 - 2021 →
Progress assessment
≤ -10% > -10% to ≤ -2% > -2% to ≤ 2% > 2% to ≤10% > 10%
thresholds:
3 Note that data for this indicator were based on Census American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year estimates. They represent
conditions over a 5-year period. In other words, the 2021 estimates actually reflect surveys collected between 2017 and 2021. Likewise,
the 2015 estimates reflect surveys collected between 2011 and 2015.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 23
Exhibit 7. Percentage of Households Experiencing Housing Cost Burden
Change in Cost Burden Progress
County 2015 2021
(2015 to 2021) Assessment
Adams 35% 32% -2%
Asotin 31% 27% -4%
Benton 28% 27% -1% →
Chelan 35% 29% -6%
Clallam 35% 33% -3%
Clark 36% 33% -3%
Columbia ⚫
Cowlitz 37% 33% -4%
Douglas 30% 28% -2%
Ferry 34% 32% -2%
Franklin 31% 28% -3%
Garfield ⚫
Grant 30% 29% -2% →
Grays Harbor 35% 34% -2% →
Island 37% 35% -2% →
Jefferson 38% 35% -3%
King 38% 35% -3%
Kitsap 37% 33% -4%
Kittitas 44% 37% -8%
Klickitat 34% 33% -1% →
Lewis 37% 32% -6%
Lincoln 31% 24% -7%
Mason 37% 32% -5%
Okanogan 33% 32% -1% →
Pacific 34% 28% -7%
Pend Oreille 32% 29% -3%
Pierce 41% 36% -5%
San Juan 40% 39% -1% →
Skagit 40% 34% -6%
Skamania 36% 31% -5%
Snohomish 39% 34% -5%
Spokane 37% 33% -5%
Stevens 35% 27% -8%
Thurston 37% 34% -3%
Wahkiakum ⚫
Walla Walla 36% 33% -3%
Whatcom 40% 38% -2%
Whitman 44% 45% 1% →
Yakima 37% 32% -5%
Statewide 38% 34% -4%
Note: No assessment is provided for some small counties with high margins of error in the source data. These are represented by a black dot.
Percentages are presented as rounded in this table. Calculations of change are based on unrounded values.
Source: Census American Community Survey, 2011-2015 & 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates; BERK, 2023.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 24
Homeless persons per capita
The most direct measure of housing insecurity is the number of persons who are homeless. This indicator
uses the best available estimate of homeless population and divides it by total population to calculate a per
capita rate. An increasing rate indicates that conditions are worsening and there is an increase in housing
insecurity. Conversely, a decrease in rate indicates conditions are improving and that fewer people are
experiencing housing insecurity.
The primary data source for this indicator is the Snapshot of Homelessness in Washington State ("Snapshot").
This is a biannual report prepared by the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) Research and Data
Analysis (RDA) unit. Drawing on linked data from multiple databases used for administering public benefits
and associated claims, the report counts applications for social services from people who were unsheltered or
living in emergency shelter. Snapshot data is available from 2016 onward. A more detailed description4 of the
Snapshot report is available on the Commerce website.
This metric is calculated by dividing the “Snapshot” estimate of persons who are homeless by total population
as reported by OFM,5 then multiplying by 10,000. We then compared the values for 2016 and 2022 to calculate
a percent change. Exhibit 8 shows the thresholds used to classify progress and the values statewide and for
each county are shown in Exhibit 9.
Statewide, there has been a 4% increase in homeless persons per capita, and conditions have worsened
significantly in most counties. A notable exception is King County, which saw an 11% reduction in
homelessness per 10,000 residents. This may be in part to due additional funding in 2021 to help prevent
eviction during the COVID-related public health emergency. Snapshot also provides data on unstably housed
population (e.g., those who are couch surfing in temporary homes or otherwise “doubled-up”). During the same
period of analysis, this population decreased significantly statewide.
Exhibit 8. Progress Assessment Thresholds for Homeless Persons per Capita
Metric: Significant Moderate Conditions Worsened
No Change
Percent change in homeless Improvement Improvement Worsened Significantly
persons per 10,000 residents,
2016 - 2022 →
Progress assessment
≤ -10% > -10% to ≤ -2% > -2% to ≤ 2% > 2% to ≤10% > 10%
thresholds:
Exhibit 9. Homeless Persons per 10,000 Residents
County 2016 2022 2016 - 2022 % Change Progress Assessment
Adams 5 6 18%
Asotin 15 22 43%
Benton 8 10 23%
4 https://deptofcommerce.app.box.com/s/hnpkedlkifogzx8i892cu0k34nzsrbtp/file/1072115571085
5 Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) April 1 Official Population Estimates.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 25
County 2016 2022 2016 - 2022 % Change Progress Assessment
Chelan 9 11 21%
Clallam 20 20 1% →
Clark 13 12 -8%
Columbia 8 15 96%
Cowlitz 33 30 -10%
Douglas 9 12 31%
Ferry 10 15 47%
Franklin 10 14 38%
Garfield 11 13 14%
Grant 13 15 8%
Grays Harbor 24 28 16%
Island 7 7 9%
Jefferson 13 15 12%
King 15 13 -11%
Kitsap 14 15 9%
Kittitas 9 10 14%
Klickitat 16 15 -3%
Lewis 23 26 14%
Lincoln 6 9 52%
Mason 24 26 11%
Okanogan 17 24 42%
Pacific 19 23 20%
Pend Oreille 12 19 61%
Pierce 23 24 4%
San Juan 6 9 53%
Skagit 17 19 16%
Skamania 15 16 3%
Snohomish 16 16 6%
Spokane 23 26 14%
Stevens 20 27 35%
Thurston 23 25 8%
Wahkiakum 23 24 6%
Walla Walla 17 20 23%
Whatcom 20 23 16%
Whitman 6 9 42%
Yakima 24 30 27%
Statewide 173 180 4%
Note: Values are presented as rounded numbers in this table. Calculations of change are based on unrounded values.
Source: WA Department of Social and Health Services, 2023; BERK, 2023.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 26
Goal: Reduce housing disparities
Racial and ethnic disparities in housing cost burden
As discussed earlier, housing cost burden is a measure of housing insecurity. This indicator uses data about
the cost burden of households by the race or ethnicity of householder6 to measure whether there are racial and
ethnic disparities in the percentage of households that experience cost burden. Disparity is measured as the
gap between the percentage of white, non-Hispanic households that experience cost burden and the
percentage of all BIPOC7 households that experience cost burden. For instance, if 20% of white, non-Hispanic
households are cost-burdened and 35% of BIPOC households are cost-burdened, then there is a disparity of
15%. To measure progress over time, we compare conditions in 2014 to conditions in 2019 to see if disparities
are growing or shrinking. For example, if the disparity in cost burdened households in 2014 was 15% and the
disparity in 2019 was 13%, then this indicator’s value is -2%. In other words, disparities had reduced slightly
over that 5-year period.
Data for this indicator is from a HUD dataset called the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS).
These data are derived from Census Bureau ACS and, like many ACS estimates, are based on five years of
survey data. The 2014 estimates are based on conditions from 2010 to 2014, and the 2019 estimates are
based on conditions from 2015 to 2019. Therefore, this indicator is not good at tracking very recent changes in
the housing market.
Exhibit 10 shows the thresholds used to convert this indicator into a summary
progress assessment for the Dashboard. Values statewide and for each county are
shown in
Metric: Significant Moderate Conditions Worsened
No Change
Change in cost-burden Improvement Improvement Worsened Significantly
disparity between BIPOC and
white, non-Hispanic
→
Households, 2014 - 2019
Progress assessment
≤ -10% > -10% to ≤ -2% > -2% to ≤ 2% > 2% to ≤10% > 10%
thresholds:
6 The Census designates the race or ethnicity of a household is based on the race or ethnicity of the householder, which is typically the
person in whose name the housing unit is owned or rented.
7 In this study, BIPOC is defined as all householders that do not identify as White, Non-Hispanic.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 27
Exhibit 11. Statewide, there has been a slight reduction in racial and ethnic disparities, moving from a 10% gap
in 2014 to an 8% gap in 2019. However, there is considerable variation by county, with some showing
improvement and others showing worsening conditions.
Exhibit 10. Progress Assessment Thresholds for Racial and Ethnic Disparities in
Housing Cost Burden
Metric: Significant Moderate Conditions Worsened
No Change
Change in cost-burden Improvement Improvement Worsened Significantly
disparity between BIPOC and
white, non-Hispanic
→
Households, 2014 - 2019
Progress assessment
≤ -10% > -10% to ≤ -2% > -2% to ≤ 2% > 2% to ≤10% > 10%
thresholds:
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 28
Exhibit 11. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Housing Cost Burden
% Cost-Burdened Households Disparity
(BIPOC - white, non- Change in Progress
BIPOC White-non-Hispanic Hispanic) Disparity Assessment
County 2014 2019 2014 2019 2014 2019 2014 - 2019
Adams 32% 29% 26% 24% 6% 5% -1% →
Asotin 44% 24% 29% 22% 14% 2% -13%
Benton 37% 34% 23% 22% 14% 12% -2%
Chelan 29% 31% 32% 25% -3% 6% 9%
Clallam 40% 37% 33% 29% 7% 8% 1% →
Clark 44% 37% 34% 28% 11% 9% -2% →
Columbia ⚫
Cowlitz 52% 40% 35% 30% 17% 10% -7%
Douglas 28% 20% 27% 22% 1% -2% -3%
Ferry 23% 22% 30% 28% -7% -6% 0% →
Franklin 37% 31% 21% 17% 16% 14% -2% →
Garfield ⚫
Grant 32% 24% 26% 23% 6% 1% -6%
Grays Harbor 38% 34% 32% 29% 7% 6% -1% →
Island 44% 36% 33% 31% 10% 5% -6%
Jefferson 32% 47% 35% 29% -3% 18% 21%
King 44% 37% 34% 30% 11% 7% -3%
Kitsap 41% 36% 34% 28% 7% 8% 1% →
Kittitas 49% 44% 41% 33% 8% 10% 2%
Klickitat 41% 37% 29% 28% 12% 9% -3%
Lewis 43% 37% 33% 27% 10% 10% 0% →
Lincoln 13% 38% 24% 19% -11% 20% 31%
Mason 39% 45% 35% 27% 4% 18% 13%
Okanogan 31% 26% 26% 24% 5% 2% -3%
Pacific 34% 36% 30% 24% 4% 11% 7%
Pend Oreille 29% 13% 29% 26% 0% -13% -13%
Pierce 46% 41% 36% 31% 10% 10% 0% →
San Juan 45% 40% 36% 33% 9% 7% -2% →
Skagit 49% 37% 36% 29% 13% 8% -5%
Skamania 39% 16% 31% 27% 8% -10% -18%
Snohomish 43% 36% 36% 30% 7% 7% -1% →
Spokane 44% 40% 33% 30% 11% 10% -1% →
Stevens 36% 24% 32% 25% 4% -1% -4%
Thurston 37% 40% 34% 30% 3% 10% 7%
Wahkiakum ⚫
Walla Walla 33% 33% 31% 28% 2% 5% 3%
Whatcom 46% 42% 37% 33% 9% 10% 1% →
Whitman 60% 50% 39% 37% 21% 12% -9%
Yakima 44% 31% 29% 27% 15% 5% -10%
Statewide 43% 37% 34% 29% 10% 8% -2% →
Note: No assessment is provided for some small counties with high margins of error in the source data. These are represented by a black dot.
Source: HUD CHAS (based on Census Bureau ACS 2010-2014 & 2015-2019 5-year estimates); BERK, 2023.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 29
Racial and ethnic disparities in homeownership rate
Homeownership offers an opportunity for more stable and predictable housing costs, as well as wealth
generation if the home appreciates in value. However, access to homeownership has historically been
unevenly distributed, particularly due to racist government policies and real estate practices. As a result, many
BIPOC households were denied opportunities for homeownership and the ability to generate wealth through
home equity that can be passed on to future generations. Moreover, there continue to be significant barriers to
increased BIPOC homeownership. BIPOC households tend to have disproportionally lower incomes, lower
credit scores, and higher debt-to-income ratios, all of which are linked to systemic and structural racism.
Furthermore, many BIPOC experience discrimination and predatory practices through the mortgage lending,
appraisal, and selling processes.
The Census Bureau ACS publishes estimates of homeowner and renter households by the race and ethnicity of
householder. This indicator compares the percentage of white, non-Hispanic households that were
homeowners to that of BIPOC households to measure the amount of disparity. This value is calculated for
2015 and 2021, and compared to determine if the rate is increasing or decreasing over time. Exhibit 12 shows
the thresholds used to convert this indicator into a summary progress assessment for the Dashboard. We
show values for each county and statewide in Exhibit 13.
Statewide the disparity gap has reduced from 21.5% in 2015 to 18.6% in 2021, a change of 2.9% overall. This
represents a moderate level of improvement. However, there is considerable variation by county, with some
showing improvement and other counties showing worsening conditions.
Exhibit 12. Progress Assessment Thresholds for Racial and Ethnic Disparities in
Homeownership Rate
Metric: Significant Moderate Conditions Worsened
No Change
Change in homeownership Improvement Improvement Worsened Significantly
disparity between BIPOC and
white, non-Hispanic
→
Households, 2014 - 2019
Progress assessment
≤ -10% > -10% to ≤ -2% > -2% to ≤ 2% > 2% to ≤10% > 10%
thresholds:
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 30
Exhibit 13. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Homeownership Rate
Homeownership Rate Disparity
Change in
BIPOC White-non-Hispanic (White, non-Hispanic - BIPOC) Disparity Progress
County
Assessment
2015 2021 2015 2021 2015 2021 2015 - 2021
Adams 55% 55% 75% 72% 20% 17% -3%
Asotin 49% 59% 68% 73% 19% 13% -5%
Benton 46% 56% 72% 73% 26% 17% -9%
Chelan 41% 42% 71% 69% 30% 27% -3%
Clallam 55% 55% 72% 75% 16% 19% 3%
Clark 42% 51% 67% 70% 25% 19% -7%
Columbia ⚫
Cowlitz 39% 49% 69% 68% 30% 19% -11%
Douglas 60% 52% 75% 73% 15% 20% 6%
Ferry ⚫
Franklin 52% 58% 79% 80% 28% 22% -6%
Garfield ⚫
Grant 41% 52% 69% 71% 28% 19% -10%
Grays Harbor 45% 55% 71% 72% 26% 17% -9%
Island 39% 54% 72% 76% 33% 22% -11%
Jefferson 51% 67% 76% 80% 25% 14% -12%
King 43% 45% 63% 62% 20% 17% -3%
Kitsap 53% 51% 70% 73% 17% 22% 5%
Kittitas 33% 46% 61% 62% 28% 16% -12%
Klickitat 53% 58% 70% 75% 17% 17% 0% →
Lewis 45% 59% 70% 73% 25% 15% -10%
Lincoln 81% 76% 79% 79% -2% 3% 5%
Mason 55% 53% 79% 82% 24% 29% 5%
Okanogan 49% 51% 74% 74% 25% 23% -1% →
Pacific 55% 69% 74% 85% 19% 16% -3%
Pend Oreille 70% 77% 76% 76% 5% -1% -6%
Pierce 44% 50% 66% 70% 22% 19% -3%
San Juan 42% 61% 74% 77% 32% 16% -16%
Skagit 41% 54% 71% 74% 30% 20% -11%
Skamania 54% 68% 71% 81% 17% 13% -4%
Snohomish 53% 59% 69% 71% 16% 11% -4%
Spokane 41% 44% 65% 66% 24% 23% -2% →
Stevens 65% 67% 76% 80% 11% 13% 2%
Thurston 52% 56% 67% 69% 15% 13% -3%
Wahkiakum ⚫
Walla Walla 52% 45% 67% 70% 15% 25% 10%
Whatcom 45% 49% 66% 65% 21% 16% -5%
Whitman 19% 25% 49% 49% 30% 24% -6%
Yakima 49% 51% 71% 71% 22% 19% -3%
Statewide 46% 50% 67% 68% 21% 19% -3%
Note: No assessment is provided for some small counties with high margins of error in the source data. These are represented by a black dot.
Source: Census American Community Survey, 2011-2015 & 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates; BERK, 2023.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 31
Goal: Increase housing production and housing diversity
Average annual housing production
A primary cause of housing cost increases in Washington is a shortage of housing. When demand exceeds
supply, competition for available units will push up both rents and market rate housing prices. Therefore, a key
part of addressing housing affordability challenges in Washington is increasing the overall rate of housing
production.
To calculate this indicator, we start with data from the Office of Financial Management to determine average
annual units produced 2018 to 2023, and then compared that to data from Commerce about average annual
projected housing needs8 from 2020 to 2044. Finally, we divided the rate of new units produced by the housing
need to calculate permitted units as a percentage of need to see if the state or county is producing sufficient
new housing to keep pace with projected housing needs. Exhibit 14 shows the thresholds used to convert this
indicator into a summary progress assessment for the Dashboard. Values statewide and for each county are
shown in Exhibit 15. The table also presents average annual units permitted from 2011 to 2015 as a
comparison to show how this rate of production is changing over time.
Statewide, average annual housing units produced nearly doubled when comparing trends from 2011
through2015 to 2020 through 2023. One big reason is that the housing market was still recovering from the
Great Recession in 2011. It took some time for the industry to ramp back up, and production rates steadily
increased during the following decade. From 2020 to 2023, average annual housing production statewide
nearly matched (101%) the rate needed to be sustained to meet projected housing needs. However, this
percentage varies significantly by county. Additionally, the period represents a high point in recent housing
production trends. Housing construction fluctuates with swings in the economy, so the rate of housing
production during upswings in the housing market needs to be significantly higher than 100% of projected
needs to compensate for inevitable slower periods. Finally, the units built in each county may not match the
types of units or affordability levels needed. The following indicators examine production trends by housing
types.
Exhibit 14. Progress Assessment Thresholds for Annual Total Housing Production
Metric: Significant Insufficient
Average annual housing units Progress Progress
produced 2018-2023 as a % of annual
projected housing needs →
Progress assessment thresholds: ≥ 140% < 140% to ≥ 90% < 90% to ≥ 50% <50%
8 See Updating GMA Housing Elements on Commerce’s website to find the data and projection methodology. The Housing for All
Planning Tool (HAPT) includes data for each county in Excel format.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 32
Exhibit 15. Comparison of Average Annual Housing Production to Projected Housing
Need
Annual Unit
Average Annual Units Produced (net new) Annual Housing
Production 2020- Progress
County Production Need
2023 as a % of Assessment*
(Projected)
2011 - 2015 2016 - 2019 2020 - 2023 Annual Need
Adams 36 60 80 73 110%
Asotin 13 9 75 57 132%
Benton 1,193 1,128 1,346 1,493 90%
Chelan 115 238 567 418 136%
Clallam 174 304 226 244 93%
Clark 1,787 3,810 4,003 4,311 93%
Columbia 5 3 12 4 308%
Cowlitz 115 310 371 417 89% →
Douglas 81 167 288 281 103%
Ferry -37 -32 30 8 379%
Franklin 477 576 566 859 66% →
Garfield -3 -4 5 3 167%
Grant 239 530 652 716 91%
Grays Harbor 30 153 413 173 239%
Island -272 259 252 353 71% →
Jefferson 117 145 131 166 79% →
King 8,477 15,820 17,196 14,025 123%
Kitsap 438 827 1,322 1,003 132%
Kittitas 123 196 355 217 163%
Klickitat 49 105 166 97 171%
Lewis 64 169 402 233 172%
Lincoln -14 9 74 8 925%
Mason -4 151 297 327 91%
Okanogan -56 -61 197 85 231%
Pacific 32 59 132 58 227%
Pend Oreille -4 -2 78 38 204%
Pierce 2,909 4,103 4,208 5,652 74% →
San Juan 31 57 161 129 125%
Skagit 322 553 434 705 62% →
Skamania 7 28 106 70 151%
Snohomish 3,060 4,186 5,056 5,966 85% →
Spokane 1,785 3,191 2,630 2,953 89% →
Stevens 85 157 171 202 84% →
Thurston 1,273 1,375 1,544 2,186 71% →
Wahkiakum 8 17 30 14 217%
Walla Walla 190 144 247 115 215%
Whatcom 679 1,273 1,531 1,432 107%
Whitman 211 155 305 150 203%
Yakima 455 426 809 878 92%
Statewide 24,186 40,596 46,467 46,118 101%
* This progress assessment only evaluates the total rate of housing production compared to total need. The units built in each county may not match
the types of units or affordability levels needed. Additionally, housing markets typically cycle through periods of higher and lower production activity due
to recessions or other economic circumstances. The 2020-2023 period featured a relatively strong housing market compared to recent trends.
Therefore, the rate of production could decline in future years causing a county to fall behind pace to meet projected housing needs.
Source: OFM, 2023; Washington State Dept. of Commerce, 2023; BERK, 2023.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 33
Annual middle housing units permitted
While increasing housing production overall will be important to addressing Washington’s housing shortage, it
is also important to diversify the housing supply by creating more types of housing. “Middle housing” is a
category that encompasses a variety of moderate-density housing types, such as small-lot single-family,
townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, or four-plexes. These housing types are also known as “the missing middle”
because they fall somewhere between low-density detached single-family homes and higher-density multi-unit
buildings like mid-rise or high-rise apartments and condominiums. In many counties, these housing types have
potential to provide housing that meets the needs of middle- or moderate-income households (80-120% of
MFI), and in some cases lower-income households. Over the past decade, permitting for these kinds of
housing has increased significantly within incorporated areas, as shown in Appendix A.
This indicator is calculated using data from OFM, which provides annual estimated housing counts by housing
type, including a category for all units in two to four unit structures, such as duplexes, triplexes, four-plexes,
and many townhomes. They also provide data for accessory dwelling units (ADUs). These categories are not a
perfect proxy for middle housing production, as they leave out some small low-rise buildings with five to eight
units. But they do capture most of the housing types that fall in this category. Furthermore, OFM’s data only
includes unincorporated areas for the years 2020 onward. Therefore, this indicator only analyzes trends since
2020.
Thefirststepwastocalculateaverageannualpermittedunitsfrom2020to2023.Next,weusedCommerce’s
projections of future housing need by income level to calculate the rate of middle housing permits as a
percentage of annual moderate-income housing need (80-120% of MFI). Exhibit 16
shows the thresholds used to convert this indicator into a summary progress
assessment for the Dashboard. Values statewide and for each county are shown in
Metric: Significant Insufficient
Average annual middle housing units Progress Progress
permitted as a % of projected housing
needs for moderate-income households
→
(80-120% AMI)
Progress assessment thresholds: ≥ 140% < 140% to ≥ 90% < 90% to ≥ 50% <50%
Exhibit 17.
Statewide average annual production of middle housing from 2020 to 2023 was only 60% of the annual need
for moderate-income housing production. Trends at the county scale varied significantly, and Commerce’s
housing needs projection methodology sometimes identified limited or even zero need for housing units
serving moderate-income households. In these counties, middle housing production as a percentage of
projected needs can be quite high or incalculable. Therefore, Progress Assessments should be interpreted with
care. In some of these rural counties, middle housing may be suitable for addressing need for housing
affordable less than 80% of AMI.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 34
Exhibit 16. Progress Assessment Thresholds for Annual Middle Housing Units
Permitted
Metric: Significant Insufficient
Average annual middle housing units Progress Progress
permitted as a % of projected housing
needs for moderate-income households
→
(80-120% AMI)
Progress assessment thresholds: ≥ 140% < 140% to ≥ 90% < 90% to ≥ 50% <50%
Exhibit 17. Comparison of Annual Middle Housing Units Permitted to Projected
Moderate-Income Housing Need
Average Annual Average Annual Average Annual Production
Progress
County Units Produced Housing Production 2020-2023 as a Percent of 80-
Assessment*
2020 - 2023 Need (80-120% MFI) 120% MFI Need
Adams 7 9 81% →
Asotin 2 5 33%
Benton 67 242 28%
Chelan 72 64 113%
Clallam 19 18 104%
Clark 198 731 27%
Columbia 1 0 - →
Cowlitz 35 35 100%
Douglas 13 52 26%
Ferry 0 0 - →
Franklin 48 152 32%
Garfield 0 0 - →
Grant 65 118 55% →
Grays Harbor 19 1 1933%
Island 11 56 20%
Jefferson 9 16 58% →
King 1,538 1,547 99%
Kitsap 45 115 39%
Kittitas 12 22 55% →
Klickitat 18 10 180%
Lewis 58 16 365%
Lincoln 3 0 - →
Mason 19 41 46%
Okanogan 11 3 356%
Pacific 6 0 - →
Pend Oreille 2 4 50% →
Pierce 250 767 33%
San Juan 28 21 133%
Skagit 51 101 50% →
Skamania 7 12 58% →
Snohomish 286 1,023 28%
Spokane 255 328 78% →
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 35
Stevens 6 29 21%
Thurston 70 347 20%
Wahkiakum 4 2 183%
Walla Walla 32 3 1078%
Whatcom 161 180 90% →
Whitman 157 0 -
Yakima 129 92 140%
Statewide 3,716 6,160 60% →
* This progress assessment evaluates the total rate of housing permits in 2-4 unit structures and ADUs compared to projected moderate income
housing need. It does not evaluate the affordability of units produced. Additionally, housing markets typically cycle through periods of higher and lower
production activity due to recessions or other economic circumstances. The 2020-2023 period featured a relatively strong housing market compared to
recent trends. Therefore, the rate of permit activity could decline in future years causing a county to fall behind pace to meet projected housing needs.
Source: OFM, 2023; Washington State Dept. of Commerce, 2023; BERK, 2023.
Annual multifamily unit production
In many areas of the state, the most cost-efficient way to provide new housing is in multifamily buildings.
Affordable housing developers typically build low-rise or mid-rise apartments buildings. Increasing the supply
of market rate multifamily housing also helps to reduce competition for rental housing and meet the needs of
many low- and moderate-income households. As shown in Appendix A, there has been a significant increase in
the amount of multifamily housing permitting over the past decade in both incorporated and unincorporated
areas statewide. However, much of that housing is getting built in the Seattle region, and much of it is market
rate housing that will not meet the needs of the lowest income households.
This indicator compares the rate of multifamily housing production to the projected need for housing
affordable to low-income (0-80% MFI) households to evaluate whether counties are on track or falling behind.
Statewide, average annual multifamily housing production from 2020-2023 was only 88% of the rate needed to
be sustained to be equivalent to projected low-income housing needs. More than half of these units were built
in King County. Most other counties had a larger deficit in production compared to need. Furthermore, the units
in many new market-rate apartment or condominium buildings are not affordable below 80% of MFI, and it is
likely that none of them are affordable below 50% of MFI. Therefore, a rating of “Significant Progress” for this
indicator does not mean that a county is on track to meet all housing needs for households with incomes at 0-
80% of MFI. Rather it means that multifamily housing production is occurring, and there is likely to be potential
for affordable housing production if sufficient funding and incentives are available to support it.
The data for calculating this indicator is from OFM. OFM provides annual estimated housing counts by housing
type and identify structures with five or more units. The majority of these units are in low-rise, mid-rise, or high-
rise apartment buildings and condominiums, and it might include some units more typical of middle housing in
larger counties. The first step is to calculate average annual units produced from 2020 to 2023. Next, we use
Commerce’s projections of future housing need by income level to calculate the rate of multifamily housing
production as a percentage of annual low-income housing need (0-80% of MFI). Exhibit 18 shows the
thresholds used to convert this indicator into a summary progress assessment for the Dashboard. Values
statewide and for each county are shown in Exhibit 19.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 36
Exhibit 18. Progress Assessment Thresholds for Annual Multifamily (MF) Units
Permitted
Metric: Significant Insufficient
Average annual MF unit production as a Progress Progress
% of projected housing needs for
households (0-80% of AMI) →
Progress assessment thresholds: ≥ 140% < 140% to ≥ 90% < 90% to ≥ 50% <50%
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 37
Exhibit 19. Comparison of Annual Multifamily Housing Unit Production to Projected
Low-Income Housing Need
Average Annual Average Annual Average Annual Production
Progress
County Units Produced Housing Production 2020-2023 as a Percent of 0-
Assessment*
2020 - 2023 Need (0-80% MFI) 80% MFI Housing Need
Adams 0 42 0%
Asotin 12 43 28%
Benton 224 722 31%
Chelan 130 231 56% →
Clallam -1 193 0%
Clark 1,568 2,136 73% →
Columbia 0 4 0%
Cowlitz 13 307 4%
Douglas 44 118 37%
Ferry 0 8 0%
Franklin 81 405 20%
Garfield 0 3 0%
Grant 30 335 9%
Grays Harbor 0 172 0%
Island 27 210 13%
Jefferson 0 119 0%
King 13,698 8,506 161%
Kitsap 358 661 54% →
Kittitas 57 158 36%
Klickitat 4 63 6%
Lewis 4 185 2%
Lincoln 4 8 46%
Mason 17 190 9%
Okanogan 16 77 20%
Pacific 0 57 0%
Pend Oreille 0 25 0%
Pierce 1,516 3,307 46%
San Juan 8 64 13%
Skagit 174 402 43%
Skamania 0 41 -1%
Snohomish 2,880 3,181 91%
Spokane 1,105 1,933 57% →
Stevens 0 115 0%
Thurston 825 1,184 70% →
Wahkiakum 0 8 0%
Walla Walla 100 112 89% →
Whatcom 680 910 75% →
Whitman 58 150 38%
Yakima 246 625 39%
Statewide 23,877 27,011 88% →
* This progress assessment only evaluates the total rate of housing production in 5+ unit structures compared to projected low-income housing need.
However, these data include both market rate and affordable housing, and many market rate units are not affordable below 80% of MFI. Additionally, the
2020-2023 period featured a relatively strong housing market compared to recent trends. Therefore, the rate of permit activity could decline in future
years causing a county to fall further behind pace to meet projected housing needs.
Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM), 2023; Washington State Dept. of Commerce, 2023; BERK, 2023.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 38
Annual units built with Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) incentive
The MFTE program is available to cities with a population of 15,000 or more to incentivize the construction of
new, rehabilitated, or converted multifamily housing within designated areas. This program is also available to
counties for use in unincorporated urban growth areas that meet certain criteria.9 When implemented, this
program exempts the value of the eligible housing improvements from property taxes, typically for eight or 12
years. To receive a 12-year exemption, the property owner must commit to renting or selling at least 20% of the
units to low- or moderate-income households. In 2021, the Legislature added a 20-year MFTE option that
encourages affordable homeownership.
Jurisdictions with MFTE programs are required to annually report newly certified MFTE units (both market-rate
and affordable) to the state Department of Commerce. Data aggregated from these reports is available to
summarize annual MFTE certifications from 2017 through 2021. Since only five years of data are available, and
no data is available for the year 2015, this indicator is structured differently than the previous indicators related
to housing production. Instead of comparing the average annual rate of production at two periods of time to
measure how much that rate has increased or decreased, this indicator just calculates the average annual
production during the full period for which data is available (2017-2021). Next, it calculates this rate of
production as a percentage of the total projected units needed for households with incomes 0-80% of MFI. The
result can only be zero or a positive percentage. Exhibit 20 shows the thresholds used to convert this indicator
into a summary progress assessment for the Dashboard. Values for each county with at least one jurisdiction
that offers an MFTE program and statewide are shown in Exhibit 21. Not all counties have jurisdictions that
offer an MFTE program. For counties with no MFTE programs, the table provides no progress assessment.
Exhibit 20. Progress Assessment Thresholds for Annual Units Built with MFTE
Incentive
Metric: Significant Minimal
Average annual MFTE unit Progress Progress
production as a % of annual
projected housing needs for
→
households (0-80% of MFI)
Progress assessment thresholds: ≥ 75% < 75% to ≥ 50% < 50% to ≥ 25% < 25% to ≥ 10% < 10%
Statewide, annual MFTE production is only 21% of projected annual low-income housing need. This percentage varies widely among counties that have
MFTE programs, from a high of 47% in King County to 2% in Yakima. When interpreting this indicator, keep in mind that not all units produced with the
MFTE incentive are affordable at or below 80% MFI, and not all affordable housing developers make use of this incentive.
9 See RCW Chapter 84.14 for more details. Some smaller cities may also be eligible under the definitions in RCW 84.14.010(3).
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 39
Exhibit 21. Comparison of Annual Units Produced with MFTE to Projected Low-
Income Housing Need
2017 - 2021 Average Annual Housing Average Annual
County Annual MFTE Unit Production Need Production as a % of Progress Assessment
Production (0-80% MFI) Need
Adams 42
Asotin 43
Benton 722
Chelan 44 231 19%
Clallam 193
Clark 333 2,136 16%
Columbia 4
Cowlitz 307
Douglas 118
Ferry 8
Franklin 405
Garfield 3
Grant 335
Grays Harbor 172
Island 210
Jefferson 119
King 4,017 8,506 47%
Kitsap 92 661 14%
Kittitas 7 158 4%
Klickitat 63
Lewis 185
Lincoln 8
Mason 190
Okanogan 77
Pacific 57
Pend Oreille 25
Pierce 478 3,307 14%
San Juan 64
Skagit 402
Skamania 41
Snohomish 254 3,181 8%
Spokane 172 1,933 9%
Stevens 115
Thurston 77 1,184 7%
Wahkiakum 8
Walla Walla 24 112 21%
Whatcom 66 910 7%
Whitman 150
Yakima 10 625 2%
Statewide 5,575 27,011 21%
Note: Counties that contain no jurisdictions which have implemented a MFTE program are left blank, and no assessment is provided.
Source: Washington State Department of Commerce, 2022 & 2023; BERK, 2023.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 40
Goal: Support housing affordability
Affordable and available rental units per renter household with income 0-50% of MFI
The affordable housing supply in most communities is a combination of subsidized housing provided to
income-qualified households and “naturally occurring affordable housing” (NOAH), which happens to be rented
at a rate that is lower than what is typical in the local market. These NOAH units may be in older buildings or
less desirable neighborhoods, and they can be rented to households at any income level. The term “down-
renting” refers to moderate- or higher-income households that rent NOAH units that would otherwise be
affordable to lower income households. When this occurs, it effectively removes the unit from the supply of
housing potentially affordable to a lower income household.
This indicator evaluates whether the effective supply of affordable rental housing is keeping pace with
demand. More specifically, it estimates the number of rental units that are both affordable to and occupied by
a household with income 0-50% of MFI per 100 renter households at this income level. This value is calculated
for the years 2014 and 2019, the latest year for which data is available. Finally, we calculated the percentage
change between these values to evaluate whether conditions are improving or getting worse. If the percentage
change is positive, the number of affordable and available rental units is increasing compared to need. This is
an improvement in conditions. Conversely, if the percentage change is negative, conditions are getting worse.
Exhibit 22 shows the thresholds used to convert this indicator into a summary progress assessment for the
Dashboard. Values for each county and statewide are shown in Exhibit 23.
Exhibit 22. Progress Assessment Thresholds for Affordable and Available Rental
Units Per Renter Household with Income 0-50% of MFI
Metric: Significant Moderate Conditions Worsened
No Change
% Change in Affordable and Improvement Improvement Worsened Significantly
Available Rental Units Per 100
Renter Households with Income
→
0-50% of MFI, 2014 to 2019
Progress assessment
≥ 10% < 10% to ≥ 2% < 2% to ≥ -2% < -2% to ≥ -10% < -10%
thresholds:
The data source for this indicator is HUD CHAS, which is derived from Census Bureau ACS five-year estimates.
The 2014 estimates are based on conditions from 2010 to 2014 and the 2019 estimates are based on
conditions from 2015 to 2019. Therefore, this indicator does not fully reflect how much housing costs
increased between 2015 and 2019, and it does not reflect any changes in housing costs since 2019. However,
during the period for which data is available, conditions improved slightly statewide, while there was great
variation by county. Finally, it is important to note that one potential cause of improvement in this indicator is
an increase in MFI, which can cause some older units that were not affordable at 50% MFI in 2014 to be
reclassified as affordable in 2019. This can result in the appearance of an increase in supply of affordable
units without the production of any new affordable housing.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 41
Exhibit 23. Affordable and Available Rental Units Per 100 Renter Household with
Income 0-50% of MFI
Affordable and Available Units Per Affordable and Available Units Per
% Change, Progress
County 100 Households with Income 0- 100 Households with Income 0-
2014 - 2019 Assessment
50% AMI, 2014 50% AMI, 2019
Adams ⚫
Asotin 50 80 60%
Benton 46 56 22%
Chelan 63 76 20%
Clallam 60 63 5%
Clark 42 51 20%
Columbia ⚫
Cowlitz 47 55 18%
Douglas 44 64 44%
Ferry ⚫
Franklin 57 64 13%
Garfield ⚫
Grant 68 81 19%
Grays Harbor 68 74 9%
Island 53 49 -8%
Jefferson ⚫
King 57 53 -6%
Kitsap 47 56 19%
Kittitas 63 48 -24%
Klickitat ⚫
Lewis 49 63 29%
Lincoln ⚫
Mason ⚫
Okanogan 73 84 14%
Pacific ⚫
Pend Oreille ⚫
Pierce 43 48 12%
San Juan 52 51 -2%
Skagit 38 41 6%
Skamania ⚫
Snohomish 61 63 3%
Spokane 61 59 -3%
Stevens 67 87 30%
Thurston 36 51 43%
Wahkiakum ⚫
Walla Walla 62 49 -22%
Whatcom 35 48 36%
Whitman 63 54 -15%
Yakima 42 65 55%
Statewide 53 56 5%
Note: Improvement can be due to increases in MFI causing some older units to be reclassified as affordable, rather than new affordable unit production.
Source: HUD CHAS (based on Census Bureau ACS 2010-2014 & 2015-2019 5-year est.); BERK, 2023. No assessment for counties with high margin of
error.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 42
Homeownership affordability index
About two-thirds of all households in Washington own their homes, and this rate has increased slightly since
2016.10 However, in many areas of Washington, home prices have increased faster than incomes. When this
occurs, the prospect of homeownership can get further out of reach for many households. Washington Center
for Real Estate Research (WCRER) created a Housing Affordability Index (HAI) that measures the affordability
of a median value home to the median income household with a typical down payment and 30-year mortgage.
This data makes it possible to track progress toward (or away from) greater homeownership affordability both
statewide and in individual counties.
An HAI value of 100 indicates that a median-income homebuyer has just enough income to afford a median
priced home. A value of higher than 100 indicates the homebuyer has more than enough income to afford the
home. A value of less than 100 indicates that the homebuyer has less than the amount of income needed. For
example, an HAI value of 70 indicates that a median income household has only 70% of the income necessary
to afford a median price house.
This indicator compares the HAI score for 2015 to the HAI score for 2022 and calculates a percentage change.
A positive percentage indicates progress toward more affordability for a median income homebuyer, a
negative percentage indicates housing is becoming less affordable and conditions are worsening. Exhibit 24
shows the thresholds used to convert this indicator into a summary progress assessment for the Dashboard.
Values statewide and for each county are shown in
10 Source: Census American Community Survey 1-year estimates, 2016 & 2022.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 43
Exhibit 25.
Exhibit 24. Progress Assessment Thresholds for Homeownership Affordability Index
Metric: Significant Moderate Conditions Worsened
No Change
% Change in Housing Improvement Improvement Worsened Significantly
Affordability Index (HAI)
→
Progress assessment
≥ 10% < 10% to ≥ 2% < 2% to ≥ -2% < -2% to ≥ -10% < -10%
thresholds:
During this period of analysis, HAI decreased dramatically in nearly every county in Washington. However, HAI
varies significantly by county, and HAI values in 2022 ranged from 41 in San Juan County to 124 in Columbia
County. When interpreting HAI values by county, it is important to remember that it is comparing housing
prices to the county MFI. A county with lower housing prices but lower incomes may have a lower HAI value
(indicating less affordability) than another county with higher housing prices and higher incomes.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 44
Exhibit 25. Homeownership Affordability Index (HAI)
% Change in HAI, 2015
County HAI, 2015 HAI, 2022 Progress Assessment
- 2022
Adams 190 89 -53%
Asotin 140 85 -39%
Benton 165 87 -47%
Chelan 100 53 -47%
Clallam 108 55 -49%
Clark 127 64 -50%
Columbia 126 124 -2% →
Cowlitz 140 93 -34%
Douglas 112 67 -40%
Ferry 134 110 -18%
Franklin 151 95 -37%
Garfield 139 102 -26%
Grant 148 71 -52%
Grays Harbor 165 69 -58%
Island 108 69 -36%
Jefferson 95 59 -38%
King 90 57 -38%
Kitsap 129 64 -50%
Kittitas 108 62 -42%
Klickitat 115 63 -46%
Lewis 157 62 -61%
Lincoln 360 95 -74%
Mason 172 75 -56%
Okanogan 116 78 -33%
Pacific 139 88 -36%
Pend Oreille 148 100 -32%
Pierce 127 72 -44%
San Juan 74 41 -45%
Skagit 111 82 -26%
Skamania 129 86 -34%
Snohomish 110 65 -41%
Spokane 131 68 -49%
Stevens 153 74 -52%
Thurston 133 80 -40%
Wahkiakum 146 78 -47%
Walla Walla 146 72 -51%
Whatcom 101 57 -44%
Whitman 115 68 -41%
Yakima 141 77 -45%
Statewide 118 64 -46%
Source: University of Washington Center for Real Estate Research (WCRER), 2023; BERK, 2023.
Transitional renter affordable index
A healthy housing market provides a mix of both ownership and rental housing opportunities. Rental housing
can provide an entry point to the housing market for households that cannot afford homeownership or are not
yet ready or interested in taking on the responsibilities and risks of homeownership. However, when rents
increase, lower income households can be locked out of the housing market or forced to move further away
from jobs and opportunities. Renter households that do find housing cannot control the cost of rents after they
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 45
move in. When rents increase, renter households are often vulnerable to economic displacement and housing
insecurity.
This indicator evaluates the affordability of rents and how they are changing over time. It is based on WCRER’s
Transitional Renter Affordability Index (TRAI), which measures the affordability of the average rent to a
household with income 70% of the county median income (defined as a “Transitional Renter”). Similar to the
HAI described above, a TRAI value of 100 indicates that a Transitional Renter has just enough income to afford
an average cost rental. A value of higher than 100 indicates the Transitional Renter has more than enough
income to afford the home. A value of less than 100 indicates that the Transitional Renter has less than the
amount of income needed. For example, a TRAI value of 90 indicates that Transitional Renter has 90% of the
income necessary to afford an average cost rental.
This indicator compares the TRAI score for 2015 to the TRAI score for 2022 and calculates a percentage
change. A positive percentage indicates progress toward more affordability for a Transitional Renter, a
negative percentage indicates housing is becoming less affordable and conditions are worsening. Exhibit 26
shows the thresholds used to convert this indicator into a summary progress assessment for the Dashboard.
Values statewide and for each county are shown in
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 46
Exhibit 27
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 47
Exhibit 27. Counties with no data available are left blank.
Exhibit 26. Progress Assessment Thresholds for Transitional Renter Affordability
Index
Metric: Significant Moderate Conditions Worsened
No Change
% Change in Transitional Renter Improvement Improvement Worsened Significantly
Affordability Index (TRAI)
→
Progress assessment
≥ 10% < 10% to ≥ 2% < 2% to ≥ -2% < -2% to ≥ -10% < -10%
thresholds:
This data indicates that the affordability of average rents has changed much less dramatically than the
affordability of homeownership. Furthermore, some counties showed moderate or even significant gains in
affordability during this analysis period, while others shows little change or declines. When interpreting TRAI
values by county, it is important to remember that median income varies by county. A county with lower rental
housing costs but lower median income may have a lower TRAI value (indicating less affordability) than
another county with higher rental housing costs and higher median income.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 48
Exhibit 27. Transitional Renter Affordability Index (TRAI)
% Change in TRAI,
County TRAI, 2015 TRAI, 2022 Progress Assessment
2015 - 2022
Adams
Asotin
Benton 113 115 1% →
Chelan 74 73 -1% →
Clallam
Clark 92 83 -10%
Columbia
Cowlitz 94 115 23%
Douglas 74 73 -1% →
Ferry
Franklin 113 115 1% →
Garfield
Grant 91 79 -14%
Grays Harbor
Island
Jefferson
King 87 92 6%
Kitsap 92 74 -20%
Kittitas 86 104 21%
Klickitat
Lewis
Lincoln
Mason
Okanogan
Pacific
Pend Oreille
Pierce 99 94 -5%
San Juan
Skagit 91 113 24%
Skamania
Snohomish 97 96 -1% →
Spokane 94 86 -9%
Stevens
Thurston 100 94 -6%
Wahkiakum
Walla Walla 113 109 -4%
Whatcom 86 89 3% →
Whitman 101 109 9%
Yakima 106 115 9%
Statewide 81 84 3% →
Note: Counties for which no data is available are left blank, and no assessment is provided.
Source: University of Washington Center for Real Estate Research (WCRER), 2023; BERK, 2023.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 49
Subsidized affordable housing supply
The most effective way to meet the housing needs of low-income residents — particularly those with incomes
at or below 50% of MFI — is to provide subsidized affordable housing that is rented or sold at a cost. University
of Washington Center for Real Estate Research (UWCRER) prepared an inventory of subsidized affordable
housing in each county across Washington as of approximately June 2023. These are income-qualified units
produced with the support of public or private subsidies. In total, they estimate statewide there were 155,214
units with some kind of affordability requirement. This inventory considered housing funded through federal,
state, and local housing programs.11
This indicator measures the number of income-restricted subsidized housing units per 100 renter households
with incomes 50% MFI or below.12 Unlike the other progress indicators which measure change over time, this
indictor evaluates conditions at a single point in time. It can’t be used to assess whether conditions are getting
better or worse. Instead, it estimates the gap between supply and demand for affordable housing in 2023.
Exhibit 28 presents the thresholds used to convert this indicator into a summary progress assessment for the
Dashboard. Values statewide and for each county are shown in Exhibit 29.
Exhibit 28. Progress Assessment Thresholds for Subsidized Affordable Housing
Supply
Metric: Significant Minimal
Subsidized affordable Progress Progress
housing units per 100 renter
households with incomes 0-
→
50% MFI
Progress assessment
≥ 75% < 75% to ≥ 50% < 50% to ≥ 25% < 25% to ≥ 10% < 10%
thresholds:
Statewide, there are about 34 subsidized affordable housing units for every 100 renter households with
incomes from 0-50% of MFI. That means there are about three low-income households for every subsidized
affordable housing unit. This measure varies greatly across the state, from 55 units per 100 low-income renter
households in Adams County to only two in Garfield.
11 See Appendix A State of Washington Housing Market Trends and Needs Assessment for more details.
12 To estimate households in 2023, BERK used HUD CHAS estimates for the year 2019 to calculate the percentage of all households
that are renters with 0-50% MFI. Then this percentage was applied to an estimate of total households in 2023.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 50
Exhibit 29. Subsidized Affordable Housing Supply Compared to Need
Total Subsidized 0-50% MFI Renter Subsidized Units Per 100 0-
County Progress Assessment
Units (2023) Households (2023) 50% MFI Renter Households
Adams 572 1,041 55
Asotin 275 1,069 26 →
Benton 3,726 10,347 36 →
Chelan 1,206 3,833 31 →
Clallam 1,803 3,987 45 →
Clark 7,126 25,487 28 →
Columbia 55 222 25
Cowlitz 1,294 6,765 19
Douglas 328 1,468 22
Ferry 83 505 16
Franklin 1,337 3,786 35 →
Garfield 2 93 2
Grant 2,290 4,917 47 →
Grays Harbor 1,013 4,415 23
Island 803 2,939 27 →
Jefferson 491 1,394 35 →
King 65,806 159,573 41 →
Kitsap 4,080 12,601 32 →
Kittitas 1,179 3,955 30 →
Klickitat 330 1,136 29 →
Lewis 1,163 3,969 29 →
Lincoln 78 358 22
Mason 384 2,354 16
Okanogan 935 2,653 35 →
Pacific 301 974 31 →
Pend Oreille 148 730 20
Pierce 11,046 47,155 23
San Juan 302 796 38 →
Skagit 2,504 5,678 44 →
Skamania 164 534 31 →
Snohomish 16,365 46,638 35 →
Spokane 10,913 33,960 32 →
Stevens 395 1,911 21
Thurston 3,953 15,897 25
Wahkiakum 19 113 17
Walla Walla 1,248 3,643 34 →
Whatcom 4,320 15,876 27 →
Whitman 564 5,940 9
Yakima 5,064 14,712 34 →
Statewide 155,214 453,423 34 →
Note: 2023 households estimates are projections by applying the share of households that are renters with 0-50% MFI in 2019 (from CHAS data) to the
total estimates of households in 2023 from OFM.
Source: UW Center for Real Estate Research, 2023; HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2014-2019 5-year estimates); OFM, 2023; BERK, 2023.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 51
Personal Story: Heather, Snohomish County
Heather experienced housing insecurity when she became sick after the birth
of her son. She needed multiple surgeries in the span of six months and her
struggles with her health worsened to the point she couldn't work. Despite
this, Heather was forced to return to work before she was fully recovered
because her husband’s mental health caused him to leave the family. She and
her young son were behind on rent and despite mediation with the landlord,
as Heather put it, “as soon as I didn’t have a man in the house the landlord
said he wasn’t going to work with me.” She and her son were evicted.
“As soon as I didn’t have a man in the house the landlord said he wasn’t going
to work with me.”
Her son was in sixth grade at the
time. What followed was
approximately two years of living
unsheltered, couch surfing with family when possible, and living in
shelters. Heather and her son experienced multiple forms of trauma.
Heather’s health deteriorated. Her son wasn’t able to access the
healthcare he needed to thrive as a person on the autism spectrum
with complex PTSD. Eventually, Heather and her son found temporary
housing with Housing Hope and then moved into permanent
subsidized housing. Having stable housing has allowed Heather and
her son to begin to heal. They’ve been able to access the healthcare
they both needed. Heather’s overall health is much better, and her
son’s mental health has improved too. Her son is now about to
graduate! He is advocating for his own needs and the needs of those
in his community. All of this healing has only been possible because
they have safe, stable housing.
Photo credit: Heather, 2023
Personal story credit: Washington Low Income Housing Alliance and Heather
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 52
Barriers to meeting housing needs
Introduction
Overview
There are many barriers that inhibit sufficient production of both market-rate and subsidized forms of housing
to meet affordable, accessible housing needs across Washington. Some of these barriers are systemic and
broad, while others derive more narrowly from policies and programs that could be changed to encourage
more housing development. This chapter begins with a discussion of barriers to building affordable housing.
After each barrier are recommendations for state policy or program changes that have the potential to help
mitigate or overcome the issue. These include program adjustments to increase both the yield of affordable
units in mixed-income projects, as well as in development projects specifically intended for low-income
households.
While increasing the production of both market rate and affordable housing is essential to meeting affordable
housing needs in Washington, production alone will not be sufficient. Therefore, the final section of this
chapter includes additional barriers to meeting affordable housing needs in Washington and recommendations
to overcome those barriers. These recommendations pertain to issues such as supporting homeownership,
affordable housing preservation, and protecting vulnerable residents to maintain housing security.
There are significant racial and ethnic disparities regarding access to affordable housing, as discussed in
Appendix A: Housing Market Trends and Needs Assessment. BIPOC residents face additional barriers to
accessing housing within their means, and they make up a disproportionate share of households that are cost-
burdened by housing.13 Underinvestment and insufficient production of affordable housing, or siting of new
affordable housing projects primarily in high-poverty, low-opportunity areas exacerbates racial disparities both
directly and in terms of access to schools, health care, and other amenities.14 Conversely, new affordable
housing development in historically underserved areas can risk displacing existing residents and breaking up
communities of color. Because of this, we highlighted barriers with pronounced implications for housing equity
that perpetuate racial disparities across this chapter.
Barriers with pronounced implications for housing equity, are indicated by a blue box
and this icon.
13 See, for example, Race Counts’ Updated Race Counts Housing Data Finds Significant Racial Disparities in Housing Cost Burden
(2022).
14 This is described in more detail in Applying a Racial Equity Lens to Housing Policy Analysis by the Urban Institute (2020). The Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities also highlights how vouchers can help address these issues in Expanding Housing Vouchers Would Cut
Poverty and Reduce Racial Disparities (2021).
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 53
Background Research and Works Referenced
This chapter draws on previous housing studies in Washington and stakeholder interviews and engagement.
This includes several local housing action plans and market studies as well as the following reports:
• 2017 Housing Affordability Response Team (HART) Recommendations (Department of Commerce)
• Assessment of the Housing Needs of American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians in
Washington (Department of Commerce, 2022)
• Guidance for Making Adequate Provisions to Accommodate All Housing Needs – DRAFT (Department
of Commerce, 2023)
• Increasing Black Homeownership in the Puget Sound Region (Black Homeownership Initiative, 2021)
• Improving Homeownership Rates for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color in Washington:
Recommendations from the Homeownership Disparities Work Group (Department of Commerce, 2022)
• Manufactured Housing Communities Workgroup Report (Department of Commerce, 2020)
• Pierce County Housing Action Strategy (Pierce County, 2022)
• Planning to Blossom 2037: Wenatchee Urban Area Comprehensive Plan (City of Wenatchee, 2022)
• Racially Disparate Impacts Guidance – DRAFT (Department of Commerce, 2023)
• Recommendations for Encouraging Accessory Dwelling Units – DRAFT (Department of Commerce,
2023)
• Spokane Housing Action Plan (City of Spokane, 2021)
• Washington Farmworker Housing Needs Assessment (Department of Commerce, 2022)
Barriers to affordable housing production
These barriers are organized according to the four steps of the development process:
• Funding, financing, and resources
• Land use regulation and planning
• Administrative processes
• Construction
Funding, financing, and resources
When coordinating a housing project, developers need to gather adequate, reliable funding and resources. In
addition to capital funding, this can include other sources of financial support (including ongoing operations or
services funding streams), land, and other inputs necessary for the project to move forward. Non-profit
affordable housing developers often struggle to assemble sufficient capital to meet project requirements.
Development agencies face significant competition to access scarce government subsidies and grants, or to
raise funds from private sources that don’t levy unmanageable fees or expect unrealistic returns on their
investments.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 54
During this initial stage, challenges to development can include the following.
Lack of access to funding support
Barriers:
• Sufficient up-front funding. Housing development requires reserves of funding to pay for impact fees or
meet affordable housing development standards at the beginning of a project. But public funders in
particular may require deliverables before they release funding, and both private and public awards may
be contingent on commitments of matching funds. Moreover, public funding awards may be tied to
annual or biennial budgets, with decision-makers and elected leaders rotating during the life cycle of
the project.
• Limited public funding, and additional requirements of public funding. Many nonprofit and community-
based organizations predominantly rely on public funding, which is limited. This can either prevent
organizations from participating in housing development altogether, or limit the size or number of
projects they can execute. Stakeholders report that local governments may condition public funding for
capital projects on the provision of services (for example, to support low-barrier housing models aimed
to help people exiting homelessness) that are not covered by the capital grant itself. Even when such
requirements are not explicit, developers may have to secure funding for such services from other
sources in order to successfully compete for limited public funding.
Insufficient funding from the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG). IHBG funding has not
increased to account for inflation. Furthermore, IHBG funding often does not fully cover the cost of
maintenance and operations of a development.
Issues with lending practices. There may be government and cultural barriers to standard
types of lending. Conventional lending practices where land is put up as collateral for building or
development loans are not possible with trust lands or reservations, in part because ownership of tribal
land or land held by the federal government on behalf of a tribe cannot typically be assumed by a
lender in case of default. Similarly, securing adequate funds in advance can be a barrier to developers
whose Islamic faith does not allow them to assume interest-bearing loans; they must seek out
alternatives like lease-to-own arrangements, which can be even more limited in availability.
• Additional investment needed to maintain current subsidized housing stock. Subsidized housing units,
especially those that are managed by for-profit companies, are required to be managed as affordable
through the end of a specific period determined by the individual programs. In Washington, this is
primarily through the 12-year Multifamily Housing Tax Exemption (MFTE) program, which ensures rent-
restricted units over at least that 12-year period15, and the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
(LIHTC) programs, where they are subject to a minimum 15-year compliance period.16 As subsidized
15 See the Department of Commerce’s Multi-Family Housing Property Tax Exemption Program website for more information.
16 See the Tax Credit Compliance Procedures Manual (Washington State Housing Finance Commission, 2022 rev.) for more
information. Note that LIHTC projects may provide for a total Project Compliance Period of up to 37 years with extensions.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 55
housing units reach the end of this mandatory period of affordability, they may be bought out and
transitioned to market-rate housing. In these cases, additional funding and other programs would be
necessary to maintain these units as accessible to low-income housing.
Recommendations:
• Dedicate an ongoing investment (permanent funding stream) for the state Housing Trust Fund.
• Invest in maintaining current housing stock as affordable after MFTE and LIHTC compliance periods
elapse.
“I can’t heap enough praise on OPAL [Community Land Trust] here on the island. OPAL truly
believes that a house should be for housing and not for accumulating wealth, and OPAL walks
its talk.”
-- Listening session participant
• Increase funding (including grants) to assemble land for homeownership development that includes
permanent affordability to low-income homebuyers.
• Explore funding for innovative forms of housing, for example cottage communities,17 community land
trusts, home sharing programs, and other ways to provide cost-effective and affordable ownership
housing for low- and moderate-income homebuyers.
• Explore funding for limited equity cooperatives and/or community land trusts and/or other permanently
affordable homeownership models as a potential model to expand homeownership opportunities for
low-income homebuyers.
• Explore funding opportunities that increase workforce housing affordable to employed but low-wage
households, for example directly subsidizing housing for employees of school districts or other sectors,
or migrant workers.
• Provide incentives for cities and counties to adopt local/sub-regional housing levies.
Challenges with managing financial incentives
Barriers:
• “Capital stacking” or layered funding requirements. Because developers with limited private means
frequently “stack” their funding sources, they face layers of restrictions on or parameters of funding,
such as differing time periods for project completion or requirements for wraparound services or
amenities. Blended funding streams require time and expertise to secure and manage, and may even
present conflicts that must be mediated in order to use multiple funding types. If even one public
funding source denies an award, it can cause costly delays (for example, putting projects on hold until
the following year’s award cycle) or even make a project infeasible.
• Development thresholds. Many jurisdictions offer density bonuses, which incentivize income-restricted
housing without direct costs to local governments, because they allow more units to be built on the
17 For example, these could be developed with new manufactured homes on small platted fee-simple lots or long-term lease on land
owned by a non-profit or public entity.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 56
same amount of land. However, including more units within a project can increase building costs, which
can make it difficult for affordable housing developers to use the incentive.
• Mismatch among priorities incentivized by different public funders. Local, state and regional incentive
priorities may not align. For example, state funds are exclusively for housing and prioritize proximity to
transit. However, local zoning in commercial corridors requires new buildings have ground-floor retail
that is not fundable or incurs costs that may be infeasible for affordable housing developers.
“Most communities want affordable housing that can serve a wide variety of people. The way
funding is prioritized, they often must pick one priority (homeless, farmworkers, Veterans,
etc.) in order to get funded and this limits how many households they can serve and
unintentionally segregates people by the housing in which they live, i.e. 'That's where the (fill
in the prioritized population) live.' ”
-- Rural developer
• Uncertainty of new or changing incentive programs. New or changing incentive programs can pose a
significant learning curve for developers, as well as risk that they may not function as intended, or have
unpredictable consequences. Rather than expending time and effort to learn and implement a new
program, many developers prefer to utilize known systems with consistency.
• Complex variance among tax credits. Across Washington, there are multiple tax credits that may be
available for development, depending on the jurisdiction of the proposal. Understanding and leveraging
these credits can be a complicated or difficult process for developers.
• Complex Housing Trust Fund acquisition restrictions. Program administrators may not allow for
flexibility in scope of acquisition awards. For example, developers may not be allowed to acquire units
with different numbers of bedrooms than initially planned, or units that are already occupied by low-
income tenants, even though the market has changed.
“Structural and institutional racism impact[s] access to resources and financing, and navigation
of funding sources and processes. Our communities know how to best serve our community
members with language, cultural traditions, food, and healing. BIPOC community-based
organizations should have their capital projects funded to create community wealth and jobs in
their respective communities.”
- Seattle-based housing provider
Recommendations:
• Periodically review and resolve conflicts among public funding requirements across national, state and
local programs.
• Develop and maintain resource guides and/or provide ongoing technical assistance resources to help
emerging affordable housing developers (including BIPOC and By and For organizations) to navigate
tax credits and other incentives.
• Expand programs to fund land acquisition and pre-development costs to improve BIPOC organization
access.
• Explore ways to bundle tax credits across small projects, to expand access to this funding option.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 57
• Amend the Multifamily Housing Tax Exemption statute to provide equal access to all aspects of the
MFTE program for local governments and provide additional flexibility. The 2023 legislative report
identifies adjustments that would help make the program more effective.
Lack of access to developable land
Barriers:
• Availability of and competition for land suitable for development. The process of identifying land for
development and working to bring parcels to market is time- and effort-intensive. Developers often
prefer large, vacant parcels with appropriate zoning regulations, but with reserves stored during the
Great Recession being consumed, these are increasingly unavailable or unaffordable for all but the
most well-resourced housing developers. A similar dynamic affects individual parcels sufficient for new
housing development.
Recommendations:
• Continue supporting the transfer of government-owned surplus properties for affordable housing
development, including strategic opportunities for property assembly.18
• Provide funding and assistance to support local or regional land banking initiatives, particularly in
future transit-oriented development (TOD)19 areas.
Challenges with financing options for affordable housing
Barriers:
Market risk. To pursue new housing projects, developers must be comfortable with the amount
of financial risk they are bearing and must be able to borrow at acceptable rates. When financial
markets are unstable or unpredictable, developers and lenders are less likely to accept this risk.
Further, lenders may be reluctant to extend loans to developers without extensive portfolios of
completed projects or who are working in historically underdeveloped areas, such as BIPOC
communities.
Long delays in public funding awards and financial closing result in higher interest expenses, in lending
environments with rising interest rates or labor/materials costs. This creates uncertainty that is
difficult to control and may cause cost overruns during the pre-development period.
18 Property assembly, also known as “land assembly,” is the process of combining two or more adjacent properties into a single parcel,
usually for the purpose of creating a larger development site for construction projects. (What is Land Assembly? Real Estate 101)
19 Transit-oriented development is where “housing affordable to a range of income levels, as well as new retail, restaurants, offices, and
community spaces, contribute to creating vibrant neighborhoods with direct access to transit” (Sound Transit, accessed May 26, 2023).
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 58
Weak housing markets. In thin markets where sales are limited, which often include areas with
historical underinvestment, housing prices may be hard to identify and challenging to include in loan
underwriting. Racial bias in appraisal, particularly in predominantly Black neighborhoods, can also result
in lower property valuation. This can affect the prospective value of a housing development and make
lenders less willing to extend loans needed for construction, or require higher interest rates for projects
in certain neighborhoods. This barrier can have disproportionate impacts on communities of color.
Recommendations:
• Examine the racially disparate impacts of weak and uncertain housing markets, and shape programs
and incentives that rebalance opportunity such as by subsidizing or insuring loans, or auditing and
correcting low valuations.
• Provide support or incentives to providers of culturally specific alternatives to conventional lending
practices.
Long-term fiscal sustainability
Barriers:
Limited future revenue expectations to offset costs. Revenue expectations for housing that
will not be distributed at market rate may be too low to cover capital costs. In addition, rental units
that are affordable to very low- and extremely low-income households often do not generate enough
funding to cover operational costs, making them less appealing to even mission-driven investors such
as governments and nonprofits. Permanent supportive housing, housing for people in recovery,
emergency housing and other types of service-enhanced housing are often required to identify
ongoing funding streams to operate wraparound and supportive services, which is not an expectation
of market-driven housing development.
Recommendations:
• Support continuation and expansion of funding streams for supportive housing and supported
employment services, including innovations such as the Medicaid Transformation Project and
population-specific strategies such as for Family Unification Voucher recipients.
• Provide long-term sustainable operating assistance (property management and/or supportive services)
for projects that demonstrate fidelity to Permanent Supportive Housing models and allow vulnerable
populations to succeed.
• Sustain operations, maintenance, and services funding assistance for Permanent Supportive Housing
and multifamily housing serving extremely low-income households.
Land use regulation and planning
Land use regulation and planning can affect affordable housing in a few ways. Restrictive zoning laws and
development regulations can restrict the amount of affordable housing that can be built in certain areas and
may even exclude it from certain high-amenity neighborhoods. Additionally, infrastructure planning and
coordination may not allocate sufficient capacity to provide support for affordable housing, which may limit
projects that cannot bear the costs of service extensions.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 59
Issues with effective planning coordination
Barriers:
• Scarce and unpredictable planning resources. In recent years, the Legislature has provided historic
levels of funding for local governments to engage in land use planning. However, the state does not
provide stable and predictable funding to support local planning. This makes it difficult for jurisdictions
to hire staff and build capacity for updating housing elements and implementing zoning, regulatory, and
administrative process changes needed to support new housing production that can meet local needs.
• Tension between local goals and capacity, and assessed housing need. Across Washington, there is no
agency that certifies local housing elements for consistency with regional or state housing needs
assessments. The goals of these local housing elements can be set at a city or county level, and may
not be feasible, given market conditions or community capacity. There can be a disconnect between
housing needs and the housing that results from land use policy because there are no penalties for
jurisdictions that fail to meet the housing goals in their comprehensive plans.
Engagement of tribes in local planning processes. Tribal governments are often excluded from
or only nominally included in decision-making in local planning processes. Recent changes to planning
regulations clarify the option of tribes to participate in local planning processes. But while tribal
consultation is increasingly requested by public funders, such requests typically do not come with
corresponding funding to increase tribal staff capacity to enable thoughtful engagement; for example,
during archeological review. As a result, long-term engagements can be hard to establish and sustain.
• Incomplete or unfunded infrastructure. Housing development, especially affordable housing
development, is more successful when supported by a multimodal transportation system, including
sidewalks and bike lanes. This is especially true in cases where household members may not have
access to a car or where the costs of providing a large amount of on-site parking would be prohibitive.
Planning that results in incomplete or fragmented systems may not provide adequate support for
housing development in these communities.20 And lack of public funding can be a barrier to
infrastructure or service level improvements necessary to make new housing development feasible.
• Increasing infrastructure costs and costs of growth. Overall, costs of construction have been
increasing. In addition to increasing the direct costs of housing construction (as noted below), the cost
of infrastructure development has also increased. The most notable effects on this have to do with
local coordination of growth, as available resources may not be able to provide the necessary
infrastructure to support development. These costs may also be passed on to developers as
connection charges, impact fees, and other levies, providing more direct costs for new development.
• Affordable housing developments without access to private funding reserves may incur additional
financing costs to borrow money to complete planning, design, and infrastructure improvements
required before planned unit development approval and building permit review.
20 See for example Planning to Blossom 2037: Wenatchee Urban Area Comprehensive Plan and its discussion of the City’s Complete
Streets Policy (Ordinance 2016-24). Also see the Complete Streets in Wenatchee website.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 60
Recommendations:
• Provide stable and predictable funding to support local comprehensive planning for jurisdictions,
including the update to local municipal codes to support clear and efficient permitting.
• Provide assistance to address infrastructure gaps that are a barrier to the development of housing.
• Support local governments to engage with tribes and other underrepresented groups. In recent years,
the Legislature has provided historic levels of funding for local governments to engage in land use
planning, and provided assistance to engage with tribes and underrepresented groups; however,
additional technical assistance would be helpful.
• Require jurisdictions to report on implementation of adequate provisions identified in their
comprehensive plan housing elements.
Regulatory challenges
Barriers:
• Cumbersome jurisdictional regulations. Many jurisdictions employ regulations that may discourage
housing development because they make the process too difficult, lengthy, or expensive. These
regulations include:
• High minimum lot sizes
• Low maximum densities or low maximum floor area ratios (FAR)
• Low maximum building heights
• Large setback requirements
• Bulk requirements
• Lot coverage requirements
• High off-street parking requirements
• Restrictive accessory dwelling unit (ADU) standards
• Requirements that limit the capacity of housing
• Ground floor retail requirements
• Complex design standards
• Maximum impervious surface cover requirements
• Tree retention regulations
• Historic preservation requirements
• New projects that can be built under these requirements may be too expensive to be feasible, and may
not allow for housing formats that would be more affordable and accessible to a wider range of
incomes.
Zoning regulations limiting the amount of multifamily housing. Separate from whether land
itself can be developed, there is also the issue of how much development can be accommodated on a
site. In many jurisdictions, land is not zoned to allow for multifamily housing, which reduces available
developable land for new multifamily housing developments.
• Limiting environmental regulations or conditions. State and local regulations for environmental
protection are often incongruent with housing development. This can discourage developers from
taking on new projects because doing so would be a complicated process. In other cases, developers
may find that the only land that is available and affordable is environmentally challenging (such as
brownfields or parcels in watersheds) and requires extensive, expensive remediation or protections.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 61
• Unclear development regulations. Regulations for housing development can sometimes be
inconsistent across code sections, lacking in definitions, and ambiguous in interpretation and
precedence in the case of conflict. This can make the housing development process a complicated and
undesirable endeavor.
• Manufactured housing limitations. HUD effectively inhibits the production of manufactured homes with
rules that are not meaningfully based in safety or other concerns, including requiring a permanent
chassis for homes that may never move.
Recommendations:
• Within urban growth areas, provide statewide zoning standards for housing and commercial uses
within half a mile of high-capacity transit stations.
• Provide funding for transit station area planning that addresses affordable housing needs.
• Provide examples or models of inclusionary zoning and how much affordable housing different
markets could support.
• Require that cities and counties limit development regulations related to the siting of emergency and
permanent supportive housing. This is an expansion of a 2021 GMA requirement for cities only.21
21 The expansion for cities was implemented through HB 1220 (2021-22), Supporting emergency shelters and housing through local
planning and development regulations.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 62
Personal Story: Evan, San Juan County
Evan moved to San Juan County seven years ago and it took him five years to find
stable, affordable housing. During that time, the only constant was that he’d have to
find a new place to live every year. Whether it was housing tied to a job (it was a tent),
living in a 50-year-old trailer with faulty plumbing, or being kicked out of housing
because the landlord decided to turn the house into an Airbnb, he had to move at
least once a year. It wasn’t until he found housing through OPAL Community Land
Trust’s rental housing two years ago that he found a stable, affordable place to call
home. Evan feels a sense of security now that he knows he won’t be evicted on a
whim, because he knows his landlord’s goal is to house members of the community
rather than maximize profit.
Evan made it clear that his story isn’t uncommon for low-
and moderate-income residents of San Juan County.
Everyone he knows is in a similar yearly scramble to find
housing as the affordable housing shortage gets worse
and worse. His concern for his community is that it will
become a luxury community without any workers living in
it. He sees businesses struggling to hire workers because
workers can’t afford housing. He sees young people
moving away. Unless this trajectory changes, he doesn’t
see a long-term future for himself in San Juan County. He
wants to start a family one day, and he can’t do that in a
place with so much housing insecurity.
Photo credit: Evan, 2023
Personal story credit: Washington Low Income Housing Alliance and Evan
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 63
Administrative processes
The administrative process for developing affordable housing can be complex and time consuming. Obtaining
permits, coordinating compliance with design review, navigating the SEPA process, and complying with
required public outreach can add significant costs and time to affordable housing projects. When
neighborhood opposition emerges, it can significantly delay or even halt a project.
Lengthy periods for approvals
Barriers:
• Processing and permitting times. In many jurisdictions, the time it takes to review and approve permit
applications can be long, sometimes related to staff capacity. In some cases, jurisdictions can use
private, third-party permit/engineering reviewers that can oversubscribe contracted services, slowing
review/approval time.
• Long review cycles lead to increased expenses. In jurisdictions where conditional use permits are used,
lack of clarity about their use may increase unpredictability, which can heighten the risk associated with
development and make it more difficult or time-intensive to execute and require developers hold
property idle for extended time periods.
• Design reviews. Some jurisdictions require design reviews that are complex, overly prescriptive, and/or
vague in their requirements. This can delay housing development and can sometimes even result in the
cancellation of local projects.
• State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) processes. In jurisdictions where SEPA exemption thresholds
have not been raised, there can be extended permitting processes for some housing types, which can
lengthen project timelines and add administrative hurdles to housing.
Recommendations:
• Set standards of practice for permitting workloads and encourage jurisdictions to adequately fund and
staff permitting departments and processes.
• Encourage use of Chapter 338, Laws of 2023 (Concerning consolidating local permit review processes)
grant funds to improve permit review processes and systems for faster permit approval.22
High administrative costs
Barriers:
• High fees for permits, impact, and utility connections. High fees for jurisdictional processes may be
necessary to support staff costs for review, but can add to the financial strain on housing developers.
Some jurisdictions choose to exempt affordable projects from most or all of these types of fees, but
this creates a dilemma for communities with insufficient market rate development to offset the
affordable housing fee waivers.
Recommendations:
• Continue providing support and encouragement to cities and counties to revise impact and system
development charge discounts/waivers to support smaller, infill, and multi-unit housing.
• Create a statewide fund to help replace exempted property taxes and waived impact fees used to
incentivize affordable housing projects.
22 One example of permit process improvement is Seattle’s Intake Express Lane.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 64
Complexity in process
Barriers:
• Complexity of regulations and administrative processes. Because jurisdictions adopt individualized
regulations for housing development, regulatory processes and fees can vary widely and lack
transparency. Additional time to learn the differences among jurisdictions, or mistaken assumptions
and errors, can increase costs and lengthen process timelines.
• “One size fits all” requirements and processes. Some regulatory requirements and processes can be
disproportionately burdensome to apply to small projects, driving up the project costs relative to the
value of the development. Further, small contractors that are willing to take on these small projects
(including women- or minority-owned business enterprises, or WMBEs) may have fewer resources to
navigate compliance, paperwork and costs of complex administrative processes.
• Challenges in developing ADUs. Stakeholders report that guidelines applied to all residential housing
can increase costs of units such as accessory dwelling units (ADUs) beyond feasibility. Commerce’s
2023 update to Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) guidance recommends that the use of design standards
be limited, that impact and other ADU-related fees be waived, and that ADU permitting processes be
streamlined where such units are otherwise appropriate.
• Scarcity of institutional and historical knowledge. Housing authorities and development agencies
experience staff turnover, which can be higher at nonprofit agencies with limited compensation
capacity. This can also be true in City and County government. Exiting staff often take institutional
knowledge with them. Such turnover limits internal capacity and organizational planning, and makes it
harder to execute new projects efficiently, even if they are similar to previous projects in the
organization’s portfolio.23
• Overlapping special purpose districts and private servicing. For many jurisdictions in Washington,
overlapping special districts and service areas can complicate the coordination of development. For
example, water and sewer districts may be shared among multiple jurisdictions, and this servicing may
be provided by private companies. Additional coordination in certain areas may increase costs and the
length of the process, and may even prevent development if servicing is not available.
Recommendations:
• Develop and disseminate to local governments best practices for scaling housing development
requirements and processes to different project sizes, to support production of middle-sized and
smaller housing projects.
• Create on-ramp for community nonprofits, including By and For organizations24 operated by the
communities they seek to serve, to build skills and capacity for affordable housing development. This
might include reserving some funding assistance for first-time developers; exemptions to requirements
to have secured a site prior to qualifying for funding, pre-development conferences and technical
assistance.
• Encourage and support technical assistance to help affordable housing developers navigate
environmental and other development regulations and apply for exemptions if needed.
• Fund preconstruction technical assistance and training programs.
23 This is explored in the Assessment of the Housing Needs of American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians in Washington
from the Department of Commerce. In this case, this is especially reinforced for ribal housing agencies, but these challenges may be
faced by some degree by other agencies, especially those facing resource challenges.
24 Commerce defines By and For organizations as an organization that has a primary mission and history of supporting and providing
services to BIPOC and unserved communities, and that is culturally based, directed and substantially controlled by individuals from the
specific population they serve.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 65
Neighborhood opposition
Barriers:
Opposition to density, growth, or affordable housing. Multifamily housing development plans
may encounter “Not in My Backyard” (NIMBY) attitudes related to density, growth, and affordable
housing among community members. In particular, some community members may raise concerns
related to parking, noise, nuisance, service delivery, and preserving the character of their neighborhood,
or may have fears about the people brought in by development. Faced with opposition from its
constituents, a jurisdiction may limit multifamily zoning, place this zoning type at the edge of
communities, or in undesirable locations. While less direct than historical redlining, these practices can
have similar racial equity impacts.
• Opposition to property tax exemptions. Communities may also oppose affordable housing projects due
to concerns about impacts of property tax exemptions on their jurisdiction’s tax base as a whole.
Jurisdictions with insufficient market-rate development to support overall costs of government may be
further dis-incentivized to invest in affordable housing when facing the prospect of foregoing future
revenues from affordable housing sites.
Displacement concerns. When projects are sited where they are most needed, they can
nevertheless incite opposition from residents who will be displaced, even from substandard housing.
Even if the housing units being developed will be made available to community members at replacement
levels and above, residents must go somewhere during construction, and temporary affordable options
are typically limited and lacking in support.
Recommendations
This Plan does not include specific recommendations for addressing neighborhood opposition. However, three
bills passed by the Legislature in 2023 all address process-related hurdles to housing development and limit
the ability of unreasonable local opposition to slow down review processes or block new affordable housing
developments. HB 5412 exempts from State Environmental Policy Act review proposed housing developments
within urban growth areas that comply with local Comprehensive Plans. HB 1293 requires local design review
to use clear and objective standards that don’t reduce development capacity otherwise allowed, and the
process cannot require more than one public meeting. Finally, SB 5290 establishes grant programs for local
governments to reduce permit review timelines and to support their transition from paper-based to
software/web-based systems.
“I faced biases from real estate agents assuming because of my race I shouldn't be buying a home
or home as nice as I was looking for.”
-- Black identifying survey respondent
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 66
Construction
Building and construction of affordable housing faces additional barriers. Building codes can often constrain
design options and potentially increase building costs. Challenges with supply chains, cost increases, and
scarcity of labor, equipment, and other inputs can also inhibit housing production.
High construction and development costs
Barriers:
• Increasing construction costs. The cost to build housing has increased significantly, particularly as a
result of disruptions in supply chains. Unlike in market-rate housing, increased costs cannot be
supported by increased rents/pricing in affordable housing projects. Instead, these costs can delay or
even derail projects, especially if additional funding would be required for the project to be workable.
• High labor costs in rural areas. Rural areas may see higher costs for labor, due to scarcer skilled trades
(note below), longer travel times, and a lack of workforce housing. This can add costs to development
in areas that may not be able to bear these costs.
• Significant infrastructure costs in specific areas. Infrastructure costs can also be high, particularly for
connections to public water and sewer systems. This can be significant in development in rural areas
that cannot support on-site servicing, but this can also impact areas in redeveloping areas where
improvements to existing infrastructure would be required to accommodate greater demands.
Recommendations:
• Increase flexibility with allocating state resources, including Housing Trust Fund resources, while still
prioritizing regional distribution.
• Encourage use of the sales and use tax deferral on materials and labor in more jurisdictions, to
incentivize affordable buyer and renter housing redevelopment of underdeveloped land.
• Work with Washington State Building Code Council to determine if any state building codes present
unnecessary barriers to manufactured or modular home construction and placement.
• Reduce the permitting timeline for new prefabricated and modular housing by working with Labor and
Industry (L&I) to streamline or eliminate the building permit approval process.
• Review RCW 35A.21.312 and engage with manufactured home developers to determine if there are
common local design standards, such as roof height or pitch requirements, that make transport and
placement of manufactured homes especially costly and could be waived.
Access to skilled labor
Barriers:
• Shortage of skilled labor. The previous recession forced many construction-related small businesses
with limited reserves to close due to downturns in the market. While there has been some recovery,
there is a shortage of experienced skilled labor in building trades. Similarly, in some parts of the state,
there are not enough developers to foster a competitive market for the construction industry.25
• Limited contractor availability in rural communities. As noted above with labor costs, scarcity of
contractors can be a challenge in rural communities. Due to location and lack of workforce housing,
labor for construction can be especially difficult to contract in rural areas. Even where there is local
need and available funding for affordable housing, lack of contractor capacity impacts whether a
project can move forward.
25 At the national level, The HBI Construction Labor Market Report (2022) from the Home Builders Institute highlights many of the
recent challenges faced with labor in the construction sector, and how constraints on talent have resulted in increased costs.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 67
• Competition for construction labor with market-rate developments. Because for-profit developers can
offer higher pay to construction workers, nonprofit and community-based organizations often cannot
compete and have insufficient access to construction labor.
Recommendations:
• Support construction job training and apprenticeship programs to meet demand for construction labor.
Limited housing models
Barriers:
• Limited resources or support for affordable homeownership development or workforce housing. Many
communities need more options to house residents who have reliable income but are unable to
compete in the private housing market, including locally based workers such as teachers and
emergency services providers. Some of these and other lower-income households could access
homeownership with tailored support. But models and incentives (such as limited equity and/or land
trust models, condominium ADUs, or tax exemptions that promote homeownership through community
housing organizations) for this segment of the population are limited in availability.
• Public funder preference for large projects. Public funders tend to prefer projects with many units for
big wins on affordable housing unit production, despite demonstrated need and demand for "missing
middle" sized housing. This large-project emphasis may also result in missed opportunities for smaller
infill development, especially in urban sites near transit and jobs.
Lack of appropriately sized housing to meet household needs. Many communities (including those
with high proportions of immigrants and refugees, or higher poverty levels overall) need housing that can
accommodate larger household sizes. This can include larger families, as well as intergenerational
households. As of 2021, about 9%of households had five or more members, and this share is growing
over time. To meet these needs, more affordable housing developers must design and build different
models of housing than they typically produce. This can increase costs and adds risk because of the
uncertainty of finding the appropriate fit between tenants and units.
• Need for different supportive housing models. Different populations in need of affordable housing may
also have diverse service and support needs to maintain housing stability. Meeting those needs may
require not just costly variation in design, construction, and operating. They might also require
narrowing the prospective tenant pool, requiring more effort to appropriately site projects up front and
maintain occupancy rates later.
“Disability is a huge barrier. I'm lucky enough to have great credit and a steady job, but I'm still
limited on housing options because of my disability. I need to live somewhere accessible, which
comes with a higher price tag. My current unit is expensive, but I can't find a less expensive unit
that meets my accessibility needs.”
-- Survey respondent
Competing priorities for housing for different income levels. Public funds are often focused on housing
extremely low-income and people moving out of homelessness, which may exhaust available funding and
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 68
lead to neglecting investment in mixed-income and senior housing serving people at 50-80% AMI. Such
projects serving residents with at least some income may do more to alleviate the overall affordable
housing deficit.
Recommendations:
• Develop incentives, technical assistance or other support for projects including units for large
households and wraparound services.
• Consider a statewide amendment to the International Existing Building Code that makes it easier to
adaptively reuse existing buildings for housing.
• Encourage the production and sale of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as condominiums to expand
lower-cost homeownership opportunities.
• Provide a statewide technical assistance program that helps individuals safely rent space in their home
(e.g., home sharing) or rent ADU to unrelated tenants.
• Study the potential role(s) for manufactured and modular housing as lower-cost options for infill ADU
and middle housing.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 69
Personal Story: Juanita, King County
Juanita’s story of housing insecurity is one marked by resilience in the face of
trauma. Her most recent period of homelessness was a result of fleeing domestic
violence in another state. During this time, she and her children were caught in
what felt like oppressive systems, despite the fact that they were supposed to
provide safe ports in a storm. Shelters designed for DV survivors did not provide
extensions of time that would have kept their family together and allowed access
to needed support services. Juanita states that we need, “more accountability in
providers being more intentional in supporting bigger families when in a
confidential shelter. Having cultural sensitivity would benefit Indigenous families.”
Juanita points to systemic racism and providers who can gatekeep resources as
some of the greatest barriers she and her family faced during this time.
Despite these obstacles, Juanita and her family recently found
affordable housing through a voucher program that has
enabled her and her family to begin trying to heal. It’s not as
accessible for her adult children’s disabilities as they need, but
it’s better than where they were. Juanita wants policymakers to
know how difficult it is to navigate systems that are supposed
to be accessible and provide people with aid. Sometimes these
systems were re-traumatizing because the providers didn’t
have the resources, cultural sensitivity, and trauma-informed
training they needed to help. Through all this, Juanita has done
her best to remain grounded by drawing strength from her
cultural and spiritual practices.
Photo credit: Juanita, 2023
Personal story credit: Washington Low Income Housing Alliance and Juanita
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 70
Other barriers to meeting housing needs
While addressing barriers to the production of new affordable housing is essential, there are many other
barriers to meeting the affordable housing needs of Washington residents. This Plan identifies
recommendations related to three of these barriers described below.
Loss of affordable housing stock
“What I'd like legislators to know is that people like me who live on a fixed income are being priced
out of their homes and there's no place to go. I mean, because the rentals are so expensive.”
-- Senior resident
Many affordable housing units in Washington are supported by subsidies or affordability covenants that will
expire in coming years. This housing will typically convert to market rate unless we take action to preserve it as
affordable. Additionally, there are many naturally occurring affordable housing units in Washington that
provide relatively affordable housing compared to prevailing market rents. These units may be in older
buildings that are in poorer condition. As rents continue to rise, property owners have increasing incentive to
either refurbish the housing and rent it at a higher rate or demolish the housing to make way for new housing
that can generate more rental income. Without sufficient funding, local jurisdictions have limited options to
prevent the loss of affordable housing.
Recommendations:
• Consider increasing Housing Trust Fund flexibility for unit acquisition.
• Explore new funding and financing tools to support preservation of manufactured home communities
by eligible organizations.26 This could include funding to improve infrastructure.
Supporting low- and moderate-income homeownership
Ownership housing costs have increased rapidly in housing markets across Washington. The UW Center for
Real Estate Research’s Housing Affordability Index has declined rapidly in nearly all counties over the past
several years. In most counties, the Index shows that homeownership is out of reach for low- and moderate-
income households.
“Being retired with only SSI is a rude awakening … space rent increased within 6 months (by $150)
and then again 6 months after that. Why so often?”
-- Senior manufactured homeowner
Recommendations:
• Expand the scope of debt mediation and credit repair programs to help more low-income households
become homeowner ready.
26 “Eligible organization” includes community land trusts, resident nonprofit cooperatives, local governments, local housing authorities,
nonprofit community or neighborhood-based organizations, federally recognized Indian tribes in the state of Washington, and regional
or statewide nonprofit housing assistance organizations). The definition of “eligible organization” was expanded via passage of
Chapter 40, Laws of 2023 (E2SSB 5198), effective 7/23/2023 (see Sec. 2, page 2).
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 71
• Expand eligible uses of state homeownership funding to include home repair and maintenance to help
homeowners retain and sustain occupancy/ownership.
• Invest in foreclosure counseling and assistance (through the Foreclosure Fairness Program), including
by creating training materials to support mediation statewide and by strengthening the ability of the
program to identify and collect revenue owed by mortgage lenders.
Protecting vulnerable manufactured home community residents
Manufactured home communities (also known as mobile home parks) provide relatively lower-cost housing for
more than 58,000 households in Washington. However, these residents are vulnerable to increases in lot fees
charged by community owners and displacement due to community closures.
“I lived in a mobile home in Mason County. The rent was $1380 a month. I get $1500 in Social
Security. I had to pay for repairs and if I complained was told, ‘there are other renters who would
love a roof over their heads.’ I had the landlord show up whenever without notice. When I
complained that I was currently in a [domestic violence] situation and needed locks changed, I was
told that DV happens all the time and it usually is just a misunderstanding.”
-- Unhoused senior
There are different models of ownership that can provide greater housing stability for lower-income
households. However, local opposition to new manufactured housing can be strong, especially for larger
manufactured home parks, and local regulations can make it difficult to site this type of housing. Preservation
of existing manufactured homes as an affordable housing option may also not be a focus of local housing
policy, and losses may result in greater local demands for affordable housing.
The Washington State Legislature passed two bills in 2023 related to manufactured homes communities. HB
1771 (Chapter 259, Laws of 2023) strengthened the rules governing relocation assistance provided by the
Mobile Home Relocation Assistance Program for displaced mobile home park residents. SB 5198 (Chapter 40,
Laws of 2023) strengthened rules to give mobile homeowners the opportunity to purchase mobile home
communities when owners propose closure or conversion. However, neither bill eliminated the fundamental
vulnerability of manufactured home community residents to displacement.
Recommendations:
• Implement measures to reduce closures of manufactured home communities27 (such as requiring re-
zoning when such parks are sold for other uses) and to protect low-income manufactured homeowners
from displacement.
• Increase funding to support more robust relocation assistance and relocation coordination programs
for manufactured/mobile home communities.28
• Revise the Manufactured/Mobile Home Relocation Assistance Program to allow homeowners to apply
the relocation assistance funds for which they are eligible to other replacement housing when they are
27 In this section we use the term “manufactured home community” instead of the more common “mobile home park.” In both cases,
we are referring to a housing model where homeowners own mobile/manufactured home structures, but rent the lot or pad where they
are placed.
28 Currently, per RCW 59.30.050, the Department of Commerce’s Mobile Home Relocation Assistance Program is funded with $5 of the
$15 registration assessment levied on owners of manufacture home communities for each home in their communities that are subject
to annual assessment. Of the total $15 fee, a maximum of $5 can be passed through to MHC tenants (homeowners).
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 72
not able to move their manufactured home due to (1) a lack of a suitable place to relocate or (2) due to
the condition of the manufactured home.
• Consider updating the Landlord/Tenant Agreement Act to make the disposal of the manufactured
home the responsibility of the landlord if the tenant should abandon it due to the closing of the
manufactured home community.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 73
Personal Story: Naydelin, Spokane County
Naydelin’s first experiences with housing insecurity occurred when she was 17, when she was escaping
domestic violence. She had to couch surf and live at hotels for a time. More recently, Naydelin moved to
Spokane in 2021 for college. Her prior lease ended in June but her new lease didn’t start until September. She
says she was lucky to find a place to couch surf with friends of friends until then. Acquiring this new home
wasn’t easy for Naydelin. She’s young, a student, and Naydelin ran headfirst into the structural barrier that
locks many members of her community out of housing. Despite Naydelin offering three months’ rent and a
deposit, the landlord required a co-signer for the lease. That co-signer had to have a Social Security Number
(SSN) even though Naydelin herself didn’t need one to lease the apartment.
“Undocumented immigrants live here and contribute economically. We pay taxes for benefits [that] we can’t
even access. Help us help you and make housing accessible.”
Once again, Naydelin had to lean on her community for support. She had to ask a friend with an SSN to co-sign.
Compared to the undocumented members of her community who Naydelin supports at work, Naydelin said
she was lucky to have that support. She’s seen too many of them locked out of housing because of their legal
status or taken advantage of by predatory landlords because they had to sign a lease that wasn’t in a language
they could read. Naydelin wants lawmakers to understand that “undocumented immigrants live here and
contribute economically. We pay taxes for benefits [that] we can’t even access. Help us help you and make
housing accessible.”
Personal story credit: Washington Low Income Housing Alliance and Naydelin
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 74
Recommendations for meeting housing needs
This is a consolidated list of policy recommendations organized by categories discussed in more detail in
Barriers to Meeting Affordable Housing Needs.
Funding financing and resources
Lack of access to funding support:
• Dedicate an ongoing investment (permanent funding stream) for the state Housing Trust Fund.
• Invest in maintaining current housing stock as affordable after Multifamily Housing Tax Exemption
(MFTE) and federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) compliance periods lapse.
• Increase funding (including grants) to assemble land for homeownership development that includes
permanent affordability to low-income homebuyers.
• Explore funding for innovative forms of housing, for example cottage communities,29 community land
trusts,30 home sharing programs, and other ways to provide cost-effective and affordable ownership
housing for low- and moderate-income homebuyers.
• Explore funding for limited equity cooperatives and/or community land trusts and/or other permanently
affordable homeownership models to expand homeownership opportunities for low- and moderate
income homebuyers.
• Explore funding opportunities that increase workforce housing affordable to employed but low-wage
households, for example directly subsidizing housing for school district or other public employees or
migrant workers.
• Provide incentives for cities and counties to adopt local/sub-regional housing levies.
Challenges with managing financial incentives:
• Periodically review and resolve conflicts among public funding requirements across national, state and
local programs.
• Develop and maintain resource guides and/or provide ongoing technical assistance resources to help
emerging affordable housing developers (including BIPOC and By and For organizations) to navigate
tax credits and other incentives.
• Expand programs to fund land acquisition and predevelopment costs to improve BIPOC organization
access.
• Explore ways to bundle tax credits across small projects, to expand access to this funding option.
• Amend the Multifamily Housing Tax Exemption statute to provide equal access to all aspects of the
MFTE program for local governments and provide additional flexibility. The 2023 Multifamily Housing
Property Tax Exemption Study identifies adjustments that would help make the program more
effective.
29 As defined by the Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington (MSRC): “Cottage housing or cottage clusters are groups
of smaller detached housing units, typically 800 to 1,200 square feet, which are oriented around a common open space like a courtyard,
garden, or walkway” (Missing Middle Housing, MRSC, September 2022). As an example of innovation, cottage communities could be
developed with new manufactured homes on small platted fee-simple lots or long-term lease on land owned by a non-profit or public
entity.
30 Community land trusts are defined as “community-based, nonprofit organizations that manage a parcel of land to preserve long-
term affordability of homes created through public or philanthropic subsidies. In the traditional housing model, community land trusts
sell the homes on the land they manage at affordable prices to a qualifying homebuyer” (Community Land Trusts, Local Housing
Solutions, accessed May 26, 2023).
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 75
Lack of access to developable land:
• Continue supporting the transfer of government-owned surplus properties for affordable housing
development, including strategic opportunities for property assembly.
• Provide funding and assistance to support local or regional land banking initiatives, particularly in
future transit-oriented development (TOD)31 areas.
Challenges with financing options for affordable housing:
• Provide support or incentives to providers of culturally specific alternatives to conventional lending
practices.
• Examine the racially disparate impacts of weak and uncertain housing markets, and shape programs
and incentives that rebalance opportunity such as by subsidizing or insuring loans, or auditing and
correcting low valuations.
Long-term fiscal sustainability:
• Support continuation and expansion of funding streams for supportive housing and supported
employment services, including innovations such as the Medicaid Transformation Project and
population-specific strategies such as for Family Unification Voucher recipients.
• Provide long-term sustainable operating assistance (property management and/or supportive services)
for projects that demonstrate fidelity to Permanent Supportive Housing models and allow vulnerable
populations to succeed.
• Sustain operations, maintenance, and services funding assistance for Permanent Supportive Housing
and multifamily housing serving extremely low-income households.
Land use regulation and planning
Issues with effective planning coordination:
• Provide stable and predictable funding to support local comprehensive planning for jurisdictions,
including the update to local municipal codes to support clear and efficient permitting.
• Provide assistance to address infrastructure gaps that are a barrier to the development of housing.
• Support local governments to engage with tribes and other underrepresented groups. In recent years,
the Legislature has provided historic levels of funding for local governments to engage in land use
planning and provided assistance to engage with tribes and underrepresented groups. However, more
technical assistance would be helpful.
• Require jurisdictions to report on implementation of adequate provisions identified in their
comprehensive plan housing elements.
Regulatory challenges:
• Within urban growth areas, provide statewide zoning standards for housing and commercial uses
within a half-mile of high-capacity transit stations.
• Provide funding for transit station area planning that addresses affordable housing needs.
• Provide examples or models of inclusionary zoning and how much affordable housing different
markets could support.
31 Transit-oriented development is where “housing affordable to a range of income levels, as well as new retail, restaurants, offices, and
community spaces, contribute to creating vibrant neighborhoods with direct access to transit” (Sound Transit, accessed May 26, 2023).
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 76
• Require that cities and counties limit development regulations related to the siting of emergency and
permanent supportive housing (This is an expansion of a 2021 GMA requirement for cities only).32
Administrative processes
Lengthy periods for approvals:
• Set standards of practice for permitting workloads and encourage jurisdictions to adequately fund and
staff permitting departments and processes.
• Encourage use of Chapter 338, Laws of 2023 (Concerning consolidating local permit review processes)
grant funds to improve permit review processes and systems for faster permit approval.33
High administrative costs:
• Continue providing support and encouragement to cities and counties to revise impact and system
development charge discounts/waivers to support smaller, infill, and multiunit housing.
• Create a statewide fund to help replace exempted property taxes and waived impact fees used to
incentivize affordable housing projects.
Complexity in process:
• Develop best practices for scaling housing development requirements and processes to different
project sizes, to support production of middle-sized and smaller housing projects and disseminate to
local governments.
• Create on-ramp for community nonprofits, including By and For organizations, to build skills and
capacity for affordable housing development. This might include reserving some funding assistance
for first-time developers; exemptions to requirements to have secured a site prior to qualifying for
funding; pre-development conferences; and technical assistance.
• Encourage and support technical assistance to help affordable housing developers navigate
environmental and other development regulations and apply for exemptions if needed.
• Fund preconstruction technical assistance and training programs.
Construction
High construction and development costs:
• Increase flexibility with allocating state resources, including Housing Trust Fund resources, while still
prioritizing regional distribution.
• Encourage use of the sales and use tax deferral on materials and labor in more jurisdictions, to
incentivize affordable buyer and renter housing redevelopment of underdeveloped land.
• Work with Washington State Building Code Council to determine if any state building codes present
unnecessary barriers to manufactured or modular home construction and placement.
• Reduce the permitting timeline for new prefabricated and modular housing by working with Labor and
Industry (L&I) to streamline or eliminate the building permit approval process.
32 The expansion for cities was implemented through HB 1220 (2021-22), Supporting emergency shelters and housing through local
planning and development regulations.
33 One example of permit process improvement is Seattle’s Intake Express Lane.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 77
• Review RCW 35A.21.312 and engage with manufactured home developers to determine if there are
common local design standards, such as roof height or pitch requirements, that make transport and
placement of manufactured homes especially costly and could be waived.
Access to skilled labor:
• Support construction job training and apprenticeship programs to meet demand for construction labor.
Limited housing models:
• Develop incentives, technical assistance or other support for projects including units for large
households and wraparound services.
• Consider a statewide amendment to the International Existing Building Code that makes it easier to
adaptively reuse existing buildings for housing.
• Encourage the production and sale of ADUs as condominiums to expand lower-cost homeownership
opportunities.
• Provide a statewide technical assistance program that helps individuals to safely rent space in their
home (e.g., home sharing) or ADU to unrelated tenants.
• Study the potential role(s) for manufactured and modular housing as lower-cost options for infill ADU
and middle housing.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 78
Personal Story: Jennifer, Cowlitz County
Jennifer and her fiancé are currently living out of their
broken vehicle on a friend’s land. They lost rental
housing in 2021 after being forced out (but not evicted)
by a campaign of harassment from their landlord. The
landlord routinely entered their home without giving
notice, yelled at them, and accused them of intentionally
flooding their unit after the washer malfunctioned. The
apartment was poorly maintained with mold and smells
of animal urine from a previous tenant. After they were
forced to leave, they still had a voucher, but were unable
to find housing in their rural area within a year and the
voucher expired.
When they entered
homelessness, Jennifer hoped they’d be able to save up some money by
no longer paying for housing. Instead, she quickly learned how expensive it
is to live unsheltered. They’ve been ticketed multiple times for infractions
like driving without a license (Jennifer can’t afford to renew it) and
improper parking. One of their cars was impounded with many of their
important belongings and they can’t afford to get it back. Jennifer has
reached out for help from direct service agencies, but she hasn’t been able
to find the resources she needs to get back on her feet. She’s about to lose
her storage unit with important documents and sentimental belongings
because she can’t afford the rent for it. She just wants a break from the
constant toxic stress. Despite this, she’s still fighting to get back into
housing.
Photo credit: Jennifer, 2023
Personal story credit: Washington Low Income Housing Alliance and Jennifer
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 79
Other recommendations for meeting housing needs
Addressing barriers to the production of new affordable housing is essential. There are additional actions the
Legislature can take to identify and address housing needs in Washington. These recommendations pertain to
issues such as supporting homeownership, affordable housing preservation, and protecting vulnerable
residents to maintain housing security.
Preserving affordable housing:
• Consider increasing Housing Trust Fund flexibility for unit acquisition.
• Explore new funding and financing tools to support preservation of manufactured home communities
by eligible organizations.34 This could include funding to improve infrastructure.
Supporting low- and moderate-income homeownership:
• Expand the scope of debt mediation and credit repair programs to help more low-income households
become “homeowner ready.”
• Expand eligible uses of state homeownership funding to include home repair and maintenance to help
homeowners retain and sustain occupancy/ownership.
• Invest in foreclosure counseling and assistance (through the Foreclosure Fairness Program), including
by creating training materials to support mediation statewide and by strengthening the ability of the
program to identify and collect revenue owed by mortgage lenders.
Protecting vulnerable manufactured home community residents:
• Implement measures to reduce closures of manufactured home communities (such as requiring re-
zoning when such parks are sold for other uses) and to protect low-income manufactured homeowners
from displacement.
• Increase funding to support more robust relocation assistance and relocation coordination programs
for manufactured/mobile home communities.
• Revise the Manufactured/Mobile Home Relocation Assistance Program to allow homeowners to apply
the relocation assistance funds for which they are eligible to other replacement housing when they are
not able to move their manufactured home due to (1) a lack of a suitable place to relocate to or (2) due
to the condition of the manufactured home.
• Consider updating the Landlord/Tenant Agreement Act to make the disposal of the manufactured
home the responsibility of the landlord if the tenant should abandon it due to the closing of the
manufactured home community.
Additional recommendations for further study:
• Study needs for aging, memory care, and nursing homes to serve low-income individuals or people
moving out of homelessness, including current gaps and barriers.
• Consider taxing investor-owned homes, vacant, and recreational homes (including short-term rental) to
encourage property owners to sell to full-time residents.35
34 “Eligible organization” includes community land trusts, resident nonprofit cooperatives, local governments, local housing authorities,
nonprofit community or neighborhood-based organizations, federally recognized Indian tribes in the state of Washington, and regional
or statewide nonprofit housing assistance organizations). The definition of “eligible organization” was expanded via passage of
Chapter 40, 2023 Laws (E2SSB 5198), effective 7/23/2023 (see Sec. 2, page 2).
35 In Vancouver BC, local, provincial and Federal taxes add up to 6% of the value of the home that is taxed per year. This has
encouraged the sale of many such properties and freed up supply.
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 80
Personal Story: Patricia, Walla Walla County
Patricia has struggled with housing insecurity on and off since 1975. A
combination of raising a son on a single income, complications from a
debilitating injury, and the resulting medical expenses have left her with
inadequate retirement savings. Now 68 years old, she’s living on a fixed income
and facing another rent increase. Her health prevents her from returning to work
full time, so she’s been forced to draw funds from her retirement account at an
unsustainable rate to pay for basic living expenses. Last year her rent was
increased by $200 a month. This year she’s expecting an additional $50 a
month “utilities fee” and a rent increase of around $200 a month. To afford her
rent, she’s going to have to cut some essential expenses like her supplemental
health insurance. She applied for affordable housing a year ago, but the wait list
is at least 2-3 years in her rural area.
Patricia is scared to move
out of her place and look for housing on the private
market because of practices like requiring new tenants to
make three times the rent in income. Rent increases have
far outpaced the annual cost-of-living increases she
receives from Social Security. She doesn’t want to move
from her hometown, and she worries for her elderly
neighbors who are stuck in the same situation she’s in.
She wants policy makers to know that her story is far
from unique.
Photo credit: Di Gabriel
Personal story credit: Washington Low Income Housing Alliance and Patricia
AHAB 2023-2028 HOUSING ADVISORY PLAN 81
File and source
- File
- 2024_ahab-housing-advisory-plan-2023-2028-final-cfb6f60f-f7f7-4d99-b256-254.pdf
- Size
- 2,037,506 bytes
- SHA-256
- 91f463d56acd3cfda45201f7974f4e5484d569b5ad69df6e4740a6726f026480
- Original
- No public link identified.