HB 1195 Concerning compliance with siting, development permit processes and standards, and requirements for permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing, or indoor emergency shelters.
You can send a comment on this bill to your legislators.
This unfunded mandate on permanent supportive housing is brought to you by legislators who want to create legislation requiring certain types of housing in all cities without regard to local control. This sort of do as I say because this is what I want type of legislation is irresponsibly written and lacks a funding mechanism. These legislators have sponsored this bill: Representatives Peterson, Macri, Alvarado, Ryu, Berry, Ramel, Fitzgibbon, Mena, Callan, Obras, Farivar, Doglio, Gregerson, Simmons, Street, Duerr, Nance, Berg, Davis, Ormsby, and Hill, all these legislators should know better than to create a heavy handed state mandate that will punish cities and citizens without a thought to funding.
This session, especially, I wonder why the legislators are not revisiting the Growth Management Act as a whole, as they are widely ignoring many facets of the act in much of their proposed legislation. Why does the act continue to exist in its constantly tampered state, perhaps it should be repealed to accomodate these legislators who wish to ignore it? HB 1195 seems poorly and hastily written acting more as a wish list than a formal proposed bill.
Here is what is objectional in HB 1195,
The bill lacks an intent section that would clearly define current thinking and definition on the sponsors' idea of the purpose of the bill and of the various types of housing mandated in the bill such as permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing, or indoor emergency shelters. The public is not given the information needed to make informed comment or decisions about the intent of the bill.
Property Rights will be impacted in the following ways.
Zoning and Permitting Restrictions:
The legislation mandates that local governments cannot deny permits for permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing, or shelters based on zoning or development regulations. This reduces the control local communities have over what types of housing developments are allowed in specific areas, potentially affecting property values and neighborhood character, creating a strain on local services, availability of water and sewer.
Waiver System:
Developers can seek waivers from local regulations if they believe these regulations would preclude their project. This could lead to a situation where property owners, particularly those adjacent to proposed developments, might feel their property rights are being undermined by decisions made at the state or departmental level rather than locally. Locally elected representatives and council members will have less say in development, but will bear additional costs in this unfunded mandate.
Dispute Resolution:
The state department's role in resolving disputes might be seen as an overreach, potentially eroding local autonomy over land use decisions. This could be viewed as a diminishment of property rights since local considerations might not be as heavily weighed.
Administrative Costs:
The administrative processes needed for compliance, including the new permit application processes and dispute resolution, could increase local government overheads. These costs might be passed onto residents through taxes or fees, indirectly raising the cost of living.
Impact on Property Values:
The introduction of shelters and supportive housing in residential zones might lead to concerns about property value depreciation among existing homeowners, which could affect their financial planning and cost of living indirectly.
Economic Considerations:
While increasing housing options might lower rents or housing costs in the long term, the immediate development of such housing could involve significant public expenditure, potentially leading to higher taxes or reallocation of funds from other public services particularly due to the lack of a direct funding component of the mandates in the bill and the implementation of the mandates.
The proposed legislation does not explicitly detail how the state anticipates funding the mandates within the bill thus the bill is out of compliance with RCW 43.135.060. This section of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) explicitly prohibits the legislature from imposing new responsibilities or increased service levels on any political subdivision unless the state fully reimburses for these costs. This is part of a voter-approved initiative aimed at controlling state spending and protecting local governments from unfunded mandates.
The bill includes a mechanism where non-compliance by counties or cities could result in the withholding of state revenues like motor vehicle fuel tax or sales and use tax. While this isn't direct funding, it encourages compliance by creating financial incentives through the threat of penalties. This could indirectly ensure that local governments find ways to fund these mandates to avoid revenue loss.
The legislation outlines that if local governments do not comply with the mandates within 60 days after a determination of noncompliance by the department, the state treasurer withholds various revenues from the non-compliant entity until corrective action is taken. Citizens may be forced to accept state, not local planning, and may be forced to pay for non-compliance with services which are further burdened. With this bill local cities and surrounding communities will be burdened by state mandates either by complying with the state or by refusing to comply with state mandates. This is a poor example of state leadership and representation.
Unfunded Mandates
While Washington State has laws intended to prevent unfunded mandates, the implementation and real-world impact suggest that these mandates can still occur, leading to ongoing tensions between state and local governments. The state has failed to plan for the funding of the mandates in the legislation and it should not pass without compliance with RCW 43.135.060.
January 21, 2025