Washington state Democrats are tackling the housing crisis

In this episode, Washington State House Rep. Jessica Bateman
talks about championing an ambitious and successful bill that
aims to increase housing density in Washington, and the politics
of housing in general.


(PDF
transcript)


(Active
transcript)


Text transcript:


David Roberts


After decades of effort by urbanists, which often felt like the
work of Sisyphus, housing has arrived as a political issue. Big
environmental groups have come around to the idea that dense
housing is a crucial climate strategy, support is growing from
unions worried that their members can’t afford to live where they
work, and polls show that the public is increasingly convinced
that there is a housing crisis.


Over the last five years, a wave of good housing legislation has
been building on the West Coast, spreading from California to
Oregon and now to Washington state. In this last legislative
session, some 50 housing bills were put forward in the Washington
legislature and more than a half dozen passed, any one of which
would have been historic.


One of the most significant bills that passed this session — and
one of the biggest surprises — was House Bill 1110, which
legalized so-called “missing middle” housing statewide. Every lot
in the state will now be permitted to build at least two units of
housing, four units when located near transit, and up to six
units if some portion are set aside for low-income homeowners.


And that's just one bill. Other bills would legalize accessory
dwelling units (ADUs) on all lots in the state, require
municipalities to integrate climate change into their growth
plans, sharply restrict local design review, and ease permitting
of multi-unit residential housing. It's a feast.


The lead sponsor of HB 1110 is Rep. Jessica Bateman, who
represents the capital city of Olympia. She was elected in 2021
and quickly established herself as a champion of equitable
housing and a tireless organizer. Through sheer force of will,
she brought together a broad coalition that was able to push the
bill over the finish line, defying predictions.


Like Washington state Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon, who I interviewed for
Volts back in 2021, Bateman is widely seen as a rising star in
the legislature. I was excited to talk to her about her bill, the
wave of other housing bills this session, and the broader
politics of housing at the state level.


Alright, then. Representative Jessica Bateman. Welcome to Volts.
Thank you so much for coming.


Jessica Bateman


Thank you so much for having me.


David Roberts


I'm so excited to talk to you. I've got so much I've got so much
I want to ask you about. But let's just briefly start before we
get into the nuts and bolts of the bills, et cetera, maybe just
tell us a little bit about you're new to the Washington
legislature as of 2021. So maybe just tell us a little bit about
your history and how you came to the legislature and how you
picked up an interest in housing along the way.


Jessica Bateman


Well, I am new to the legislature, but I'm not new to legislative
politics. I was a legislative assistant for three and a half
years to former State Representative Chris Reykdal. He's now the
Superintendent of Public Instruction. And before that, I came to
Olympia to go to Evergreen. That's how I got involved in politics
in my first campaign for I-1163. That's how I got started working
as a legislative assistant, and then I became a planning
commissioner for the City of Olympia working on comprehensive
planning, and then I ran for City Council, was there for five
years.


On city council. We dealt significantly with a growing unhoused
population in Olympia and how we were going to manage and deal
with that, which led me to working on permanent supportive
housing and also more broadly, housing policy and how we create
and build housing in Washington and the systemic barriers to
doing that. We also worked on passing middle housing legislation
while I was there. And when I came to the legislature, my goal
was to legalize middle housing statewide. I didn't know I was
going to do that in my second year as a legislator.


David Roberts


Don't get used to this heady success. I don't think it's typical.


Jessica Bateman


It was just by happenstance representative Nicole Macri had
sponsored a middle housing bill for a couple of years, and she
had other work that she was doing. So last year in 2022, I
sponsored House Bill 1782, and then this year it was House Bill
1110.


David Roberts


Well, we're going to get into that in just a minute. So you've
had your hands on housing policy directly at a municipal level,
and this is kind of where the rubber hits the road with all this
stuff. A slightly more general question, it seems like I and a
bunch of other people I mean, not really me. I'm peripherally
interested. But I know a bunch of people who have been banging
their head on this wall for years. Decades of just urbanism
housing in general, the dominance of cars, the lack of housing,
et cetera. All this. And it seems like in the last, I don't know,
call it five years, the dam has broken a little bit and things
are happening.


Like, there's tons of bills passed in California recently,
Oregon, and now Washington. I was looking at the list on Siteline
for the listener. Sightline is a local non-profit research house.
Awesome on housing. They list 50 bills related to housing that
were proposed in the ledge this session. I mean, obviously not
all of those passed, but it seems like housing has finally kind
of roared onto the agenda. And I just wonder if you have any
insight into how or why that happened and if you feel like do you
have any sense that you're part of a movement, like a group of
people here who are pushing this?


Or is this just like one of these things where the time was right
and history turned and things changed?


Jessica Bateman


I think it's a lot of all of those things. Honestly, the reason
why we were able to take action on housing this year is
multifaceted. One of the core issues is that our housing crisis
continues to get worse. And as it gets worse and is experienced
by people across the state, different generations, people are
seeing their kids living at home. People like my dad, who just
retired from Boeing, and watching his youngest, my little sister,
who's a nurse, not being able to get a starter home of her own
like he did, build her own family. It's a lot more relatable how
the housing crisis is impacting people.


And it's a kitchen table issue that people, if they're not
struggling with not being able to find a first home, which in
Washington, first time homeowners, can only afford a home in
three counties, and they're all in eastern Washington. That was a
number from session, it might have gotten worse now. They're
struggling with rent prices and seeing hundreds of dollar rent
increases that put them more at risk of becoming homeless. And as
a result of that, they're asking questions like, why can't we
have more housing? Or what can we do to stop this? And thinking
about having neighbors that live in middle housing becomes less
...


There's less stigma associated with it when people see it as
something that their families could benefit from. Having said
that, we've had a housing crisis that has been growing for years.
And we have seen those that are in housing policy have really
experienced a lot of frustration watching a lot of good housing
bills die over the years. And last year, 1782, my middle housing
bill died. Fantastically. In a year when the housing crisis was
bad then, we'd seen 15%, 20% year-over-year increases in home
prices. And so last interim, I and a group of other House
Democrats got together, and we're talking about what are the
barriers to passing housing legislation.


And there's a number of them, but one of them was the structure
and the way that we organized our committees. We had a local
government committee, which is where all the zoning and land use
policies went. That's how you create more housing. And then all
the symptoms of not having enough housing, like tenant
protections, helping folks stay where they are, keeping them
housed, that was in another committee. And then you had the
investment in truly affordable housing through the Husing Trust
Fund in a different committee. So we worked to create one
committee that was all housing, everything housing holistic view.


And I think that was integral because as you saw, I mean, if you
look last year versus this year, how many housing bills made it
through the process, there was a significant uptick. And I also
think us talking about the connection between housing and
climate. I've been working on this issue for eight years, and my
very first City Council race, the environmental organizations in
my community, called me a developer-shill, because I was pro-
unabashedly pro-housing.


David Roberts


That's just automatic now, though. That's just like part of the
landscape ...


Jessica Bateman


Totally, which is why come up with something new because that's
what's been thrown at me for eight years. However, it is
frustrating as someone who partners with organizations and
environmental groups to have them not see that connection, which
is very real. Like if we're not going to address land use, then
we're not going to realistically address our climate goals in
Washington state. So to see premier environmental organizations
stepping up and saying land use and climate are inextricably
linked, we have to address both. And also, on the other side,
equity. The way that communities have excluded people by race and
by economic means through single family neighborhoods is very
explicit.


And so we had a coalition this year that really focused on
working families, communities of color, the environment all
coalescing around the one issue that really does impact all those
different facets. Because even though we're going to get into a
wonky conversation, I'm sure at the end of the day this is really
about people. And people having an opportunity to have a home,
people having stability, people having the ability to put down
roots in their community, to build equity, start families, have
livable, walkable neighborhoods, have a future. That's what this
is about.


David Roberts


I love both sides of that answer, but I particularly love the
first side since a recurring theme on this podcast is that in the
spirit of Elizabeth Warren procedure matters, the structure of
the bureaucracy matters, administrative capacity matters, it's
boring, no one pays attention to it, but it really does matter.
It really does affect results. Okay, one more general question. I
think sort of ordinary people at this point have probably grokked
that there's housing problem going on. But some of the questions
I get are like to what extent is it a West Coast thing versus a
countrywide thing?


To what extent is it an urban thing versus a statewide thing? How
universal is it? Like is Washington particularly bad or is it
just bad like all the other states are bad because housing policy
is bad everywhere.


Jessica Bateman


I mean, the country has millions of homes behind to keep up with
population growth for building and constructing housing. So it's
obviously not Washington state, or West Coast specific. However,
you do see the real struggle to build housing commensurate with
population growth in especially those high opportunity areas
where people are really going to for jobs and economic
opportunity. They also can be areas that are really good at
weaponizing public policy to prohibit housing from being built.
And that's a real challenge, which is one of the reasons why we
have to address it at the state level.


Which is why you've seen California and Oregon. Oregon was first.
But Oregon, California and Washington state. I do think if
there's data that shows that Washington is particularly bad in
terms of our per capita construction of housing, I think we are
the lowest for that.


David Roberts


No kidding. Yikes.


Jessica Bateman


So we do lead the pack, unfortunately. But on the West Coast in
particular, it is nationwide, but it is also really, I think,
dramatic on the West Coast, where you see so many people wanting
to come here for jobs and for opportunity. And in Washington
state, it's not just impacting the large cities like Spokane,
Seattle, or Tacoma, that statistic earlier about first time home
for first time home buyers. It's only affordable in three
counties, and they're all on the east side of the state in really
kind of rural, expansive counties where there's not a lot of job
opportunity.


So a part of this is about where do people want to live and what
systemic policies do we have that make it difficult to build
housing? And that is not specific to any one city. The vast
majority of cities outlaw middle housing or anything other than
single family homes in the vast majority of their areas where
they can build housing. That's not specific to only Washington
state. Other states are also in that vein as well.


David Roberts


So let's get to middle housing then, in your bill. I want to
cover this bill, and then maybe we can mention talk about a
couple of the other bills briefly at the end. But just by way of
introducing this subject, I have like a little 32nd rant. I feel
obliged to deliver because every time I talk with a policymaker
in Seattle, I talk about this. What you see in Seattle, and I
think this is typical of a lot of growing cities, is you got a
lot of people coming here, you've got these single family
neighborhoods that are fixed in place that won't allow anything
to be built.


And so all new population, basically any working class people who
move here, are put in big apartment buildings along giant
arterials. So what you have increasingly in Seattle is a
completely two-tiered bifurcated system. You're either living in
a nice house in a quiet single family neighborhood, or you're in
a big apartment building on a five lane, six lane street. And
it's terrible on so many levels, but it's just so grossly unjust.
And it just puts this sort of economic inequality in physical
form all around you. And what's missing there? What's missing
between these big apartment buildings on the arterials and the
quiet single family homes, is what's called middle housing.


So maybe just start by telling listeners, maybe who aren't up on
these debates, what do we mean by middle housing? And then let's
talk about your bill.


Jessica Bateman


Well, your observation is correct both in the description of what
middle housing is and constitutes. So middle housing is
everything between a single family home and an apartment or
multifamily housing. So that could be a duplex. Two units that
are connected, threeplex, fourplex, sixplex. My bill goes up to a
sixplex. I think technically middle housing can go. I'm not sure
how large they can go, but the largest that we have in my bill is
up to a sixplex. The description that you gave is very apt in
Seattle and the vast majority of cities, but using Seattle as an
example, they only allow the construction of single family homes
in over 75% of the city.


And so you have this economic and racial segregation where people
that have historical wealth or connections or intergenerational
wealth, they've been able and they have these homes. The median
home price in Seattle is almost a million dollars. And then you
have the new people that have no way of accessing homes like that
to buy or to rent. And it's also about a person's health. Whether
or not you get cardiovascular activity is do you live near a
park? Do you feel safe to go to that park? Do you have sidewalks?


In terms of upward mobility and our investment in that from the
state and education, well, so much of your lifetime income
earning potential and your opportunity is based on your zip code
and the people that live around you and the opportunities that
are provided.


David Roberts


And also if I could just insert also I've seen it. I'm pretty
sure this has been said explicitly in Seattle planning documents
is that these people who live on the arterials are referred to by
city planners as buffers, basically for that air pollution that
the cars create and the noise pollution that the cars create.
Buffers to protect the single family homeowners from that nasty
pollution, which is just, like, manifestly grotesque, I think.


Jessica Bateman


Right, and our opportunity is really dependent upon that
opportunity being available to others. And so I have a little
sister, she's 27. I own a home. I won the lottery, I got lucky
and I bought a home at just the right time. I have a fixed
mortgage. I know year over year, give or take, how much that's
going to increase. There's a significant amount of stability
there that I want other people to have. And also, I couldn't
afford my home today if I had to buy it now. As a legislator who
has two jobs, so also as a city council member, having gone
through that experience, we tried to pass middle housing
legislation and it took us over two years, 44 public meetings,
1,200 pages of written comment, three public hearings.


And I can tell you that the way that we have these processes at
the local government level, we hear from predominantly homeowners
and older whiter, male homeowners that would like to maintain
their property values. They have a definite stake in the status
quo staying as it is. And it's by design, and it's been that way
forever. And it's not embedded with equity because folks that
don't live in the community yet, they're not voicing how new
housing would provide them with an opportunity. You just add so
many layers.


So that's why having a statewide floor for zoning is so
important. It also creates stability and predictability for
people that build housing so they can know statewide it's
predictable, which is great. So the bill as it stands now, it
went through a lot of changes in the process. It would apply to
cities 20,000 or greater. Cities that are 20,000 to 75,000 would
have to allow, will have to allow two units on all parcels, that
allow residential construction. They would also have to allow
four units near transit and four units anywhere if one unit is
affordable. And that's up to 60% AMI for renters and up to 80%
for a person who's going to buy the home.


David Roberts


One of the things I was wondering about, reading about this is
this category of cities from 20,000 to 75,000 is that most of
them what is the sort of distribution of cities here? Because I
know the cap for that was lower in the previous bill and it got
raised some. So you're including more cities now. And I don't
have any sense of what percentage of cities or which.


Jessica Bateman


I'd have to look at the numbers. What I can say is the bill
started at any city of 6,000 or greater, so it impacted more
cities when it started. And that was by design. We wanted to be
really ambitious at the start. The vast majority of cities in
Washington are small. There are over 260 and most of them are
small. So when we increase that population threshold, the
implementation at 20,000, we knocked off a whole bunch of cities.
But the ADU bill that passed, which we can talk about, applies to
all cities. And so the thought was for these smaller communities
that really pushed back on how this change in housing would
impact their community and what their community felt like and
what their community needed, we could argue that, okay, well, the
ADUs felt they felt less opposed to that.


David Roberts


Right.


Jessica Bateman


That drives me crazy because it's not embedded in best practices
or data or science.


David Roberts


Well, what in a housing policy is not ultimately like comes down
to feels. There's not a lot of rational discussion around this
where you look. So from 20,000 to 75,000 every lot, you can build
at least two things. And if you're close to transit, four things.
And if you set aside one apartment for low income housing, four
things.


Jessica Bateman


Correct.


David Roberts


And then 75,000 up is all one big category?


Jessica Bateman


Yes. That's four units anywhere, six units near transit, and six
units anywhere, if two are affordable.


David Roberts


Has Inslee signed it yet? It is passed the House and the Senate,
and it's waiting for a signature, or has been signed?


Jessica Bateman


it's going to be signed on Monday the 8th.


David Roberts


By the time this pod is out. So when this is law, if I'm a single
family homeowner anywhere in the state, in a big-ish city, I can
sell my home and my lot to a developer. The developer can knock
down the house and build a fourplex. That can happen anywhere in
a city over 75,000?


Jessica Bateman


Correct.


David Roberts


So it's four anywhere, six close to transit, and then six with
some affordability?


Jessica Bateman


Right. And then we have that third category, which is the
contiguous cities, which are cities that are right up along it's
kind of technical, but the largest city in a county of 275,000 or
greater, so using Thurston County, Maya County, for example, the
largest city is Lacey. Any smaller city that abuts up to it is a
contiguous city has to allow duplexes everywhere. And so that was
it started out being in the 75 category, so it would have allowed
more homes and hounds near transit and anywhere if one or two
were affordable. That got narrowed down in the Senate so it's
just two anywhere.


David Roberts


But just for listeners, the reason this category exists is
because there's all these like Seattle is surrounded by all these
little communities, sort of satellite communities that are kind
of part of the Seattle sort of municipal area. They're not really
small towns per se.


Jessica Bateman


Yeah, the thought being we want to make more housing available
and abundant where people are and where people want to go. And
naturally that's where economic opportunity and social
opportunity exists. So Seattle being the largest city in the
state, you have all of these smaller cities that are adjacent. It
makes sense that they would also we want housing to be there too.


David Roberts


Well, this is huge. This seems like a genuinely huge and
fundamental change. We can get into the politics of it later. But
I want to touch on a couple of other aspects. What does it say
about parking? Because parking is also sort of roaring onto the
agenda as a thing people are starting to care about and look at
and think about the negative effects of what does it say in
particular about — because a lot of cities, I think listeners are
familiar, a lot of cities have parking minimums. So theoretically
one way a city could avoid this missing middle housing is by
putting parking minimums.


So if you build four units on your lot, if you're required to put
four parking spaces in, that kind of is going to eat a lot of the
space and inhibit a lot of the growth. So what does it say about
parking?


Jessica Bateman


Love the parking. All the feels about parking. Parking adds ...
not only does it add cost to constructing homes, it also takes up
in our urban areas valuable space that could otherwise be used to
house a person. So we prioritize vehicles over people when we
create minimum parking requirements. It also doesn't make sense
because you would want the person who's building the housing to
make a market-based decision about: is it marketable to build
this now? Will I be able to sell it or rent it if there is no
parking? They're going to be much more aligned with that
objective.


David Roberts


Yeah, there's something weirdly Soviet about how we think about
parking. Why should bureaucrats be picking a number out of the
air and deciding that's the minimum, it's just so goofy. We don't
do that with any other service, product or service.


Jessica Bateman


So much of housing policy is really about the people that are
currently housed wanting things to stay the same. And when other
people move here, they inevitably it's more people, it's more
traffic, it's more noise, it's more interactions. And so a lot of
these policies underneath them, it's really about the people that
are currently here kind of wanting to buffer themselves from any
kind of impact.


David Roberts


Yes, I am subscribed to my local next door, and I can tell you
anytime a new apartment building is announced, anytime new
housing is announced anywhere, that is the first comment. Where
are people going to park?


Jessica Bateman


Yeah, people get really upset about it. So the bill started out
more ambitious, and it ended up you cannot have minimum parking
requirements for the homes that are available near transit. So
for the two units and the four units near transit, no parking
minimums in the neighborhoods. We initially started with only
being able to require one space per lot, and that got expanded to
one space per unit. So if it's a duplex, you can require two
parking spaces if it's a fourplex, four and sixplex. Six. And
yeah, your guttural response is correct. That was a concession
that I had to make.


They can also, if they want more parking, they can go through a
process to appeal essentially to the department of commerce to
say, we feel like more parking is necessary, but they have to
demonstrate that it is because of some impact to public safety.
We were pretty explicit in how they actually have to provide
evidence for that, because, well, cars are kind of inherently
dangerous anyway, so it'll be hard for them to make that case. So
there is some restriction on how much they can require. It's not
as much as I would have liked, but again, this is a watershed
moment in terms of land use policy in Washington state, and I'm
optimistic about us in the future being able to come back and
make tweaks if necessary.


David Roberts


Kind of a side note, but I'm curious. A lot of these bills pivot
around what is and isn't close to transit. So are there
complications in identifying exactly what does and doesn't count
as a transit stop, or what does and doesn't count as close to
transit? Because a lot of money and a lot of rules are now
hinging on that distinction?


Jessica Bateman


Yeah, and I know one question came up recently about, I think,
trolleys in Seattle, which was not something that we accounted
for in the bill, but actually, apparently by the definition in
the bill for frequent transit would qualify. So the department of
commerce is going to be going through a process to answer some
more of these specific questions as it relates to what
constitutes the different forms of transit. It does get really
technical really quickly. And we were also concerned with one
thing we heard a lot was bus stops can change and that is
technically true.


But we want housing near transit because the utilization of
transit is predicated on density. So that's really necessary. But
there's going to be some more fine tuning of specific definitions
around things like whether trolleys qualify or not. We did take
out ferry terminals. That was something that was taken out. I
have to go back and look at the exact specific definition that we
ended up with for transit, though.


David Roberts


I'm curious about how exactly this is going to interact with
local municipal government. It's worth stating, does not dictate
any citing or design issues. It doesn't tell local governments
that they have to cite anything anywhere in particular or design
anything any particular way. It's just sort of minimum
requirements. But I'm sure there was and will be resistance from
some local governments sort of notoriously around Seattle, like
out on the islands, Mercer Island and whatever. They are
enthusiasts about pulling up the drawbridge and not letting
anybody else come out there, not letting anybody else live there,
not letting transit come there.


So I'm wondering, are you worried about shenanigans by local
governments trying to circumvent these things? For instance, I
think there's an exception for environmentally sensitive land and
maybe there's something about historical land. I can imagine
local communities abusing those rules. Sort of like what do you
foresee in terms of the push and pull between this law and local
governments who for whatever reason don't want to do it?


Jessica Bateman


Right, I think it's human nature to want to keep things the way
that they are. And I don't inherently have ill will towards
people that think that way because it's just kind of like how
people tend to operate. But I do think it's our responsibility as
lawmakers to be thinking about planning for the present, but also
the future. And so that's why the statewide legislation is so
important, because at the local level, so much of the response is
inflammatory. It's an inflammatory and I'm talking like
inflammation because people get really upset and they go to their
city council folks and you are the closest to the people there
and you just naturally want to make them feel better.


And you also I think there's a part of this that some cities feel
like the state's coming in and telling them what to do. So I do
anticipate that cities will try to find creative and innovative
ways to circumvent this legislation. And I'm already thinking
about ways that we can ensure that cities are held accountable
for their responsible, fair share of providing housing.
California has created an Office of Housing Accountability and
they actually review housing elements in good detail. And the
Attorney General there has a way of holding folks responsible if
they don't do what they're required to by state law.


So that's one thing that I'm looking at. And then also really
analyzing how historic districts are deemed valid.


David Roberts


Oh my goodness, so much shenanigans there in Seattle. Please do
something about that. All of Wallingford neighborhood is trying
to become historical, which is just goofy.


Jessica Bateman


So we need parameters, I think on I am a fan of historic
architecture. I'm a housing nerd. I'm going to Palm Springs next
week and I'm going to take a tour of the mid-century modern
houses ...


David Roberts


I did that very fun.


Jessica Bateman


Right? And we also know as people have weaponized SEPA, a really
good environmental policy to obstruct creating more housing. They
also weaponize things like historic districts to obstruct the
creation of more housing and to keep their neighborhoods kind of
covered in amber and staying that way for all time. So those are
kind of two areas that I'm looking at.


Also, I would say that these laws will become effective in the
next round of comprehensive plan updates. So it's going to be a
rolling implementation based on the city's comp plan update. The
largest cities going in 2024 and then they've got six months for
implementation to pass their building codes. So 2024-ish for the
next round, the first round of cities. So we have some time, but
I'll be thinking this interim about ways that we can prevent
those very things from happening.


David Roberts


And is there provisions in there about homeowners associations
and their covenants and things like that? I feel like I saw
something mentioned that it's ...


Jessica Bateman


So the bill applies to all future homeowners associations. So if
you create and build a homeowners association, this law applies
to you. It does not apply to homeowners associations
retroactively because we can't change the land use of a contract
that already exists that people entered into when they purchased
a home.


David Roberts


Interesting.


Jessica Bateman


So there are people that argue that we can and there're really
smart legal experts that tell us, no, you in fact cannot do that.
Other states that have passed similar legislation have not made
it apply retroactively. I would also add the bill itself, it was
kind of a wing and a prayer that this bill survived this year.


David Roberts


Yes, I know. I've been reading about it.


Jessica Bateman


It came back from the dead a number of times. So I think there's
an interest definitely because there was a lot of conversation
about there's no secret that not having this apply to current
homeowners associations. There are a number of them in Washington
state.


David Roberts


Yeah, I was going to ask, do we have a sense of how common that
is, how big of a swath of housing those covenants cover?


Jessica Bateman


I don't have that figure off the top of my head, but it's larger
than one would assume and the equity component is really bad. I
mean, if you look at some of the areas, this bill will not be
applying to some of the wealthiest whitest economically.


David Roberts


Those are the places with the covenants, right? I mean, those are
the places with homeowners associations.


Jessica Bateman


Yeah. So there's an interest because of this bill. I think a lot
of people in the legislature are talking about, hey, what can we
actually do? And how can we push the envelope and look at this
issue of homeowners association? So I anticipate we'll see some
legislation on that next year.


David Roberts


And is there anything in the bill along economic justice lines
sort of anti-displacement? I know the one provision is you can
build bigger buildings if you set aside a unit for affordable
housing. Is there more all along those lines?


Jessica Bateman


So one bill that we passed a couple of years ago was House Bill
1220, which requires all cities to assess displacement risk. And
Seattle has done that. You can see a map that Seattle has. And so
what this bill does is it allows cities that have deemed an area
to be at risk, a high risk for displacement. They can basically
pause implementation for up to ten years. That law, House Bill
1220, requiring cities to do an assessment of at risk for
displacement. It also requires that they have a better mapping
out of the housing needed for different income bands.


We can go really into the weeds on comprehensive planning
processes in Washington state, but cities have never been
required before to go into detail on the different income bands
of housing needs. So those two things were brand new. They just
went into effect. They're in effect now, brand new. And so the
question came up with the bill was, how do we protect for
displacement in areas with classic examples, south Seattle, and I
don't think we've answered that question thoroughly yet. I don't
think cities know how. And that's what they said to us when they
realized what they were going to have to do for implementation of
1220.


We don't know what to do for displacement. And they kind of
looked at us like, give us money to give people money. And the
state, you want to talk about the numbers? I mean, we need a
million homes over the next 20 years. Half of them need to be
affordable at up to 50% AMI. That is not a number that the state
can budget for the Housing Trust Fund. I mean, as a comparison,
just the data, the Housing Trust Fund, which is our largest
bucket of funding for affordable housing in Washington, that's
capital dollars for the construction of truly and meaningfully
affordable housing, was created 1986.


We've built 55,000 affordable homes since then.


David Roberts


Yeah, not quite on pace for half a million.


Jessica Bateman


Right, so what that tells me, and the whole premise of House Bill
1110 and some other supply side bills, is we need to figure out
sustainable and progressive funding and revenue for massively
increasing our investment in truly affordable housing. And at the
same time, we have to make it systematically easier to build
homes of all shapes and sizes a. to respond to the market and the
demand there because let's be clear, half of those homes also
need to be 50% and above AMI. And we have nurses like my little
sister that also can't find an affordable home for her which is
not spending more than 30% of her income on housing. So we need
housing all over the place and of all shapes and sizes.


And the supply side bills this year are really focused on looking
at there's some obvious low hanging fruit ways that we are making
it difficult, in some cases impossible to build nimble, smaller,
more modest homes that are also better for our environment and
also increase equity in our communities.


David Roberts


Right. And for some reason this is controversial, but I feel like
it's also worth noting that just building a bunch more homes is
in and of itself an affordability strategy that's when you
increase supply, prices come down. This is not controversial in
any other market or any other area of public policy, but for some
reason it's very controversial here. But ...


Jessica Bateman


It is.


David Roberts


Housing supply is an affordability policy.


Jessica Bateman


Right. I mean, one of the other things I think about with our
investment because advocates for affordable housing will
rightfully say, well, you need to increase the investment in the
housing trust fund. And I agree that we do. As long as we have
these restrictive policies that make it really difficult and
expensive to build housing, the price per unit cost that the
state is investing. We'll house more people if we make it easier
and cheaper and more efficient. And that's not just like me
saying that as a talking point, that's really true. There's a ton
of research that shows us how we make it more difficult and
expensive to build housing.


But minimum parking requirements are a clear example and we get
pushback the same people who demand that any new housing has to
be affordable also push back on maintaining minimum parking
requirements. So going back to the displacement question, we're
going to have to continue to do more work because I think simply
saying that we can pause implementation of building more housing
is not a sufficient answer to anti-displacement.


David Roberts


Yeah, well, let me ask on that exact note, maybe this is obvious
and I'm just not getting it, but why do we assume that enabling
more middle housing in these areas would produce displacement?
Like what's the connection there?


Jessica Bateman


The argument that we heard from a couple of cities was you're
going to see land values increase and demand in these areas
already exists and with the opportunity there, you're going to
see people being priced out either in their rent or selling their
homes and having a developer come in and build the sixplex. That
is then not affordable. And I can't argue that the value will go
up and we will see some tear downs happen, although tear downs of
existing structures happen only when it's economically a good
decision for a developer to do that. Like in Olympia, my home and
my property.


The structure is the most valuable asset on the property. It
would make no sense for a developer to come in and bulldoze it
down unless they were going to make a significant amount to
recoup those costs and then make a profit. But in some areas,
like Seattle, that might happen because of the land value, cost
is so high and the demand is so high. But I would also argue on
the flip side that say a black family that owns a single family
home, should they not be able to sell it and make that profit and
make decisions about what they want to do with that investment?


David Roberts


It seems like a species of argument, which I hear a lot of, which
always slightly baffles me, which is like we can't let these
places get nice because then people will want them and come buy
them. So the only way to protect poor people in their housing is
to keep the places they live grimy and unattractive and low
value. That does not seem like a viable or attractive long term
solution to me. Like that can't be the way we're protecting
people.


Jessica Bateman


Right. And that's what the cities, they're saying it's inherently
more affordable housing, naturally occurring more affordable
housing. And that by legalizing middle housing in those areas, we
are going to displace the people that currently live there. And
so that was the argument that we heard and the compromise was
allowing for the folks, those areas to pause implementation.


David Roberts


Right. Let's talk about a couple of other bills. This one, the
middle housing bill, is sort of your baby. A couple of others
which you did not sponsor but voted for, which I think are at
least worth noticing. The other big one I think on housing is ADU
reform accessory dwelling units for people who are not nerdy on
this topic, which just means you can build a nice little unit on
your property, a second unit on your property and rent it out or
sell it to someone. What does the ADU bill do?


Jessica Bateman


So that's House Bill 1337, sponsored by Representative Mia
Gregerson, who has been fighting for this bill for years and it
finally passed, which is amazing. You can build an ADU on any
lot. Actually, I think two ADUs on any lot, it lifts local
barriers on ADUs.


David Roberts


Any lot period in the state.


Jessica Bateman


Yeah, it impacts cities smaller than the middle housing bill.
Yeah. So for the cities that are included in the middle housing
bill, they'll have the choice, the ADUs count towards the unit
count. So unfortunately you won't be able to like in cities where
fourplexes are legal, you can't do a fourplex and two ADUs, but
you could do a duplex and two ADUs. The whole point, both of
them, is to offer more flexibility and that is successful. So it
caps impact fees and parking mandates, legalizes two per lot and
sets baseline standards for minimum lot sizes and the ADU size
and height.


I didn't sponsor that bill, so I don't know all of the technical
details, but I do know that it works in concert with House Bill
1110.


David Roberts


Right. And then one other worth mentioning, just for my friend
Mike's sake, is single staircase buildings have been legalized.
This is way nerdy in the weeds for housing people, but this is
something that a lot of people have really set their hearts on.
Were you involved in that at all? Or could you explain the
benefits of a single staircase building or why that's an issue at
all?


Jessica Bateman


Yeah, I wasn't involved at all, but I was thrilled to see it move
forward. And I think we made some changes in the house that
requires the state building code to develop recommendations for
single stair buildings for up to six stories and to adopt those
changes by 2026. And that's important because when you have the
requirement of two staircases that takes up valuable space that
could be used for housing people, it also puts limitations on
where things like windows can be in terms of the architecture of
the building and the design of the building. So it can make it a
much more livable space by being able to utilize that square
footage for something other than a staircase.


They do that in other countries and it's completely safe up to
six stories. So it was really a common sense solution, I think.
And I know that the people who build houses and architects and
designers are very excited about it, and rightfully so.


David Roberts


One of the things that has vexed local urbanists here in Seattle
and I'm sure in other cities too, is what's called design review,
which is you propose a building, you come up with the plans, your
building, obeys all the codes, is ready to go. And then it has to
go through this design review process where a board of architects
...


Jessica Bateman


Volunteer architects.


David Roberts


Yeah, volunteer architects come and be like that brick shade is a
little too dark red. I'm into more of a lighter red. And then you
have to have another meeting and another meeting, and this adds
millions of dollars onto the cost of building anything and takes
forever and appears to benefit no one, as far as I can tell,
other than the volunteer architects who get a sense of power over
all the buildings.


So that ODS process has been not nuked. There was a bill that
would have nuked it that didn't pass, but it's been ...


Jessica Bateman


I know, I wanted that one.


David Roberts


It's been reduced to one meeting, right? Is that what happened?


Jessica Bateman


Yeah, one meeting. And it requires the local design standards to
be clear and objective. And so that means subjective is what the
current process is, where you have volunteer ... listen, I get
it. Architects, that's what they do. That's their job. And when
you're given it's like the luxury of infinite choices and the
luxury. So much of this process is all centered around the people
that already have housing. Like the people that are on the
committee, the volunteer architects, they have homes and they're
being asked like, what shade of terracotta versus brick red
should it be? And when it's the most obnoxious.


It's when they're making these decisions about something that is
currently a parking lot, a completely unused space that could be
housing during a housing crisis. And they're taking years to do
it. And so by establishing this as clear and objective and not
subjective is a huge improvement. And then also by not allowing
more than one public meeting is also a huge improvement. One of
my observations is this is so asinine for people that are not in
these circles, that don't see these processes all the time, but
the people that have been doing it for years, that are on these
design review or local governments, this is just how they work.


Right. And so it takes people from the outside looking in, going,
this is not the best way to do things we do need.


David Roberts


Oh my god. Anybody I try to explain it to, they're like, really?
That happens to every building. What?


Jessica Bateman


Right. And you can have a set list of like, here are the shades
of color for a certain area. It's in a book. Like, it doesn't
have to be this group of people that is really subjectively
looking at this and evaluating it.


David Roberts


Right. There were a couple of other bills that reduced permitting
barriers that were good. The one other bill I did want to call
out is 1181, which is basically tells cities to integrate climate
change into their planning. Maybe you could just tell us what
that bill does.


Jessica Bateman


Yeah, House Bill 1181 is sponsored by Representative Davina Duerr
and it requires cities to add a climate element to their
comprehensive plans, which is a mandatory planning process they
have to do. It's incredibly important because it does things like
have them account for how are you going to reduce vehicle miles
traveled and making the connection between land use and vehicle
miles traveled and where you put housing and how you have energy
in your buildings and putting those things all together. It's
really essential for cities to be required to do that. Some
cities were already doing things like that, but it was really
only certain cities and usually more progressive liberal cities.


David Roberts


Right. So this is just you have to consider that stuff. You have
to take it into account.


Jessica Bateman


You have to take it into account. You have to plan for how you're
going to address it.


David Roberts


Right. That's a lot of bills. A lot of pretty big bills. There
are a couple of big ones that didn't pass. I think probably the
most significant one that went down this year was the one about
transit-oriented development, which again, for non-nerd listeners
is just this idea that transit stops, transit locations are
obvious areas for density. That's where you want to put a lot of
people. You want a lot of development around transit stops. And a
lot of times that's just prohibited by current law. I saw a lot
of predictions at the beginning of the session were that that was
the one that was going to pass and that your bill was going to
have trouble.


And then one thing happened, and then another thing happened and
somehow yours got through and this one didn't. Can you explain
what that bill does and is it going to rise from the dead next
time around?


Jessica Bateman


So the Transit Oriented Development Bill is sponsored by Senator
Leos and it would require cities to legalize higher density
housing near major transit areas and more frequent transit. The
idea being like in Seattle and these high economic opportunity
areas in and around transit, you want to have more housing be the
standard. So things like more stories of housing being an option
for multifamily housing, more.


David Roberts


Than sixplexes, presumably. Right.


Jessica Bateman


We're talking about 100, right? Yeah.


David Roberts


Big buildings.


Jessica Bateman


Yeah. They ended up using far floor area ratio in the bill, which
is really talk about wonky and confusing. No offense. Sightline.
Thank you. So the bill did not it made it through the Senate. And
I think, honestly, that people didn't really understand what it
did, which happens sometimes. And then when it got to the House,
a lot of emphasis and focus was on the fine details and there
became a lot of negotiation and concern and feedback, a lot of
conversations about minimum affordability requirements. There
continues to be a growing number of people in the Democratic
Caucus in the House that really believe that you have to have
affordability requirements if you're going to let developers
build this higher density housing.


David Roberts


I don't want to beat the subject to death, but I have to pause
there. Again, I'm sure you've been involved in these discussions.
I just want to know. It sounds to me like those worries about
affordability requirements were a big part of what led to the
bill not passing. And I'm just like, in what world is the no bill
passing better than the status quo? Because as we were saying,
build a bunch of big apartment buildings around transit, it's
going to lower the average housing prices. Like it is an
affordability strategy. So what is the ... could you explicate
that debate a little bit more so I understand what the hell is
going on.


Jessica Bateman


I've heard people say that it's possible to build more affordable
housing because where I come from, you know, the work that I've
done, you know, I've talked with developers. I'm not an expert in
the creation or construction of housing, but I tend to believe
that we should make it easier to build housing of all shapes and
sizes because we make it incredibly difficult, expensive to do.
And we have to own that. We have to be really honest about that
accept what the problem is. And then if we want truly affordable
housing, we need to subsidize it, we need to pay for it because
expecting someone to do that themselves, whether or not that's a
noble goal, it's less likely to happen than if we make it easier
to build the bare minimum.


You can't build what's not legal to build, so you can't build a
seven story building if it's illegal to do so. Middle housing,
you can't build a sixplex if it's not legal to do so. In my bill,
there is an incentive to go higher and include affordability.
That's a choice. Some non-profits, especially things
organizations like Habitat for Humanity, will take advantage of
that. We have folks that believe that the developers can, if we
do a minimum threshold of affordability requirements, that they
absolutely can do that. We should expect them to do that. And
then we have folks that think that you should let the market
decide.


And then some folks like me that think we should also be
investing more in affordable housing and subsidizing that cost
and increasing that investment. There's a lot of other tools and
things that we can do to do that. Also things like Land Trust and
how can we partner with communities so they can invest in some of
these opportunities and create truly affordable housing with our
help and assistance? At the end of the day, if the housing
doesn't get built, no one gets housed. And that figure of up to a
million people over the next 20 years, half needs to be truly
affordable and half needs to be 50 AMI and above.


We still need housing for the 50 and above. So no housing versus
housing. I mean, I can't really understand that argument either.
However, what I will say is that Representative Reed was the
person who worked diligently once it got to the house and she did
a tremendous job trying to piece that thing together and keep it
moving and ultimately was not able to do that. The other thing I
would say is that 1110 was worked on much further in advance, had
more time for people to process. It was introduced last year and
then during interim I was meeting with people across the state,
building a coalition, visiting with the AWC.


The TOD bill was relatively new for people. They didn't weren't
as familiar with it. We are going to have to come back to it
because if we're going to be honest with ourselves about transit
and the CO2 that comes from it in Washington, I don't see how
we're going to be able to address that without having TOD.


David Roberts


Yeah, people have a lot of really weird hang ups about tall
buildings. I think this bill invokes a lot of those. But if you
go to the Vancouver suburbs, they have rail stops and they're
surrounded by tall buildings and then they sort of go out from
there and it's perfectly nice tall buildings are not scary.


Jessica Bateman


Yeah, we're running out of land. We have a growth management act
that stipulates where we need to build new housing, which is in
cities. We need to preserve our rural areas, our farms, our
forest lands and ecosystems. We have to build up. And what I ask
people when they're opposed to housing is where are the magical
homes going to be built? Because we have to build them somewhere.
We are not going to stop people from moving here or people from
having children. You have to go up. That's the only option. So
I'm looking forward to a future where we have abundant homes of
all shapes and sizes for everyone and where people aren't afraid
of taller buildings and it doesn't disrupt what they think is the
character of their neighborhood.


I think the character of the neighborhood is defined by the
people that are in it and a sense of community and opportunity.
So I think we're in the liminal space right now where people are
coming to terms with the single family home with the white picket
fence and the garage and the lawn. That's not the reality for all
the homes in the future like it was in 1950. And it wasn't
environmentally good back then either.


David Roberts


So you're pretty confident the TOD bill will be back next time
around?


Jessica Bateman


I think so. And I think there's going to be a lot of work that
will be done during interim to see where we can get more support
for that bill and see how to move forward.


David Roberts


And then another bill that failed was lot splitting, which maybe
just very briefly explain what the significance of that is and
why you think it failed.


Jessica Bateman


Oh, boy. So it was really sad that the lot splitting bill died.
That was by my co-conspirator in housing Representative Barcus,
and it allows for people to more easily split a lot. So, for
instance, I have a good friend, single mom, she's got a lot.
She's got a single family home. It's large enough. She'd like to
split it and build an adu and sell it. And the process is quite
cumbersome, difficult to navigate and expensive. And so this bill
would make it easier for people to do that legally so they can
sell the second unit.


And it's important for opportunity when we have bills, legalizing
ADUs and middle housing because people will want to take
advantage of those things and they want to be able to create
equity and make an investment. So it makes that more difficult.


David Roberts


Right. And this, you think, will also be back, or is there some
irradicable level of opposition somewhere or is this just
something that also you think people need to sort of wrap their
heads around?


Jessica Bateman


I think the bill will come back next year. I think that there's
an entire year from now for people to kind of wrap their minds
around all the bills that passed. And I think they'll become more
comfortable with something like that. I think there was some
concern around the overabundance of housing that might be created
if lot splitting passes two. I definitely think that was a part
of it.


David Roberts


Oh, right. Because if you split your lot in two, then all of a
sudden you can make four units because you have two lots, right?


Jessica Bateman


Theoretically. However, there are some real constraints that are
just naturally occurring. Like, you can't feasibly build more
than so many units on a space because cities still have the
ability to maintain and create things like setback requirements,
minimum lot sizes, et cetera. So height restrictions, if they
have a two story height restriction in a single family
neighborhood, that would apply to a Duplex as well. So I think so
much of this is making people comfortable with what is the new
normal and that this is not going to result in a complete
overhaul of neighborhoods, that the cranes aren't going to come
in and make everything look completely different.


It's going to kind of meld seamlessly. I live in Olympia, and I
live down the block as little apartments and ADUs and a school,
and there's a shelter and a grocery store. It's all a part of my
close knit community and it's cool.


David Roberts


And it's fine. It's all fine.


Jessica Bateman


Right. And it's going to be great.


David Roberts


The one other thing that didn't pass that I wanted to mention,
because insofar as there's any sort of note of off note or note
of dissent about all the great housing progress that got made
this year, is that the tenant protections bill did not pass. And
I think there are people in the environmental justice community
saying sort of the housing supply without the tenant protections
is just going to screw us again. So maybe just explain what were
the tenant protections and do you think they'll be back?


Jessica Bateman


Yeah. There were two bills. One was basically a rent anti-rent
gouging bill that would have given the Attorney General the
authority to take people to court if they are deemed to be
increasing rent at a rate that is exploiting people and rent
gouging super important. That did not pass. And then we also had
a bill that would cap, like an inflationary cap on how much a
landlord can increase rent year over year. Neither of those bills
passed. These types of bills have for years failed to move
forward in the legislature. I think there's a significant
skepticism amongst lawmakers that these are bills that will help
solve the problem.


So I think there's a lot of work that continues to need to be
done building a coalition to make that reality different, to see
a different outcome.


David Roberts


Do you think they'll solve the problem? Like, is this the policy
you would pick to protect sort of low income homeowners?


Jessica Bateman


I support a reasonable cap on, like, an inflationary increase
like they did in Oregon. I don't think that's going to solve the
problem. I think it's going to be a near term fix that will
ultimately not address the underlying issue, which is a lack of
supply. I haven't seen a lot of data tell me that rent control
actually results in lower prices for renters. And the underlying
solution is really that we need to make housing available to more
people. We need housing that's abundant. We need people to have
choice. There needs to be competitive options for people, which
right now it's essentially a monopoly.


And there's so much of a limited supply that people are able to
just the demand is so high, they're exorbitant costs. But this is
going to continue for a while. So in the meantime, we will
continue to have people that are getting hundreds of dollars rent
increase, $1,000 rent increase. And I am terrified as a lawmaker
about my constituents being evicted and not having anywhere to
go, because there is literally nowhere to go. So I see that as an
interim step. The rent gouging. I think that if there is an
aggressive and systematic increase in rent that is deemed to be
gouging, I think that the Attorney General should have the
ability to investigate that and hold people accountable for that
because that is happening.


But there are people that really fundamentally believe that rent
control is an essential solution and without it, that we are not
going to see people be protected, that people will continue to
fall victim.


David Roberts


Yeah. This is a deep and long standing debate in the urbanism
world, a very heated debate. Are those kind of forces fixed in
place or do you think there's enough wiggle room that this has a
chance next time around?


Jessica Bateman


There would need to be a significant amount of work to build a
coalition and to talk with lawmakers and to make I mean, the
reality is that rent control bills and rent stability bills have
died year after year in the legislature. So you have to be really
honest about how do you change that outcome. And if there's not
enough support amongst lawmakers now, how do you change that? And
you do that by talking to them, getting broader coalitions of
people together to talk about what's happening now to people and
what will continue to happen, and coming up with a solution that
legislators can support.


The legislature is filled with groups and organizations that
represent them and the people that represent the landlords and
the multifamily housing associations have a very large presence
in the legislature and are there every day.


David Roberts


And people who get evicted do not have a large lobbying presence.


Jessica Bateman


No, they don't.


David Roberts


Speaking of forming coalitions and changing the political balance
of power and political dynamics, I got some questions about how
that happened. I talked to some of your colleagues and people who
are involved in and around this stuff and they all you were
singing your praises along exactly this lines, which is this
middle housing bill failed last time and then you did the work of
building a bigger coalition. Because in the politics, from my
point of view, like someone who lives in Seattle and is
continuously frustrated, it just seems like NIMBYs are like,
everywhere and have a lock on everything and have a lock on every
process from the local level to the state level. Somehow you
overcame that.


So maybe just tell us a little bit about what the modern
pro-housing supply coalition looks like.


Jessica Bateman


Well, first we had the most diverse freshmen class of lawmakers
arrive this year, and so ...


David Roberts


The young people are coming. The young people are coming.


Jessica Bateman


Exactly. Young people. They're closer to the issue of housing
instability, insecurity. They're more likely to be renters.


David Roberts


Yeah, they're all living it.


Jessica Bateman


Right. We've got members of Color now in our caucus. That number
keeps growing as well. They also are disproportionately them and
their constituents are disproportionately impacted by a lack of
housing. So that was huge because they ultimately really changed
the dynamic towards the more progressive side of this
conversation. And I made it my mission. Last year, I went out and
met with people in District. I went and met with the association
of Washington Cities who was very much opposed to my bill last
year. I met with their Legislative Priorities Committee and said,
this is why I'm passionate about this topic.


David Roberts


They ended up endorsing your bill, didn't they?


Jessica Bateman


Yeah, a week before it passed.


David Roberts


Still though.


Jessica Bateman


After 25 hours of negotiating with them, they ...


David Roberts


Still kind of blew my mind, I mean, this is for listeners. This
is the AWC. The association of Washington Cities.They just
represent all these little, whatever, 260, all these little
cities and towns around Washington. And I would say it's fair to
generally characterize their past behavior as on the NIMBY-ish
side of the spectrum.


Jessica Bateman


They've been opposed to legalizing middle housing statewide for
years. And so last year they didn't take it really seriously in
terms of negotiating. And this year we did a lot of work. Prior
to session, I reached out to them, and then during session I
continued to do that. But I think fundamentally, when I looked at
the problem of the bill not passing last year, I thought, this
bill is being talked about in such a wonky way. From a zoning
perspective, we have to talk about this like it's a kitchen table
issue because it is. It's impacting where people are growing up,
where they're not growing up, where they're taking jobs.


If they're taking jobs, it's impacting people like my dad who
contemplated postponing retirement so he could help his daughter
with a home. It's impacting people's daily lives in all types of
ways. And we needed to talk about it like that. And because it
impacts the environment and climate change is something we've
talked about, we need to be talking to environmental
organizations. And because it impacts and exacerbates these
inequities with opportunity we need to be talking to
organizations and communities of color labor, and we also need to
be talking with people that build housing.


David Roberts


Yeah. How would you characterize labor's disposition toward
housing supply currently?


Jessica Bateman


Well, the Washington State Labor Council last year at their
conference passed a resolution stating that they supported
eliminating single family zoning.


David Roberts


Hey, well, alright. It's one of these things that I've learned
when talking about unions, never to sort of assume the obvious
thing, but you'd think, like, building lots more housing would be
looked upon favorably by the people who build houses. But I guess
you can't always assume that.


Jessica Bateman


It took them some time to come to that conclusion. The young
people are coming. Like the environmental organizations that
supported this bill five years ago, I don't think that would have
happened. They had an influx of new, young, diverse members
getting on their boards and saying, hey, climate and housing are
definitely linked, and we need to be taking this seriously.


David Roberts


So you think environmental groups coming around that was
significant in the politics of this?


Jessica Bateman


Oh, 100%. Absolutely. Futurewise was the premier organization
that I worked with last year. It was sightline. So to have
Futurewise really leading the charge with an actual dedicated
lobbyist, this was one of their two priorities that their board
voted on. Sierra Club, Washington Conservation Voters.
Absolutely.


David Roberts


That's great.


Jessica Bateman


We have folks that are serving in the legislature that they
associate the old school environmentalism as a different one than
today. Today we know that dense housing is good for the
environment, and it didn't used to be associated that way.


David Roberts


And population, the old school environmental, if you told them if
you limit housing, you're going to limit inflow of population,
they're like, exactly right. Population. People are bad, people
are bad. You still hear some of that, but I think that's fading,
at least in terms of their active public.


Jessica Bateman


I've been working on this issue for eight years, and I've seen a
change in how environmental groups talk about this issue and
who's showing up at those tables for environmental organizations.
Personally, when Futurewise told me that they were making this
bill one of their top two priorities, I almost cried. And I said
thank you, because not only I would love your help as a lawmaker,
it really helps to have an organization support your work, but
also to me, it did represent a C-change in how we're talking
about housing and land use, and that gives me a lot of hope for
the future.


David Roberts


So you got environmentalists on board more or less. You got
unions more or less on board. Even the AWC, the Association of
Cities, is titularly on board. If I'm thinking about state
politics, who do I identify as sort of the concentration of
opposition? Is there like, an organized faction that opposes this
stuff, or is it just kind of ambient NIMBY sentiment?


Jessica Bateman


Before it was the AWC, but not this year. So the entire time that
I worked with them, they were negotiating in good faith in terms
of wanting to eventually get to a yes if they could. And so they
were not actively opposed to the bill. They were neutral, and
then they got to support at the very end. We did have a lot of
the old school environmentalists individually emailing
legislators and saying that middle housing conflicts with
preserving the environment and tree maintenance.


David Roberts


The trees, my God, it's like a trigger word for me.


Jessica Bateman


Now. Tell me about it. I was on city council for five years. So
yeah, that was kind of it. And then individual cities that were
members of the AWC, but not speaking for the whole association,
like the city of Auburn being a prime example, they were very
much opposed. But that was basically it. There was no organized
those were more tangential. There was no organized group.


David Roberts


And a similar question, how would you characterize the Republican
Party's disposition toward these issues? Certainly at the federal
level and in the sort of face of the party is very much like, we
must preserve the suburban style of life at all costs. Joe Biden
is coming to force you out of your house, et cetera. But you had
a Republican co-sponsor, which is somewhat brain scrambling for
me. So are they split on it? How would you characterize where
they're at on these issues right now?


Jessica Bateman


I would say at first that politics nationally is different than
it is at the state level. And I know that's what we see in the
news, and I don't watch the news, but that's what people are used
to and accustomed to for their lens at the state level. I work
with Republicans. I get along with Republicans. We could be on
the opposite sides debating a bill, and then we go to lunch in
the member cafeteria and we sit next to each other and talk about
kids and pets and it's very cordial and affable. So I would say
that legalizing middle housing, despite being like a free market,
right aligned theory policy, that a lot of Republicans, it
conflicts with their big government, the state telling cities
what to do, when actually, in reality, cities are telling
property owners what they can and cannot do with their
properties.


So it really ...


David Roberts


These people are supposed to hate meddlesome regulations, right.


Jessica Bateman


The message of local control, which is current law, middle
housing cities currently have the authority to make their own
local zoning decisions, and that's called local control
colloquially. Well, this is when people talk about it, they call
it preempting, preemption of local control. It's very much of
like the federal government coming in and the state government
coming in and preempting. Well, local control doesn't have a
really great history either if we want to go back in history on
that. And yet that message is really hard for Republicans to get
away from because that strikes a chord with them.


David Roberts


Well, also local control disproportionately empowers the
aforementioned older and whiter people, which also coincidentally
happen to be the sort of base of the Republican Party, so it's
not the ...


Jessica Bateman


Also the Democratic Party.


David Roberts


This is not all about policy. It's very much about them having
power.


Jessica Bateman


Yeah, I mean, the people who vote in elections tend to be older
whiter property owners. So that could be said, it could be true
of Democrats as well.


David Roberts


True.


Jessica Bateman


However, we did get some Republicans. So the fact that
Representative Barcus was a co-sponsor was huge. He was my number
two on the bill. He didn't just co-sponsor it. He was the number
two, which is extremely significant. Actually. His office is
right across the street from my house.


David Roberts


Who does he represent?


Jessica Bateman


He has a property management company and then he represent, I
think it's District 2. It's like right abuts my district, south.
So Lacey and Tumwater south. And so he believes fundamentally
that we need to have more housing that's available and that
abundant housing is a significant pathway to a solution. That's
why he co sponsored the bill. And he did a tremendous amount of
work outwardly, talking with people, going on interviews,
podcasts, radios, really stepping out and defending this bill.
And then in his own caucus, when it came to the floor, he had to
describe it to his caucus members and whatever he said to them
inside, that caucus was successful because we got a ton of
Republicans to support the bill in the House.


David Roberts


Really?


Jessica Bateman


Yeah, it was a vote. We have 98 members.


David Roberts


So this was bipartisan in a real way, not just the, like, one
rebel Republican?


Jessica Bateman


No, they voted a significant number of them voted for it on the
House floor.


David Roberts


Does that extend to other housing bills? Is that a general move
on housing policy? Or was there something in particular about
middle housing that resonated, do you think?


Jessica Bateman


I think the middle housing bill, I mean, it was pretty amazing
objectively how much support it got. I think some people voted
for the bill honestly because they just saw how hard I worked it
and were like, just, okay, fine, leave us alone, Jess. I hope
not. I hope that they really wanted the policy, but me meddling
and getting in their way might have had something to do with it.
But he really cultivated a sense of what the bill was, helped
them understand it. That's the other thing that people
underestimate the influx of bills that we get and how the sheer
number and magnitude.


So when you have someone right in the other party that is
shepherding it, that's the other thing. Like throughout the whole
process when I was negotiating with the AWC, I was constantly
checking in with him, letting him know what was happening, where
it was going. So he was attuned so when it eventually got to the
House floor, he knew the bill. It wasn't like a different bill
because it changed a lot. But then it went to the Senate and we
didn't have a Representative Barcus in the Senate. So all the
Republicans over there, that was a brand new bill to them that
they didn't understand and know.


And Senator Trudeau was the sponsor in the Senate. It didn't move
in the Senate. So then she was the person who shepherded it over
there and did an incredible job getting that bill passed. I still
don't believe that it passed. It's going to be signed on Monday
and until it's signed, I still don't believe that it happened.


David Roberts


This is how I feel about the Inflation Reduction Act to this day.
Is there a Republican co-sponsor for the TOD bill, for the
Transit Oriented Development Bill or any of these other sort of
big ones?


Jessica Bateman


I don't think that the TOD bill got a Republican co-sponsor. And
a lot of the supply bills, they garnered Republican support
because like the streamlining permitting process and design
review, et cetera. But the TOD bill the Republicans are not shy
about telling you they will not support a bill that has minimum
affordability requirements in it.


David Roberts


That's just what a bizarre place to draw a line in the sand. We
will not help poor people. If you try to help poor people, we're
out.


Jessica Bateman


Well, they view it as and you could talk to Representative Barkus
about this because he's kind of the housing lead over there. But
I think from what I've heard, the best way to get more housing is
to make it easier to build more housing. And there's certain
things I agree with that, I think ...


David Roberts


Why not both?


Jessica Bateman


Right. There's also politics and I think there might be political
reasons why they might have that position as well. I'd let them
articulate that. But my point is that if we want a bill to pass,
we have to figure out we have the majority in the House so we can
move it on our own.


It always helps to have Republican supporters as well, if
possible. So any path forward would have to figure out that in
some way.


David Roberts


Yeah, I'm just so curious just from a political standpoint about
because this issue does not on the merits cleanly fall along what
you would think of as ideological lines. It's more of a culture
war split. And I'm just so curious. But to summarize, it's not
monolithic opposition to anything having to do with housing as it
is on, let's say, many other public policy issues, at least it's
mixed.


Jessica Bateman


In the House especially. I mean, the Republicans, they have a
listserv that I subscribe to and they talked about the progress
that they made on housing and they mentioned the middle housing
bill. And so leadership has supported the fact that their members
supported that bill and they're talking about it publicly. That's
awesome to a significant degree. Yeah. But I think the Senate was
a little different. We heard the floor speeches on the Senate be
different than they were in the House, much more focused. I mean,
Senator Fortunado in the committee, in the Housing Committee, his
first question was, he said, I don't like this bill, and I don't
like it because my next door neighbor might sell their property
and someone might build multifamily housing on it, and that would
be right next to me.


David Roberts


Well, at least he's effing honest, right? This might personally
inconvenience me and reduce my property value.


Jessica Bateman


I think he also added renters might live there because then ...


David Roberts


Worse yet, imagine they might even ride bikes.


Jessica Bateman


And Representative Barcus, I looked at him and I was like, do you
want to respond to that? And he said, well, first, we love
renters. Thank goodness. Because I was like, I don't even know
where to go with that. I mean, I was in shock. I'm newer here,
and this is my first in person session. So I was a little
surprised by the comment, but Representative Barcus did a really
good job. But my point is, I think as younger Republicans maybe
get elected or the same kind of diversity of their caucus
happens, hopefully we'll see the change in attitude around what
used to be a controversial issue and I think is now becoming much
more mainstream and honestly supported by the average
constituent.


David Roberts


Interesting. I'm a little curious. When will the middle housing
take effect? I'm sort of curious. Once the aforementioned older
whiter people who live in the single family neighborhood see
things happening, I'm guessing at least some of them are going to
go complaining to the representatives, and it will be the
politics for Republicans will get complicated somewhat. So A,
when will things start happening as a result of this bill? And B,
are you worried at all about kind of backlash to implementation?


Jessica Bateman


I'm not worried about a backlash to implementation because of my
own experience in the city of Olympia after we passed our own
middle housing. It is not a fundamental change that happens
overnight. And in fact, we're going to have to do more work. It's
not just about legalizing these home types. It's making sure that
we have the workforce to build them, which we currently don't,
that we have financing products for people to buy these different
types of homes that typically haven't been purchased by people.
There's a ton of work that's going to have to go into incentives,
like a ton of stuff, when it will be implemented.


It's going to be a rolling implementation based on cities and
which counties they're in based on their comprehensive planning
process updates, super wonky. I know the largest more populated
counties, Snohomish, King, Pierce. They're going to be
implementing in 2024. They're the next cycle. And then 2025,
another group of cities, and 2026, et cetera. So it's going to be
a rolling implementation. They have six months to adopt building
codes, which are the codes that allow for the housing. Department
of Commerce is going to be doing model ordinances for them
because some of the smaller cities are like, we don't have the
staff, we don't ever done this before, which isn't a hollow
argument actually.


And so Department of Commerce is going to be doing a lot of work
in the next year and ongoing I anticipate coming back next
session and there are a lot of other things that we're going to
have to address and so I'm looking forward to working on more
housing legislation in the future.


David Roberts


Awesome. Okay, final question. I kept you much longer than I said
I would, but I love this housing stuff. I think most of where
housing policy, the rubber hits the road is the sort of interplay
in local municipalities and states. But is there anything in
particular that the federal government could do that would make
your job substantially easier, that would make these housing
reforms substantially easier? Is there one or two things you
could point to?


Jessica Bateman


I mean, they could say that any federal funding, the requirement
is you have to legalize, you can't make it illegal to build
middle housing.


David Roberts


Right nationwide middle housing bill, that would be something.


Jessica Bateman


I mean, it's not legalizing middle housing nationwide. It would
be saying if you want our money, you need to have policies that
are aligned with our climate and equity goals. You can't have
climate and equity policies that conflict with our goals if you
want our money. And right now they've taken what was considered a
proactive and progressive position of incentivizing based on
making these good decisions. So much more of a carrot approach.
But listen, we are not going to make progress like New York. They
just went through and we're trying to be more aggressive with
legalizing, more modest home types statewide and that quickly
fizzled out with pressure from stakeholder groups that were
opposed.


And that was a governor supported initiative. Just like last
year, 1782 was a governor request legislation. We don't have
time. The urgency to make sure that we have a planet that we can
live on, that we have housing that's affordable for people in
places where they want to live. I mean, the time was ten years
ago and we need to take it really seriously and do everything.
There's just really common sense things and making funding a
prerequisite that you have policies that allow people to live in
your cities is one of them.


David Roberts


Awesome. Well, thank you so much for this super educational and
interesting and heartening and thank you so much for all your
work on this issue. I feel like the state is going to be better
for your efforts. So, Representative Jessica Bateman. Thanks
again for coming on.


Jessica Bateman


Thank you so much for the opportunity.


David Roberts


Thank you for listening to the Volts podcast. It is ad-free,
powered entirely by listeners like you. If you value
conversations like this, please consider becoming a paid Volts
subscriber at volts.wtf. Yes, that's volts.wtf so that I can
continue doing this work. Thank you so much, and I'll see you
next time.


This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other
subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit
www.volts.wtf/subscribe