It’s not just zoning

Politicians love to talk about how they are going to make it easier to build housing. But something I’ve noticed is that very few of them understand how.

We need to build 1.25 million net new homes in Washing State over the next twenty years, and we’re building only about 35,000 per year. This means we are on track to fall short by more than a half million homes.

And this is a problem, because—while housing scarcity is not all that matters in the housing market, it does still matter very much.

Here's the thing most politicians don't understand about addressing this: it's not just zoning.

So, here is how we fix it:

Zoning does matter — a lot. When housing was affordable in Los Angeles, there was four to seven times as much zoned capacity as there were existing homes. All that availability meant landowners couldn't gouge buyers. Washington has made real progress here — backyard cottages, missing middle housing, transit-oriented development — and as a board member at Futurewise, I've been a part of those fights. But there's more to do. We should end apartment bans statewide, expand stacked flats into most urban growth areas, extend transit-oriented development to bus lines, and allow more housing near parks, schools, and grocery stores. More zoned capacity takes land scarcity off the table as a cost driver. When there's lots of legal room to build, landowners can't hold the market hostage.

The building code is also driving up costs — dramatically. Code changes from 2012 to 2022 alone increased construction costs by over 11%. Rules about parking, double stairways, elevators, setbacks, and more add tens of thousands per unit, often provide zero safety benefit, and force buildings to have fewer family-sized homes and less natural light. Most politicians have no idea this is even happening.

Take single-stair buildings. In Switzerland, Sweden, and South Korea, single-stair buildings are allowed up to 15 or 20 stories. In the US, we've treated it like a radical idea — though Seattle, New York, and Honolulu have allowed it for years, and 18 states are now pursuing reform. Why does it matter? Single-stair buildings dedicate far more of their floor area to actual living space — up to 10 percentage points more. They allow larger, family-friendly units with light and air on multiple sides. And they cost 6–13% less to build. Oh, and they're just as safe!

Or take elevators. A four-stop elevator in New York City costs four times what the same elevator costs in Switzerland — which is itself an expensive country. Maintenance can run up to ten times more. Why? Because we've mandated oversized, overengineered units that serve a tiny domestic market. I worked on a bill this year to start chipping away at this. We can go much further.

The bigger picture: if we simply extended the residential building code to small apartment buildings — paired with a high-quality sprinkler and firewall requirement — we'd save enormous amounts per unit without sacrificing an ounce of safety.

Then there's permitting. I'm honestly tired of hearing politicians talk vaguely about "permitting reform" — not because we don't need it, but because so few of them know what it actually means or are willing to fight for it.

Permitting delays add an average of 6.5 months to projects statewide. In some jurisdictions, it's 18 months. Construction loans accrue interest the entire time — roughly $45,000 per unit in a 120-unit building, before you even count the fees. Research shows every six months added to an approval timeline reduces housing production by nearly four percentage points.

So what does real reform look like? Cut unnecessary steps — design review boards, for example, don't produce better-looking buildings, but they do add years. (In Seattle, we had a seven-year fight over the color of brick at a Safeway. I am not joking.) Make standards objective and by-right. Redesign the process for speed and clarity — Seattle runs a dual-track master use permit and construction permit system that are barely coordinated with each other, which is just dumb. Pre-certify reusable building designs. Staff up permitting departments. And set firm time limits: no small building should take more than six weeks to permit, no large building more than twelve. If a jurisdiction can't meet those timelines, allow third-party certification.

Finally, finance. Yes, interest rates are high. Yes, existing homeowners are locked in. We need federal help — but there's meaningful action Washington can take right now.

The biggest housing booms in American history happened when government actively ramped up investment to drive production.

The Center for Public Enterprise has developed a model that several states are already using: a revolving loan fund that acts as a force multiplier. Here's the idea: construction loans typically cover about 60% of a project's cost. The remainder comes from expensive equity financing. The state steps in as a subordinate second lender, covering just 10% of the project. That small contribution reduces the costly equity share and often unlocks better terms on the primary loan. With clear criteria — middle-income households, family-sized units in high-opportunity areas, stalled pre-approved projects — this could be deployed immediately. The fund would require upfront state investment, but it would ultimately be (modestly) profitable for taxpayers. And the public benefit would be enormous.

Beyond that: we need to implement things like impact fee waivers. Property tax exemptions like the Multifamily Tax Exemption — which is largely a tax shift, not a revenue loss. Expanding condo liability reform, so we can finally start building starter homes for first-time buyers again. And a land value tax reform I've been working on that would navigate Washington's constitutional constraints, save money for most property owners, raise taxes on speculators sitting on underdeveloped parcels, and dramatically increase the incentive to actually build.

I want to close with something that doesn't get talked about enough: we can build better neighborhoods, not just more units.

So much infill housing in Seattle is depressing — buildings sprawled across lots, trees cut down, units staring directly into other units fifteen feet away, long dark hallways, mostly studios and one-bedrooms. It doesn't have to be this way.

If we build modest single-stair buildings around the perimeter of a standard city block, we can house 130 people per acre at four stories — with 65% of the site left as open space, trees, or shared courtyard. The comparable Seattle block, developed the way we currently do it, houses about 56 people per acre. We could have plenty of housing, and lots, lots more greenspace. And it doesn’t even require high-rises.

We can build beautiful, livable, affordable communities. We have the resources. What we need is the courage — and leaders who actually understand how to get it done.

That's what I'll be working on in Olympia.

— Ron