I stand corrected! Thank you @tmccormick.org for your pioneering thinking on funded IZ!
(and yes, I agree that IH is a better term, but alas)
06.03.2026 16:37
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 1
I stand corrected! Thank you @tmccormick.org for your pioneering thinking on funded IZ!
(and yes, I agree that IH is a better term, but alas)
Huge congrats to all who worked to pass Oregon's trailblazing funded IZ bill, but especially to my @sightline.org colleague @andersem.bsky.social who has been a thought leader on this idea for several years and who, as far as I know, was the one who first coined the term "funded IZ."
Another WA first for housing:
SB 6026 just passed the House 69 - 27!
Other states have passed bills to allow housing in commercial zones, but WA took it a step further by limiting the amount of ground floor commerical cities can require.
Thank you Sen. Alvarado and @davina425.bsky.social!!
WA's elevator bill passed the House last night 93 - 1 !!!
Once signed by the Gov, it will be the nation's first state legislation for elevator code reform.
Yes, it would have been a bigger win if the global standards intent language had not been amended out. @sightline.org will keep pushing!
Too bad this good article is marred by such a bad headline.
Fixed it:
To Cut Housing Costs, Some States Are Reforming Fire Safety Rules That Don't Make Buildings Safer
For the record, WA was the first state to pass single-stair legislation, but is now lagging other states in implementation.
Brick your phone!
Most of the opposition to WA's mobile dwellings bill HB 1443 was over concerns that motorized RVs are somehow not good enough for people to live in.
Meanwhile, cities like Seattle sanction living in RVs in tiny home villages.
Makes you think!
www.sightline.org/2026/01/26/f...
Yeah, the city needs to offer them as an alternative to undergrounding. Prolly around 10X less cost than undergrounding and no delay from a city process, so builders would jump at the opportunity.
An early draft of the bill before it dropped said that housing had to be permitted outright in commercial zones, but that was later changed to: "prohibited from excluding residential uses"
I interpret this as still allowing conditional, limited, and accessory use restrictions, what do you think?
You mean that the 40% cap will still allow most cities to require ground-floor commercial in most places?
Yet another example of how local policymakers burden home building with extra costs that should instead be funded through a broad tax because they provide broad public benefits.
www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news...
Here's some empty retail in the front of the same building, and also in the money corner of the Africatown building right next door.
I'm not sure the impact is bigger in those cities than in Seattle. Cities that have a smaller amount of mixed use relative to commercial will be able to maintain ground-floor commercial in more of their existing mixed-use under the 40% cap, which has mixed-use + commerical in the denominator.
My pic is on 24th between Union and Spring, in the yellow NC zone.
Ground-floor homes do get built in large apartment buildings and they can be nice!
So the solution to the problems caused by Euclidean zoning is to...
retain Euclidean zoning?
Sorry, couldn't resist. 😎
Mason, I want you to know that I see this is just a relatively minor disagreement about this specific tradeoff, because you are still my YIMBY mayor hero!
Aren't we supposed to argue on here? 😜
Wasn't trying to pull an experience card, just wanted to make sure you know that I appreciate the importance of walkable centers.
I totally respect all the hard work you and Mason have done to make your cities better.
We just disagree about this tradeoff!
Given our massive housing shortage and the damage to people's lives it has been causing, I'll admit that I do have a high bar for sacrificing housing to other priorities!
We're not just talking about a few extra units on the ground floor. It will make entire buildings more likely to get built.
Home builders will not pay the cost of the regulatory burden, residents will pay it in the form of higher rents and prices.
That is the real tradeoff here, and I'm harping on it because it seems that many folks don't appreciate that it's what it boils down to.
Most of the people I've talked to who build housing want ground-floor retail to be optional. What reason could there be for that other than it would make housing projects more likely to pencil?
I understand. I have a masters in urban planning and spent 12 years working with cities on urban design plans (including Kenmore!).
If residents demand this, then the public should subsidize it through a broad tax, instead of extracting the cost from home building.
I'm talking about the housing system as a whole, and how requiring home builders to include things that lose money raises average rents/prices across the board.
Just like parking mandates!
www.sightline.org/2022/04/18/t...
Good update on SB 6026.
Key point that's missing: If cities have to mandate ground-floor retail because builders won't include it otherwise, what they are also doing is mandating that all of their residents pay more for housing to subsidize those retail spaces.
www.theurbanist.org/2026/02/27/l...
I don't know the history.
Maybe others can chime in?
Washington has scored another first in the nation for statewide legislation to boost housing:
Yesterday HB 2228 to legalize scissor stairs passed the Senate 48 - 0, now headed to the Gov's desk.
Thank you Rep. Zahn and Sen. Bateman, and also @markusja.bsky.social who got this conversation started!
Legalize it everywhere!
"You might think that our rules about elevators would help wheelchair users, but they can inadvertently achieve the opposite: overkill in elevator code kills elevators."
Thank you @ceceliablack.bsky.social for spelling this out so clearly!
www.seattletimes.com/opinion/miss...
TL;DR: Adding housing actually cuts costs for those who need it most. 📉
Didn't think we needed it, but still grateful for the solid data (again).
In addition to allowing smaller elevators in small buildings, SB 5156 includes a non-binding statement for state agencies to support harmonizing code with international standards.
Watch this to see why, over the long term, this part of the bill may be most important:
youtu.be/Or1_qVdekYM?...
Sad to say that WA's MDU bill died yesterday when it failed to get a House floor vote before cutoff.
Dissappointing to see so many legislators unwilling to be bold on housing during a housing crisis.
WA's ADU bill took 5 years, and all that delay did was make the housing shortage worse.