In the face of 112,000-unit housing deficit, Mayor Bruce Harrell told Axios he’s considering an “alternate compliance option” that allows cities to exclude up to 25% of single-family lots from the state’s new density requirements, which legalize fourplexes and sixplexes in (most) neighborhoods.

His interest in limiting development could test the political will of the future City Council, who will be responsible for implementing the new requirements by mid-2025. The incumbents seeking reelection either declined to comment or agreed with the Mayor’s “thoughtful” approach, but with strong urbanists fighting for every open seat, the council may gain a pro-density majority that’s gutsy enough to stand up to the Mayor’s NIMBYism while still combating displacement. 

Well, Actually…

According to the Mayor’s office, displacement tops his list of concerns about zoning reform. In a phone interview with The Stranger, Land Use Committee Chair Dan Strauss expressed similar concerns, noting that Ballardites used to be able to afford to live in the neighborhood on the wages of fishers or bartenders, but now the kids he grew up with can’t afford the “amazing” yet “emotionally difficult” new buildings.

However, these politicians seem a little confused about what the "alternative compliance option" actually does. According to Rep. Jessica Bateman (D-Olympia), who sponsored the new density legislation, that carveout allows cities to exclude areas for environmental reasons, but they can’t exempt areas located within a half mile of major transit or areas that once imposed racial restrictive covenants. In other words, lawmakers did not design that provision as a way to avoid displacement, as Mayor Harrell suggested.

Bateman said the bill does, however, include an actual anti-displacement mechanism that allows cities to ask the Washington State Department of Commerce to delay the upzones in areas at high-risk for displacement. This measure pauses the changes for up to 10 years so that the City can figure out a way to grow without pushing out Black and brown people.

Cities must apply for that temporary exemption by 2025. The Mayor’s office said it is too early to comment on which neighborhoods he would want to accommodate. 

Regardless of which neighborhoods the Mayor wants to shield from “gentle density,” Bateman said the 10-year delay does not serve as a displacement strategy in and of itself. State lawmakers hoped that cities would take that decade to stabilize the at-risk neighborhoods and develop strong mitigation strategies. 

For all his worry about displacement, the Mayor sure isn’t in a hurry to propose policies to mitigate it. He did not respond to my request for comment about which displacement strategies he would propose. He’s probably busy reacting with manufactured urgency to wage his “War On Health,” another plan to make a plan in response to recent state legislation.

According to Howard Greenwich, the research director at Puget Sound Sage, elected leaders often lack vision when it comes to anti-displacement strategies because it's hard for people to imagine housing outside of a market.

Greenwich said the “most effective antidote” to displacement is to remove housing from the speculative market altogether. Sage supports community land trusts, which allow place-based communities to own land and steward development. 

Greenwich also said it is never too early for the Mayor to talk to historically marginalized communities about implementing the new state law. After all, Sound Transit probably could have saved itself some headache over the controversial light rail expansion if the agency had done a better job establishing trust with the Chinatown International District. 

These Newbies Aren’t NIMBYs

Strauss seemed on board with the Mayor’s cautious approach, and reelection-seeking Council Members Tammy Morales and Andrew Lewis declined to comment, but the urbanist council candidates stood firm in their opposition.

District 1 candidate Maren Costa, District 4 candidate Ron Davis, District 3 urbanist Alex Hudson, and District 5 candidate Nilu Jenks said they would not support the alternate compliance model.

The candidates agreed that housing would become less scarce and housing prices would rise more slowly if the City allowed development everywhere.

“We need to stop dipping our toes into solutions and then being frustrated when they don’t pan out because we haven’t given them a fair shake,” said Costa in a message to The Stranger. “Go big or go home (If you are fortunate enough to have a home 😞).”

Those candidates also expressed concern over displacement, but they feel strongly that the city can grow rapidly without pushing out low-income residents.

Davis said he would propose a right-to-return policy to keep people in their communities. Such a policy would require developers who build in certain high-risk areas to pay the rent of the tenants they kick out during construction and then lease them an equivalent unit onsite at the same price as their last unit. Davis said he would want to make the policy pencil for developers, but if it scares them away, then they will just go to a rich neighborhood, saving low-income people from displacement anyway. 

Jenks also said she supports a right-to-return policy. She added that she would support a right of first refusal, which would allow tenants first dibs to buy their building if a landlord wants to sell. 

In an op-ed for The Stranger, District 3 candidate Efrain Hudnell suggested rent control or stabilization to keep people in their homes as the city grows. 

The Urbanist Caucus

While the Mayor combs through the legislation (possibly to find loopholes), urbanist candidates told The Stranger the new density bill did not go far enough. The results of the upcoming City elections will determine whether they'll have a majority to push it farther.

Seattleites will vote on seven council seats, four of which are wide open. If voters elect four urbanists, then it could be game over for Harrell, depending on a few factors–where Lewis lands, whether they end up needing to appoint a replacement for Council Member Teresa Mosqueda, who that replacement might be, etc. 

Looking at the candidates across the city, Davis feels optimistic about a possible urbanist majority. He said even the kinds of policy candidates feel they have to at least pretend to support seems much more urbanist-y than it has in past elections.

For example, during the Stranger Election Control Board meeting on Tuesday, all District 3 candidates except for Joy Hollingsworth said the City must go beyond the most aggressive version of the comprehensive plan, Alternative 5. 

But candidates talk a big game at forums. Even if the urbanist types can secure a majority on council, it's hard to tell who will stay firm, especially since council incumbents held comments or agreed with the Mayor.