Since Washington’s homelessness problem reached crisis status in the early 2010’s, nearly every housing and homeless measure that has received government support (and our tax dollars) has resulted in higher homeless numbers and/or lowered our state’s housing supply.

Currently, Washington has one of the worst homeless problems in the country (with thousands remaining untreated for chronic addiction/mental health issues) and leaving Washington one million homes short of meeting the state’s housing needs, one of the worst in the country.

Some critics blame these failures on politicians who prioritize the building of a large housing bureaucracy over funding addiction/mental health treatment for homeless individuals. These politicians claim that housing supply is the issue causing homelessness, and not the 65% of homeless who self-report addiction/mental health issues. While we do not subscribe to this “Housing First” argument, we do find it ironic these same politicians promote measures like rent control, which negatively impacts housing supply even further and drive-up housing costs for everyone.

Others contend these proposals are well-intended, but they often have real-world consequences that result in higher housing costs and more people being homeless.

A new bill (HR 1217) in the Washington State House of Representatives could be another such measure. The legislation would impose a 7% limit on rent increases and is supported by many Democrat representatives.

A similar measure was introduced during the previous legislative session.  It passed the House, but was not voted on by the Senate.

Interestingly, the bill was introduced by Representative Emily Alvarado (D – West Seattle), who also serves as the director of the City of Seattle Office of Housing, a key position within the region’s expanding housing bureaucracy. There taxpayers fund her $100,000+ a year salary (along with generous benefits, plus her salary as a state representative) as the homeless population has skyrocketed 63.3% in the past decade.

As a sign of the House Democrat leadership’s support for the measure, it was schedule for a hearing on the very first day of the 2025 legislative session in front of the House Committee on Housing. Over 100 people from across Washington attended, nearly all vocally opposed to the rent control measure.

While it is noble to assist those on a fixed– or lower-income with housing, rent control fails to do this. As we have recently seen in Portland, their similar rent control measure resulted in the reduction of housing supply and an increase in the number of residents who could not afford housing.

Those on the extreme Left have promoted rent control for many decades, but there is much evidence that it fails to do what its promoters claim it will do. Predictably, in every place where rent control has been imposed in the U.S., housing supply has decreased, and the cost of housing has increased. It is no coincidence the two U.S. cities which have rent control for decades, New York City and San Francisco, are two of the country’s most expensive cities and have a homeless crisis as bad as Seattle.

A recent academic study found that if Washington State imposed a 7% limit on rent increases, the same loss of housing supply (and subsequent rent increases) would occur here. The study determined that limits would cause 7,000 housing units to be pulled from the state’s rental market.

 In 2023 the National Apartment Association published a list of the 10 unintended consequences of rent control. Among the problems incurred after rent control was imposed are:

• Reduction investment in rental market
• Discouraged improvements and maintenance
• Reduced property tax revenue
• Hurt small landlords the hardest
• Benefitted wealthy tenants

Rent control proponents claim that limiting rent will reduce the number of people who are homeless. Yet since it fails to address the overwhelming problem of addiction and mental health issues among the homeless, this argument rings as hollow as their many previous expensive “fixes” which resulted a larger homeless population.

Critics of HR-1217 have raised concerns about the suitability of state-level implementation for rent control measures where every city across the state would have to follow the misguided policies of larger cities like Seattle and Tacoma. A recent poll revealed that only 22% of Washington residents believe the state should dictate local housing policies, while 68% believe this should be done at the county and city levels.

Washington state has many different housing markets with unique characteristics. Seattle’s U-District, San Juan Island, Pasco, Longview, Spokane’s South Hill, Aberdeen, Tacoma’s Stadium District, and Yakima Valley are each different with their own challenges. Rent control will impact each one differently, likely creating a new set of problems in each market.

Rent control will certainly be a contentious issue during the 2025 legislative session. Supporters will likely seek to pass it quietly while opponents will want to want to bring the public into the debate.

ChangeWA will be following the issue closely and will alert you when the issue comes up for important votes.