2SHB 1859
SignedHouse
Housing dev./religious orgs.
Expanding opportunities for affordable housing developments on properties owned by religious organizations.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill requires cities and counties to grant density bonuses for affordable housing projects built on land owned or controlled by religious organizations, as long as at least 20% of units are reserved for low-income households and the project remains affordable for 50 years. It also updates definitions and requirements to ensure fairness, long-term affordability, and compliance with housing laws.
- Cities and counties must grant a density bonus (allowing more housing units than normally permitted) for affordable housing projects on land owned or controlled by religious organizations, if at least 20% of units are reserved for low-income households.
- Projects must include a legally binding agreement (e.g., lease) requiring at least 20% of units remain affordable for 50 years, even if the property is sold.
- Affordable housing projects must not discriminate against applicants based on protected characteristics (e.g., race, disability, veteran status) and must comply with federal fair housing laws.
- Local governments must develop policies to implement this requirement upon request by a religious organization, and may require more than 20% affordability to qualify for the bonus.
- Religious organizations (or their developers) must pay all development fees, mitigation costs, and other charges, and should coordinate with local transit agencies to ensure service access.
- The definition of 'affordable housing' is clarified to mean units where monthly housing costs (including utilities, except phone) do not exceed 30% of household income, and 'low-income household' means income at or below 80% of area median income, per HUD guidelines.
Who is affected
- Religious organizations — Religious organizations can now propose affordable housing projects on their land with fewer regulatory barriers and guaranteed access to density bonuses, and they retain control over long-term affordability through lease requirements.
- Local governments — Local governments (cities and counties) must create policies to implement density bonuses for religious-affiliated affordable housing and ensure compliance with affordability and non-discrimination rules.
- Low-income households — Low-income households benefit from increased availability of affordable housing units—rental or ownership—where housing costs (including utilities) stay at or below 30% of their income.
- Affordable housing developers — Developers or entities leasing religious-owned land to build affordable housing gain clearer pathways to approval and may benefit from density bonuses, though they must cover all associated fees and mitigation costs.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
By mandating density bonuses for projects reserving at least 20% of units for low-income households, the bill directly increases the supply of affordable units on underutilized religious land—potentially adding thousands of units across Washington without new state spending.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a), Sec. 2(1)(a), Sec. 3(1)(a)The legally binding 50-year affordability requirement—enforceable even upon sale—creates durable, long-term housing security for low-income households, reducing turnover and stabilizing communities in high-pressure housing markets.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(b), Sec. 2(1)(b), Sec. 3(1)(b)Clarifying 'affordable housing' to cap monthly costs (including utilities) at 30% of household income ensures true affordability—protecting households from hidden cost burdens that often undermine traditional rent caps.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(a), Sec. 2(6)(a), Sec. 3(6)(a)Explicit non-discrimination requirements—aligned with federal fair housing law—help prevent bias against protected groups (e.g., veterans, disabled, LGBTQ+) in housing access, promoting equity in opportunity.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(c), Sec. 2(1)(c), Sec. 3(1)(c)The encouragement to coordinate with local transit agencies helps ensure new affordable housing is accessible by public transit—reducing household transportation costs and improving mobility for low-income residents.
TransportationLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(4), Sec. 2(4), Sec. 3(4)
Potential Concerns (5)
The 20% affordability threshold may be insufficient to meaningfully increase supply for *very* low-income households (e.g., below 50% AMI), as many religious organizations may opt for the minimum requirement and target households near the 80% AMI cap—effectively serving lower-middle-income rather than the most cost-burdened residents.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a), Sec. 2(1)(a), Sec. 3(1)(a)Religious organizations (or their developers) must pay all development fees and mitigation costs, which may discourage participation—especially for smaller faith communities without access to large capital reserves or experienced developers—limiting the policy’s reach to well-resourced religious entities or large non-profits.
HousingLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(3), Sec. 2(3), Sec. 3(3)Mandating that local governments develop policies to implement density bonuses—without state funding—imposes new administrative burdens on small municipalities and counties with limited housing staff, potentially diverting resources from other housing priorities.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), Sec. 2(2), Sec. 3(2)The 50-year affordability covenant, while strong in principle, may be difficult to enforce if the religious organization sells or transfers the land, as leasehold restrictions do not bind future owners unless carefully structured—risking long-term loss of affordability if legal safeguards are not robustly implemented.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(b), Sec. 2(1)(b), Sec. 3(1)(b)The requirement that affordable housing on religious land be located within urban growth areas may exclude rural or suburban religious institutions with available land but outside UGAs—limiting the policy’s geographic equity and potentially reinforcing sprawl if developers concentrate in already-developed corridors.
HousingLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(3)
Who Is Most Affected
Religious organizations—especially larger, urban congregations with land and financial capacity—gain a streamlined pathway to develop affordable housing, fulfill social missions, and potentially increase property value through mixed-use development. Smaller or rural congregations may face barriers due to lack of development expertise or capital.
Local governments gain a new tool to meet housing goals but face new obligations to develop and implement policies without additional funding. They also gain stronger enforcement leverage over long-term affordability through binding leases.
Low-income households benefit from increased access to affordable units, especially those near 80% AMI. However, those below 50% AMI may still be underserved if projects target the upper end of the low-income range to maximize feasibility.
Affordable housing developers gain clearer regulatory pathways and density bonuses, but must absorb all fees and mitigation costs—potentially limiting participation to larger, well-capitalized developers rather than small or mission-driven nonprofits.
Existing residents in neighborhoods where religious organizations propose projects may benefit from increased housing supply and transit access, but could face concerns about neighborhood character, traffic, or perceived changes in community composition—though the bill includes no provisions to address these perceptions.