Welch: Zoning alone won’t solve housing crisis, cities must work as one

Published 1:30 am Wednesday, April 1, 2026

By Todd Welch / Herald Columnist

Washington state is in the middle of a housing crisis that is both widely acknowledged and deeply misunderstood.

We often hear that the solution is simple: change zoning laws, allow more density, and the market will respond. While that approach is necessary, it is not sufficient. The reality is far more complex, and if we want real results, we need to rethink not just our policies, but how our entire city governments operate.

Recent national analysis and Washington-specific data make one thing clear: we do not just have a zoning problem. We have a feasibility problem.

In Washington, roughly 80 percent of households cannot afford a median-priced home. At the same time, housing production has not kept pace with demand, even as cities across the state have begun to allow more density. This disconnect points to a deeper issue. Increasing capacity on paper does not automatically translate into homes being built.

Why? Housing is not constrained solely by zoning.

Developers, especially small builders and those constructing accessory dwelling units, face a layered set of challenges. Construction costs remain high. Interest rates continue to put pressure on financing. Regulatory requirements, impact fees, and utility connections add significant cost. Even small increases in these inputs can price hundreds of families out of the market.

In fact, every incremental increase in construction costs has a measurable impact on affordability. For many projects, especially smaller infill developments, the margin between “feasible” and “not feasible” is razor thin.

But there is another factor that receives far less attention and may be just as important: how cities function internally.

Too often, local governments operate in silos. Planning, public works, utilities, fire, permitting, and legal departments each play a role in the development process, but they do not always operate with a shared understanding of the end goal. Each department is doing its job, but not always in a way that advances housing delivery.

The result is predictable. Projects face delays. Requirements conflict. Reviews happen sequentially instead of in parallel. Applicants receive inconsistent direction. Timeframes stretch. Costs rise. And in many cases, projects that could have delivered housing simply do not move forward.

From the outside, it can look like the system is working. Codes are being followed. Reviews are being completed. But from a housing production standpoint, the system is underperforming.

There is also a growing disconnect between state housing policy and the realities of financing. While Washington state has passed laws to expand middle housing and encourage accessory dwelling units, lending standards have not always kept pace. Loan programs backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac still rely heavily on existing zoning, appraisal comparables, and risk models that favor traditional single-family development patterns. If local zoning has not fully aligned, or if comparable properties are limited, lenders may restrict or deny financing for ADUs and small multifamily projects. In practice, this means projects that are legal under state law can still struggle to secure funding, creating another barrier between policy intent and actual housing delivery.

If we are serious about addressing the housing shortage, municipalities must take a whole-of-government approach.

That starts with a clear and shared mission: housing production is a priority. Not just for planning departments, but across the entire organization.

It also requires process alignment. Permitting workflows should be predictable and transparent. Departments should coordinate rather than operate sequentially. Reviews should be streamlined without sacrificing safety or quality.

Equally important is accountability. Cities should track not just how many units are allowed under zoning, but how many are actually built. Metrics like time to permit approval, time to construction, and conversion rates from application to completion tell a far more accurate story.

Finally, there must be a cultural shift. Every department involved in development needs to understand how their decisions affect housing outcomes. Delays are not neutral. Requirements are not cost-free. Each step in the process either supports or constrains the delivery of housing.

This is not about lowering standards or cutting corners. It is about aligning systems to achieve a clearly defined public goal.

Across Snohomish County cities, there is a real opportunity to lead. As local jurisdictions continue to update policies and plan for growth, equal attention should be given to how city governments operate internally. When departments are aligned and working from the same sheet of music, housing can be delivered more efficiently, more predictably, and at a scale that better meets community needs.

Zoning reform opens the door. Cost reform helps projects pencil. But it is alignment inside the city government, combined with financing systems that keep pace with policy, that ultimately determines whether housing gets built.

If we want different outcomes, we need to build not just more housing, but a better system to deliver it.

Todd Welch is a Herald columnist covering local and state issues.