Welch: Washington does not need a new Department of Housing

Published 1:30 am Saturday, May 2, 2026

Washington has a housing problem. That much is clear. Rents are high, homeownership is increasingly out of reach, homelessness remains visible in communities across the state, and local governments are under constant pressure to approve more housing while also protecting infrastructure, neighborhoods, taxpayers, and public services.

But creating a new Department of Housing is not the answer.

Governor Bob Ferguson’s Executive Order 25-12 created a Department of Housing Task Force to study how Washington might establish a new cabinet-level housing agency. The executive order says the state needs a “more centralized, data-driven approach” to coordinate housing programs, promote housing stability, encourage housing growth, reduce administrative bottlenecks, and improve accountability. The task force is directed to recommend a mission, governance structure, staffing plan, cost estimate, and possible agency consolidation by November 15, 2026, likely setting the stage for legislation in 2027.

On paper, that sounds organized. In practice, it looks like another layer of state government being created to manage problems that existing agencies already have the authority, funding, and responsibility to address.

Washington already has a major housing agency function inside the Department of Commerce. Commerce administers housing programs involving affordable housing, homelessness prevention, housing planning, manufactured housing support, and local government assistance. Its Housing Division already works to build and preserve affordable housing and prevent families from becoming homeless.

Commerce also administers the Housing Trust Fund, one of the state’s primary tools for financing affordable housing. Since 1986, the Housing Trust Fund has invested billions of dollars and supported tens of thousands of affordable housing units across Washington. If the state is serious about housing production, preservation, and affordability, Commerce is already the place where much of that work is housed.

Washington also has the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, which finances affordable housing and homeownership opportunities. The Commission helps provide access to tax-exempt bonds, tax credits, down payment assistance, and other financing tools. It is not a minor player. It is one of the state’s central housing finance institutions.

So if Commerce and the Housing Finance Commission already exist, what exactly is missing?

The executive order suggests the state needs coordination. But coordination is not the same thing as creating a new department. If Commerce, the Housing Finance Commission, the Attorney General’s Office, the Department of Revenue, the Department of Licensing, local governments, housing authorities, nonprofit providers, and private developers are all already involved, then the problem is not the absence of bureaucracy. The problem is that the current bureaucracy is fragmented, expensive, and often slow.

Rental housing is already heavily regulated in Washington. The Residential Landlord-Tenant Act, Chapter 59.18 RCW, governs the relationship between residential landlords and tenants. The Attorney General’s Office already provides landlord-tenant guidance and has enforcement authority in areas connected to tenant protections. Washington has also moved into rent stabilization policy, with Commerce publishing the annual rent increase cap and operating a Landlord Resource Center created under recent legislation.

Manufactured housing is also already covered by state programs and regulations. The Department of Revenue requires manufactured and mobile home communities with two or more year-round rental spaces to register and pay annual fees. Commerce operates relocation assistance programs for eligible manufactured and mobile home residents when communities close. The Housing Finance Commission also supports manufactured housing community preservation by helping residents purchase the land under their homes.

Even the real estate and property management side is already regulated. The Department of Licensing licenses real estate brokers, and many property management functions are tied to real estate brokerage licensing when performed for compensation.

In other words, Washington already has a long list of agencies, programs, laws, funding sources, and regulators touching housing and rental property. Creating a new department may simply move the same programs into a new box, with a new director, new staff structure, new budget requests, new reporting systems, and new administrative costs.

That may be good for Olympia’s organizational chart. It does not automatically build one additional home.

A new Department of Housing could easily become another state-level solution that sounds bold but does little to speed up housing production. It could rename programs, transfer employees, hire consultants, build new data systems, and still leave local communities waiting for roads, sewer capacity, utility upgrades, stormwater improvements, public safety support, and realistic permitting timelines.

The state should be careful not to confuse centralization with accountability. A cabinet-level department may make housing policy more political, not more effective. It may concentrate more authority in Olympia while cities and counties are left to deal with the real-world impacts of state housing mandates: traffic, infrastructure, school capacity, emergency services, neighborhood compatibility, and long-term maintenance costs.

Washington does not need a new Department of Housing. Washington needs the existing housing system to work better.

That starts with accountability. Commerce should be required to clearly report housing program outcomes, not just dollars spent. How many units were actually built? How long did the projects take? What delayed them? How much did each unit cost? Which state requirements increased costs? Which programs produced measurable results, and which simply consumed administrative dollars?

The state should also review existing programs before creating a new agency to supervise them. If programs overlap, consolidate them. If rules conflict, fix them. If reporting requirements slow down providers, simplify them. If local governments are expected to absorb growth, provide predictable infrastructure funding tied to roads, utilities, stormwater, parks, and public safety.

The Legislature should also ask hard questions before moving forward. Which current agency has failed? What authority is missing? What will a new department cost? How many new employees will be added? Which programs will be eliminated, not simply transferred? How will this produce more homes faster than improving the agencies already responsible for housing?

Housing affordability is one of Washington’s most serious challenges. But serious challenges require disciplined government, not automatic expansion of government.

Washington already has housing programs, housing regulators, housing funders, tenant protections, landlord rules, manufactured housing programs, local housing authorities, and state-level enforcement.

What it lacks is not another department.

What it lacks is accountability.

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