Washington House passes bill to allow splitting of residential lots (Seattle: apartments, renter)

[MtnSurfer]

With all the talk on here about Washington taxing residents out of their homes, this should give some additional options to those who have decent sized lots, but were unable to subdivide and sell a portion off or create a second residence on it, let's say for extended family or friends to live in legally. For those being forced out of state due to higher property taxes, this may offer them some relief. It apparently has bipartisan support but still has to pass the senate which is where it died last year. Perhaps second time is a charm.

https://www.columbian.com/news/2024/...idential-lots/

There are several bills designed to help with the housing crisis including another to legalize 'co-living' homes. I'm still not quite sure what that will look like. But this is already occurring in other states and at least in part already in WA. Let's say a family adds a 'granny shack' in the back for elderly family members to live in or even young adults still trying to make their way between jobs, etc.... I'm still trying to picture the 'co-living' structure and how that is different from just a large house perhaps with a maids quarters attached.

WASHINGTON BILL WOULD LEGALIZE LOW-COST “CO-LIVING” HOMES

Maybe that could be rented out as an 'on-site' income property. This is something already occurring in parts of the state now as well as in other high costs areas. I've stayed in some of those which were VRBOs where the owner lives in front or back. It can be a good way to supplement retirement income.

Derek

[rkcarguy]

As long as out of staters keep paying big money and building continues to have so much red tape in this state it isn't going to help. If anything it may make it worse. More value due to the second quarters = more taxes and insurance. You'll just have the family and a renter or relative stretched thin with increased costs.
My friends 5-plex of small studios(still in Bellingham) has had to increase the rent almost double from $500 to $950 since the pandemic to break even with all the increases.

[jabogitlu]

Well, this bill isn't about owning a five-plex or about having family or renters living in a second house out back. It's about splitting off a portion of your lot and selling it.

Edit: Oh I see the OP talked about the detached accessory units too. Well, as a homeowner you don't HAVE to build those. So there isn't an increase in tax or insurance that you don't agree to accept (by building an additional dwelling unit on your land). It's just another tool in the toolbox for people, for some it'll be great, for others they'll never do it.

[Wheatridger]

Have there ever been regulations against splitting lots. Here in CO, it's a routine subdivision process. The main obstacle is meeting minimum standards for lot size. Does this bill waive those local minimums, as no ore than 40% of the lot area is separated?

Speaking as a homeowner who's made most of his net worth through his home and land, I'm really happy that our land use regs are loosening. Twenty years ago, I might have been on the other side. But residential "preservation" only works for so long. In fast-growing metros such as Seattle and Denver, the pressure of rising property values eventually overcomes that charm and neighborhood feel. That's when the four-plexes and slot homes charge in, behind the bulldozers. Softer, more gradual development is a good thing.

As I consider retirement relocation to you even more expensive state, I'm now using our new ADU law to legalize my "unpermitted duplex," actually a converted barn. After that, I can split a 10K sf parcel out of my acre to sell for a duplex. Nearing retirement, my wife and I have made most of the money we'll ever make. It's great to have this newfound flexibility to manage our 24-year investment, enabling us to extract some wealth from it without selling it all at once.

[StealthRabbit]

Originally Posted by jabogitlu

Well, this bill .... It's about splitting off a portion of your lot and selling it.

....

While it is agreed that in appropriate circumstances, higher density could be acceptable, and potentially beneficial. There will be plenty of hurdles. +/-

But much of WA already allows, and encourages ADUs. But there will never be a blanket, statewide acceptance.

ALL of us in the CGNSA (WA and OR) are under FEDERAL land use rules. A group of 5 attorneys spent 20 yrs and lots of dough trying to split up 240 acres. They finally sold it as (1) 240acre site (building a home, not approved). Across the street, the neighbor owned 80 acres in 3 parcels, but since they are contiguous, together they are allowed (1) existing residence. So s-p-a-c-e is not the only criteria or advantage. Parking, traffic, EMS access, HOA rules, set-backs, available sewer, water, electricity capacity, neighbor density regs (for EMS, Schools, community college services...)

And of course COUNTY regulations, zoning,and rules will prevail and flourish (such as $20-$50k impact fees for changing land use). Probably a windfall for assessors. (Highest and best use = taxing ALL properties at full occupancy and full build-out)

Bring on the benefits.

[Wheatridger]

Sounds like you're talking about a major subdivision process, inside what I presume is the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area. That raises many more issues than splitting one lot into two within an existing developed urban area. You have to lay out streets and underground infrastructure, and possibly devote space for parks and schools. Expect rounds of contentious public hearings, too. Perhaps you're saying that the newly relaxed rules won't change much in your area. Most cases would be at the other end of the spectrum of size and difficulty. My city of Wheat Ridge has policies encouraging the creation of new infill dwellings. Their planner has encouraged me to split the lot through a straightforward administrative process, with the most costly requirement being a property survey.

[jabogitlu]

Yeah, sounds like you shouldn't have bought property in the CGNSA. Duh.

[StealthRabbit]

Having been displaced from (3) farms, and fighting apartments, mobile home parks, and shopping centers occupying productive land.... I have no interest in promoting sprawl.

It is a tad painful to cough up $46/ day property taxes on a home that originated at <$3/day taxes. These are based on speculative property buyers, not from the value of splitting off future lots. We just would have liked to be able to afford to LIVE in our homes.

These potential land use changes are NOT always beneficial. Many seniors who are being displaced by WA property taxes, are not able to pursue a 'CA style'* solution.

* Capital required, growth for increased tax revenue the primary incentive.

[MtnSurfer]

Originally Posted by StealthRabbit

Having been displaced from (3) farms, and fighting apartments, mobile home parks, and shopping centers occupying productive land.... I have no interest in promoting sprawl.

It is a tad painful to cough up $46/ day property taxes on a home that originated at <$3/day taxes. These are based on speculative property buyers, not from the value of splitting off future lots. We just would have liked to be able to afford to LIVE in our homes.

These potential land use changes are NOT always beneficial. Many seniors who are being displaced by WA property taxes, are not able to pursue a 'CA style'* solution.

* Capital required, growth for increased tax revenue the primary incentive.

Stealth, like most things especially RE related, the answer is, it depends. Like Wheatridge mentioned over in CO, a simple lot split in more developed areas is on the other end of the spectrum and more common. I've seen it help seniors to not only remain in their home of decades but also provide them a comfortable living or income. Our nextdoor neighbor's dairy farm being just one example of that. Though there are many others who could benefit from selling parts of their land. It's not always a gov't money grab only. Sometimes, the owner/seller can come out ahead as well. Taxes will always be there and are an inevitability. But there is more to this story than death and taxes. I think that's why there is more bipartisan support on this one. While it won't solve everyone's unique problems or situation, more options are better than fewer when it comes to one's land. Then they at least have the opportunity to decide for themselves if it's in their best interest to do so. For some, it likely will be while for others, there will be other restrictions or considerations.

Derek

[margaretBartle]

There are several bills designed to help with the housing crisis including another to legalize 'co-living' homes. I'm still not quite sure what that will look like. But this is already occurring in other states and at least in part already in WA. Let's say a family adds a 'granny shack' in the back for elderly family members to live in or even young adults still trying to make their way between jobs, etc.... I'm still trying to picture the 'co-living' structure and how that is different from just a large house perhaps with a maids quarters attached.

WASHINGTON BILL WOULD LEGALIZE LOW-COST “CO-LIVING” HOMES

We can't know how they will define co-housing until the bill is passed, but basically, it's having micro-pads, without kitchens or bathrooms, as small as 75 square feet (7 x 10') rooms, with a shared kitchen and toilet facilities down the hall. Kind of like the old-fashioned single-room-occupancies of earlier days.

They could be forced into single-family neighborhoods; damn the people who paid extra to have a nice neighborhood with trees, and nicely landscaped yards, because these will destroy the canopy with their lot line to lot line designed. Gone will be the days of family gatherings, as visitors will never be able to find a place to park, since they will be built with few or no off-street parking spots. But who cares about the current residents where there's a profit to be made?

The details are still being worked out in committee, but the overall idea is that global developers could come into any area of Washington, and with considerably less overhead, would be able to plunk their projects down, and the locals would have no recourse.

As it is now, each jurisdiction or planning agency gets to define what is allowed, how much parking would be required, set-backs, distance from designated protected areas, adverse impact etc. The developers would have to go through the hassle of haggling with each planning department. That is getting more and more difficult as citizens are pushing back against inappropriate development.

As it is now, the local developers have an edge, because they know the rules. The huge developers, with offices in Sydney, Singapore and Los Angeles has to learn the rules in everywhere in every jurisdiction - very expensive!

There is a huge eyeball on eastern King County. It's a very desirable, high-end market- wine country, fine estates, The Herb Farm, Snoqualmie Falls. Developers are slobbering over what they could do if they could wrest control of the planning office from the locals. It's just one example.