The Association of Washington Cities - Part II
When AWC Claims “Wins,” Eastern Washington Gets the Bill
If you spend any time reading Association of Washington Cities legislative updates, one thing becomes clear very quickly: AWC loves to declare victory.
Each session, the organization publishes summaries highlighting bills it “shaped,” “improved,” or “successfully advocated for.” These are presented as proof that membership dues are working and that cities are better off because AWC was in the room.
But when you stop reading the headlines and start reading the bills, a different story emerges.
Many of the policies AWC touts as wins are progressive, west-side driven priorities that impose real costs on eastern Washington cities, while delivering little to no benefit in return.
Let’s look at some of the most commonly cited examples.
Housing “Wins” That Override Local Control
HB 1110 and the Middle Housing Mandates
One of AWC’s most celebrated policy areas is housing. The organization routinely claims success in shaping statewide housing legislation, particularly bills that mandate increased density in traditionally single-family zones.
A flagship example is HB 1110, the so-called “middle housing” bill.
AWC has publicly framed its involvement in HB 1110 as a win for cities, arguing that it secured amendments and flexibility while advancing affordability.
Here is what HB 1110 actually does.
The bill requires cities to allow duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes in areas historically zoned for single-family homes, regardless of local planning decisions. While there are some population-based distinctions, the core principle is clear: the state decides density, not local governments.
Why AWC calls this a win:
The bill aligns with Olympia’s housing density agenda
AWC was involved in negotiating amendments
It avoids placing cities entirely outside the process
Why it is not a win for eastern Washington:
It removes zoning authority from local elected officials
It imposes infrastructure costs without funding
It assumes urban housing demand models that do not exist in rural markets
Eastern Washington cities are not suffering from the same housing dynamics as Seattle or Tacoma. In many cases, the barrier is not zoning, but financing, labor, water infrastructure, and market demand.
HB 1110 forces cities to plan for density they may never see, while still requiring them to build and maintain infrastructure for it.
That is not local control. That is state preemption with a friendly press release.
Housing Supply Bills That Ignore the Real Bottleneck
SB 5466 and Related “Streamlining” Measures
AWC often points to bills like SB 5466 and similar housing supply legislation as proof it is helping cities “cut red tape” and speed up housing production. These measures are marketed as common-sense fixes to permitting delays, with the implication that local governments are the primary obstacle to building.
That framing does not match reality in eastern Washington, and it certainly does not reflect the lived experience of cities like Yakima.
Let’s be clear. Yes, Yakima and other cities sometimes experience permitting delays. But those delays are rarely caused by indifference, incompetence, or excessive local process. They are caused by staffing shortages, and those shortages are a direct consequence of state policy.
Over the last several legislative cycles, Olympia has steadily increased the cost of employing public servants. Expanded labor mandates, benefit requirements, compliance obligations, and liability exposure have made it dramatically more expensive to hire and retain qualified staff. Cities are competing with the private sector and larger jurisdictions for planners, engineers, and inspectors, often without the budget flexibility to match wages or benefits.
In that context, “streamlining” bills like SB 5466 miss the point entirely.
Why AWC calls these bills a win:
They reduce statutory timelines and procedural steps
They appeal to lawmakers eager to show progress on housing
They allow AWC to say it helped cities move faster
Why they do not solve the real problem for cities like Yakima:
You cannot process permits faster without people to process them
Mandated timelines do not create staff or funding
Pressure without resources increases burnout and turnover
When the state responds to staffing shortages by tightening deadlines instead of addressing workforce costs, the result is not efficiency. It is stress, mistakes, and higher legal risk for cities already stretched thin.
From a Yakima perspective, the irony is hard to ignore. Olympia passes bill after bill that raises the cost of employment. AWC supports or acquiesces to those policies. Then the state turns around and blames cities for being slow, offering “streamlining” as the solution.
That is not a housing fix. It is a deflection.
Even worse, these bills tend to benefit large developers operating in west-side markets where scale and margins can absorb regulatory churn. Small builders and rural communities do not see the same upside. They inherit the compliance pressure without the volume to justify it.
AWC frames SB 5466 and similar measures as pragmatic compromise. From eastern Washington, they look like policies designed for urban systems, imposed on cities with fewer staff, tighter budgets, and less flexibility.
If Olympia and AWC were serious about addressing permitting delays in cities like Yakima, they would focus on:
Reducing unfunded employment mandates
Expanding flexible funding for planning staff
Allowing local governments to set realistic timelines based on capacity
Instead, they choose speed mandates and call it a win.
Yakima does not need lectures about efficiency. It needs relief from policies that make it harder every year to keep qualified people on payroll.
That distinction matters, and it is one AWC consistently glosses over.
Homelessness “Wins” That Export Urban Failure to Rural Cities
AWC also routinely claims victories in the area of homelessness and behavioral health. These wins are usually framed as compassionate, pragmatic, and city-friendly.
In practice, many of these policies reflect Seattle-style homelessness management models that do not translate to eastern Washington communities and, in some cases, actively make conditions worse.
What AWC Claims as Wins
Across multiple legislative sessions, the Association of Washington Cities has highlighted homelessness and housing-related outcomes as evidence of effective advocacy. In legislative wrap-ups, policy briefings, and post-session summaries, AWC has routinely framed certain statewide actions as positive developments for cities.
These include:
The expansion and implementation of statewide Right to Counsel protections for tenants, which AWC did not meaningfully oppose and later framed as part of Washington’s broader housing stability framework
Increased statutory limits on local authority over encampments and public camping, often described as reducing liability and creating uniform statewide standards
State funding for homelessness response programs tied primarily to Housing First models, which AWC has promoted as new resources for cities
Restrictions on local enforcement tools related to public disorder, framed as consistency, risk reduction, or compliance with state and court standards
In each case, AWC has characterized these outcomes as helping cities by:
Reducing legal exposure
Increasing access to state funding
Creating uniform rules across jurisdictions
That framing deserves closer scrutiny.
Because while AWC may not have originated every one of these policies, it also did not use its institutional influence to challenge or meaningfully resist them, particularly on behalf of smaller, rural, or eastern Washington cities. In many cases, AWC’s advocacy focused on shaping implementation rather than questioning whether the policy itself made sense statewide.
There is a difference between shaping a bill and defending local governments from its consequences.
Eastern Washington cities are living with those consequences.
Right to Counsel and Eviction Policy (Senate Bill 5160)
Compassion Framed, Consequences Ignored
One of the most significant housing and eviction reforms enacted in Washington in recent years is the statewide Right to Counsel law for low-income tenants facing eviction. On paper, the policy is straightforward: tenants who qualify financially are guaranteed legal representation in unlawful detainer proceedings.
While the Association of Washington Cities did not originate this legislation, it also did not meaningfully oppose it, and has since framed Right to Counsel as part of Washington’s broader housing stability framework. In Olympia and west-side media, the policy is routinely described as humane, stabilizing, and a necessary correction to an imbalanced eviction system.
That framing resonates in large urban jurisdictions with deep legal infrastructure and expansive rental markets.
It does not translate cleanly east of the Cascades.
Why AWC Calls Right to Counsel a “Win”
From AWC’s perspective, Right to Counsel checks several political and institutional boxes.
First, it aligns neatly with progressive housing stability goals that dominate legislative discourse in Olympia. Actively opposing tenant protections carries political risk in a legislature where urban districts set the tone, and AWC has strong incentives to avoid being positioned on the wrong side of that debate.
Second, by not meaningfully opposing Right to Counsel legislation, AWC reduces pressure on cities to publicly fight tenant-focused policies. This posture helps preserve access and credibility with lawmakers who frame housing primarily through a civil rights lens.
Third, Right to Counsel legislation is typically accompanied by state funding commitments. On paper, legal representation is paid for by the state rather than cities, allowing the policy to be framed as a benefit without a direct municipal price tag.
Taken together, these dynamics make Right to Counsel a politically low-cost position for a statewide organization seeking to maintain relevance and goodwill in Olympia.
But those are institutional incentives, not outcome-based ones.
Why the Policy Plays Out Differently in Eastern Washington
In practice, Right to Counsel does not simply provide legal help. It fundamentally changes the eviction timeline, the risk calculus for landlords, and the behavior of small rental markets.
In eastern Washington cities like Yakima, rental markets are:
Smaller
Less liquid
Dominated by individual or small-scale landlords
Far less able to absorb prolonged nonpayment
When eviction proceedings are extended through mandatory legal representation, cases take longer to resolve. That delay may be manageable in Seattle, where large corporate landlords and higher margins can spread risk across thousands of units.
In Yakima, it often cannot.
For small landlords, a single nonpaying tenant can mean months of lost income, legal uncertainty, and mounting costs. Faced with that reality, many respond rationally, not ideologically.
They:
Exit the rental market entirely
Convert units to short-term or owner-occupied housing
Raise screening thresholds
Decline to rent to higher-risk tenants
None of those outcomes reduce homelessness.
They reduce available housing.
The Perverse Effect on Housing Access
One of the least discussed consequences of Right to Counsel is that it shrinks the supply of informal, flexible housing, which is often where lower-income tenants in eastern Washington actually find shelter.
When landlords become more cautious, the people who lose access first are those with:
Prior evictions
Criminal histories
Untreated addiction
Mental health challenges
These are precisely the populations policymakers claim to be helping.
The result is a paradox. Eviction timelines are extended, but housing access becomes more restricted. Tenants may remain in units longer during disputes, but once removed, they face a colder, tighter market with fewer willing landlords.
Cities then see:
Longer vacancy cycles
Fewer available units at the low end
More unsheltered individuals cycling through public spaces
From the outside, it looks like housing instability persists. From the inside, the policy has shifted risk away from tenants and onto landlords who respond by withdrawing supply.
AWC frames this as housing stability. Eastern Washington experiences it as market distortion.
Root Causes Are Delayed, Not Addressed
Another critical difference between west-side and east-side contexts is what actually drives housing instability.
In cities like Yakima, eviction is often not primarily a legal issue. It is a symptom of:
Addiction
Untreated mental illness
Job loss tied to seasonal or agricultural work
Family disruption
Economic shocks
Right to Counsel does nothing to address these root causes. It does not provide treatment. It does not stabilize income. It does not increase housing stock. It delays a legal outcome without changing the underlying conditions.
In some cases, delay can be helpful. In many others, it simply prolongs instability for both tenant and landlord.
Seattle’s legal ecosystem includes wraparound services, nonprofits, and public systems that can sometimes bridge that gap. Yakima does not have that scale or infrastructure.
What works as a legal intervention in Seattle often functions as a temporal bandage in eastern Washington, pushing problems forward rather than resolving them.
Funding on Paper, Costs in Reality
AWC frequently highlights state funding for Right to Counsel when discussing eviction reform, reinforcing the perception that the policy does not impose direct financial obligations on cities.
In a narrow sense, that is true. Cities are not writing checks for legal representation, which is funded by the state through contracted legal service providers.
But the downstream impacts on cities are real.
Longer eviction timelines and increased legal complexity contribute to secondary pressures that cities must manage, including:
Increased demand for code enforcement and outreach
Greater visibility of unsheltered homelessness
Additional strain on police, parks, and public spaces
Political pressure to respond without corresponding tools or funding
These impacts do not appear as line items labeled “Right to Counsel” in city budgets. They show up indirectly, through staffing demands, public safety costs, and community impacts.
Those downstream costs are not reimbursed by the state.
A One-Size Policy Applied to Unequal Markets
None of this requires malicious intent from AWC. The organization does not need to work against eastern Washington for these outcomes to occur.
It only needs to reflect the priorities of the cities that dominate its governance and advocacy.
Right to Counsel is a policy designed around large, urban rental markets with deep legal infrastructure. Applied statewide, it produces uneven results.
AWC celebrates the principle. Eastern Washington manages the consequences.
Compassion without local discretion is not compassion. It is ideology applied uniformly to unequal conditions.
And once again, the pattern holds.
AWC declares a win.
Eastern Washington gets the bill.
Encampment Policy and Limits on Local Authority
When “Uniformity” Means Fewer Tools
AWC has often accommodated, or not meaningfully opposed, legislation and court-aligned policy frameworks that limit local authority over public camping and encampment management. These policies are typically advanced in Olympia under the banners of civil rights compliance, constitutional constraints, or liability reduction.
In legislative summaries and implementation guidance, AWC has tended to frame these outcomes as providing clarity and protection for cities, particularly by reducing legal exposure and establishing uniform statewide standards.
From an institutional perspective, these outcomes are often described as beneficial because:
Cities are shielded from certain categories of lawsuits
State standards reduce political and legal uncertainty
Enforcement responsibility is diffused across jurisdictions
For eastern Washington cities, the consequences are very different.
Smaller cities often lack:
Adequate shelter capacity to meet state-defined thresholds
Dedicated outreach teams and service-provider networks
Legal departments to manage complex compliance requirements
As a result, encampments tend to concentrate in visible public spaces, near schools, parks, waterways, and downtown corridors. Local governments lose discretion to respond to community concerns in ways that reflect local conditions and capacity.
Seattle has scale. It has outreach teams, nonprofit infrastructure, legal departments, and sustained funding streams dedicated to homelessness response.
Eastern Washington does not.
When the state imposes rules designed around Seattle’s infrastructure, smaller cities are left with fewer tools and higher visibility impacts. What may be manageable in a large metropolitan system becomes destabilizing in a smaller community.
AWC frames this as consistency.
Eastern Washington experiences it as constraint.
Housing First Funding Without Accountability
Money That Comes With Strings and Blind Spots
AWC frequently highlights state funding for homelessness response programs as evidence that cities are being supported.
The fine print matters.
Much of this funding is structured around policy assumptions that do not translate well to eastern Washington. In practice, these programs often:
Prioritize Housing First–oriented models
De-prioritize enforcement-first or treatment-first approaches
Require reporting, compliance, and administrative structures that small cities struggle to staff
From an institutional standpoint, this framework aligns neatly with AWC’s incentives.
It tracks with state and west-side policy consensus.
Funding reads well in legislative summaries.
And it avoids ideological conflict with Olympia.
For eastern Washington cities, the mismatch is stark.
Housing First models assume housing availability that often does not exist.
Behavioral health and addiction treatment capacity is limited or absent.
Underlying drivers of homelessness are not addressed at the scale required.
As a result, eastern Washington cities are frequently forced to choose between accepting funding that does not match local needs or declining resources altogether.
That is not support.
It is conditional compliance.
The Core Problem: Policy Built for Seattle, Applied Everywhere
None of this requires malicious intent.
AWC does not have to actively work against eastern Washington for this outcome to occur. It only has to reflect the priorities of the cities that dominate its board and advocacy.
Homelessness policy in Washington State is built around Seattle’s assumptions:
Large service networks
High housing density
Extensive nonprofit infrastructure
Tolerance for visible disorder
Eastern Washington cities operate in a completely different reality.
When AWC claims homelessness “wins,” what it is often celebrating is alignment with Olympia and Puget Sound political expectations, not outcomes that improve safety, order, or recovery in smaller communities.
Compassion Without Local Control Is Not Compassion
Eastern Washington voters are not heartless. They want people off the streets. They want addiction treated. They want mental illness addressed.
What they do not want is policy that:
Removes local discretion
Ignores capacity constraints
Normalizes disorder as inevitable
AWC’s homelessness wins frequently prioritize optics and liability reduction over results. That may satisfy Olympia. It does not satisfy communities dealing with the consequences.
Once again, the pattern holds.
AWC declares a win.
Eastern Washington absorbs the cost.
Climate Policy Wins That Function as Unfunded Mandates
Climate Commitment Act Alignment and Environmental Regulations
AWC has repeatedly highlighted its role in climate and environmental policy, often framing its advocacy as ensuring cities are treated as “partners” in the implementation of statewide climate goals.
This posture has included support for, or accommodation of, policy frameworks connected to the Climate Commitment Act, statewide emissions reduction targets, and associated environmental compliance regimes.
In legislative summaries and implementation guidance, AWC has framed these outcomes as successes because:
Cities are included in implementation conversations
Some flexibility or phased timelines are secured
State funding streams are promised to assist compliance
For eastern Washington cities, the impacts are materially different.
Compliance costs are real and immediate.
Funding is often delayed, competitive, or insufficient.
Rural cities face significantly higher per-capita costs to comply.
Environmental regulations written for dense urban environments do not scale cleanly to rural geographies. Water systems, land-use patterns, and utility infrastructure in eastern Washington are fundamentally different.
Large west-side cities can absorb compliance through dedicated staff, consultants, and broader tax bases. Small cities cannot.
AWC frames this as responsible stewardship.
Eastern Washington cities experience it as an unfunded mandate with a sustainability label.
Labor and Employment Wins That Hit Small Cities Hardest
Expansions of Employment Mandates
AWC frequently promotes its role in shaping labor and employment legislation, including expansions of worker protections, benefit requirements, and regulatory standards.
These bills are often framed as fairness measures.
Why AWC supports them:
They align with west-side political priorities
They are popular in Olympia
They avoid cities being portrayed as opposing workers
Why they hurt eastern Washington cities:
Small cities lack HR departments and legal teams
Increased mandates raise payroll costs
Budget pressure forces cuts elsewhere
For a city with a limited general fund, every new mandate matters. Dollars spent complying with labor regulations are dollars not spent on police, fire, roads, or parks.
AWC frames these policies as neutral or beneficial. In reality, they disproportionately impact cities with the least financial flexibility.
Policing and Public Safety Policy Silence
The Absence of Advocacy Is Also a Position
Perhaps just as telling as the bills AWC actively engages on are the areas where it is notably quiet.
Eastern Washington cities have repeatedly raised concerns about:
Police staffing shortages
Public safety reforms passed without local input
Liability exposure for officers and cities
AWC’s advocacy in these areas has been cautious at best.
Why:
Public safety policy is politically sensitive in Olympia
West-side cities often support reform-first approaches
Aggressive advocacy would fracture the coalition
The result is an organization that claims to represent cities, while declining to forcefully advocate on one of the most pressing issues facing eastern Washington communities.
Silence, in this case, is alignment.
The Pattern Is the Point
Each of these examples follows the same pattern.
A bill advances Olympia’s progressive policy agenda.
AWC helps shape it at the margins.
The organization declares a win.
Eastern Washington cities absorb the cost.
And that brings us back to the question at the heart of this series.
If an organization consistently celebrates policies that do not work for your community, why are you paying it to speak on your behalf?
This is not accidental. It is the logical outcome of an organization whose governance structure is dominated by west-side representation.
AWC does not have to conspire against Eastern Washington. It only has to follow the votes.
Which leads to the unavoidable conclusion.
These are not conservative wins.
They are not rural wins.
They are not Eastern Washington wins.
They are progressive victories wrapped in municipal branding.
And that is why Yakima’s decision to leave matters.
In Part III, we examine what happens when a city finally asks whether paying to be outvoted makes sense, and why more cities may soon follow.
These same dynamics affect the west side small and midsized cities and towns and our rural areas. Our builders and landlords are also deeply impacted. The effect is to once again favor only the largest players and externalize the impact to everyone else. Olympia never games out the second and third order consequences, especially when they can claim short-term emotional wins. AWC goes along.