LOCAL RENTAL HOUSING REGULATION WATCH: September 2025

2025 has been the year of major changes at the state level, with relatively minor follow-ups from local municipalities. This year, we are seeing different styles of policy proposals at the local level, with the local city councils focusing on what they perceived to be the specific issues in their local jurisdictions, rather than attempting to pass a variation of the same “ARCH” proposals from the last several years.The three issue areas we are seeing the most traction with at the local level are a further proliferation of rental registry policies in cities that wish to “understand” their rental housing supply and demographics, bans on various “junk fees,” and limits on what information housing providers can screen for when bringing on a new tenant. While these policies and the additional administrative burden they cause may be frustrating for many housing providers, it is important to also mention that local city councils have engaged in a much deeper stakeholder process than we have seen in previous years. RHAWA believes bringing together the voices of both housing providers and residents is the best way to develop meaningful, balanced policy at all levels of government.

—— 
BELLINGHAM

Regular readers of CURRENT will be familiar with the fact that Bellingham has discussed banning certain rental provisions and fees for over a year now. To give you some background, last September, there was an incredibly restrictive and punitive set of proposals banning “junk fees” and certain rental provisions. This set of policy proposals demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of rental housing procedures and the costs associated with running a rental business. These policies were sent back to the drawing board, and in the winter of this year, there were several focus groups gathering community feedback on rental housing protections more generally. The focus groups resulted in a new set of policy proposals, which, while not particularly helpful for housing providers, did not contain some of the most restrictive policies from the original set of policies. The revised bill passed and went into effect August 1 and RHAWA has provided forms for compliance.

That brings us to today, where much of the language from the original policy proposal, which was rightfully modified as a result of community feedback, is now being presented to voters in the City of Bellingham as a ballot initiative. Community First Whatcom was able to get this initiative on the ballot with only 3,167 signatures, as Bellingham policy says the number of signatures needed will be 10% of those who voted in the last mayoral election. Tacoma For All pulled this same stunt in 2023 when Measure 1 was placed on the ballot with just over 5,000 signatures.

So, what would the initiative change for housing providers in Bellingham? Well, the answer is a lot, but some of the items are more elusive than others.

• Assumption of retaliation if ANY adverse action is taken against a resident within 210 days of a perceived violation of the initiative. This may include non-renewal of a lease.
•  Limitation on certain lease agreement provisions with a $250 fine per violation.
• Third-party access to buildings, meaning tenant organizers can enter private rental properties en masse if invited by a tenant. This includes meetings and canvassing or posting signs in windows or yards.
• Private Right of Action may be taken by a tenant OR a tenant organization for ANY perceived violation of the initiative. Each affected tenant who files a complaint will be considered as a separate offense. The housing provider must reimburse rent and legal fees if the tenant is successful in their complaint.
• Mandatory posting of tenants’ rights and provisions in a common area, such as a hallway.
• It is a defense to ANY eviction if the housing provider is perceived to be in violation in any way.
• Any fees upheld may be in ADDITION to fees assessed by the state for any violations.

There are many other aspects of this initiative, but these are the major highlights. So, what overall conclusion and concerns can be drawn from this? This would obviously impose a slew of new compliance burdens and legal risks, not to mention jeopardizing a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of their residence. This would also force housing providers to accommodate political organizing activity on the premises, with no recourse for residents who feel pressured or uncomfortable with activist groups in the building.

Stay with RHAWA for more updates as they arise on this initiative, and if you are a Bellingham resident, keep an eye out for your November ballot heading to your mailbox in mid-October.

——
OLYMPIA

You will also likely remember that the City of Olympia has been exploring policies to restrict the information housing providers are able to gather when screening prospective residents. Rather than trying to force these policies through without gathering any community feedback, the city launched a survey last month to gather feedback on how these policies will impact both housing providers and residents.The statement from the city reads as follows:

“The City of Olympia has launched a survey to learn more about challenges and barriers in the application and screening process for renters seeking to access housing. The survey also asks about the concerns and risks landlords are hoping to address.

Common screening criteria include an applicant’s criminal, credit, and rental history, as well as income or employment information and documents that verify a person’s identity (such as a Social Security number). These screening practices can create barriers to housing for immigrants and refugees, people who have been subjected to domestic violence, people of color, people with disabilities, formerly incarcerated people, and others.

The City is seeking the community’s help to better understand issues related to the screening process and potential policy impacts on both landlords and tenants. We value input from both tenants and landlords as we explore where common goals and solutions are possible.”

The survey is now closed, and, at the time of writing this article, it is yet to be seen how the original policy proposal changes when the findings of this survey are incorporated into the policy approach. We hope the Olympia City Council can understand the potential harm of their previous policy proposals with the help of this survey.

—— 
SEATTLE

While the City of Seattle does not have any specific policy updates to note, there has been a development regarding the renters commission that (at the time of writing this article) is currently in development. The commission is designed to have 15 members; however, for the last eight years, since its creation, it has only maintained five. There are new nominations with a group of 14 now, but there’s a catch; the nominated commission members do not include a single housing provider to add a diversity of perspective to the group. With housing providers being shut out of the conversation around housing policy in the City of Seattle historically, it is incredibly disappointing to see this trend continue. Even more worrisome, the primary election results covered by Corey Hjalseth on page XX paint a picture for the future of the City of Seattle moving in a much more progressive, and likely unfriendly to housing providers, direction. Owners in Seattle must remain vigilant and stay tuned in to RHAWA updates to share their voices if/when the city begins to move forward with new legislation. RHAWA is disappointed that the City of Seattle still does not seem to value the perspectives of small housing providers under their jurisdiction, and it will be more important than ever to make sure you are paying attention to any changes to local housing policy.

—— 
VANCOUVER

After much discussion and community feedback, the City of Vancouver passed its rental registry program on July 15th, 2025, with an effective date of January 1, 2026.

The program launches in January 2026, with renewal deadlines of January 1st each year. Late fees will be imposed if the registration is not filed and paid by February 15th.

Fees: $30 per rental unit annually. Fee waived for units registered during the first 90 days of 2026 and for income-restricted units less than 60% Area Median Income (AMI)

Disclosure: Housing providers are required to provide tenants with written information about the rental registration as well as a summary of tenants' rights.

Exemptions: Units that are not required to register include owner-occupied units, short-term rentals, shelters, hospitals, and designated income-restricted housing.

The final version of the rental registry passed in Vancouver is unique in its lack of specific inspection procedures; however, the annual registration and fees will certainly be a burden on housing providers, especially with larger unit counts.

Continue Keeping Yourself Informed!

Thank you once again for reading our (sometimes) monthly local policy update. Regular readers of the local update will have noticed by now that things often move fast at the local level, and it is of utmost importance to check your email regularly so we are able to give you real-time updates on all of the policies we mention in our CURRENT articles. Digital communication will keep you up to date on matters that are more urgent, which is necessary to share your voice with your lawmakers. Make sure to check out our blog as well for updates to forms or procedures resulting from policy changes.