February - Housing

Last month, I wrote about a simple question I hear everywhere I go: is life here getting easier or harder? This month, I want to focus on the single issue that I think most clearly illustrates why that question feels so urgent for so many people: Housing. Especially the growing distance between the working class and homeownership.

Did you know that today the median age of a first-time homebuyer is the oldest it’s been in the history of our country - 40 years old? In 2021, and for decades prior to the housing crash in 2008 it hovered around 30. First-time homebuyers make up a record low 21% of all buyers, compared to 40% pretty much every year prior to 2008. It is hard to overstate how significant this shift is. So let’s talk about what’s driving it and why it matters here in Snohomish County.    

What’s Actually Happening to Housing Costs

Over the past several years, the cost of housing in Snohomish County hasn’t just risen — it’s skyrocketed.

Since the late 2010s, the median home price has roughly doubled, climbing hundreds of thousands of dollars in a short span of time. Even with recent cooling, prices remain far above what most local incomes can reasonably support. At the same time, mortgage rates have risen to levels not seen in decades, sharply increasing monthly payments for first-time buyers.

In plain terms: a home that felt within reach for a middle-income family just a few years ago now often requires a six-figure income, substantial savings, and a level of financial risk many families simply can’t take on.

Renters haven’t been spared either. Rising rents consume more of household budgets, making it harder to save for a down payment — even for families doing everything right.

Some price growth is normal in a growing region. But the deeper issue is that incomes have not kept pace.

Since 2009, median household income in Snohomish County has risen 86% — from $63,900 to $118,800. Over the same period, the median home price rose 156% — from $297,000 to $760,000.

In 2009, the typical home cost about 4.6 times the median income. Today, it costs about 6.4 times the median income. With higher interest rates, the estimated monthly mortgage payment on a median home has increased from roughly $1,275 to about $4,000 — more than tripling.

The recent spike made the problem impossible to ignore. But the imbalance has been building for more than a decade.

This isn’t just a market cycle. It’s a structural problem.

It’s a system that no longer aligns housing supply, wages, and affordability. And it’s why so many families feel like the ground shifted beneath them almost overnight.

Why Skyrocketing Prices Hurt More Than Just Buyers

When housing costs rise this fast, the damage doesn’t stop at the real estate market.

It changes who can stay.

It changes who can start families.

It changes who can build a future here.

Teachers, nurses, tradespeople, deputies, firefighters, small business owners and young professionals increasingly face a choice between long commutes, financial stress, or leaving the county altogether. Young adults who grew up here are finding it harder to come back. Families delay or forgo having kids. Community ties weaken.

Homeownership has long been one of the most reliable ways families build stability and long-term wealth. When that door closes, inequality widens—not just by income, but by generation.

A county where fewer people can put down roots becomes more fragile over time. This is bad for everyone, regardless of your housing situation.

Where Our Planning Is Falling Short

That’s why I’m concerned about the direction of our recently adopted 2024 Comprehensive Plan update.

Planning for growth matters. Snohomish County is expected to add hundreds of thousands of new residents in the coming decades, and we absolutely need more housing. But what kind of housing we plan for matters just as much as how much.

Right now, our plan leans heavily toward rental housing, while doing far less to meaningfully expand ownership opportunities, especially for first-time buyers and working families.

Snohomish County is nearing 900,000 residents and has roughly 350,000 homes currently. For decades, about 70 percent of those homes have been owner-occupied, with rentals making up the rest. Over the next 20 years, the state is requiring us to plan for nearly 300,000 more people and 170,000 additional housing units. But the Comprehensive Plan adopted last year—the document that controls how and where we grow—flips this on its head, shifting away from homeownership and toward a housing strategy dominated by apartment rentals. 

Rental housing plays an important role—no question. But a strategy that relies too heavily on rentals risks locking more residents into permanent renting, with fewer pathways to ownership, stability, and wealth-building.

That’s not balance. And it’s not enough.

I’ve been part of these conversations. I’ve seen how well-intentioned policies can drift when we stop asking who they actually work for in the long run.

A Better Path Forward

Here are a few places I believe we should be directing our energy:

• Plan intentionally for ownership housing — such as townhomes, condos, and smaller-lot single-family homes—by setting explicit ownership goals in growth areas, legalizing these housing types countywide, and advocating at the state level for condo liability reforms that make ownership feasible.

  
  

• Collect and use better housing data — rather than relying on incomplete analyses like the UGA Land Capacity Analysis—by distinguishing between rental and ownership housing, testing whether assumed capacity within the current UGA is actually achievable, and tracking what gets built so our plans reflect real outcomes, not just theoretical capacity.

  
  

• Remove barriers that make starter homes illegal or financially infeasible — including zoning, fee, and permitting rules that currently favor large or rental projects over attainable ownership housing (such as minimum lot sizes, parking mandates, impact fees, and unpredictable review processes).

  
  

• Align infrastructure, zoning, and permitting timelines — so ownership projects aren’t slower, riskier, or more expensive than rental or luxury development, by reducing discretionary review, shortening approval timelines, and coordinating utilities, roads, and services with planned ownership housing (which is more sensitive to timing and infrastructure than higher-density rentals).

  
  

• Treat homeownership as essential community infrastructure — by embedding attainable ownership housing into every growth plan, coordinating infrastructure and zoning to support it, and protecting it as a long-term tool for stability, wealth-building, and intergenerational equity.

  
  

None of this is easy. But it is necessary.

Choosing What Kind of County We Want to Be

Housing policy is about more than buildings. It’s about whether Snohomish County remains a place where working families can build a life or becomes a place people just pass through, but can’t settle down in.

We still have time to course correct. But that window won’t stay open forever, as the remaining buildable land is being developed every day. 

I’m going to continue digging into what’s driving costs, what’s working elsewhere, and what choices we’ll need to make if we want to restore a real path to homeownership here. But I want to hear from you. Do you agree we are heading in the wrong direction? What are we doing well and where are we missing the mark? 

Thank you to the many people who responded to my last issue. It’s incredibly encouraging to know so many people care so deeply about the direction our community is headed. 

Because our future isn’t predetermined.

It’s a choice.

Next issue: I’m going to dig into a topic near and dear to my heart, as a father of four young kids: childcare costs.