Thursday, October 1, 2026
The City of Olympia’s Land Use and Environment Committee is considering new ways to help renters become homeowners, including potentially exempting rent-to-own agreements from a rental registry and inspection program, and pursuing a broader tenant purchase policy.
House Program Senior Specialist Christa Lenssen presented two policy options at a committee meeting on Feb. 26.
She said both approaches aim to increase access to homeownership, stabilize housing costs and help tenants avoid being outbid by investors.
A rent-to-own or lease-to-own arrangement allows a tenant to buy the property they rent. In Olympia, Lenssen said such an agreement would most likely involve single-family homes or manufactured homes.
Lenssen said the arrangements give tenants the option to buy at an agreed price or require a lease-purchase commitment, sometimes including a down payment. Under a lease-purchase model, if the tenant falls behind on payments, the seller may reclaim the property or sue for damages.
During a previous discussion, the city council asked staff to explore whether rent-to-own agreements should also qualify for exemption from the rental registry.
According to Lenssen, advocates have expressed concerns about scams and predatory arrangements that may leave the tenant in a worse position than a traditional rental agreement. She said tenants may invest additional payments or take on maintenance responsibilities.
Properties could also carry hidden repair needs, title issues or co-ownership complications. In some cases, if a property owner dies, heirs could challenge the agreement.
She added if the city were to exempt rent-to-own properties from the rental registry and inspection program, there should be safeguards in place to protect the people.
Staffers recommend requiring written contracts, legal guidance for both parties, and completion of a full home inspection, appraisal and title report before finalizing any agreement.
The city could require those steps as a condition of exemption, provide educational materials explaining the risks, or potentially subsidize due diligence costs for low-income households.
Lenssen also outlined potential benefits.
Rent-to-own agreements can provide long-term stability for tenants, allow renters to lock in a purchase price without competing on the open market, and offer a path to homeownership for people who may struggle to qualify for traditional financing.
For landlords, the arrangement could reduce turnover costs and eliminate the need to prepare a home for sale on the market.
Lenssen also discussed a TOPA model, which gives renters a chance to buy their dwelling before it is sold to another buyer.
Under this model, some risks include unpredictable timing, financing challenges, deferred maintenance, and the complexity of forming tenant cooperatives.
However, residents can gain the opportunity to purchase their homes, build equity and help maintain affordability. Cooperative ownership eliminates the profit motive for investors, stabilizes housing costs, and reduces reliance on public subsidies.
Lenssen said this model requires financial and technical support to address challenges like property repairs, financing and tenant organization. Local resources, such as the Regional Housing Council’s Opportunity Fund, nonprofit partners and the Thurston Housing Land Trust, could help tenants navigate the process, secure financing, and operate cooperatives successfully.
During public comment, Thurston Housing Land Trust President Rebecca Potasnik introduced the organization to the committee. She said the land trust could be a partner if Olympia moves forward with TOPA or a community opportunity to purchase policy.
Potasnik noted the land trust’s strategies include rental-to-ownership programs and infill development. She offered to share data from a surplus land inventory being conducted with University of Oregon students to support city planning efforts.
Lenssen said staffers are going to continue monitoring state-level conversations about TOPA policies, and then return to the committee with additional research and policy options in April and July.
5 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Patriot
This has been around for decades. There is NO reason for the city to get involved. It is between a tenant and a landowner. Of course they will, they NEED to control every aspect of everyone's PRIVATE property.
Tuesday, March 3 Report this
Carolyn Byerly
This is an important option to maintain, and I'm glad there may be some regulation of this to make sure tenants get a fair shake.
And, on a separate note, I really wish reporters would STOP using the word "staffers," which is a word journalists invented and which grates against my nerves every time I hear or read it! Just the word "staff" is sufficient!!! (sorry, my pet peeve - I'm a former journalist and journalism teacher.)
Tuesday, March 3 Report this
JulesJames
One of those Sounds Good schemes that only causes tenants hurt. Home ownership is a step up, not a maintain the status quo indenturing. Theoretically yes -- landlord can sign a lease with a buy-out price. But realistically that price will always be above fair market value. And the tenant has no negotiating leverage when the home inspector says the roof needs replacing. Worse, every appliance that fails during the course of the tenancy falls into the machinations of purchase negotiations - that may or may not ever happen. Tenants will end up purchasing stoves, fridges and hot water tanks for their landlords. Never buy where you rent. Buy the next unit over, or the one above. Buy only what has been renovated to open market quality. And buy on the open market, not as a semi-captive purchaser. Rent -to-own has been proven a horrible idea for tenants for decades, so that makes it an ideal candidate for adoption by this Olympia City Council.
Tuesday, March 3 Report this
sonshi
I thought this sounded familiar. From Jolt Nov 2024:
"Rent-to-own agreements
Earlier, the city council directed staff to explore options for a potential exemption from the registry and inspection program for landlords who are willing to enter into a rent-to-own agreement with their tenants to encourage greater access to homeownership.
At the committee meeting, Lenssen provided an overview of the potential benefits and risks of rent-to-own arrangements for both tenants and landlords.
For tenants, rent-to-own agreements can help those who are unable to save for a significant down payment or have difficulty qualifying for a mortgage. Tenants can maintain stability by residing in the same home long-term and may be able to lock in a purchase price.
Lenssen noted that legal aid organizations have advised concerning "scams or predatory arrangements" in some cases, where tenants end up in a worse financial position. Tenants in rent-to-own agreements may pay upfront deposits or make home improvements but still be subject to standard landlord-tenant laws. This can lead to tenants losing their investment if the agreement is terminated. Tenants are also often responsible for repairs and maintenance without the full benefits of homeownership.
From the landlord's perspective, renting to a tenant who plans to purchase can provide additional security and assurance the tenant will maintain the property. However, landlords may lose potential revenue if the agreed-upon purchase price is below market value at the time of sale.
To mitigate these risks, Lenssen recommended that the city require a home inspection, appraisal, title search, and a written agreement if pursuing a rent-to-own pilot program. Providing funding support for legal assistance to draft contracts was also suggested. The staff estimated a cost of around $2,000 per transaction to implement these safeguards"
Rent to own sounds 'wonderful' but there's a reason these arrangements [which have been around for decades] almost never go through successfully.
Wednesday, March 4 Report this
36098501
It is heartwarming to watch a group spend so much time to reinvent the wheel as if their ideas are at the forefront of financial innovation to reinvent home ownership. Bless their heart. Welcome to the '80's.
The irony is that it might include an exemption from some other bureaucratic nonsense the City has passed previously. The Rental Registry has exceeded expectations on its ability to accomplish absolutely nothing but require more employees to manage the program, collect fees and impact affordability. while also losing money. Too much time has been spent studying the business models used by the Port of Olympia.
These ownership options have been around for decades. People are much better equipped to work through these approaches on their own and certainly don't need the financial expertise of the City to assist.
Each unit, presumably, will be required to have a consultant create an equity assessment to go alongside a newly required electrical grade to provide ample protections for the new owner.
The City should stick to what they know best - paying 2X what a property is worth with the intent to give it away for free to LIHI while also paying LIHI a $1mm+ a year to manage it. This is a model the City has perfected over time with other groups as well.
One time, they did pay 4X for a polluted parcel downtown requiring intensive clean-up, but that was an exception. As was the parcel City Hall sits on. There was also the Jungle and its ecological nightmare that was purchased, and maybe the parcel Unity Commons sits on. Still all just exceptions.
Fortunately, LIHI has been a gracious partner to the City, willing to take on the burden of adding more property to LIHI's $200mm of assets that have been entirely paid for by taxpayers, while also just barely surviving on their $30mm to $50mm a year in profit within their non-profit.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943155150
The City already has their hands full dealing with a list of unintended consequences that need re-imagining, harmonizing and optimization. Focus on running a City - infrastructure, public safety, crime reduction, asset maintenance and reducing bureaucracy. Apparently, this is the boring stuff that they gloss over in the MPA program and DSA meetings.
The City Council courageously ventures where everyone else already has a decade back.
I expect after passing another large consent calendar 7-0 with no public deliberation, there is a better than zero possibility of a work session on some derivation of the concept of "Colonialism and its relationship to buying new houses on previously vacant land.".
Sarcasm. Or is it? Hard to know sometimes.
Thursday, March 5 Report this