Friday, October 2, 2026
In a 6-1 vote, the Olympia City Council advanced a proposed ordinance that would limit income-to-rent requirements and prohibit landlords from requiring Social Security numbers as part of the rental application process.
The action aims to address housing affordability and accessibility by modifying tenant screening practices in the city. The city council made the move at a meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 16.
Senior Housing Program Specialist Christa Lenssen introduced the ordinance, stating it aligns with the city's goals in the Housing Action Plan to improve housing stability and expand access.
“Olympia’s Housing Action Plan specifically sets out goals for the city to implement tenant protections that reduce barriers to housing access and improve household stability," Lenssen said.
The Land Use and Environment Committee began examining tenant screening practices in 2024, focusing on policies that prevent people from applying for housing.
Lenssen said more than half of Olympia renter households are housing cost-burdened, while many landlords rely on a 3-to-1, income-to-rent ratio that excludes a large portion of renters from qualifying.
City data shows fair market rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Olympia is $1,585 per month, while a full-time, minimum-wage worker can afford about $866 if spending one-third of their income on rent.
Under the ordinance, landlords would be limited to requiring income no more than 2.5 times the monthly rent, down from the commonly used 3-to-1 ratio.
Applicants could also use combined household income to qualify. Landlords would still be allowed to request a co-signer or proof of successful rent payments if income thresholds are not met.
The ordinance would also prohibit landlords from rejecting applicants or offering different terms based on the absence of a Social Security number, a practice Lenssen said can disproportionately affect immigrants and refugees.
According to a city survey conducted through Engage Olympia, 69% of landlords require a Social Security number, and more than one-half reported having no alternative process for applicants who lack one.
Council member Dani Madrone, who chairs the Land Use Committee, said the council deliberately narrowed the proposal after earlier discussions considered broader limits on tenant screening practices.
“We landed on the policies that actually prevent people from being able to apply for housing at all,” Madrone said. “If someone does not have a Social Security number, they can’t even apply. And income to rent ratios are escalating to the point where people can’t access housing, even when teaming up with roommates.”
One of the housing challenges revealed in a community survey included 55% of renters reported having housing applications rejected due to insufficient income, and over half of Olympia’s renting households are currently considered housing cost-burdened.
Council member Clark Gilman spoke in support of the ordinance, saying Olympia’s shift to a majority renter city requires rethinking traditional screening standards.
He noted while a 3-to-1, income-to-rent ratio aligns with long-standing affordability guidelines, many households now pay far more than one-third of their income toward rent, which shuts them out of even applying for housing.
Clark said allowing combined household income reflects the economic reality that roommates join together specifically because they cannot afford housing on their own.
A dissenting opinion came from Council member Kelly Green. She cited concerns about the pace of recent housing policy changes and limited direct engagement with housing providers.
While she supported the Social Security number provision, Green said she did not feel there had been enough conversation with landlords about the impacts of limiting income-to-rent ratios and allowing combined household income.
Mayor Dontae Payne acknowledged the concerns about the volume and pace of recent housing regulations, saying there is “some legitimacy” to residents feeling overwhelmed by changes coming from the city and state.
However, he said delaying action also has consequences, noting, “The longer we take to address something like this, the more days people go without access to housing.”
Payne said removing barriers, such as Social Security number requirements and high income-to-rent ratios, is necessary, adding the city is “tasked with making sure those barriers are removed so people can access housing, stay housed, and avoid falling into homelessness.”
The ordinance is set for implementation in April 2026, allowing time for community outreach. The city plans to provide educational resources to support the transition.
11 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Brewmanchu
None of these measures will prevent smart landlords from due diligence and protecting their investments. That said, one major reason rental properties are scarce is illegal immigration. When 20 million people flooded across our border unfettered through last year, did anyone think they would pitch tents? It is only natural they would strain an already limited housing market. The PC crowd will never admit that in Olympia - its all the fault of landlords who expect a return on their investments.
Wednesday, December 17, 2025 Report this
BobJacobs
Oh my! Here we go again. Piling on the regulations will not solve the problem.
Other thoughts:
1) Note the exaggeration of the financial problem. "City data shows fair market rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Olympia is $1,585 per month, while a full-time, minimum-wage worker can afford about $866 if spending one-third of their income on rent." Staff always quotes figures for single renters. Fact is, two minimum-wage workers sharing an apartment CAN afford to rent an average apartment. So simple.
2) Without Social Security Numbers, landlords can't even do background checks and they certainly can't recover arrears from tenants who leave while owing back rent.
3) I have to wonder if councilmembers understand what it is like to be a landlord. Trusting strangers with an asset worth more than $100,000 (not including land). That is sobering, every time.
4) Finally, rents have stabilized and have begun falling. Notice all the large "for rent" signs all over town. Supply is exceeding demand again, and rents will fall further. I suppose some of our elected officials will claim credit for that, but market forces will always prevail.
Bob Jacobs
Wednesday, December 17, 2025 Report this
MartiDimock
I would like the City to address something they really could do something about: rental application fees. Just paying a $25 - 50 fee for EACH application can be a barrier to would-be tenants. Why not develop a one-application, one-fee process that is good for 6 months and includes a state background check, credit check, references, and other factors most landlords would want included? Then require landlords to accept such applications. This would actually be a service to landlords as well -- less time checking background, more time showing property. By the way, colleges have managed to create such a system for their applications. It would be such a service.
Wednesday, December 17, 2025 Report this
mhjwilson
I have rented in three different locations in Thurston County. The first two were poorly maintained. **** roaches in one made for an interesting frustrating stay. Paint going on over dirty walls, carpets poorly laid down, and leaking insulation around doors didn't help. So who is going to see that they are properly cleaned?
Then there is the cost in Houston where there is no zoning we can see the "Average: Around $1,179.
Cheaper Areas: ~$977 (Clear Lake), ~$984 (Southwest Houston). In one of the places I stayed in Thurston Co. the rent was $300 a month higher than the inflation adjusted rate and if the company was getting that for all of the apartments they were getting about $250,000 a month more than what they would have if the rent was just increased for inflation.
But I am lucky. The place I am in now has great management. Let's not blame the customer for the poor work habits of management.
Wednesday, December 17, 2025 Report this
mjdonovan
The net result of all this additional regulation is higher costs for renters and dwindling supply. I sold my rental on the east side last year and my girlfriend did the same because of the landlord registry. Both houses are now owner-occupied. This foolish behavior of piling on more regulation will continue to push small landlords out of the market. If City Council is so intent on helping tenants to get into housing, couldn't they also help landlords get rid of scofflaw tenants by streamlining the eviction process? Oh no, no, no, no!! That would be unfair to renters who can't afford to live here but manage to dupe someone to rent to them.
Michael Donovan
Thursday, December 18, 2025 Report this
Patriot
I have been in the rental business for over 40 years and kept rents low while providing good housing. When the State of Wash. and the City of Olympia started with all the regulations it went from a good investment to bad. The landlord is handcuffed with costs and new laws. Even the attorneys who deal with this every day can't keep up. It is next to impossible to get rid of a bad tenant so I made a decision. Get rid of them. I have sold many units over the past couple years and will continue until they are all gone along with the tenants. So has this helped or hurt?
Thursday, December 18, 2025 Report this
KinesthesiaAmnesia
Seems like whenever an article about rents, renters or rental supply is featured in this publication, there's a small chorus of comments like, "rents will flatten or go down, because there's so many large "for rent" signs all over town."
Something quirky I have noticed as a person who has rented several times in recent years in Olympia and other Thurston County areas like Tumwater and Lacey, and has a spouse working in local real estate, is that many of those large for rent signs all over town do not actually correspond to actually available, rentable units.
Many of the "for rent" signs are like an advertising beacon for the property even if it is fully occupied and has no upcoming openings. Seems to be more of an Oly thing than elsewhere. But it is a thing. "For Rent" signs do not always equal rentable units. When I asked landlords or prop. managers why they did this it was usually something vague like, "I wanted people to notice my property!" I think it's also a way to signify some kind of economic success in the rental market or mobility for renters that's not really there.
Thursday, December 18, 2025 Report this
JulesJames
Effectively, the only way for landlords to select the highest quality tenants is with the price of rent. Its unfortunate the Olympia City Council is incentivizing high rents. It is causing the opposite of its intention.
Thursday, December 18, 2025 Report this
DHanig
While the final product is better than the original proposal, it will still have unintended consequences. The Council understandably wants to help renters; however, its policies will lead to a shrinking rental inventory and increased corporatization of the market. Here's why:
1) Increased regulations drive out small landlords - who often charge below market rents - since they lack staff and administrative structures to manage multiplying requirements. As the regulatory environment becomes more complex, they will be unable to manage the increased exposure and will exit the market, converting existing rentals to owner-occupied housing or - worse - corporate managed housing. Large corporations can accept increased regulation as a cost of doing business and they hire administrative and legal staff to manage these requirements. Furthermore, beholden to investors, corporate landlords are incentivized to maximize revenues and seek the highest possible rents, which is not always the case with small landlords. A reasonable solution, which the Council has been so far unwilling to consider, would be to impose new regulations on larger landlords - e.g.,, those managing 10+ units. This would allow the city to test the impact of regulations without risking the loss of small mom and pop providers.
2) Some regulations simply don't make sense. Requiring universal housing inspections is a cure looking for an illness to treat. The city has created a growing bureaucracy to manage this program. It would have made more sense to offer a complaint line and inform renters of the line and conduct an inspection on an ad hoc basis when a legitimate complaint is received. No bureaucracy and problems are addressed timely when they arise. Adding insult to injury, non-profit housing providers are exempted from these requirements, even if they have a record of egregious conduct.
3) City staff need to place themselves in the shoes of housing providers. Housing providers have fixed costs - such as taxes, insurance and mortgage payments - that must be paid timely or they will lose their property. When you rent out a property, you are putting at risk a property worth several hundred thousand dollars by lending it to a complete stranger. To avoid costly legal battles, loss of monthly revenue, and painful interactions with bad actors, the landlord must have ways to assure that the future tenant is responsible, will pay rent timely and care for the property appropriately. While helping low-income tenants is a worthy goal, no homeowner is going to stay in the market unless they can assure they will have consistent cash flow and suitable care of their property. Deprived of reasonable ways to assure this, small landlords will be obliged to exit the market - which only hurts renters.
Again, if the Council must go down this path, it makes sense to apply these changes to landlords managing 10+ units to avoid erosion of small landlords and to allow time to determine the impact of these changes.
Thursday, December 18, 2025 Report this
TheGreatAnon
I rented for decades in Seattle, Chicago, Memphis and Olympia. Of all of them renting in Olympia was the worst. 1st, last & deposit is the standard and in all but Olympia I got most if not all my deposits back. In Oly, not a freakin dime was refunded regardless of whether I spend three days cleaning or moved out in the middle of the night. In fact one property management company kept my deposit AND charged me a $200.00 cleaning fee.
There are ethical property owners doing their best to provide decent, affordable housing and sadly sometimes they get burned, but ya know what, property owners don't end up homeless. Renters do. I'm not sure ordinances can force landlords act ethically but I think it's worth a try.
Thursday, December 18, 2025 Report this
HappyOlympian
Worst mayor in America.
Friday, December 19, 2025 Report this