I agree with the article’s focus on innovative housing solutions like home-sharing to address Clallam County’s housing crisis. In my twenties, I relied on roommates to afford rent, and I see similar trends emerging: multi-generational households, later-in-life roommates, dual-income households, and more single-room rentals. Port Angeles (PA) underutilizes its housing stock—think snowbirds leaving homes empty for 6-8 months, retired couples in oversized 3-4 bedroom homes, or the 200+ vacant, blighted properties noted in the latest Housing Action Plan. The lack of apartment construction for over a decade hasn’t helped.
I commend the City Council for waiving permit fees for ADUs, mobile homes, and multi-family units like duplexes and apartments. These steps encourage affordable housing. However, I’m concerned that skyrocketing fees, combined with stricter regulations and rising construction costs, have crippled the single-family housing market. Single-family building permits dropped 50% annually over the last two years, with only 12 issued in 2024. Meanwhile, Sequim and Carlsborg are adding 900 homes, highlighting PA’s lag.
Focusing heavily on ADUs and low-income (30-80% AMI) housing risks creating an imbalance. PA needs all types of housing—single-family, multi-family, and affordable options—plus better use of existing stock to ensure a vibrant future.
I've had this idea in my head, and it might not be attainable, but what if the county found a way to balance the cost of rental partially funded by an exemption of property taxes? Let's say going rate for a room of XX size is 500/mo. Homeowner is paying $500/mo in property taxes. Figure out the percentage of the monthly taxable amount is equal to the proportion of area rented, i.e. 20%. Homeowner gets to knock off $100/mo in property taxes, and the renter gets the place for $400/mo.
Very interesting thought! I'm definitely a fan of incentivizing the actions we want to encourage. Might be tough in the current economic climate (budget deficits), but then again, maybe it could be offset; if the city/county is paying $xx for services for those who need homes maybe the savings could offset? Just thinking out loud about how to make it pencil. Thanks for the comment!
It might also be seen as seed money. Maybe tie it to someone having a job, so that they are part of the economy to help offset the cost. As a taxpayer I get it that there would be resistance because of the increased shared tax base cost.
This is definitely a concern. Nancy is working on gathering resources to answer this critical question. We hope to have a follow up article once more pieces are in place.
Learning about a new website that helps match home owners with room-renters. I've just started digging in, but it seems to cover several of the concerns that a lot of people had.
Follow up information: Myths, Concerns, and Steps that would make a difference.
I think the biggest factor missing from the current opportunities is something to address the (very legitimate) fear that many home owners have over ending up with a bad tenant, resulting in costly and time-consuming situations. I did a bit of research to see what protections exist, and what protections could be added (but would require legislative action), and I wanted to share what I've found with you (some of it was quite unexpected).
First, Washington did preserve a key escape hatch for owner-occupants. If you truly share the home—even just the kitchen or a bathroom—with your lodger, you can end the tenancy with a simple 20-day written notice. That exemption lives in RCW 59.18.650(2)(i) and cuts months off the process that larger landlords face under “just-cause” rules.
Before anyone moves in, you can still run a full screening report and charge the exact cost of that report, plus a security deposit that matches the risk. The statute (RCW 59.18.257 and .610) just asks that you spell those costs out in writing ahead of time and follow the same criteria for every applicant so fair-housing lines stay clear.
Even if something goes sideways after move-in, the Landlord Mitigation Program can cushion the blow. Whenever a renter has used any form of rental assistance—even a single month of emergency aid—the state will reimburse up to $5,000 in property damage and 14 days of lost rent. Commerce processes the claims online; all they ask for is a signed move-in checklist, photos, and proof you tried to collect from the tenant first.
Add a simple insurance clause and you lower the odds further. Most carriers now offer inexpensive “room-rental” riders, and you can require the lodger to carry renter’s insurance that names you as an additional insured. If a dispute still ends up in court, the raw filing fees are usually under $250. When you compare that to the Mitigation Fund—or a negotiated, voluntary exit—litigation is often the least attractive option.
Together, these four tools—20-day notice, up-front screening, the Mitigation Fund, and tailored insurance—already turn worst-case scenarios into manageable bumps.
I haven't found a single great source where people can go for this information, however, which is a huge opportunity for improvement.
Even with those safeguards, two pain points keep surfacing. First, Washington lacks a true “lodger” statute like California’s, where an owner living on site can give just seven days’ notice and, if necessary, ask local law enforcement to remove a hold-over lodger. Second, the Mitigation Fund’s $5,000 cap doesn’t always cover a serious rehab or multiple months of vacancy. Layer on the full Residential Landlord-Tenant Act paperwork stack, and many homeowners decide the risk just isn’t worth the hassle.
The following would be key improvements that would offer additional support to would-be landlords:
Create a genuine lodger-removal path. Adopting California’s seven-day notice for owner-occupied situations would strip out the drawn-out court schedule that scares most homeowners.
Boost and broaden the Mitigation Fund. Raising the ceiling to $10–15 k and letting any owner-occupant qualify—even if the renter never touched assistance dollars—would neutralize the biggest financial unknowns.
Fully fund the new Landlord Resource Center. HB 1217, signed this session, directs Commerce to stand up a portal with model room-rental agreements, training videos, and a hotline. Getting that site robust and visible will prevent rookie mistakes that balloon into evictions.
Pilot rent-guarantee insurance. A state-backed pool that front-loads rent during disputes would keep the mortgage current and nerves calm.
Fast-track mediation for room rentals. Expanding the Eviction Resolution Program so owner-occupants see a mediator within 30 days would settle conflicts quickly and cheaply.
Right now, a homeowner who (1) genuinely shares the space, (2) screens carefully, (3) uses a clear written agreement, and (4) leans on the Mitigation Program already has a safety net strong enough to make most worst-case stories more myth than reality. With a few laser-focused tweaks—a real lodger statute, a stronger Mitigation Fund, and a one-stop resource hub—we could turn empty bedrooms into a mainstream, lower-risk source of affordable housing and supplemental income across Clallam County.
While this idea may work for some, seniors and disabled receiving tax exemptions should be aware any rent will count as income and could cause a change in their property tax exemptions
My Reply:
A good thought, and note! As Nancy works to put together more information I'll share this with her to add to things to consider. Thanks for sharing!
I agree with the article’s focus on innovative housing solutions like home-sharing to address Clallam County’s housing crisis. In my twenties, I relied on roommates to afford rent, and I see similar trends emerging: multi-generational households, later-in-life roommates, dual-income households, and more single-room rentals. Port Angeles (PA) underutilizes its housing stock—think snowbirds leaving homes empty for 6-8 months, retired couples in oversized 3-4 bedroom homes, or the 200+ vacant, blighted properties noted in the latest Housing Action Plan. The lack of apartment construction for over a decade hasn’t helped.
I commend the City Council for waiving permit fees for ADUs, mobile homes, and multi-family units like duplexes and apartments. These steps encourage affordable housing. However, I’m concerned that skyrocketing fees, combined with stricter regulations and rising construction costs, have crippled the single-family housing market. Single-family building permits dropped 50% annually over the last two years, with only 12 issued in 2024. Meanwhile, Sequim and Carlsborg are adding 900 homes, highlighting PA’s lag.
Focusing heavily on ADUs and low-income (30-80% AMI) housing risks creating an imbalance. PA needs all types of housing—single-family, multi-family, and affordable options—plus better use of existing stock to ensure a vibrant future.
I've had this idea in my head, and it might not be attainable, but what if the county found a way to balance the cost of rental partially funded by an exemption of property taxes? Let's say going rate for a room of XX size is 500/mo. Homeowner is paying $500/mo in property taxes. Figure out the percentage of the monthly taxable amount is equal to the proportion of area rented, i.e. 20%. Homeowner gets to knock off $100/mo in property taxes, and the renter gets the place for $400/mo.
Very interesting thought! I'm definitely a fan of incentivizing the actions we want to encourage. Might be tough in the current economic climate (budget deficits), but then again, maybe it could be offset; if the city/county is paying $xx for services for those who need homes maybe the savings could offset? Just thinking out loud about how to make it pencil. Thanks for the comment!
It might also be seen as seed money. Maybe tie it to someone having a job, so that they are part of the economy to help offset the cost. As a taxpayer I get it that there would be resistance because of the increased shared tax base cost.
If the situation is not a good fit, what are the remedies? Washington eviction law gives the homeowner very few options.
This is definitely a concern. Nancy is working on gathering resources to answer this critical question. We hope to have a follow up article once more pieces are in place.
Learning about a new website that helps match home owners with room-renters. I've just started digging in, but it seems to cover several of the concerns that a lot of people had.
https://homeshareonline.org/
Follow up information: Myths, Concerns, and Steps that would make a difference.
I think the biggest factor missing from the current opportunities is something to address the (very legitimate) fear that many home owners have over ending up with a bad tenant, resulting in costly and time-consuming situations. I did a bit of research to see what protections exist, and what protections could be added (but would require legislative action), and I wanted to share what I've found with you (some of it was quite unexpected).
First, Washington did preserve a key escape hatch for owner-occupants. If you truly share the home—even just the kitchen or a bathroom—with your lodger, you can end the tenancy with a simple 20-day written notice. That exemption lives in RCW 59.18.650(2)(i) and cuts months off the process that larger landlords face under “just-cause” rules.
Before anyone moves in, you can still run a full screening report and charge the exact cost of that report, plus a security deposit that matches the risk. The statute (RCW 59.18.257 and .610) just asks that you spell those costs out in writing ahead of time and follow the same criteria for every applicant so fair-housing lines stay clear.
Even if something goes sideways after move-in, the Landlord Mitigation Program can cushion the blow. Whenever a renter has used any form of rental assistance—even a single month of emergency aid—the state will reimburse up to $5,000 in property damage and 14 days of lost rent. Commerce processes the claims online; all they ask for is a signed move-in checklist, photos, and proof you tried to collect from the tenant first.
Add a simple insurance clause and you lower the odds further. Most carriers now offer inexpensive “room-rental” riders, and you can require the lodger to carry renter’s insurance that names you as an additional insured. If a dispute still ends up in court, the raw filing fees are usually under $250. When you compare that to the Mitigation Fund—or a negotiated, voluntary exit—litigation is often the least attractive option.
Together, these four tools—20-day notice, up-front screening, the Mitigation Fund, and tailored insurance—already turn worst-case scenarios into manageable bumps.
I haven't found a single great source where people can go for this information, however, which is a huge opportunity for improvement.
Even with those safeguards, two pain points keep surfacing. First, Washington lacks a true “lodger” statute like California’s, where an owner living on site can give just seven days’ notice and, if necessary, ask local law enforcement to remove a hold-over lodger. Second, the Mitigation Fund’s $5,000 cap doesn’t always cover a serious rehab or multiple months of vacancy. Layer on the full Residential Landlord-Tenant Act paperwork stack, and many homeowners decide the risk just isn’t worth the hassle.
The following would be key improvements that would offer additional support to would-be landlords:
Create a genuine lodger-removal path. Adopting California’s seven-day notice for owner-occupied situations would strip out the drawn-out court schedule that scares most homeowners.
Boost and broaden the Mitigation Fund. Raising the ceiling to $10–15 k and letting any owner-occupant qualify—even if the renter never touched assistance dollars—would neutralize the biggest financial unknowns.
Fully fund the new Landlord Resource Center. HB 1217, signed this session, directs Commerce to stand up a portal with model room-rental agreements, training videos, and a hotline. Getting that site robust and visible will prevent rookie mistakes that balloon into evictions.
Pilot rent-guarantee insurance. A state-backed pool that front-loads rent during disputes would keep the mortgage current and nerves calm.
Fast-track mediation for room rentals. Expanding the Eviction Resolution Program so owner-occupants see a mediator within 30 days would settle conflicts quickly and cheaply.
Right now, a homeowner who (1) genuinely shares the space, (2) screens carefully, (3) uses a clear written agreement, and (4) leans on the Mitigation Program already has a safety net strong enough to make most worst-case stories more myth than reality. With a few laser-focused tweaks—a real lodger statute, a stronger Mitigation Fund, and a one-stop resource hub—we could turn empty bedrooms into a mainstream, lower-risk source of affordable housing and supplemental income across Clallam County.
Susie Elaine Blake (from FB)
While this idea may work for some, seniors and disabled receiving tax exemptions should be aware any rent will count as income and could cause a change in their property tax exemptions
My Reply:
A good thought, and note! As Nancy works to put together more information I'll share this with her to add to things to consider. Thanks for sharing!