Contact: data@mbaks.com

King County recorded a 1.5 months' supply of housing inventory as of June 2023, indicating a slight increase from the 1.34 months' supply reported in June 2022. Similarly, Snohomish County saw its inventory supply rise to 1.07 months, up from 1.34 months a year earlier. These figures illuminate the ongoing challenges of supply and demand dynamics in the area's housing market. According to many industry analysts, a four- to six-month inventory level is often deemed indicative of a healthy real estate market. Despite the increase, the current supply falls notably short of this benchmark, underscoring the continued pressure on prospective homebuyers and the need for further market adjustments. Read the full August Builders Bulletin.

Read the full August Builders Bulletin:

By MBAKS Senior Policy Analyst Allison Butcher

At the end of the first quarter of 2018, King County is leading the way in building permit activity in the region, with single family permits up 19 percent and multifamily permits up 25 percent compared to the same period last year. Meanwhile, single-family permits have dropped 19 percent in Snohomish County and multifamily permits are down 58 percent year-over-year.  For the three-county region as a whole (King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties), permits are up 7 percent and 9 percent, respectively.

The Builders' Bulletin is intended to provide a convenient way to track housing in our market and includes information from the Northwest Multiple Listing Service, State of the Cities Data Systems, Office of Financial Management and the Washington State Employment Security Department.

Download this month's report:

The MBA and the homebuilding industry in the city of Seattle won a decisive victory recently. In the matter of Bendare Dundat v. City of Seattle (Master Builders Intervenor), Judge Barbara Mack issued a decision overturning the City's 'qualifying lot' design review ordinance for being in violation of RCW 82.02.020.

The Court determined that the ordinance imposes direct and indirect costs on projects and developers that are neither reasonably necessary nor the direct result of the proposed development. As the Court stated, "It is hard to fathom how costs and fees could be reasonable and necessary for the smaller project, but not for the first, more impactful project on the adjacent property." Finally, the Court found the city admitted that the ordinance was designed to mitigate collective impacts, not the impact of any individual project—this is the very thing that violates RCW 82.02.020.

The MBA is very happy to have been able to provide financial support to pursuing this matter in court, and the outcome is a collective benefit to developers and builders in Seattle. The MBA will continue to identify ways in which it can work to improve housing affordability within Seattle.