Washington’s Growth Management Act (GMA), enacted in 1990, was designed to guide sustainable development, preserve natural resources, and curb urban sprawl. However, after over 40 years it’s obvious that GMA’s restrictive land-use policies have significantly contributed to the state’s ongoing housing crisis, limiting developable land and driving up costs. A recent report from the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW), provides compelling data illustrating how the GMA’s framework has constrained land availability, exacerbated housing shortages, and priced out many residents.
The GMA mandates that counties and cities designate Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) around cities borders to concentrate development, protect rural lands, and preserve critical areas like wetlands and farmlands. However, these restrictions have drastically reduced the supply of developable land. In King County, for example, only 26% of land is zoned for urban use, with the remainder locked away for rural or resource purposes. Statewide, just 14% of Washington’s land is available for development, despite growing population pressures. This artificial scarcity inflates land prices, making it harder for builders to create affordable housing.
The BIAW report notes that Washington’s population grew by 14.6% from 2010 to 2020, yet the supply of developable land has not kept pace. UGAs, intended to accommodate growth, are often drawn too tightly, leaving insufficient space for new housing. In Pierce County, the UGA covers only 12% of the county’s land, despite a 10% population increase over the same period. This mismatch forces developers to compete for scarce parcels, driving up costs that are ultimately passed on to homebuyers. The median home price in Washington reached $611,096 in 2025 (Source: Zillow), nearly double the national average, largely due to land constraints.
Critical areas ordinances restrict development near wetlands, streams, and slopes, often requiring large buffers that further shrink usable land. In Snohomish County, for instance, up to 40% of potential building sites are rendered undevelopable due to these regulations. Combined with lengthy permitting processes, sometimes averaging 18 months to two years, these restrictions discourage new construction, stifling supply and fueling price increases.
Rural areas face their own challenges under the GMA. The act’s emphasis on preserving rural character limits subdivisions and development outside UGAs, leaving rural residents with few housing options. Land-use restrictions have reduced lot sizes and housing types, making it difficult for low and middle-income families to find affordable homes outside urban centers. This has also strained infrastructure, as concentrated growth in UGAs overwhelms existing roads, schools, and utilities.
The GMA’s one-size-fits-all approach fails to account for regional differences. Eastern Washington, with its vast open spaces, faces less development pressure than Western Washington, yet both are subject to the same rigid rules. Reforming the GMA to allow more flexible UGA expansions and streamline permitting will unlock land for housing. For example, expanding UGAs by just 5% in high-growth counties could add thousands of new homes over a decade, easing price pressures.
Ultimately, the GMA’s land-use restrictions have created a supply bottleneck that fuels Washington’s housing crisis. Policymakers must balance environmental goals with the urgent need for affordable housing by revising the GMA to increase land availability and reduce regulatory barriers. Without GMA reform, the dream of homeownership will remain out of reach for many Washingtonians.
Mark Harmsworth is the director of the Small Business Center at the Washington Policy Center.
