Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grocery Pharmacy Covenants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to bar some grocery/pharmacy covenants draws support, requests for tailoring
Summary
Lawmakers heard HB 2294 to prohibit new negative-use covenants that block groceries and pharmacies from operating where land use allows it, with exceptions for existing covenants and certain relocations; supporters cited food access and small-grocer protection while retail groups asked for guardrails.
The Consumer Protection and Business Committee on Jan. 14 considered House Bill 2294, which would bar certain negative use restrictions—such as deed covenants or CC&Rs—that prevent grocery stores and pharmacies from operating on property where local land-use rules would otherwise allow them.
Staff described the bill’s structure: it declares future grocery/pharmacy-exclusive restrictions against public policy and voids them, while carving three exceptions: (1) existing restrictions remain valid (the bill is prospective only); (2) relocation exceptions that allow an owner to restrict a prior site if a similar or larger replacement opens within a half-mile and within one year (local governments may modify these parameters); and (3) retail-center exceptions tied to common management or shared common areas (staff noted the bill’s retail-center definition in section 1(4)).
Representative Daria Farvar, prime sponsor (46th Legislative District), said the measure responds to neighborhood losses such as the closure of a Fred Meyer in Lake City and aims to protect food access for working-class and low-income communities. She cited local ordinances in Seattle and Bellingham as models and noted recent action in Kent, saying several jurisdictions have already acted to limit such covenants.
Stakeholders from the food industry supported the bill. Molly Paffenroth of the Washington Food Industry Association and Brandon Huskeeper of the Northwest Grocery Retail Association said removing restrictive covenants can open opportunities for independent and neighborhood grocers operating on thin margins; Huskeeper urged careful tailoring so legitimate, narrowly tailored covenants remain available to protect investments where appropriate.
Committee members asked practical questions: whether parcel subdivision or changes in ownership would preserve exclusives, whether landlords’ property-rights concerns were addressed, and whether forbidding exclusives might deter some retailers from entering markets that previously sought exclusives. Staff pointed to the package’s stakeholder discussions and to the bill’s definitional language; the sponsor said she is open to negotiating guardrails and enforcement options (including limiting enforcement authority to the attorney general and local jurisdictions).
The committee did not take a final vote on HB 2294; members indicated they will continue stakeholder conversations to refine exceptions and enforcement mechanisms.
Ending: The bill remains under committee consideration pending further stakeholder work and drafting to balance food-access protections with appropriate commercial safeguards.
