Bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., would review the land-use regulations of every state and city in the United States under legislation advancing quickly to President Donald Trump’s desk.
The plan to have Uncle Sam essentially grade the zoning rules of localities is part of legislation supported by both sides of the aisle as a response to rising housing costs. That broader legislation, the ROAD to Housing Act, passed the Senate in early October as part of the annual defense bill.
The ROAD to Housing Act, introduced by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott (R-SC) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), contains a range of measures meant to spur production of houses and lower prices. One provision, in particular, is aimed at addressing the web of land-use restrictions, especially zoning, imposed by lower-level governments that are thought to make it harder to build houses and thus contribute to higher home prices.
Successive presidential administrations, starting with that of former President Barack Obama, have blamed states and cities for driving up the cost of housing by crimping the supply through zoning restrictions, building codes, and other regulations. Yet, so far, lawmakers in Washington, D.C., have steered clear of trying to do anything about the situation, in part out of respect for federalism.
2025 ELECTIONS LIVE UPDATES: LATEST ON RACES IN VIRGINIA, NEW JERSEY, AND NEW YORK
But Section 203 of the Road to Housing Act, known as the Housing Supply Frameworks Act, would require officials at the Department of Housing and Urban Development to engage in local land-use regulation — at least in an advisory capacity. Supporters say it could help cities and towns do what they’re already trying to do, namely, permit more housing. Critics, though, say it would be an intrusion by the federal government into local affairs and lead to unintended consequences.
The legislation
Specifically, the Housing Supply Frameworks Act would instruct the HUD assistant secretary for policy development and research to publish, within three years, guidelines for states and cities on zoning frameworks.
Then, two years after that and every two years thereafter, the assistant secretary would publish a report outlining which states and cities complied with the guidelines.
In effect, then, the law would create a situation in which federal officials graded lower-level governments on their land-use rules in comparison with recommendations put out by the federal government.
And those guidelines could be fairly detailed. They would be developed by a task force of planners, architects, developers, housing officials, and home builders. The legislation specifies that they would have to touch on a range of reforms favored by zoning critics.
For example, one of the guidelines would be reducing or eliminating minimum parking requirements. While neighborhood residents are often concerned that new development will make it harder to park, economists and planners generally argue that parking minimums are too costly in terms of driving up housing prices.
Another guideline would be reducing restrictions on accessory dwelling units, often referred to as granny flats or in-law suites. A third would be to allow the construction of duplexes and triplexes, as opposed to detached single-family homes, by right across cities.
The case in favor
Sonia Hirt, a professor of landscape architecture and planning at the University of Georgia and the author of Zoned in the USA: The Origins and Implications of American Land Use Regulation, said it is justified for the federal government to issue guidelines on zoning, given that the federal government promulgated zoning ordinances across the country 100 years ago. Under then-Secretary Herbert Hoover, the Commerce Department published a model zoning enabling act in 1924, which was quickly adopted by the majority of states.
Hirt said the Housing Supply Frameworks Act would not impose any mandates, but rather give lower-level governments updated guidance.
“The federal government is in essence suggesting what seem to be best practices today, which certainly were not in consideration 100 years ago,” she said.
Having HUD provide guidelines and expertise could help cities, especially smaller ones, that don’t have the capacity or money to review land use policies regularly, said Mike Wallace, the legislative director for the National League of Cities.
Reviewing zoning laws and building codes is a time-consuming and expensive process, he said. Having HUD share best practices learned from other cities at no cost could provide an alternative for officials who cannot afford to hire high-cost consultants.
Nor would the law preempt local authority, he said, or create mandates.
“What that section doesn’t do is create a one-size-fits-all prescription for what cities should be doing,” he said.
For example, he said, an area with both residential and commercial buildings might want to have parking so that customers can access ground-floor retail. A complete ban on parking minimums might not make sense for such a location. But reviewing the specific needs and comparing them to those of 10 years ago would be helpful.
Recent successes for the YIMBY movement
In recent years, pro-housing activists have had major successes in revising state and local land-use regulations. Often, those advocates have embraced the label of YIMBY, which stands for “Yes In My Back Yard.” That, in turn, is a response to the phenomenon of NIMBY, “Not In My Back Yard,” a term used to refer to neighborhood residents who use zoning and other rules to block the construction of new housing.
For example, in September, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) signed a YIMBY-backed bill to change zoning rules across the state to allow denser housing near public transit, a policy that would be recommended under the Housing Supply Frameworks Act.
Austin, Texas, has eliminated parking minimums. Minneapolis went further and allowed duplexes and triplexes on all lots.
Republican governments, too, have similarly undertaken supply-side reforms. In 2023, conservative Gov. Greg Gianforte (R-MT) signed a raft of measures overhauling land-use regulations, including by limiting parking minimums, allowing taller buildings in some areas, permitting accessory dwelling units by right, and preventing localities from enacting building codes more stringent than state requirements. The overhaul has since been dubbed the “Montana Miracle.”
“We’re in a period, and we have been for the last few years, of enormous experimentation and innovation,” said Jason Jordan, principal for policy at the American Planning Association. “Half of these states have adopted new frameworks. Many municipalities on their own have engaged in reform.”
“Having HUD, in this instance, come in and try to provide some common understandings, we think, will improve that experimentation,” he added.
It’s unclear, as of yet, whether or how any of those reforms have translated into lower prices. The changes in California were too recent to have had any effect. The “Montana Miracle” has not yet brought down prices. The effect of the Minneapolis reforms is debated.
Conservative skepticism
In the past, some conservatives have been skeptical of the federal government’s efforts to intervene in local planning.
Tobias Peters, a housing expert at the right-of-center American Enterprise Institute, told the Washington Examiner in an email that “there’s no reason to assume the federal government will get this right. Washington is likely to offer a one-size-fits-all solution or lean toward big-government policies that often prove counterproductive.”
Peters cited past federal government efforts to encourage housing solutions that ended up adding excess requirements and backfiring in terms of affordability.
Peters noted that many states are implementing worthwhile reforms, with bipartisan support. Federal intrusion, he said, risked undermining those efforts.
“The most effective and promising solutions are coming from the ‘laboratories of democracy’, where policies can be tailored to local conditions,” he wrote.
In recent years, HUD secretaries from both parties, in different ways, have taken steps to pressure localities to change their land-use laws by threatening to withhold funding. Those efforts have faced pushback from some conservatives as an infringement on the 10th Amendment, which safeguards states’ powers.
Indeed, the ROAD to Housing Act does contain provisions that would reward or penalize governments based on housing production.
FED RATE CUTS COULD BRING HOUSING RELIEF SOUGHT BY TRUMP
Still, proponents say the bill respects federalism while addressing the growing problem of high housing costs.
The legislation is a “sort of remarkable statement about the bipartisanship in this particular area of public policy,” Jordan said.