Build More Homes Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Shreve, Jefferson [R-IN-6]
- Committees
- Financial Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 15, 2026
Bottom line
This bill mandates a federal study to gather data on the effectiveness and challenges of using pattern books as a tool to address the national housing shortage and streamline construction processes.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a comprehensive study on the development and adoption of 'pattern books' across the nation. The study will examine their impact on housing supply, permitting efficiency, and construction costs, while also identifying regulatory barriers and best practices for their implementation, including recommendations for rural communities. The findings are to be reported to Congress and made publicly available within 18 months.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that a national study is crucial to understand how pattern books can alleviate the housing crisis by streamlining construction and reducing costs, providing valuable, evidence-based data for federal, state, and local governments to make informed policy decisions. They believe this will help scale effective solutions and remove unnecessary barriers to housing construction.
Opponents contend
Critics might contend that while data is useful, a study alone does not directly address the urgent housing shortage and could be seen as a delay tactic, rather than a direct intervention. Some may also argue that the federal government's involvement in what is primarily a local regulatory issue, such as zoning and building practices, is an overreach or less effective than local initiatives.
The bill is very short and easy to read, allowing for quick comprehension of its purpose and provisions.
Section 3
Study on Pattern Books
This section mandates the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a comprehensive study on the use of 'pattern books' across the country. The study will specifically examine how these pre-approved construction plans affect housing supply, permitting efficiency, and construction costs. It will also identify regulatory and other barriers hindering their wider adoption and highlight best practices from successful implementations, including tailored recommendations for rural communities. The Comptroller General is required to consult with local governments and other relevant public and private entities during the study and submit a report to Congress within 18 months.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential for gathering critical, objective data on a promising tool to combat the housing shortage. They believe the study will provide evidence-based recommendations, helping to scale effective solutions and remove unnecessary barriers to housing construction, ultimately leading to more affordable housing options.
Critics contend
Some might argue that while studies are valuable, this provision represents a slow approach to an urgent problem, suggesting that direct action or incentives for pattern book adoption might be more effective than a study. Others might question the federal role in what is primarily a local regulatory issue, preferring local-level initiatives.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for data-driven policy with the urgency of the housing crisis. It prioritizes thoroughly understanding the problem and potential solutions before widespread implementation, which could be seen as a delay by those advocating for immediate, direct action to increase housing supply.
This subsection defines the term 'pattern books' as sets of construction plans that are assessed and approved by localities for compliance with local building and permitting standards to streamline and expedite approval pathways for housing construction.
Section 3(d)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to place definitions at the end of a section or bill to ensure clarity and consistency for the terms used throughout the text.
Case for: Clearly defining 'pattern books' ensures the Comptroller General's study focuses precisely on the intended subject matter, preventing ambiguity and ensuring the research and its findings are relevant and consistent. This clarity is crucial for the study's integrity and utility.
Case against: No significant case against a clear definition; it is a necessary component for legislative clarity and effective implementation of the study.
Estimated impact: Ensures the GAO study is precisely targeted, affecting the quality, scope, and relevance of its findings by establishing a clear understanding of the subject matter.