Identifying Regulatory Barriers to Housing Supply Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Flood, Mike [R-NE-1]
- Committees
- Financial Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 23, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to encourage local governments receiving federal housing grants to identify and address restrictive land use policies that hinder housing affordability and supply, without imposing direct mandates or penalties.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to require certain recipients of Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) to submit a plan detailing their approach to 22 specific land use policies. These policies are designed to reduce regulatory barriers and increase housing supply and affordability. The plan must describe whether the recipient has adopted these policies, their plan to adopt them, and the benefits of adoption, but the submission is not binding and cannot be used for enforcement.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill provides a crucial mechanism for the federal government to encourage local jurisdictions to address the nationwide housing shortage. By requiring CDBG grantees to track and plan for the adoption of specific pro-housing land use policies, it promotes best practices and transparency without being overly prescriptive or punitive. They contend that local regulatory barriers are a significant driver of housing unaffordability, and this bill offers a gentle but persistent nudge towards reform, aligning with the original intent of the CDBG program to foster community development.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that while the intent to increase housing supply is laudable, this bill represents an unfunded mandate and an overreach of federal authority into local zoning matters, which are traditionally state and local prerogatives. They may contend that requiring detailed plans without providing additional funding or direct incentives places an undue administrative burden on local governments, especially smaller ones, without guaranteeing actual policy changes. Critics might also argue that the non-binding nature of the plan and the prohibition on enforcement render the bill largely ineffective in achieving its stated goals, making it more of a bureaucratic exercise than a substantive reform.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, making it accessible for a quick read and easy to understand its core requirements and intent.
Section 4(a), amending 42 U.S.C. 5304 by adding subsection (n)(1)
Mandating Land Use Policy Tracking Plan for CDBG Grantees
This provision requires local governments that receive certain Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to prepare and submit a plan. This plan, to be submitted at least once every five years, must detail how the jurisdiction is addressing or plans to address a specific list of land use policies aimed at increasing housing supply and affordability.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is a reasonable condition for receiving federal funds, encouraging local accountability and strategic planning to address housing shortages. It leverages existing grant programs to promote a national priority without imposing direct mandates.
Critics contend
Critics might argue this adds an unfunded administrative burden on local governments, especially those with limited staff, without providing direct financial support for implementing the required planning or policy changes.
Tradeoffs
Balances federal interest in housing affordability with local autonomy over land use, potentially increasing administrative overhead for localities in exchange for promoting housing reforms.
Section 4(a), amending 42 U.S.C. 5304 by adding subsection (n)(2)
Specific Pro-Housing Land Use Policies to be Tracked
This section lists 22 specific land use policies that CDBG grantees must address in their submitted plans. These policies cover a wide range of zoning and regulatory reforms, such as allowing more multifamily housing, reducing minimum lot sizes, streamlining permitting, eliminating parking requirements, and promoting accessory dwelling units (ADUs), all designed to reduce barriers to housing construction and increase density.
Section 4(a), amending 42 U.S.C. 5304 by adding subsection (n)(3), (4), and (5)
Non-Binding Status and Enforcement Prohibition
This provision explicitly states that the submission of the land use plan is not binding on how CDBG funds are used, nor does HUD's acceptance or non-acceptance of a plan constitute an endorsement or disapproval. Crucially, it prohibits the information provided in these plans from being used as a basis for any enforcement action against the recipient.
The requirement to submit a land use plan applies specifically to recipients of grants under subsection (b), (d)(1), or (d)(2)(B) of section 106 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
Section 4(a), amending 42 U.S.C. 5304(n)(1) and (b)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for integrating new requirements into existing legal frameworks, ensuring precision in application.
Case for: Supporters would argue that specifying the exact grant types ensures the requirement targets the most relevant CDBG programs without unnecessarily burdening all federal grantees.
Case against: Critics might argue that by limiting the scope to specific grant types, the bill misses opportunities to influence land use policies in other federally funded community development initiatives.
Estimated impact: This clarifies the scope of affected grantees, which includes the vast majority of CDBG entitlement communities and some state-administered programs.
The plan to track and reduce overly burdensome land use policies must be submitted "not less frequently than once during the preceding 5-year period."
Section 4(a), amending 42 U.S.C. 5304(n)(1)
Why it matters:This is precise legal language for establishing a recurring, minimum frequency for reporting, common in federal regulations.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures ongoing attention to land use policies and allows for updates as conditions or local plans evolve, promoting continuous improvement.
Case against: Opponents might contend that a rolling 5-year requirement could create an ongoing administrative burden for localities, requiring continuous monitoring and potential resubmission even if policies haven't significantly changed.
Estimated impact: Ensures sustained federal oversight and local planning efforts regarding land use policies over time, rather than a single snapshot.