Delivering Americans Affordable Homes Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD]
- Committees
- Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 6, 2026
Bottom line
This bill leverages underutilized Postal Service real estate to create affordable housing and generate revenue for the financially struggling agency.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a Housing Liaison Office within the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to identify suitable USPS-owned real property for housing development. It creates a process for "Joint Development Partnerships" (public entities paired with housing developers) to lease these properties for at least 60 years, with a requirement that at least 20% of units be affordable to households earning 80% or less of the Area Median Income for at least 50 years. The bill aims to generate revenue for the USPS while addressing the national housing shortage.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill offers a dual solution to two pressing national issues: the severe housing supply shortage and the USPS's persistent financial losses. By enabling the USPS to lease its extensive property portfolio for housing, particularly affordable housing, it can generate new, stable revenue streams without divesting assets, while simultaneously contributing to community development and addressing housing affordability.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that diverting USPS resources to housing development, even through leasing, could distract from its core mission of mail delivery and potentially lead to operational disruptions. Concerns could also be raised about the complexity of managing such partnerships, the potential for insufficient revenue generation compared to market value, or the appropriateness of a federal agency engaging in real estate development beyond its primary function.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 4(a)
Housing Liaison Office Establishment
Mandates the Postmaster General to establish a Housing Liaison Office within the Postal Service within 60 days of enactment. This office will be responsible for overseeing and facilitating the leasing of USPS property for housing development. The Postmaster can assign these functions to an existing office.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a dedicated office is essential to effectively manage the complex process of identifying, evaluating, and leasing properties for housing development, ensuring focus and expertise.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the establishment of an internal office for a new program, though some might question the administrative overhead if the program's success is uncertain.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for dedicated focus on a new initiative with potential administrative costs and the integration into existing USPS structures.
Section 4(b)(1)
Property Inventory for Housing Development
Requires the new Housing Liaison Office to identify all USPS-owned real property suitable for housing development, considering factors like size, shape, developable rights (air and ground), physical constraints, and proximity to amenities. This inventory must be published annually in the Federal Register and on the USPS website.
Section 4(b)(2)
Joint Development Partnership Process
Directs the Office to establish a public process for "Joint Development Partnerships" to propose and negotiate leases for USPS property for eligible housing uses. A Joint Development Partnership consists of a public entity (State, local, Tribal government) and one or more housing developers. The process must allow public entities to identify parcels (even if not on the inventory) and partnerships to propose housing uses and negotiate leases. Model lease agreements must also be made public.
Section 4(b)(3)
Property Leasing for Housing Development
Grants the Office discretion, with Postmaster approval, to enter into lease agreements with Joint Development Partnerships for eligible housing uses. The Office may refuse a lease if the financial benefit to USPS is less than the cost of development, or if the development would substantially disrupt mail delivery and cannot be mitigated. The Office must prioritize leases that cover USPS facility maintenance costs, involve experienced developers with a history of using subsidies, and maximize income-restricted affordability.
Section 5(a)
Mandatory Lease Agreement Provisions
Stipulates that all lease agreements must be for a term of at least 60 years, include affordability restrictions lasting at least 50 years, and require at least 20% of units to be affordable to households earning 80% or less of the Area Median Income. It also mandates that the lease provide revenue to USPS of not less than the lesser of the appraised fair annual rental value or the net present value of the leased rights, minus the value of any public benefit, at USPS's discretion.
Section 5(d)
Prevailing Wage Requirements
Requires that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors on construction, alteration, or repair work under a lease agreement must be paid wages not less than those prevailing in the locality, as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act (subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code).
Section 6
Office Funding and Revenue Allocation
Mandates an initial reservation of $10,000,000 from the next USPS property sale revenue for the Office's activities. It also authorizes appropriations of $10,000,000 annually for fiscal years 2027 through 2031, to remain available until expended. Additionally, USPS can reserve up to $10,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) annually from lease agreement revenues for the Office, with all other revenue deposited into the Postal Service Fund.
Specifies that the revenue provided to the Postal Service from a lease agreement shall be not less than the lesser of the appraised fair annual rental value or the net present value of the leased property rights, minus the value of any public benefit, at the discretion of the Postal Service.
Section 5(a)(3)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for complex financial arrangements, allowing for flexibility. However, it also grants significant discretion to the USPS in determining the "value of any public benefit," which could be a point of negotiation and potential reduction in direct revenue.
Case for: Proponents would argue that allowing the USPS to account for "public benefit" (e.g., deeper affordability, community amenities) in its revenue calculation provides flexibility and encourages projects that deliver greater social good, rather than solely maximizing financial return. This aligns with the bill's dual purpose of addressing housing shortages.
Case against: Critics might contend that this discretion could lead to subjective valuations and potentially reduce the actual financial benefit to the USPS, undermining the goal of improving its financial position. It could also create ambiguity in negotiations and make it harder to assess the program's financial efficacy.
Estimated impact: Could significantly influence the net revenue generated for the USPS from each lease, potentially reducing it in favor of social benefits. The cumulative impact depends on how frequently and extensively this discretion is applied.
States that the lease of property rights under this Act shall not, by itself, be considered a "closure or consolidation" for purposes of section 404(d) of title 39, United States Code, or any related regulations.
Section 5(e)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to prevent unintended legal consequences and clarify the scope of the new authority. It's crucial for USPS operations.
Case for: Proponents would argue this clause is essential to protect USPS's core mail delivery mission. Without it, leasing a portion of a property for housing might trigger lengthy and complex statutory procedures for facility closures or consolidations, which could paralyze the program and disrupt mail services. It ensures the program can proceed without unintended operational hurdles.
Case against: No direct opposition, as it's a technical clarification. However, some might argue that if a housing development significantly alters a site, the spirit of closure/consolidation rules *should* apply to ensure community input on changes to postal services, even if not a full closure.
Estimated impact: Prevents significant legal and procedural delays for USPS, ensuring the housing development program can be implemented efficiently without impacting mail service continuity.