Feds weigh housing reform as states, cities clash over development
A bipartisan push in Congress would create model zoning codes and incentives to expand housing supply, aiming to cut through local land-use gridlock while preserving local control.
The U.S. housing policy puzzle remains unusually complex, with authority spread across federal, state, and local governments. A Vox analysis outlines how that governance fragmentation shapes housing growth and how federal action could help cut through local resistance without erasing neighborhood input.
State governments have sometimes moved faster than cities to loosen zoning and speed construction. Oregon's 2019 measure, championed by Tina Kotek before she became governor, requires large cities to allow at least two housing units on every parcel. In California, San Francisco state Sen. Scott Wiener has advanced SB79 to permit up to six-story buildings near transit, a bid that has won varied support and awaits Gov. Gavin Newsom's signature. Other states—including Massachusetts, Washington, Florida, Texas, and Montana—have pursued similar incentives for expanding housing supply. In New York, Gov. Hochul backed an ambitious upzoning plan in 2023 to unlock as many as 800,000 homes but abandoned it late in the year amid suburban opposition. Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a housing bill last year, citing unintended consequences. The pattern shows that while states often embrace housing growth more than cities, political backlash remains real, especially in suburbs and swing districts.
Federalism is the backdrop against which this debate plays out. The federal government could offer targeted incentives or support rather than sweeping mandates. The Natural Gas Act of 1938 preempts local regulation of interstate pipeline siting in favor of a federal process administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Separately, some observers note that the Federal Communications Commission has preempted local zoning to accommodate cellphone towers. In housing, however, most analysts expect federal action to be more incremental, focusing on incentives and capacity-building at agencies such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development rather than top-down zoning reforms.
The ROAD to Housing Act, a bipartisan package led by Senate Banking chair Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) and ranking member Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), has drawn robust support in the Senate and has cleared its committee with unanimous backing. It combines model zoning codes with funding designed to reward reforms that actually expand housing supply. One pillar would be model zoning provisions that remove parking mandates, shrink minimum lot sizes, and permit higher-density buildings on land currently used for single-family homes. Another pillar would redirect some Community Development Block Grant funds toward areas with faster housing growth, via the Build Now Act.
Proponents also highlight Right-to-Build Zones, a concept championed by the Economic Innovation Group, as a way to test bolder reforms without imposing a nationwide standard. In essence, the federal government would offer a freely adoptable model code and payments for each new home built under it, with cities allowed to apply these rules only to selected neighborhoods. The analogy to Deng Xiaoping's Special Economic Zones helps illustrate how targeted, flexible changes can unlock broader reforms. DC could implement such zones locally with federal funds creating the incentive, while other neighborhoods remain under existing rules.
The ROAD package is not a wholesale overhaul, but supporters say it could provide the scaffolding for a more substantial shift if incentives are tied to the model codes rather than to completed housing. The combination would push cities toward comprehensive zoning reform while preserving local control and addressing concerns from NIMBY opponents. Critics warn that incentives based on construction may reward projects that would have happened anyway or undermine local accountability if not carefully designed.
Overall, the Vox piece frames a federal approach as a potential lever to overcome the politics of housing, rather than a universal solution. The package's bipartisan flavor matters, and supporters say it could guide efforts already underway at the state level into a more cohesive national strategy. Whether the Senate package advances into law—and whether it proves capable of producing meaningful, localized changes in housing availability—remains to be seen.