S-1299-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Sponsored by Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE)
What it does
This bill would direct HUD's Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research to publish non-binding guidelines and best practices for state and local zoning reform within 3 years, covering topics like parking minimums, accessory dwelling units, and zoning appeals processes. It would also abolish the existing Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse and authorize $3 million per year for fiscal years 2026-2030 to carry out the guidance development, consultation, and reporting requirements.
Who benefits
State and local governments seeking model zoning reforms would gain access to federally developed guidance and technical resources; housing developers, homebuilders, and manufactured/modular housing producers could benefit from streamlined by-right review processes if states adopt recommendations; affordable housing advocates and low-income renters could see expanded housing supply and preservation mechanisms if states act; planners, architects, and academic researchers would participate in and shape the task force process.
Who is hurt
Localities and residents who prefer current zoning restrictions (e.g., single-family-only zoning, parking minimums, larger lot sizes) may face pressure to change local rules, though the bill does not mandate adoption; the Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse's existing functions and any staff or stakeholders relying on that program would be eliminated; local zoning boards may face administrative burdens adapting to new appeals structures if states choose to adopt them.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the nationwide housing shortage of roughly 3.85 million homes, as cited in the bill's findings, stems partly from restrictive state and local zoning, and that voluntary federal guidance can give states and localities practical models without imposing mandates. They contend the broad, inclusive task force—covering builders, fair housing advocates, transit authorities, and academics—would produce balanced, well-vetted recommendations that respect the traditional state and local role in land use decisions.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that even voluntary federal zoning guidance risks federal overreach into land use, an area the Constitution and long practice reserve to state and local governments, and that HUD's recommendations could become de facto conditions tied to federal grant eligibility, pressuring localities to comply. They contend the $15 million authorized over five years and three-year timeline for guidance could produce a slow-moving bureaucratic process that duplicates existing state-level zoning reform efforts already underway in dozens of states.
Constitutional context
Land use regulation is traditionally reserved to states and localities under the Tenth Amendment, and this bill respects that division by making HUD's guidelines advisory rather than mandatory. Because the bill contains no enforcement mechanism or funding condition tied to adoption, it does not raise the anti-commandeering concerns at issue in Murphy v. NCAA (2018), though critics note that HUD's consideration of effects on federal grant eligibility could create indirect pressure resembling conditions reviewed under South Dakota v. Dole (1987).
Checks and balances
Congress delegates guidance-development authority to HUD's Assistant Secretary, with no binding regulatory power created; states and localities retain full discretion to adopt or reject the recommendations, and Congress retains oversight through the required reporting requirement.
Historical precedent
The bill's approach resembles past federal efforts like the Obama-era HUD "Housing Development Toolkit" (2016), a voluntary guidance document on zoning barriers, though this bill formalizes and expands that model through statute with dedicated funding and reporting requirements.