Housing Bill Pushes States to Scrap Parking Minimums and Allow Duplexes, But at What Cost to Local Control?

The Housing Supply Frameworks Act is Congress’s big swing at the national housing shortage, which, let’s be real, is hitting everyone’s wallet. The bill starts from the premise that we’re short nearly four million homes, and that local zoning rules are a huge part of the problem. Instead of mandating changes, this Act uses the federal government’s platform to create a blueprint for states and cities to reform their restrictive land use policies—the kind of policies that make it impossible to build anything other than single-family homes on huge lots. The goal is simple: more homes, more affordability, and less time wasted in bureaucratic red tape. Starting in 2026, HUD is authorized to spend $3 million annually through 2030 to make this happen, though the real work starts much sooner.

The Federal Playbook for Local Zoning

Within three years, the Assistant Secretary of HUD must publish detailed guidelines and best practices aimed at helping states and local areas update their zoning frameworks. Think of this as a massive instruction manual for cutting the regulatory fat. These guidelines are going to push for some major changes that will affect everything from your commute to your rent. For example, the guidance will explicitly recommend eliminating minimum parking requirements—which could save developers a ton of money and allow for more housing units—and reducing minimum lot sizes and required setbacks. It also pushes for getting rid of rules that block Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), those backyard cottages or garage apartments that offer flexible housing options.

Crucially, the guidelines will encourage states to mandate "by-right" use for duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes across metro areas. "By-right" means if your project meets the basic rules, the city can’t say no; they have to approve it quickly. This shift is designed to speed up construction and bring a wider variety of housing types to neighborhoods previously reserved for large, expensive homes. The goal is to make it easier for people to live closer to where they work, no matter their income, but the bill acknowledges the need to ensure these changes don't displace current residents in lower-income areas.

The State Appeals Process: Bypassing City Hall

Here’s the provision that could really change the power dynamic: the bill requires HUD to provide a model for a State Zoning Appeals Process. This is the mechanism that gives the federal guidelines teeth. If a developer includes a state-defined amount of affordable housing in their project, and the local zoning board rejects their request for a variance or zoning change, the developer can appeal that rejection to a state or regional board. This effectively allows the state to overrule local decisions if the project meets affordability benchmarks and passes environmental and infrastructure checks. For local governments, who currently hold the keys to zoning, this is a significant step toward centralizing power at the state level. While it could force reluctant towns to approve needed affordable housing, it also means local residents lose a significant portion of their ability to shape their own communities.

What This Means for Your Town and Your Wallet

If your state adopts these recommendations, you could see a few immediate changes. First, new housing developments near transit stops might be taller and denser, potentially easing traffic congestion and making public transit more viable. Second, your neighbor might be able to build a small ADU, providing an extra income stream for them or housing for a family member. Third, the process for getting building permits could become much faster, benefiting small businesses and contractors by reducing costly delays. The Act also clearly defines "affordable housing" as costing less than 30 percent of a person’s gross income, ensuring the focus remains on keeping costs manageable for working families.

However, the abolition of the existing Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse (SEC. 6) is a cleanup measure that removes an existing—though perhaps ineffective—federal resource. More importantly, the power shift implied by the State Appeals Process (SEC. 4) means that while the bill aims to fix the housing shortage, it does so by potentially diminishing the role of local government. This trade-off—more housing supply in exchange for less local control—is the core tension of the bill and will be the biggest challenge as states decide whether to adopt this new framework.