
New Report Shows Housing Reform Is Gaining Momentum Nationwide
The United States lacks somewhere between 1.5 million and 4.5 million homes, which is pushing up housing prices nationwide. As of June, the median price of a home in America is $435,300, a record high. Meanwhile, median household income is $80,610. These numbers create a medina-home-price-to-income ratio of 5.4, which is outside the generally accepted affordability range of three to four.
States are responding by passing laws that make it easier and cheaper to build more housing. As the map below shows, more than half the states enacted at least one housing supply bill over the last year. Washington, California, Montana, Texas, and Maine each enacted a major housing supply package. Texas in particular was a leader in 2025, passing several laws that will lower the cost of housing, including reducing minimum lot sizes; making it easier to convert office buildings to residential units; and allowing developers to construct multifamily buildings with a single staircase to reduces construction costs. Texas is often a bellwether for Red states, so hopefully its willingness to embrace pro-housing policies sets an example other Republican-controlled states follow.
The legislative session from January to June of this year was the most successful one yet for pro-housing policies. As the table below shows, 102 bills passed in the most recent session, compared to only 30 over the same months in 2023. A few Midwestern states contributed to the increase in housing legislation by taking their first steps to address affordability concerns. Iowa passed a strong ADU law and Indiana put several pro-housing reforms on its list of things local governments can do to maintain eligibility for certain state funding.
Other states built on earlier reform efforts to enact major pro-housing policies. Maine passed a bill that caps minimum lot sizes at 5,000 square feet for lots with sewer access; allows at least three homes on such lots; and caps lot sizes at 20,000 square feet for lots with septic tanks. The state also enacted laws that remove redundant environmental approvals, limit parking minimums, and restrict impact fees.
Speaking of parking minimums, parking reforms were a big winner in 2025. Parking requirements raise costs by forcing developers to build parking spaces that residents do not need or want. Surface parking spaces can cost as much as $10,000 per space in areas with high land prices, while spaces in parking garages can cost as much as $50,000 each. These costs are passed on to consumers in the form of higher rent and housing prices. According to the Mercatus report, Washington eliminated most local parking minimums while Montana eliminated them for homes up to 1,200 square feet. New Hampshire, Texas, and Florida also made changes to parking requirements that will give developers more flexibility.
California contains many of the most expensive housing markets in America despite passing a variety of housing bills over the last few years. This year, the state may have finally turned the corner, as several of its new housing laws should have a bigger impact than the more modest changes enacted previously. One new law exempts most infill development from the state's California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires builders to follow a long and expensive process to get permission to build and creates several opportunities for housing opponents to use litigation to delay or cancel projects. Exempting infill projects should speed up the building process and reduce the cost of new construction. California also strengthened protections for ADUs and housing built on faith-based or other non-profit land, along with some other pro-housing changes. And the Golden State may not be done: The Mercatus report notes that the legislature is still considering a bill that would allow apartment buildings near transit across the state.
Some of the biggest pro-housing wins result from policies that are not enacted. In recent years policymakers on both sides of the aisle have blamed institutional investors for high housing prices. As they tell it, investment companies such as Blackstone outspend normal families for houses and then turn those houses into rentals. The result is that fewer houses are available for purchase, which pushes up prices.
While it is true that Blackstone and similar companies buy houses, their share of the market is small. Institutional investors only own about 4% of all single-family rental units and less than 1% of all single-family homes. They are not the reason supply is limited. In fact, a new study by Konhee Chang of the University of California at Berkley provides evidence that large-scale landlords increase the rental supply, which reduces rents and expands access to high-amenity neighborhoods.
Despite the popularity of blaming big investors, no state has passed a bill that would curtail their ability to purchase real estate. This is smart. Instead, state lawmakers who want to improve housing affordability continue to focus on reforming the things that matter such as minimum lot sizes, parking requirements, and other regulations that increase costs.
The last year was a big one for housing reform. More than 30 states passed at least one pro-housing bill between July 2024 and June 2025. America still has a housing problem and there is more work to be done, but the policy environment is improving. Hopefully, there will be more progress in 2026.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Intercept
20 minutes ago
- The Intercept
Veterans Are 'Guinea Pigs' in Trump's First National Abortion Ban Experiment
Ash Wallis knows she likely wouldn't survive another pregnancy. Doctors said as much years earlier after she suffered a pulmonary embolism following a miscarriage, and got a second blood clot. Getting pregnant again isn't a risk she is willing or able to take. 'I have two sons,' said Wallis. 'I don't want to leave them motherless.' Wallis, 40, begged her health care provider to give her an IUD — her best chance at preventing another pregnancy and protecting her life. But her provider, the Department of Veterans Affairs, refused to cover the procedure. Despite three years of service in the Army, Wallis was forced to pay out of pocket at a local clinic. 'The risks of me getting pregnant and there being a significant health issue were too much risk for me to gamble on,' she said. Access to reproductive care and abortion has long been a problem for those who rely on VA care. But a policy change by the Trump administration stands to make reproductive health for service members and veterans even worse. Last week, the administration posted a proposed rule for VA facilities that would severely narrow access to abortion — eliminating exceptions for health, rape, and incest, and only allowing the procedure in situations deemed to threaten the life of the mother. The rule would also ban any counseling for abortion through the VA. The proposed policy now enters a mandatory 30-day comment period, after which it can go into effect. Experts told The Intercept that the rule change will have devastating consequences for the millions of service members and veterans reliant on health care through the VA, as well as their families. 'It's the worst-case scenario,' said Rachel Fey, vice president of policy and strategic partnerships at Power to Decide, a nonprofit focused on reproductive and sexual health. The Department of Veterans Affairs has long excluded abortion care and abortion counseling from its medical benefits package, with a narrow exception for the 'life of the mother.' That changed in 2022 when the Biden administration, recognizing the danger posed to veterans and service members by the Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, instituted a new rule allowing for abortion counseling and abortion care in an expanded list of circumstances. It's this Biden-era change that is under attack by the Trump administration. The administration describes the proposed policy shift as a return to form. 'Prior to the Biden Administration's politically motivated change in 2022, federal law and longstanding precedent across Democrat and Republican administrations prevented VA from providing abortions and abortion counseling,' wrote Gary Kunich, a Veterans Affairs spokesperson, in a statement to the Intercept. Fey and other reproductive health experts had anticipated the Trump administration would institute an abortion ban at the VA. But they told The Intercept that this version is particularly draconian considering the dramatic fall-off in abortion access following the Dobbs decision. 'This new policy would be one of the strictest abortion bans in the country, and for veterans living in the 12 states that ban abortion, it would further close off what may be their only opportunity to access urgently needed abortion care,' said Liz McCaman Taylor, senior federal policy counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, in a statement. 'For veterans living in these states, they may now be forced to carry pregnancies to term even if they were raped or the pregnancy puts their health in jeopardy.' The proposed rule would 'reinstate the full exclusion on abortions and abortion counseling.' Unlike under the Biden rule, which allowed for abortion counseling and abortion care to protect the health of the mother or in cases of rape and incest, the new proposed rule only includes a vague, narrow exception for 'life of the mother.' 'For the avoidance of doubt, the proposed rule would make clear that the exclusion for abortion does not apply 'when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term,'' wrote the administration in a summary of the draft proposal. However, in a potentially complicating line, the administration wrote: 'Taken together, claims in the prior administration's rule that abortions throughout pregnancy are needed to save the lives of pregnant women are incorrect.' Jaclyn Dean, director of congressional relations, reproductive health, at the National Partnership for Women & Families, said that the lack of medical clarity around when doctors are allowed to intervene is going to cost lives. 'If I'm a doctor for the VA,' said Dean, 'I'm very confused about what I'm legally allowed to do.' Fey said her organization, Power to Decide, was 'not aware of any circumstances' where the VA covered abortion care under the life exception in place before the Biden rule. 'There was always sort of supposed to be this very, very narrow life exception, but similar to what's happening now in the post-Dobbs world, we're seeing that those life exceptions don't work in practice,' she said. Lindsay Church, executive director of Minority Veterans of America, said the counseling ban adds another layer of risk because providers are prevented from even discussing the option of abortion until it may be too late. 'Good luck if you get to a place where you're dying,' said Church, 'because you can't get abortion counseling before that. And that, to me, is insulting. Not only that, but it could have deadly consequences.' Read Our Complete Coverage The counseling ban also means veterans or active-duty service members referred to the Veterans Affairs administration for care after being sexually assaulted can't discuss abortion as an option with their provider. 'We already know that women veterans experience Military Sexual Trauma at alarming rates, and many of us continue to fight battles long after our service ends,' said Stephanie Gattas, founder of the Pink Berets, which offers support for women veterans struggling with PTSD, military sexual assault, and other mental health issues. Over 8,000 service members, who can also be referred to the VA for care, reported being sexually assaulted last year. And nearly 500 people reported being sexually assaulted while on a VA campus last year, according to Church. Both numbers are likely a severe undercount. 'The military community is wrought with sexual violence,' said Church. 'Now, if you get raped and become pregnant … because of assault at the Department of Veterans Affairs, they won't help you.' Sylvia Andersh, a former service member who worked at Veterans Affairs hospitals as a nurse, called the lack of exceptions for rape 'cruel.' 'My faith in humanity has been quite tested with the fact that they're willing to blatantly hurt women,' said Andersh. For Wallis, who was sexually assaulted while serving in the military, the lack of rape exceptions is especially troubling. 'It feels like being spit in my face,' she said. 'I wrote a check up to and including my life for this country, and I'm not provided equal access to care,' Wallis said. Wallis also worries that this new policy could increase suicidal ideation among service members. 'An unexpected pregnancy, whether it's due to rape, incest, or contraceptive failure, doesn't matter what the cause is,' she said, 'it increases suicidal ideation, and in the lack of access to care, you add that in, and that risk increases further.' The biggest impact is going to fall on veterans and service members living in states with abortion bans, experts told The Intercept. The Department of Veterans Affairs is the largest integrated health care system in the United States, serving 2 million women veterans, over 400,000 of whom live in states with abortion bans. 'We were living in a much different world the last time this total ban was in effect.' Though the Trump administration insists the policy change would be a return to standard VA practice, Taylor, of Center for Reproductive Rights, points out that the landscape has changed following the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision. 'We were living in a much different world the last time this total ban was in effect. This is the first time there has been a total abortion ban in VA health care facilities since Roe v. Wade was overturned,' said Taylor. 'Before Roe fell, if a veteran couldn't get an abortion at a VA health care facility, they could seek one elsewhere in their state. Now, abortion is banned in many states, and over 100 clinics have closed, meaning veterans living in those states will be totally out of options.' Wallis said she feels as if the administration is testing how far it can restrict access to care, pointing to the abortion ban and new restrictions on gender-affirming care at the VA. 'We're the guinea pigs they want to test what they're able to do to the general public,' she said. 'I truly feel like they're testing what they want to do with the rest of the country on us, and it's scary to me.'


USA Today
20 minutes ago
- USA Today
Are stimulus checks coming? What to know after Trump proposed tariff rebate
Last month, President Donald Trump teased that a potential rebate could be attached to the worldwide tariffs he announced earlier this year. 'We have so much money coming in, we're thinking about a little rebate,' Trump said on July 25 ahead of his trip to Scotland, where he planned to iron out the details of a United Kingdom trade agreement. The White House has announced that some of the tariffs, which were disclosed on April 2, have raised $100 billion in revenue. Trump didn't provide further details on the potential rebates, which are unlikely to pass in Congress, except to say they would only be available to people from certain income levels. The president would need congressional approval to authorize the rebates. While details are scarce, here's what you need to know about a potential tariff rebate. Previous story: Trump considers 'rebates' to US taxpayers from tariff income Sen. Josh Hawley introduces rebate bill Shortly after Trump's July comments, Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, introduced the American Worker Rebate Act of 2025. The proposed legislation would send rebate checks of at least $600 per individual to U.S. residents. A family of four could receive up to $2,400. The legislation allows the credit to increase if tariff revenues exceed 2025 projections. 'My legislation would allow hard-working Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump's tariffs are returning to this country,' said Hawley in a news release announcing the bill. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said tariff revenue is expected to reach $300 billion annually. Yet, economists have said the policies could increase inflation and cost taxpayers thousands of dollars per year, especially if Trump doesn't reach trade deals with key partners like Canada and Mexico. For joint filers with an adjusted gross income of over $150,000 and people filing single who earn more than $75,000, the benefit would be reduced by 5%. The legislation has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee. It would need to pass both the Senate and the House of Representatives to become law. What are some of the hurdles facing the rebate? Republican lawmakers are unlikely to be excited about increasing federal spending. The stimulus checks issued during the COVID-19 pandemic cost the government about $164 billion. If checks were issued, it would mean a significant percentage of tariff revenue would be going back to taxpayers at a time when Trump himself has said his priority is paying down $37 trillion in debt. "The big thing we want to do is pay down debt,' Trump said in July. 'But we're thinking about rebates.' In an interview with Semafor, one conservative lawmaker shot down the idea. "People love spending money and granting new tax cuts when we can't afford it," Sen. Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin, told the outlet. 'We're $37 trillion in debt and running $2 trillion a year deficits – some time, this madness just has to end.' How is a tax rebate different from a stimulus check? A tax rebate is a reimbursement made to a taxpayer for an excess amount paid in taxes during the year, while a stimulus check is a direct payment from the federal government to households. Tax rebates can be issued at any point during the year. Hawley's news release states that the parameters for the tax rebate would be similar to the stimulus checks issued in 2020 during the economic slowdown caused by the pandemic. When could a tax rebate be implemented? Hawley's bill has until the end of the current congressional calendar to pass through both chambers of Congress, or it will be considered dead and would need to be introduced again if lawmakers want to move forward with it. Michelle Del Rey is a trending news reporter at USA TODAY. Reach her at mdelrey@
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
State Sen. Ryan Fazio launches campaign for Connecticut governor
GREENWICH, Conn. (WTNH) — State Sen. Ryan Fazio, the millennial Republican who has become the public face of his party's crusade to lower Connecticut's high energy costs, declared himself a candidate for governor in next year's election. His announcement was made in the form of a video posted to his social media accounts on Wednesday morning. Fazio, 35, is a Greenwich native whose professional life is divided between the part-time job of state senator and a career as an investment manager. He's served in the legislature since 2021, when he clinched victory in a special election to fill a vacant seat. He's won re-election in his Greenwich-based district in two subsequent contests. Since winning election, Fazio has quickly risen through the Republican ranks in the State Senate. He currently serves as the top Republican senator on the legislative committees overseeing tax and energy policy. From his leadership perches in the Capitol, Fazio has become one of the most outspoken GOP voices on cost-of-living issues, which he says will be at the center of his campaign for governor. 'We want to be able to afford our tax bill, our electric bill, to put food on the table for our families and so on,' Fazio said in an interview with News 8. An elimination of the public benefits charge on ratepayers' electric bills, a middle-class tax cut and a property tax cap are three positions Fazio offered when asked about what he'd prioritize as governor. Those three issues, plus nods to his support of law enforcement, were featured prominently in his campaign launch video. In a legislature overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats, Fazio has found occasional success advocating for his cost-of-living proposals. His dogged work on the energy issue has earned him admiration within his own party and taciturn respect from some on the opposite side of the aisle. Earlier this year, Gov. Ned Lamont signed into law a sweeping energy reform bill that incorporated some, but not all, of Fazio's proposals. 'I worked with him pretty closely on the energy bill,' Lamont said in an interview days before Fazio launched his campaign. 'We got bipartisan consensus on that.' Where Lamont sees consensus, Fazio sees a governor not doing enough to lower costs. He ultimately supported the bipartisan energy reforms but wanted to see the public benefits charge and many of the green energy programs it funds eliminated entirely, not just slightly reduced by shifting costs around. 'People are dissatisfied with the status quo, especially in Connecticut, where we have the third-highest taxes and third-highest electric rates in the country,' Fazio said. By criticizing the status quo, Fazio was making an implicit argument against Lamont's continued leadership. He also made a more explicit argument. 'Under Ned Lamont and his radical legislature, electric rates and taxes have soared to the third highest in the country,' Fazio said in his announcement video. The governor has not definitively stated whether he will run for a third term in office, but he has said that he is 'more inclined' to run again. Lamont has generally maintained a 'more the merrier' outlook on his potential challengers. He had relatively little to say when a member of his own party, State Rep. Josh Elliott, announced a run for governor, explicitly challenging his record. He's offered similarly reserved responses when asked about the possibility of facing Fazio next November. Lamont 'a lot more inclined' to run for 3rd term 'If he wants to get in the race, I look forward to seeing him out there,' Lamont said of his fellow Greenwich resident. For now, Lamont is mostly relying on his chief spokesman, Rob Blanchard, to jab at potential opponents and pump up his record. 'From cutting taxes for working families, to championing free child care for families making less than $100k, and getting our state budget and economy back on track, Governor Lamont is proud to put his record on affordability and opportunity up against anyone,' Blanchard wrote when asked about Fazio. Regardless of whether the Democratic candidate is Lamont or some other Democrat, Fazio will first have to win the nomination of his own party. In that endeavor, he already faces one declared opponent, Jen Tooker, the first selectwoman of Westport. Erin Stewart, the mayor of New Britain, is actively exploring a run for governor. Peter Lumaj, a conservative attorney from Fairfield, is also kicking the tires on a statewide campaign. While other candidates could still shake up the race, many of the state's Republican Party insiders look at the GOP field as it stands today and see a two-way race between Stewart and Fazio. The two are both millennials. They're proficient on social media, and they both say they're in touch with issues facing Connecticut families. Stewart is married with young children. Fazio is recently engaged. EXCLUSIVE: 2026 gubernatorial candidate Jen Tooker takes aim at Gov. Ned Lamont Stewart and Fazio each also present a theory of electoral viability to Republican voters who have not seen their party win a federal or statewide election in nearly two decades. Stewart has pulled off a string of sizable victories in a heavily Democratic city. Fazio has won three races in a suburban district that has seen once reliable Republican voters move into the Democratic column at the top of the ballot. Greenwich was once considered a bastion of a unique brand of moderate New England-style conservatism, with its voters siding with nearly every GOP presidential candidate in the last century — including the town's most storied son, President George H.W. Bush. In the last three presidential elections, Greenwichites supported the Democratic candidate by double-digit margins. Vice President Kamala Harris won the Greenwich vote by sixteen percentage points in 2024. Fazio carried the town by nearly seven points in the same election. Fazio's campaigns for the State Senate have had echoes of the old school conservatism bred in the historic home of the Bush political dynasty. He has emphasized bipartisanship and touted his work in expanding access to contraceptives. At the same time, he's also embodied a more modern iteration of the conservative movement. As a senator, he has called for taxes on the endowments of large private universities — a policy that echoes the more assertive posture of younger conservatives, such as Vice President JD Vance. New Britain Mayor Erin Stewart officially announces she is exploring a run for governor The differing backgrounds, ideologies, records and styles of a candidate from the state's Gold Coast and a potential rival hailing from 'Hard Hittin' New Britain' will define the marathon campaign that could come to a head in a primary election next summer. 'I'm not running to tear down others or anything like that,' Fazio said when asked about a potential showdown with Stewart. Pressed on how he'll contrast his record with Stewart's, Fazio was quick to the draw. 'No one's fought harder for reducing electric rates and eliminating the public benefits charge,' Fazio said of himself. 'No one's fought harder for middle-class tax cuts. No one's fought harder for local control of our towns and cities.' The battle for the GOP nomination for governor will be fought on multiple fronts — including the fight to raise campaign cash. In Connecticut, candidates often participate in the state's system of public campaign financing. By raising an initial amount of a few hundred thousand dollars, candidates for governor unlock more than $3 million in funds provided to their campaign by the state government for a primary election. An additional $15 million awaits general election candidates who meet the required fundraising levels. Stewart is closing in on that initial threshold. Fazio will now draw upon his Rolodex to catch up. Should he choose to run again, Lamont can bypass the public financing system entirely and draw upon his vast personal wealth to power his campaign. EXCLUSIVE: 2026 gubernatorial candidate Jen Tooker takes aim at Gov. Ned Lamont The governor spent more than $25 million of his own money in his successful 2022 re-election campaign. Aside from fundraising, the early stages of the Republican nominating contest will also be dominated by the gathering of endorsements from high-profile and influential party leaders. Stewart boasts a list of public supporters that includes two dozen leaders of local Republican Party organizations and five sitting state representatives. Multiple sources tell News 8 that a roster of prominent Republicans stands ready to endorse Fazio now that he's officially in the race. The two leading Republicans in the legislature, Senate Minority Leader Steve Harding and House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora, have both spoken glowingly of Fazio in recent weeks — though neither has formally endorsed him. Harding says Fazio is one of his best friends in the legislature. Candelora has noted Fazio's strength in the suburbs. Perhaps the most influential endorsement in the Republican race could come from President Donald Trump. An endorsement from the 45th and 47th president has proven potent time after time in Republican primaries around the country. In a blue state like Connecticut, closeness to Trump comes with risk and reward. An endorsement could be decisive in a primary election. An embrace could be a general election liability. Fazio has said he'd welcome the opportunity to campaign alongside Trump. New Britain Mayor Erin Stewart on why she may run for governor in 2026 'I voted for the president, and I have great respect for his public service and his patriotism,' Fazio said. 'We're going to build a big tent campaign that unites the Republican Party and brings in disaffected people from the middle in order to build a governing majority.' Balancing those appeals to the base of the Republican Party with a desire to connect with more moderate, centrist or center-left voters might be easier said than done. For Fazio, the approach to that political tight rope focuses almost entirely on Connecticut-specific issues while largely eschewing the politics of Washington, D.C. 'I think we need to do away with the politics of Washington, D.C. that have been so divisive, that are tearing people apart,' he said. 'We need to actually present a politics that governs, that leads, that makes people's lives better. I think that's what regular people in the middle are looking for in this state and beyond.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.