Housing Development Insights

Maine just legalized 3 units per lot statewide. No planning board approval needed for 4 units or fewer. But the real breakthrough isn't the density. It's what they eliminated: Maine has seen the biggest house price growth in the US since 2019. The median cost is $400k, nearly double what it was 6 years ago. Radical change was needed. So they broadly legalized ADUs as part of the larger package of reforms. Including sweeping changes to zoning and land use regulations. Here's what LD 1829 actually does: 1/ Density: • Maximum 2 off-street parking spaces for every 3 units • Three dwelling units per residential lot is now legalized • Affordable housing developments get 2.5x the base density allowance Municipalities are now required to permit multiple dwelling units per residential lot. 2/ Review Processes: • All planning board members must attend mandatory training • No planning board approval needed for projects with four or fewer dwelling units • Wastewater verification and subdivision threshold "loopholes" have been simplified Required planning board approval for smaller projects is prohibited. 3/ Other Changes: • Owner-occupancy mandates for ADUs eliminated • Uniform dimensional standards for multiple-unit dwellings same as single-family homes • Minimum lot sizes in growth areas capped at 5,000 SF with 1,250 SF per dwelling unit density This is the density breakthrough. Maine now allows up to 4 units on lots in growth areas, with just 1,250 SF of lot area per unit. That's 4x the housing on the same land. Small developers can finally compete without needing millions in land acquisition. Maine eliminated barriers that made small-scale multifamily difficult to build. The timeline for these changes: Applies immediately: Fire sprinklers, ADU definition, and mandatory training. July 1, 2026: Core zoning and density changes. July 1, 2027: All other municipalities. The bigger picture: Maine has shifted how housing density and development approval is processed. Something more states should follow. Read the full report linked in the comments.

Something is very wrong in the housing market. In my LinkedIn feed, I keep seeing two striking themes: -First-time homebuyers desperate to find an affordable place to call home. -Real estate developers and property owners claiming they're “focused on expanding affordable housing options.” It got me thinking. Why are so many motivated, qualified buyers unable to find affordable homes, while developers continue to talk about affordability like it’s a done deal? The pieces don’t fit. So, I reached out to a few friends and industry contacts working in real estate, lending, and housing policy. Here are a few things I can tell you for certain: -Affordable housing projects are often proposed with price tags that are anything but affordable for actual first-time buyers. -Even when subsidies or incentives exist, they’re frequently buried in complex red tape, making it nearly impossible for those who need them most to benefit. -Market pressures and profit motives often mean homes meant to be “affordable” are priced just high enough to exclude the very people they’re intended to serve. These issues don’t stem from lack of demand or a shortage of buyers; they’re rooted in how “affordable housing” is defined, structured, and delivered. Imagine you’re a young professional or family hoping to finally own your first home—only to find that even “affordable” housing is out of reach, or to be told to "just keep renting." (Really, think about that for a moment. Imagine spending your weekends touring places, crunching numbers, and barely making the down payment—only to realize it’s still out of reach.) Creating a pipeline of homes people can genuinely afford requires intentional design, not just slogans about “affordable housing” or “accessible living.” If your company or organization promotes affordable housing without setting prices or policies that truly match community income levels, you’re part of the problem. First-time buyers aren’t just looking for the chance to “get in the market.” They’re trying to build a stable life, and a home is a huge part of that dream. Be better. Do better. Build better. #allofus

I spoke with Bloomberg yesterday about the state of the housing market. Here are a few key takeaways: Easing Rate Lock-In Effect: Currently, 81 percent of mortgaged homes have a rate below 6 percent, a decrease from the peak of approximately 93 percent in 2022. Despite this improvement, the rate lock-in effect continues to constrain the market's full potential. Regional Market Variations: While the national housing market is trending towards a buyer's market, significant regional differences persist. Markets in Southwest Florida and parts of Arizona, Texas, and Colorado have weakened, whereas pockets in the Northeast and Midwest, including my hometown of Rochester, NY, remain seller's markets. Signs of Improvement: Although overall sales activity remains subdued, there are tentative signs of modest spring recovery. Pending home sales and purchase mortgage applications have seen slight increases compared to last year. This slow thaw is driven by factors such as wage growth outpacing house price appreciation, improving affordability, and increasing inventory. Life Events Driving Demand: Life events continue to drive housing demand. However, affordability challenges and macroeconomic uncertainties are keeping many potential buyers on the sidelines. Nonetheless, the slight uptick in activity offers cautious optimism for the remainder of the year, especially if interest rates moderate (though we're not predicting significant mortgage rate declines this year). Check out the full interview below! https://lnkd.in/eUSiKkVJ

Affordability isn’t just a math problem right now—it’s a confidence problem. The latest University of Michigan Survey of Consumers shows both current conditions and consumer expectations slipping again, with expectations falling to levels historically associated with periods of real household stress. That matters for housing because affordability lives at the intersection of prices, rates, incomes—and confidence. Even when buyers technically qualify on paper, pessimism about the broader economy makes them hesitate to commit to the largest purchase of their lives. What the data are telling us is that many households don’t feel like affordability is improving yet, even as some of the mechanics are slowly adjusting. Mortgage rates remain high, price relief is uneven, and income growth hasn’t been strong enough to offset the shock of higher monthly payments. This gap between what’s changing in the market and what consumers feel has real behavioral consequences. Buyers stay on the sidelines longer. Sellers have to work harder to meet the market. Negotiations increasingly hinge on concessions, buydowns, and realism rather than list prices alone. Here’s the key takeaway: affordability improves in stages, but confidence tends to lag the math. The market can move toward better balance before buyers actually feel ready to act. What I’ll be watching next is whether sustained income growth or clearer rate relief does more to repair that confidence gap. #HousingMarket #Affordability #HousingData #ResidentialEconomics #HomeBuying #MortgageRates #Economy #RealEstateInsights

[The 聯合國 HR Council’s 2017 report on the financialization of housing] The United Nations HR Council’s 2017 report on the financialization of housing presents a powerful critique, arguing that treating housing primarily as a financial asset undermines its social function as a human right. From the perspective of financial market principles, this critique reveals a profound market failure where efficiency in capital allocation comes at the cost of fundamental social welfare. Financial markets are designed to solve core economic problems: efficiently allocating capital, managing risk, and facilitating investment. In the context of housing, securitization (bundling mortgages into tradeable bonds) and global investment can, in theory, increase the capital available for development and spread risk. However, the report contends that this process has been perverted. When large-scale investors and funds treat homes as vehicles for wealth storage and speculative gain, they distort the market's primary function. Housing's use-value—a place to live—becomes secondary to its exchange-value. This aligns with the economic concept of a bubble, where prices are driven by investment demand rather than fundamental utility, creating systemic risk and misallocating resources away from productive uses. The report identifies how this financialization worsens fundamental economic problems instead of solving them. It exacerbates inequality, a core concern of this course, by transforming housing from a universal need into an inaccessible commodity. As capital floods into real estate, prices and rents are decoupled from local incomes. This creates affordability crises and displacement, contradicting the market's ideal outcome of meeting consumer demand. Furthermore, it can destabilize economies. The pursuit of short-term returns encourages excessive lending and risk-taking, reminiscent of the pre-2008 subprime mortgage crisis. Thus, a market meant to manage risk can paradoxically concentrate and magnify it, making the entire financial system more vulnerable to corrections that harm the public. Ultimately, the 2017 report forces a critical examination of whose purposes financial markets serve. It argues they currently serve the interests of global capital over the needs of residents. A well-functioning market should balance efficiency with equity, but the financialization of housing demonstrates a severe imbalance. To realign the market with its problem-solving potential, the report implies the need for robust regulatory frameworks—such as taxes on speculative investment, stronger tenant protections, and policies prioritizing social housing. These measures would help reclaim housing's social function, ensuring financial markets contribute to stability and access rather than undermining the basic right to a home.

The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act just became law - and it's the biggest federal housing reform package in over 20 years. Here's what it means (and doesn't mean) for community development, affordable housing developers, and wealth-building in low-income communities: MORE CAPITAL FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Banks can now put up to 20% of capital (up from 15%) into public welfare investments - affordable housing and community development projects. That's real new capacity for CDFIs and community lenders to deploy. EASIER PATH FOR DEVELOPERS 📌CDBG funds can now be used directly to build new affordable housing, not just rehabiliation 📌 Environmental review (NEPA) is streamlined for federally supported housing projects, with more review authority pushed down to states, localities, and tribes 📌 A new pilot program funds converting vacant commercial/industrial buildings into affordable housing, prioritized for economically distressed areas and Opportunity Zones WEALTH-BUILDING PROTECTIONS 📌 Large institutional investors that own 350+ single-family homes are now restricted from buying more - a direct move to protect entry-level homeownership from corporate buyers 📌 A new Whole-Home Repairs pilot offers grants and forgivable loans so existing low-income homeowners can maintain and preserve the equity they already have 📌 Housing Choice Voucher inspections are streamlined for LIHTC, HOME, and USDA-financed units - reducing friction that's kept landlords from accepting vouchers THE CAVEAT No new funding is authorized in this bill. It's structural and regulatory reform, not a spending package. That matters most for RESIDE and Whole-Home Repairs specifically: 📌 RESIDE can only draw up to $100M/year, and only from HOME appropriations above $1.35B. HOME has been funded at $1.25B the last two years - so RESIDE has no money to work with unless Congress raises HOME funding significantly. 📌Whole-Home Repairs has zero dedicated funding source - it depends entirely on Congress appropriating money for it in future budget cycles. So the real test is implementation: whether HUD, states, and localities actually get the appropriations to execute over the next few years. This is a genuinely bipartisan bill - led by Sen. Tim Scott and Sen. Elizabeth Warren - and it reflects years of advocacy from the affordable housing and community development field. Curious to hear how others in this space are thinking about the RESIDE Act and the CDBG changes, in particular. #AffordableHousing #CommunityDevelopment #HousingPolicy #WealthBuilding #Homeownership

Last June we passed AB 130, which included a CEQA exemption for infill housing—clean and simple. But passing a bill is not the same thing as solving a problem. And solutions are what we should be held accountable to, so let’s take stock and see where we’re at. For too long, our landmark environmental quality act had been used to stop housing development, even where it is the most environmentally friendly to build and even when Californians are faced with a shortage of 2.5 million homes. It seemed like an insurmountable task to try to reform CEQA. To be honest, some of the people closest to me cautioned me not to take on this fight. But my job as a legislator is not to just pass bills for the sake of it—it’s to deliver real results to Californians. So I poured countless hours into stakeholder meetings, public hearings, and intense negotiations to tailor this policy so that we could get to yes on more housing while still maintaining the integrity of the environmental protections we all hold near and dear as Californians. And as I drove home from the bill signing ceremony last summer, I called a land use attorney and said, “Be honest—will this actually make a difference?” He told me, “Buffy, I’m literally rewriting all my applications right now to use AB 130.” I'm thrilled to share that 10k+ new units benefited from AB 130 over the past year, making it one of the most effective streamlining laws on the books. July 2025 to May 2026: · Total Projects: 68 · Total Housing Units: 10,378 · Affordable Units: 1,077 (10.38%) · Market-Rate Units: 9,301 (89.62%) These are real homes for real people. Some cities, like Mountain View, are actually on track to triple their housing permits this year under AB 130—approving more permits in the first quarter of this year than they did in all of 2025! This policy represented a seismic structural change. It may very well be the most impactful piece of legislation I pass, so I’ll be keeping a close eye on it to make sure it’s working as intended. As always, I’d love to hear your ideas on the next big thing I should tackle.

The U.S. housing market is entering a troubling phase. Right now, there are at least half a million more people trying to sell their homes than there are buyers. That gap is pushing the market toward a soft correction: sellers are being forced to adjust expectations, while buyers remain cautious. After years of extreme supply shortages, the pendulum is quietly swinging the other way — and it’s happening faster than many expected. One of the hidden accelerators behind this shift is tariffs. Higher tariffs on construction materials and imported goods are driving up building and renovation costs. That makes new homes more expensive, remodels less attractive, and discourages investors from taking on new projects. At the same time, these costs ripple through everything from appliances to lumber, squeezing affordability even further. The result is a market stuck in tension: too many sellers, not enough qualified buyers, and rising input costs. Unless interest rates or tariff policies change meaningfully, housing is likely to feel this pressure for months to come. We’re not seeing a crash — we’re seeing the early signs of a market trying to rebalance under structural strain.

Levy and Let Live: 5 Things Developers & Funders Need to Know About the Building Safety Levy Yesterday I had the pleasure of speaking Landmark Chambers' Building Safety Act Conference at Lincoln's Inn alongside my brilliant colleague Kimberley Ziya. Here are five key points from our session that developers and funders should have on their radar: 1. Mark Your Calendars: 1 October 2026 The Building Safety Levy comes into operation on 1 October 2026. This levy applies to major residential developments—10+ dwellings or 30+ bedspaces for purpose-built student accommodation. The Government's target? Approximately £3.4 billion over ten years to fund building safety remediation across England. 2. The Transitional Rules Are Your Friend (If You Act Now) Here's the critical transitional rule: the levy does not apply to building control applications submitted before 1 October 2026. Even if you vary an existing application after that date, the levy still won't apply—provided the original application was submitted before implementation. It's the building control application date that matters, not the planning application date, so plan your timelines accordingly. 3. No Certificate Without Payment The levy must be paid before a completion certificate can be issued, or before first occupation—whichever is earlier. No staged payments, no phased options—the full amount for an application must be paid before any completion certificate can issue, even for part of the development. As I mentioned in my talk: if your site's ready, the keys are cut, and the buyers are calling… it might not be the builder holding things up this time—it could be the accountant! 4. Know Your Rates (They Vary Wildly) Levy rates are weighted by average house prices in each local authority area. In Kensington and Chelsea, rates exceed £100 per square metre for non-developed land; in lower-value areas, rates can be as low as £13 per square metre. There's also a 50% "brownfield discount" for developments where at least 75% of the land is previously developed. Build these published rates into your viability models now. 5. Structure Carefully—Especially Joint Ventures Non-profit registered providers of social housing are exempt from the levy. However—and this may catch people out—joint ventures only benefit from this exemption if every JV member is itself an exempt person. Get your corporate structures aligned with exemption eligibility early. It was also great to speak alongside my colleagues Myriam Stacey KC and Tom Morris who delivered an excellent session on the RCO jurisdiction and the FTT earlier in the day (see Kim and I's awe in the third photo)—essential viewing for anyone grappling with remediation disputes. The levy is coming. The regulations are made. The guidance is published. Time to get your ducks in a row. Thank you to all who attended the conference.

It’s time to stop looking at the housing market as a series of "unfortunate events" and start seeing it for what it is: a systemic math problem 20 years in the mean-time. Since 2000, home prices have outpaced incomes by a staggering 52% and the average first-time buyer is now 36 years old. Today, I’m sharing a consolidated view of where we stand and—more importantly—a framework for how we actually fix it. 🧩 𝗧𝗵𝗲 "𝗧𝗶𝗹𝗲𝘀" 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝗦𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗦𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: To move toward long-term affordability, we have to align several pieces of the puzzle simultaneously:  • 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺: We are currently building 35% fewer homes per capita than our historical average. Zoning and permitting reform aren't just "nice to haves"—they are non-negotiable.  • 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗶𝘁𝘆: The construction labor force never fully recovered from 2008. We need to reinvest in the trades to get shovels moving again.  • 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆 𝗕𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲: Relying on demand subsidies alone is like throwing gasoline on a fire; without a supply response, they just inflate prices further.  • 𝗪𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵 𝗘𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘁𝘆: We must address the widening gap where owners accrue wealth through appreciation while renters are locked out by rising entry barriers. 👇This presentation is meant to be a comprehensive look at the "Lost Decades" of affordability, but it is certainly not the last word. It's a framework to help us move from reactionary fixes to structural solutions. #HousingMarket #StLouisFed #Economy #UrbanPlanning #RealEstate #AmericanDream