The Housing Bill: What It Means for Companies that Serve Local Governments

New federal housing legislation is taking shape, and it currently goes by two names:

House version: Housing for the 21st Century Act

Senate version: 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act (S. Amdt. 4308), with ROAD standing for "Renewing Opportunity in the American Dream".

It will impact how cities and counties manage permitting, funding, and tracking development. Here's what you need to know to know.

What's happening

Housing for the 21st Century Act (H.R. 6644) is advancing through Congress with bipartisan support. The Senate version passed March 12, 2026 (89-10). House had passed its version Feb 9 (390-9). Both with 80%+ majorities. It is now headed to conference committee for reconciliation.

It targets three pressure points choking housing supply: permitting delays, outdated grant reporting, and misaligned local zoning.

If signed into law, it would be the most significant federal intervention in local housing permitting in over a decade.

‍

Why it matters

Permitting is the bottleneck. The average residential permit takes 7–12 months to process in major metros. This bill creates direct financial incentives for cities and counties to modernize — and penalizes those that don't.

‍

Three provisions will drive the most impact:

1. CDBG reporting requirements (may) get teeth.
According to the House version, HUD grantees would need to report permitting timelines, denial rates, and approval-to-start lag times as a condition of Community Development Block Grant funding. Cities that couldn't produce this data risk losing federal dollars.

The Senate version softened this and made the land-use reporting non-binding. The biggest stick in the Senate version is actually Section 205 (Build Now Act): a 10% adjustment to CDBG based on housing production rate, not permitting timelines specifically. Bonuses for fast builders, modest cuts for laggards.

Reconciliation may result in land-use reporting landing somewhere between "non-binding" and "tied to allocations."

2. $200M for permitting modernization.
In the House version, a new grant program would fund digital permitting systems, staffing, and process redesign — specifically targeting jurisdictions with the longest processing times. This is a direct pipeline for govtech vendors in the permitting and planning space.

In the Senate version, the $200M is structured as the Innovation Fund: competitive grants for jurisdictions that demonstrate measurable housing supply increases through reforms (permitting, density bonuses, zoning). Slightly broader than just permitting modernization.

3. Zoning and land-use reform incentives.
In the House version, bonus CDBG allocations would go to jurisdictions that adopt by-right approvals for multifamily housing near transit, reduce minimum lot sizes, or streamline ADU permitting. The federal government is putting money behind density.

The Senate version expands CDBG eligibility to new affordable housing construction. That's a meaningful addition for the affordable housing developer audience. Local zoning preemption is explicitly off the table in the Senate version.

In the Senate Bill, Section 901 (Build-to-Rent restrictions) is the biggest flashpoint. 76 bipartisan House members sent a letter on April 22 urging that BTR provisions be stripped or rewritten. This could delay a final vote.

‍

What this means for development

Short-term (Year 1–2): Jurisdictions will spend the first cycle building reporting infrastructure and applying for modernization grants. Expect a surge in RFPs for permitting software and consulting services.

Medium-term (Year 2–4): Jurisdictions that modernize early will see measurable reductions in permit processing times. Housing starts in those markets could increase 8–15%, particularly for multifamily and infill development where permitting has been the primary constraint.

Long-term (Year 4+): If the zoning incentives gain traction, the bill could unlock development capacity in high-cost metros that have been functionally capped by land-use restrictions. Markets like California, the Northeast corridor, and Pacific Northwest metros stand to see the largest shifts.

‍

Who should take note

Permitting software vendors: Every jurisdiction chasing the $200M competitive grant pool will need to upgrade from paper or legacy systems. Companies offering digital plan review, online permitting portals, and automated workflows are positioned to capture this demand.

Community development consultants: Any CDBG reporting requirements would create an immediate compliance need. Jurisdictions will need help building data pipelines, training staff, and redesigning processes to meet federal benchmarks.

Infrastructure Asset Management: Cities and counties will have to ensure that growth is supported by existing infrastructure, or make needed investments. Software that helps cities move quickly to serve planning and new development will benefit.

Civil Engineering and design firms: There will be no shortage of expertise needed to develop new housing within existing cities and county infrastructure.

Regional planning organizations and MPOs: Federal reporting requirements flow through regional bodies. MPOs and councils of government will play a coordination role in aggregating permit data across jurisdictions.

---

Key Takeaways

Whatever comes out of reconciliation would remove the friction that stops houses from being built. For companies selling into the public sector -- permitting platforms, planning consultants, grant management tools, community development and infrastructure asset management software -- this is a market-making moment.

The jurisdictions that move first on modernization will attract both the federal dollars and the development activity. The ones that wait will fall further behind.

‍