For A Housing Fix, Look To The Laboratories We Know As States

Authored by Edward Pinto via RealClearMarkets,

Federal housing policy is afflicted by several shortcomings—it is expensive, outdated, and inflexible. The states, free from these restrictions, have begun experimenting with tailored approaches. Congress should take note.

In 1932 Justice Brandeis observed that “one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” By its nature, the states as laboratories do not suffer from the shortcomings that afflict Congress's efforts. 

Federal policy is unsuccessful because it is top-down, one-size fits all. Once Congress passes legislation, it tends not revisit it for decades. And, it is incredibly expensive. A recent subsidized development in a suburb of Los Angeles cost $159 million—nearly $800,000 per unit—to develop a 200-unit residential complex, with $117 million in direct subsidies and $31 million in subsidized financing.  The agency responsible called it a typical cost per unit for Los Angeles County. 

The states are working on a simpler solution: allow owners and builders to build housing that is more affordable. Research has shown that policies allowing smaller lots increase both supply and improve affordability. They reduce land costs, result in smaller, but still family-sized homes, and allow townhomes, which cost less to build than similarly sized detached homes.   

The good news is that dozens of states are considering legislation that does just that. In recent years, California, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Oregon, Rhode Island Texas, Vermont, and Washington have already implemented experiments in giving markets the flexibility to build lower cost, starter homes. And the process of getting it right is ongoing. Since its initial passage in 2023, the Florida legislature has revisited its Live Local Act three times to address shortcomings or expand applicability. 

This stream of experimentation turned into a torrent in 2026, with twenty-five legislatures considering at least 41 bills. Idaho and Washington have already seen two bills enacted into law, while Florida, Indiana, and Maryland tried, but failed on three more. While each of these efforts tailors solutions to each state’s needs, they share three common themes: lot size flexibilities in new residential subdivisions, home dwelling type and lot split flexibilities on existing lots, residential overlays in commercial zones. Flexibilities that follow the KISS principle (keep it short and simple) are best positioned to succeed, thereby promoting a virtuous cycle of continuous improvement.

Congress should embrace this state-led trend by providing financial incentives to states that pay for actual results. Congress could pay states incentives based on the number of additional small lot homes built in new residential subdivisions, or additional homes using dwelling type and lot split flexibilities on existing lots, or extra homes built because of new residential overlays in commercial zones.

Today, the federal government spends about $100 billion per year on the Department of Housing and Urban Development and various housing subsidies. Less than ten percent of this total—about $9 billion per year—would result in 240,000 additional homes for a one-time payment per added home of less than $40,000. Consider that President Trump recently announced his 2027 HUD budget, which calls for a $10.7 billion reduction.

Congress should seize the opportunity to replace ineffective policies with performance-based incentive payments to the states.

Edward J. Pinto is a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and Co-Director of its Housing Center.