Senate hearing spotlights local zoning and permitting as central barriers to new housing

WASHINGTON — Witnesses and senators at a Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing on March 19 emphasized that America’s housing crisis is driven primarily by constrained supply and local regulatory barriers, and they urged Congress to use federal incentives to encourage states and localities to permit more homes.

“The critical fact about America's cur current housing crisis is that it is driven by a lack of supply of new homes,” economist Edward Glaeser said during his testimony, arguing that limited building — not insufficient demand — explains sharply higher prices in many markets.

Glaeser and several senators said that restrictive local land-use rules and lengthy permitting processes have reduced construction nationwide. “Places in America that are expensive don't build a lot, and places that build a lot aren't expensive,” Glaeser said, pointing to research that ties stricter local regulation to higher home prices. He recommended using federal discretionary grants to reward states and counties that increase housing production in their most productive areas.

Mayor Eric Johnson of Dallas described local reforms his city pursued to speed development. He told senators that Dallas cut its median time to issue a residential building permit from 68 days in 2022 to eight days in 2024, a change he said required consolidating departments, reprioritizing staff and holding pre‑application meetings with developers.

“We have shown that reducing barriers to home building works,” Johnson said, adding that local leaders should be able to tailor approaches to their communities while Congress creates incentives or a “race” to build more housing.

Several senators and witnesses described “carrots and sticks” approaches: competitive federal grants or priority for transportation and infrastructure funding for states that permit more housing in high‑productivity counties, combined with penalties for jurisdictions that do not make measurable increases in housing starts. Glaeser cautioned such policies be tied to unit production rather than only to changes in regulations, which localities can modify without increasing housing output.

Witnesses also highlighted production methods that can lower costs and speed construction, including modular and manufactured housing and allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Glaeser said modular construction can be high‑quality and faster, and that “mass production is a critical path towards affordability.”

Why it matters: Witnesses framed the issue as national in scope because local decisions about zoning and permitting affect where private capital builds homes, with consequences for economic mobility, tax revenue and productivity. The committee discussed several legislative options to nudge localities and states to produce more housing rather than relying solely on federal demand‑side subsidies.

Looking ahead: Senators left the hearing expressing bipartisan interest in bills that combine incentives for building more homes with reforms to reduce permitting delays and local barriers. Committee members said they would pursue follow‑up legislation and oversight to align federal spending with efforts to boost housing supply.