Policy adviser briefs Anchorage legislative committee on new 21st Century Road to Housing Act

Joel Herbermann, a policy adviser at the national law firm Brownstein, told the Anchorage Legislative Committee that the 21st Century Road to Housing Act became law on July 10 without the president's signature and that the focus now turns to federal implementation.

Herbermann outlined how both congressional chambers shaped the final package, saying the Senate approved the bill 85–5 and the House 358–32. He said the final measure removed a controversial requirement that large institutional investors divest certain build‑to‑rent homes after seven years and preserved several community‑banking provisions. “The 21st Century Road to Housing Act, which became law last month,” Herbermann said in opening his presentation.

Why it matters: the statute contains dozens of operative provisions and directs the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to issue numerous guidance documents and, in some cases, formal rulemakings. Herbermann said the bill contained 59 named provisions and that HUD will have to set up more than 100 guidance, rulemaking or administrative items to implement the package. He highlighted items that may be relevant to Anchorage, including adjustments to Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) shares tied to local housing growth, a publicly owned‑land database requirement, and several pilot grant programs for planning and housing innovation.

On CDBG and the Build Now Act, Herbermann said HUD will calculate growth rates and issue guidance soon: “By September they’re gonna be issuing guidance on growth rates for each CDBG,” he said, and the CDBG adjustments tied to housing growth would begin to affect allocations three fiscal years after enactment (Herbermann described FY2029 as the first program year affected). Member Anna Brawley pressed on how that mechanism might affect jurisdictions with constrained building markets, asking whether Anchorage could be penalized despite local barriers to new construction: “Are we gonna get punished for trying but not seeing the volume that we would see in Columbus, Ohio or in a city in Texas?”

Herbermann urged local engagement during the rulemaking and guidance processes, noting some provisions may proceed quickly while others require lengthy administrative steps under the Administrative Procedure Act. He also said the single‑family institutional‑investor provision (the section that drew significant debate) is made effective six months after enactment and could generate legal challenges from investors; he added he was not aware of litigation aimed at municipalities at this point.

The committee chair and mayoral staff thanked Herbermann for the briefing and said municipal staff will coordinate with the congressional delegation and professional organizations (for example, the American Planning Association and National League of Cities) during HUD's implementation process. The presentation sets the stage for staff to track HUD guidance this fall and for the committee to decide whether to submit formal comments during any rulemaking or notice periods.