- Jay Parsons' Rental Housing Economics
- Posts
- Breaking Down the House's Housing Bill: Better than the Senate's, But Still Flawed
Breaking Down the House's Housing Bill: Better than the Senate's, But Still Flawed
Build-to-Rent and Renovate-to-Rent both get protected in long-awaited House bill
Jay Parsons
May 14, 2026
Takeaways and Implications from the House Bill
The U.S. House of Representatives released its long-awaited answer to the Senate’s much-maligned ROAD to [Less] Housing Act, and is planning a vote next week. The reaction so far has been very positive. Importantly, the House fully protects build-to-rent housing and most renovate-to-rent. And there’s a lot of good pro-supply measures in it outside of the SFR policies.
But the reaction is positive largely because of what it’s being compared to. The Senate’s bill was so destructive that it set an incredibly low bar: “It can’t get any worse than this” for development and investment into single-family rental homes housing families who can’t afford to buy or don’t want to buy. Had the House released this bill prior to January 7, the reaction would have been overwhelmingly negative. (January 7 was the date the President famously tweeted out the new mantra that “houses are for people, not corporations,” as if renters aren’t people.)
But the House bill still strongly favors wealthier homebuyers over less-wealthy renters, feeds off myths about investors, and sets up a number of Venus flytraps that could further disincentivize investment into scattered-site single-family rentals in particular, even if BTR would be “marked safe from regulatory overreach.”
But the comparison point is what it is: The Senate and White House want to force the House to accept the Senate’s bill, which is significantly worse for investors, developers and renters. The House bill is unquestionably more pro-supply in aggregate, shows better understanding of rental housing, shows more compassion for renters and also carves out more clearly defined exemptions for build-to-rent and renovate-to-rent.
Here are 10 highlights and takeaways (based on my reading of the House bill):
1) Investors can build or buy any type of new single-family rental housing – including build-to-rent homes in traditional for-sale subdivisions, as well as BTR communities.
Implication: Developers can build housing of all types without a forced disposition requirement (as the Senate bill would do). This would allow developers to build BTR homes (whether in a BTR community or not) and allow homebuilders to continue doing pre-sale agreements with SFR operators (which gives homebuilders more upfront capital to build more homes in total). It appears the bill would also exempt so-called “excess inventory” sales, though that is less explicit.
2) Renovate-to-rent lives on, too. Investors can buy and rent out homes needing substantial structural repairs, protecting homes that traditional homebuyers are unlikely to buy. Specifically, the bill exempts homes that do not meet local building codes for structural / core systems OR that do not meet standards to qualify for a conventional mortgage.
Implication: This is critical for all parties – renters, investors and home sellers. Urban Institute research has documented challenges for individual homebuyers to buy such homes, and how large investors often put in $30k+ in repairs after buying a house. The House bill much more narrowly defines this exception than the Senate did, and does not require a forced sale after seven years. There’s still some open-endedness about the language (i.e. what is “structural?”) and risk associated with that (fines of $1 million or 3x the home value), but the intent is clear.
3) There are a number of other allowable exceptions, including certain types of niche housing (manufactured homes, seniors, affordable, military). Additionally, large investors can buy homes from each other – protecting portfolio sales. And the bill also exempts BTR communities (platted on single parcel) and other types clustered rental homes (5+ contiguous rental units).
Implication: These are all common-sense scenarios that the Senate probably would have included too if it had taken the time to properly study the issues instead of rushing slopulist Section 901 to the floor. The House had the advantage of time – learning from the Senate’s mistakes – and these carve-outs would help avoid massive unintended consequences for housing specifically targeting certain types of households who aren’t homebuyers.
4) There’s also an exemption for pathway to homeownership programs. It’s a bit more detailed than the Senate’s version, but still vague. It includes requirements like rent reporting to credit bureaus, right of first refusal (allowing renter first dibs if home is put on market), and “meaningful” financial support for the renter to buy a house, though doesn’t define “meaningful.” The SFR operator can’t charge the renter a premium to be in a pathway to homeownership program (which would be tough to measure/monitor).
Implication: While it’s somewhat better defined than the Senate’s hurried version, it’s still a very open-ended potential Venus flytrap for investors depending on how federal regulators define it – and how those definitions evolve depending on who’s in office. Some of it is very good (i.e. rent reporting and first right of refusal), but the “meaningful” financial assistance should be better defined in the legislation. In practice, it’d be very difficult to create a program that offers truly “meaningful” financial assistance for homebuyers without charging any rent premium whatsoever, unless it’s for a very long-term renter.
5) Unlike the Senate bill, there’s no forced disposition requirement for any home built or legally acquired.
Implication: This is a huge win for renters especially, who previously faced a forced eviction after a certain period of time so that house could be sold to a (wealthier) homebuyer. It also boosts SFR operators, who would have to navigate the choppy waters of poorly defined exceptions to keep the house after seven years – or face massive fines. Clarity is good for all parties.
6) The bill requires investors with 350+ homes to report details of their portfolio to HUD every year starting in calendar year 2026. Investors must detail how many homes they own by city, except in cities where they own 10 or fewer homes.
Implication: This is already tracked by data providers, so it’s unlikely to be a real gamechanger. It’s not an actual federal registry of rental homes as some have called for, but it’s a step in that direction.
7) The bill orders HUD to create a renter “helpline” – a website and phone number for renters to report “disputes” with large investors. HUD must respond to complaints “promptly.” And SFR operators must prominently promote the helpline to renters.
Implication: This will get much bigger than legislators probably realize. The bill gives HUD a very broad mandate to jump into not only issues of federal law, but also state law AND – very broadly – “other disputed rental matters.” Then HUD must monitor and resolve those complaints. And while it’s supposed to be specific to renters leasing with large investors, it’ll likely be very difficult to maintain such a narrow scope given that it’d only be available to ~3% of single-family renters and closer to 1% of all renters. Inevitably, they’ll hear primarily from renters not covered under this bill. And, inevitably, conspiracy theorists will take those complaints and falsely assign blame to large investors.
8) It only impacts owners with investment control, not third-party fee managers. So groups that manage 350+ homes (but don’t own 350+) are exempted from the acquisition and reporting requirements. It only includes very specific definitions for what qualifies as a controlling interest, so it’s worth reading more in depth if unsure.
Implication: This is another critical, common sense point of clarity. Larger property managers often have resources mom-and-pops don’t have – such as in-house maintenance teams, 24-hour contact centers and resident apps for payments and other services.
9) It potentially allows federal regulators some leeway to avoid worst-case scenarios like what occurred in the Great Financial Crisis. Specifically, it allows federal agencies to “minimize disruptions upon identifying a risk of material negative impact on the housing market,” that impact homeowners’ ability to sell homes.
Implication: It’s not clear how this would work exactly, but presumably the bill’s authors wanted to avoid a scenario where home values crater (and homeowners’ equity gets crushed).
10) It maintains the Senate’s hefty fines for violations – $1 million or 3x the purchase price of the home.
Implication: That’s a massive fine far exceeding the investment upside of most homes, so every investor will undoubtedly put hefty investment into compliance. (Good time to be a compliance officer!) The real risk here is open-endedness (i.e. what is a “structural” repair in a renovate-to-rent exception). We’ve seen over-eager regulators in the past take a poorly defined issue and litigate like it’s a brazen black-and-white violation.
Two More Observations
a) Again: It’s still all about homebuyers over renters. The House says it very explicitly. “It is the sense of Congress that this section is intended to expand the number of single-family homes available to individuals for purchase and is aimed at preserving and expanding the supply of single-family homes available to individuals.”
b) The SFR portion is just one part of a much broader housing bill. The broader House bill is far more pro-supply than the Senate's version, and there’s a lot of good in it. A much superior bill overall, even if still imperfect. We'll see where this goes...
— My Latest Posts on LinkedIn —
Here are some recent posts if you missed them:
Apartment REIT execs expect to see rents start to rebound in coming months.
The apartment REITs offered up some good color on markets across the country, and it varies widely.
Affordability is widely viewed as a headwind, but it’s becoming more of a tailwind for market-rate apartments and SFR.
Reminder that there have always been fringe views among economists on rent control, but they’re just that.
EQR and AVB are reportedly discussing a potential merger.
Give “mainstream media” some credit for getting the facts out there on build-to-rent and institutional SFR investors.
While apartment completions are dropping off, there are still a LOT of active lease-ups trying to reach stabilized occupancy.
Encouraging sign: 76 members of Congress signed onto a letter opposing the ROAD to Housing’s limits on build-to-rent construction.
If you just trended 3.5% annualized rent growth from pre-COVID to today, you’d land right at today’s average effective rents in the Sun Belt and Mountain markets.
There’s suddenly very little pricing premium for apartments built in the 2020s compared to those built in the 2010s.
Apartment supply is falling especially hard in urban submarkets.
A former U.S. solicitor general published a paper concluding that the ROAD to Housing Act’s investor bans are "constitutionally flawed thrice over."
Aimco founder and multifamily legend Terry Considine is still at it.
— Now Spinning on The Rent Roll Podcast —
For 2025, The Rent Roll with Jay Parsons podcast ranked in Spotify’s top 2% of podcasts for minutes played and in the top 1% for most shared shows. Additionally, The Rent Roll continues to frequently rank on Apple’s charts for investing-themed podcasts, and was recently ranked as the third-best podcast in all commercial real estate (and #1 in housing) by the readers of CRE Daily!
Thank you to everyone who’s made The Rent Roll part of your weekly routine! New episodes are released every Thursday morning.
NEW Episode 84: 4 Takeaways from Q1’26 SFR REITs Earnings Calls with Zelman’s Jesse Lederman
Episode 83: 6 Takeaways from Q1’26 Apartment REITs Earnings Calls with Piper Sandler’s Alexander Goldfarb
Episode 82: Spring Leasing + PropTech Update with 20 for 20’s Dom Beveridge
Episode 81: Finding Under-Loved Markets with Bonaventure’s Dwight Dunton
Episode 80: Terry Considine Isn’t Done: The Multifamily Legend’s Next Act with Big 4’s Terry Considine
Episode 79: Q2 Multifamily Update & Outlook with Cushman & Wakefield’s Sam Tenenbaum
Episode 78: The Bizarre Push to Eliminate BTR with Quinn Residences’ Richard Ross and Up for Growth’s Mike Kingsella
Episode 77: Sub-Institutional Multifamily Update, with Adaptive Realty’s Moses Kagan and ReSeed Partners’ Rhett Bennett
Episode 76: Affordable Housing Isn’t What You Think with Dominium’s Nick Andersen
