[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 41 (Monday, March 2, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H1430-H1432]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1730
                         YES IN MY BACKYARD ACT

  Mr. SAN NICOLAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 4351) to require certain grantees under title I of the 
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to submit a plan to track 
discriminatory land use policies, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

[[Page H1431]]

  


                               H.R. 4351

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Yes In My Backyard Act''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to discourage the use of 
     discriminatory land use policies and remove barriers to 
     making housing more affordable in order to further the 
     original intent of the Community Development Block Grant 
     program.

     SEC. 3. LAND USE PLAN.

       (a) In General.--Section 104 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5304) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(n) Plan To Track Discriminatory Land Use Policies.--
       ``(1) In general.--Prior to receipt in any fiscal year of a 
     grant from the Secretary under subsection (b), (d)(1), or 
     (d)(2)(B) of section 106, each recipient shall have prepared 
     and submitted, not less frequently than once during the 
     preceding 5-year period, in accordance with this subsection 
     and in such standardized form as the Secretary shall, by 
     regulation, prescribe, with respect to each land use policy 
     described in paragraph (2) that is applicable to the 
     jurisdiction served by the recipient, a description of--
       ``(A) whether the recipient has already adopted the policy 
     in the jurisdiction served by the recipient;
       ``(B) the plan of the recipient to implement the policy in 
     that jurisdiction; or
       ``(C) the ways in which adopting the policy will benefit 
     the jurisdiction.
       ``(2) Land use policies.--The policies described in this 
     paragraph are as follows:
       ``(A) Enacting high-density single-family and multifamily 
     zoning.
       ``(B) Expanding by-right multifamily zoned areas.
       ``(C) Allowing duplexes, triplexes, or fourplexes in areas 
     zoned primarily for single-family residential homes.
       ``(D) Allowing manufactured homes in areas zoned primarily 
     for single-family residential homes.
       ``(E) Allowing multifamily development in retail, office, 
     and light manufacturing zones.
       ``(F) Allowing single-room occupancy development wherever 
     multifamily housing is allowed.
       ``(G) Reducing minimum lot size.
       ``(H) Ensuring historic preservation requirements and other 
     land use policies or requirements are coordinated to 
     encourage creation of housing in historic buildings and 
     historic districts.
       ``(I) Increasing the allowable floor area ratio in 
     multifamily housing areas.
       ``(J) Creating transit-oriented development zones.
       ``(K) Streamlining or shortening permitting processes and 
     timelines, including through one-stop and parallel-process 
     permitting.
       ``(L) Eliminating or reducing off-street parking 
     requirements.
       ``(M) Ensuring impact and utility investment fees 
     accurately reflect required infrastructure needs and related 
     impacts on housing affordability are otherwise mitigated.
       ``(N) Allowing prefabricated construction.
       ``(O) Reducing or eliminating minimum unit square footage 
     requirements.
       ``(P) Allowing the conversion of office units to 
     apartments.
       ``(Q) Allowing the subdivision of single-family homes into 
     duplexes.
       ``(R) Allowing accessory dwelling units, including detached 
     accessory dwelling units, on all lots with single-family 
     homes.
       ``(S) Establishing density bonuses.
       ``(T) Eliminating or relaxing residential property height 
     limitations.
       ``(U) Using property tax abatements to enable higher 
     density and mixed-income communities.
       ``(V) Donating vacant land for affordable housing 
     development.
       ``(3) Effect of submission.--A submission under this 
     subsection shall not be binding with respect to the use or 
     distribution of amounts received under section 106.
       ``(4) Acceptance or nonacceptance of plan.--The acceptance 
     or nonacceptance of any plan submitted under this subsection 
     in which the information required under this subsection is 
     provided is not an endorsement or approval of the plan, 
     policies, or methodologies, or lack thereof.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The requirements under subsection (n) 
     of section 104 of the Housing and Community Development Act 
     of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5304), as added by subsection (a), shall--
       (1) take effect on the date that is 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this Act; and
       (2) apply to recipients of a grant under subsection (b), 
     (d)(1), or (d)(2)(B) of section 106 of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5306) before, 
     on, and after such date.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Guam (Mr. San Nicolas) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Guam.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SAN NICOLAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material 
thereon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Guam?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SAN NICOLAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 4351, the Yes In My Backyard Act. 
This bill would encourage localities to responsibly reduce barriers to 
housing development by requiring Community Development Block Grant, 
CDBG, recipients to track and report on the implementation of certain 
land use policies that promote housing development.
  The United States is in the midst of an affordable housing crisis. 
According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the U.S. has a 
shortage of 7 million rental homes that are affordable and available to 
extremely low-income renters.
  The research organization Up for Growth estimates that, from 2000 to 
2015, the country underproduced housing by 7.3 million units. This 
underproduction is, in many ways, driven by land use policies that 
create artificial barriers to much-needed housing.
  This bill will also help shine a light on potentially discriminatory 
land use policies that unnecessarily prevent affordable housing 
development in certain neighborhoods.
  It is clear, based on the broad base of industry and advocate support 
for this bill, as well as the bipartisan support, that there is 
substantial agreement on the need to facilitate more affordable housing 
production across the country as well as the need to responsibly reduce 
barriers to affordable housing production.
  H.R. 4351, the Yes In My Backyard Act, represents a step in the right 
direction as we seek to address the affordable housing challenges that 
our country faces.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Heck for introducing this timely 
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in support of H.R. 4351. This bipartisan legislation would 
require localities to analyze the artificial barriers that local zoning 
requirements create that hinder the production of affordable housing.
  Republicans agree with our friends across the aisle that the cost of 
local zoning rules and regulations at all levels of government often 
contribute to the high cost of housing. In fact, according to the 
National Association of Home Builders and the National Multifamily 
Housing Council, up to 30 percent of the cost of building each unit of 
housing can be attributed to these barriers.
  The impact of local zoning and regulatory barriers is particularly 
apparent in high-cost areas, particularly on the East and West Coasts 
of this land, where zoning and regulatory costs can be upward of 50 
percent of a total project's cost before it even breaks ground.
  Mr. Daryl Carter, founder, chairman, and CEO of Avanath Capital 
Management, outlined some of these zoning barriers on behalf of the 
National Multifamily Housing Council when he testified before the 
Financial Services Committee in April 2019. Examples include onerous 
and extended entitlement requirements, excessive impact and linkage 
fees, business license taxes, assessment and inspection fees, outdated 
minimum parking requirements, and lengthy environmental site 
assessments.
  These costs prevent sufficient numbers of new housing units from 
being built to satisfy demand, driving up housing prices and making 
housing even more unaffordable.
  It is important to reiterate that this bill doesn't punish 
communities or insert the Federal Government into any local zoning 
matters. All it does is requests localities that receive Federal 
community development funds to report on the policies that they have in 
place.
  This legislation is a good first step in assisting Congress to better 
understand these local barriers to constructing new affordable housing.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H1432]]

  

  Mr. SAN NICOLAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), the sponsor of this 
important legislation.
  Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, I do, in fact, rise in support of H.R. 4351, 
the Yes In My Backyard, or YIMBY, Act. I thank the gentleman from Guam 
(Mr. San Nicolas) as well as the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) for 
bringing this to the floor.
  Our Nation is, in fact, suffering from a severe national housing 
crisis, a word that is overused too much but, in fact, applies to the 
situation.
  We are indeed missing millions of homes to meet qualified and 
eligible demand in this country. The reference earlier was to 7.3 
million. Estimates range from 7 to 10 million homes.
  In my home State alone, to put that in perspective, Washington State, 
we are underproduced by 200,000 homes.
  The implications of not having enough homes, of a supply problem, are 
grave, because housing, it turns out, is an ecosystem. What we see now 
is this entire ecosystem is under stress, and as a consequence, the 
cost of shelter is going up for everyone.
  From homeowners to renters, market-rate to affordable homes, and 
urban to suburban and rural areas, this housing crisis has hit 
everyone.
  One place where it is particularly acute is the production of starter 
homes. Stop and think about what that does to the ecosystem. If we are 
not building starter homes because of some of the fees, as an example, 
or regulations that my friend from Arkansas alluded to, that means that 
people who are renting can't quite get that first rung on the ladder of 
homeownership. It also means that the boomers who are seeking to 
downsize can't find homes that they can purchase.

  What is the implication of that? If there are no starter homes, more 
people stay renting. If more people stay renting, occupancies go up. If 
occupancies go up, rents go up.
  It is pure supply and demand. More people become rent-burdened, and, 
yes, in fact, this is a contributory cause of increased homelessness 
even in America.
  How severe is this? Little known fact, but a fact nonetheless: In the 
last 15 years, the single largest increase in household budgets, 
counterintuitively, is not healthcare, not postsecondary education, but 
it is housing.
  I have been saying for years that we need to encourage the 
construction of more homes that Americans can afford. We need to build 
more homes of all types and sizes for all of our neighbors.
  Now, affordable housing advocates, economists, builders, lenders, and 
countless others have come together to try to begin to solve this 
problem, now a crisis, and there are a few common themes beginning to 
emerge from their research.
  One of these common themes is that certain zoning and land use 
policies are negatively impacting construction and affordable housing 
supply. Local governments regulate zoning and land use policy, and we 
shouldn't be doing that here. That is not what this bill is about.
  The fact of the matter is, communities experience different barriers 
to housing. One size doesn't fit all, so we shouldn't be getting into 
that business. But the impact of zoning and land use policies on 
housing are significant. As certain regulations have increased, they 
have resulted in fewer homes and unaffordable housing cost increases 
for everyone, the hardest hit being low-income people.
  Here is another fact. There is not a single county in the United 
States of America where somebody working full time at a minimum wage 
job can afford, according to Federal standards, a two-bedroom unit--not 
a single county in all of America.
  That is why I argue that we must have a better understanding of the 
impacts of these policies. Sunlight is, after all, the best 
disinfectant.
  Under the YIMBY Act, local governments receiving Federal housing 
funds through the Community Development Block Grant program, or CDBG, 
would report on whether they have enacted policies to reduce 
regulations that affect affordable housing supply.
  Let's be clear. There is nothing in this bill that will deny 
municipalities CDBG--nothing. Rather, the bill seeks simple 
transparency for these decisions. It encourages localities to eliminate 
housing barriers.
  I introduced the YIMBY Act with my friend, Congressman Hollingsworth 
from Indiana, and it did, in fact, pass out of the committee unopposed. 
But it is not only bipartisan. It enjoys an incredible spectrum of 
support among external stakeholders.
  I am not going to bore you with all 18 organizations, but everybody 
from the American Planning Association, to Habitat for Humanity, to the 
Mortgage Bankers Association all back this bill because it is time to 
take this step.
  Solving the housing crisis is going to require the work and 
collaboration of all levels of government. Everybody has a hand on the 
oar here, local, State, and Federal governments. This is no longer 
something that elected officials at any level can ignore, and that 
includes us.
  We have a national housing crisis, one that is brought on in part by 
zoning and land use policies. This YIMBY Act is a crucial first step to 
addressing these policies in order to bring down housing costs.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit it to the body for its favorable consideration, 
and I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the gentleman from 
Guam (Mr. San Nicolas), and the chair of the committee as well for 
their work bringing this to the floor today.
  Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to add my thanks to Congressman Heck and 
Congressman Hollingsworth for their leadership on this. It really draws 
attention to this issue. It is an issue that comes up before our 
committee so frequently, how we lower that cost of housing.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Washington also emphasizing 
first-time home buyers and that starter home buyer. It is so important.
  I am blessed in greater Little Rock to live in a place that is still 
pretty affordable, by national standards, to get that first home and 
get started in the right way.
  But I think, to look at it on a national basis, I really thank my 
friend from Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say, though, he is such a young and dynamic 
person, I have never thought of him as a boomer. This Congress will be 
a weaker place, a less happy place, because Denny Heck has decided to 
step down and return to hearth and home and another way after this 
Congress. I want to say here before his friends and our colleagues what 
a privilege it has been to serve with him for the past 5 years.
  I thank him for the leadership on this bill. I thank my friend from 
Guam for managing this effort.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAN NICOLAS. Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to thank Mr. Heck 
and Mr. Hollingsworth for their leadership on this important bipartisan 
bill, as well as Mr. Hill for managing this on the floor with me.
  This bill is a constructive next step to help reduce the barriers to 
producing affordable housing, and that is something that every American 
can get behind.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Clay). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Guam (Mr. San Nicolas) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4351, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________