The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act in the Landscape
August 19, 2026
By: Caty Spiak
August 19, 2026
Introduction
In 1985, the median household income in the United States was $23,620. The median price of new houses at $84,300, or approximately 3.6 times the median income. Since 1985, this ratio has climbed. In 2024, the median household income in America reached $78,171, with a median home value of $420,800, 5.3 times the median household income. This jump in home prices has placed homeownership out of reach for many Americans, especially those with lower incomes or student loan debt.
It is no secret that the United States is suffering from a housing crisis. Congress has argued that the crisis is a supply problem and that by increasing supply, housing prices should stabilize in the long run. So, Congress has united behind the bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act to combat the housing crisis in America by increasing housing supply and lowering housing costs. The Act passed 85-5 in the Senate and 358-32 in the House, reflecting overwhelming support from both parties. As one of the largest housing reforms in decades, the Act was drafted to address the housing supply shortage by removing barriers that slow construction and inflate costs, which create the shortage.
Key Provisions
The Act, through its exemptions from federal environmental review, delegation of review authority to subnational governments, higher financing limits, changes to manufactured housing rules, and reauthorization and disaster recovery program funding, is intended to remove barriers to housing construction and homeownership.
Two provisions worth noting are Section 103 and 504. The former provides many exemptions from federal environmental review requirements on infill sites; however, land designated as “high-risk for wildfire, coastal flooding, and riverine flooding” is excluded from these exemptions. Instead, high-risk land must follow the standard review process. This carve-out shows that Congress is aware of the risk that streamlined review presents in hazard-prone areas.
Section 504 resolves the “valley of death” period between the time displaced families receive aid from FEMA and the time they receive Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This section creates the Office of Disaster Management and Resiliency at HUD, which coordinates preparedness, mitigation, and response strategy with FEMA and other recovery partners. In addition, it establishes the Long-Term Disaster Recovery Fund to finance post-disaster recovery. This is notable because CDBG-DR funding previously had to be reauthorized by Congress following every disaster. A permanent structure and fund will allow relief to be distributed much more quickly and efficiently. Nevertheless, the Act could have potential negative externalities. It does not consider environmental hazards, which is worrisome as siting determines long-term affordability through exposure to hazards and commensurate insurance prices.
The Insurance Gap
The Act does not address or amend any issues related to homeowners’ insurance or the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Without addressing building standards or resilience in hazard areas, the question of long term insurability and affordability could undermine long term housing goals. This is particularly concerning for coastal communities, where a private homeowners insurance crisis is already being driven by wind-vulnerable housing. Instead, the Act has an indirect effect on insurance. Under federal law, any federally backed loan requires the borrower to maintain flood insurance on property located in any designated Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Section 211 increases the limit of FHA multifamily loans, and Section 303 expands FHA manufactured home loan limits. Similarly, Section 504’s framework and recovery fund are likely to expand NFIP’s reach by directing more SFHA households through the CDBG-DR process. Not all properties possess flood insurance, but under the Stafford Act, households that receive federal disaster aid for flood-related damage in an SFHA must maintain flood insurance to be eligible for future aid. As Section 504 speeds more households through this process, it will be important to see whether FEMA flood maps are updated. This outcome relies on the NFIP’s statutory authority, which is up for reauthorization in September, around the same time as when the Act will be implemented. Should the NFIP’s authorization lapse or diminish, thousands of homeowners and renters would be affected.
The Hidden Cost of Cheap Land
The acknowledgement of the risks associated with streamlining environmental review in Section 103 is not held consistently throughout the Act. Sections 205 and 206 include expansions on streamlined review, without similar exemptions. While Section 206 outlines that projects that fundamentally disrupt the environment cannot qualify to bypass NEPA environmental review, there are no clear guidelines for this. Section 205 shifts review authority from federal agencies to state and local governments, raising concerns that housing projects will not receive careful examination of floodplain management and that local review agencies will face pressure to approve low-cost, high-risk land. This ignores why land is inexpensive, as the risk of its location in low-lying or floodplain sites has been priced in.
Programs set in Section 208’s Innovation Fund and Section 213’s Build Now Act motivate localities wanting grant money to produce homes as quickly as possible without consideration for future consequences. Despite lower construction costs, failure to invest in resilient, long-term housing and disaster policy will force these homes to incur recurring costs due to their increased flood claims, repeated disaster aid, and skyrocketing insurance rates in the event of a disaster, all of which will outweigh the initial savings.
Manufactured Homes
Among the Act’s strategies for lowering housing costs, a provision overlooked is its handling of manufactured homes. Section 301, the Housing Supply Expansion Act, eliminates the requirement for manufactured homes to be built on a permanent chassis, removing an expensive structural component and allowing manufacturers to lower costs. The issue is that manufactured homes pose a high wind risk, especially in Louisiana, Florida, and other coastal communities. Removing the chassis does not address this risk and makes manufactured homes lighter and easier to produce. In addition, removal of the chassis requirement enables manufactured homes to be built with basements, which are among the most dangerous features homes can have in a flood zone, and a disproportionate number of manufactured homes are concentrated in these areas.
The real problem isn’t the chassis. With no existing federal standards to regulating where manufactured homes can be sited in flood-prone areas or addressing the wind vulnerability risks that manufactured homes already face, decisions like these are left to local jurisdictions, whose floodplain and building codes vary greatly in quality and enforcement.
An Unfinished Effort(?)
While nothing in the Act directly encourages risky housing development, expedited reviews and approvals to increase housing supply can create perverse incentives to build in floodplains and coastal areas. This does not undermine the Act’s significance; by removing barriers to housing construction and homeownership, the Act is likely to increase housing supply at a lower cost. Still, improvements could be made with additional measures. For example, establishing federal standards for manufactured homes would address the shortfall of Section 301’s chassis removal. Additionally, FEMA’s flood and wildfire risk maps are severely outdated, with many coverage gaps. Section 103’s exclusion for high-risk land only works if risk mapping is up to speed, reflecting a need for updated risk mapping to ensure reviews are not waived in places that are far riskier than they may appear.