As the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act remains in limbo in the House, new research is strengthening the case for removing the Senate bill’s build-to-rent (BTR) provision. The findings suggest the provision could curb housing supply without improving affordability.

State of Play

• At the center of the debate is Section 901, which would require newly built single-family rental homes developed by large institutional investors to be sold to after seven years. (Roundtable Weekly, March 27 | The Atlantic, March 30)

• Industry groups, researchers, and The Real Estate Roundtable (RER) warn that the mandate would disrupt a growing source of housing supply, raise serious constitutional concerns, and potentially trigger years of litigation involving property owners, tenants, and the federal government. (Roundtable Weekly, March 13 |  CNBC, March 29)

New BTR Research

• John Burns Research & Consulting reported last week that the Senate bill’s seven-year disposal requirement has already halted new development, sidelined capital, and found some investors may not return even if the bill is later revised. (John Burns Research & Consulting, March 24)

• Other recent studies are reinforcing concerns about the provision. A new AEI analysis found the bill’s investor restrictions could reduce supply and hurt lower-income families. (AEI study, March 27)

• An Urban Institute case study found that single-family rental investors have developed renovation and property-management capabilities that could help rehabilitate more homes and expand the supply of affordable housing. (Urban Institute Case Study, March 30)

Roundtable & Industry Advocacy

• RER and a broad real estate coalition have spent weeks urging lawmakers to preserve the bill’s pro-supply provisions while removing or revising Section 901, warning that the seven-year sale requirement would effectively eliminate build-to-rent housing production. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9 | Jan. 16 |  Jan. 23 | Feb. 27| March 6 | March 13 | March 20 | March 27) (Letter, March 5 | Letter, March 13)

• That case was reinforced again last week in an open letter from housing researchers, who said the mandate would undermine a growing source of supply and is especially unworkable because many BTR communities are not designed to be sold unit by unit. (Letter, Mar. 26 | MultifamilyDive, Mar. 31)

New Cost Pressures

• Rising aluminum prices are adding new strain to an already challenging development environment, pushing construction costs higher and threatening project viability.

• “The conflict in the Middle East is further driving up materials prices and making construction that much less affordable and many projects that much less financially viable,” said Anirban Basu, the chief economist for Associated Builders and Contractors. (PoliticoPro, March 27)

• The pressure comes on top of elevated rates, tariff uncertainty, and labor shortages that have already slowed homebuilding and weighed on new investment. (PoliticoPro, March 27)

What’s Next

• Congress is in recess until April 13, leaving the package’s next steps uncertain for now.

RER will continue urging Congress to protect the bill’s supply-focused provisions while removing language that would make it harder to build rental housing.