Tag: Build-to-Rent (BTR)

New GAO Data, Rising Cost Pressures Undercut Case for Build-to-Rent Restrictions

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

As the Senate-passed 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act awaits House action, new federal data and rising development cost estimates are reinforcing a key point in the housing debate: affordability challenges are driven by supply constraints, and federal policy should not make it harder or more expensive to build. (Washington Post, April 6)

What the Data Shows

  • At the center of the debate is Section 901, which would force large institutional investors to sell certain newly built single-family rental homes after seven years—a provision that could undermine build-to-rent housing and reduce supply. (Roundtable Weekly, April 3)
  • A new GAO report found that institutional investor ownership of single-family rental homes increased in six metro areas from 2018 to 2024, but still accounted for a very small share of all single-family homes in those markets—ranging from less than 1 percent to 3 percent. (GAO Report, March 24 | Highlights, March 24)
  • The findings add new weight to the argument that institutional ownership is not the main driver of the nation’s affordability challenges.
  • The Washington Post noted this week that forcing build-to-rent homes to be sold within seven years would weaken a fast-growing source of new single-family housing. (Washington Post, April 6)
  • A separate February report from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) reached a similar conclusion, finding that institutional investors own less than 1 percent of all single-family homes nationwide and account for less than 2 percent of all home purchases, and concluding that the broader affordability problem is rooted in supply-demand imbalances rather than investor concentration. (Progressive Policy Institute, February 2026)
  • The reports undercut the argument that restricting institutional investment is likely to meaningfully improve affordability, particularly when housing shortages, financing costs, regulatory barriers, and construction expenses remain the primary constraints on supply.

Market Impact

  • As Barron’s reported this week, Section 901’s proposed restrictions on institutional investors are already having a chilling effect on investments in single-family housing, with investment managers indicating that pension funds and other large investors may pause or reconsider deals until there is greater clarity around housing policy. (Barron’s, April 7)
  • Research from John Burns Research & Consulting suggests the Senate bill has “already paralyzed” the build-to-rent development industry, with new development slowing and capital “now frozen,” impacting project viability “from day one, not just in seven years.” (Barron’s, April 7)

Tariffs & Construction Costs

  • A new Cushman & Wakefield report found that tariff rates in effect as of April 7 would raise construction materials costs by 6.0 percent relative to a 2024 baseline and increase total project costs by roughly 3.0 percent, adding more pressure to housing and commercial real estate development. (Cushman & Wakefield, April 8)

RER & Industry Advocacy

  • RER and broad housing coalitions have consistently emphasized that housing affordability is driven by supply shortages, construction costs, and mortgage rates—not institutional ownership levels—and that restricting institutional capital would only make it harder to meet the nation’s growing housing needs. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9 | Jan. 16 | Jan. 23 | Feb. 27 | March 6 | March 13 | March 20 | March 27 | April 3) (Letter, March 5 | Letter, March 13)
  • Research continues to show that restricting institutional capital is unlikely to improve affordability and could create new supply constraints. The PPI report, for example, notes that build-to-rent development is becoming an increasingly important source of new housing supply. (Progressive Policy Institute, February 2026)

What’s Next

  • Congress returns next week with a robust agenda. The Senate is set to return April 13 and the House on April 14, with unresolved DHS funding, a possible new reconciliation push, and the administration’s budget request all competing for floor time and political attention.
  • That packed schedule could make it harder for housing legislation to advance quickly.

The Senate-passed ROAD to Housing Act and broader housing policy will be a major focus at the upcoming Spring Roundtable Meeting April 20-21 in Washington, D.C. (Roundtable-level members only).

Research Continues to Reinforce Case Against Build-to-Rent Provision in Housing Bill

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

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

  • 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.

House Weighs Next Move on ROAD to Housing Act

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

The bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act remains in limbo in the House, where lawmakers are still weighing how to reconcile the Senate-passed package with the chamber’s own housing bill. The Senate approved its version two weeks ago after combining House priorities with the upper chamber’s broader housing agenda, but House members have raised concerns about several provisions added or revised in the Senate package—most notably the bill’s treatment of build-to-rent (BTR) housing.

State of Play

  • The House and Senate remain at odds over how to advance the housing package after the Senate passed its bill with overwhelming bipartisan support earlier this month. (PoliticoPro, Mar. 23)
  • House Financial Services Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-CA) urged House Democrats this week to support a formal conference committee, arguing that the final bill should restore House priorities and address stakeholder concerns—an apparent reference to the Senate bill’s restrictions on large institutional investors in single-family housing.
  • Rep. Mike Flood (R-NE) said Wednesday that Senate Banking and House Financial Services leaders need to meet to resolve key differences between the two packages.
  • Rep. Flood identified three major House concerns with the Senate bill: the need to preserve but revise the provision restricting institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes, the omission of environmental review changes for certain affordable housing programs, and the Senate’s inclusion of a temporary rather than permanent restriction on a Federal Reserve central bank digital currency. (PoliticoPro | Watch Rep. Flood Remarks, Mar. 25)

Build-to-Rent

  • The biggest sticking point remains the Senate bill’s requirement that rental homes developed by large investors be sold to individual homebuyers after seven years. (The Urban Institute, Mar. 17)
  • House Republicans have raised concerns that the provision could undercut new rental housing production, disrupt financing, and introduce significant long-term uncertainty into the market.
  • The Real Estate Roundtable (RER) has warned that the bill’s forced-sale structure raises serious constitutional concerns and could trigger years of litigation involving property owners, tenants, and the federal government.

New BTR Research

  • Based on a March 19 discussion with 146 BTR executives, developers, and capital partners, the firm reported this week that the Senate bill’s seven-year disposal requirement has already frozen capital and halted new development ahead of enactment. Some capital will not return even if the bill is altered, reflecting ongoing concerns about future policy risk. (John Burns Research & Consulting, Mar. 24)

RER Advocacy

  • RER and a broad real estate coalition have spent weeks urging lawmakers to preserve the housing bill’s supply-focused provisions while removing language that would force large investors to sell newly built single-family rental homes after seven years. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9 | Jan. 16 |  Jan. 23 | Feb. 27| Mar. 6 | Mar. 13 | Mar. 20)
  • In March, RER joined a series of coalition letters urging senators to remove or revise Section 901, warning that the seven-year sale requirement would effectively eliminate the production of BTR housing. (Roundtable Weekly, Mar. 20) (Letter, Mar. 5 | Letter, Mar. 13)
  • That message was reinforced again this week in an open letter from housing policy researchers, who warned that the Senate-passed ROAD to Housing Act would undermine BTR housing, which represents a growing source of new supply in markets where housing is already out of reach for many households. (Letter, Mar. 26)
  • The researchers said BTR has helped expand the housing stock, particularly for middle-income renters seeking single-family-style housing, and cautioned that the bill’s seven-year sale mandate would disrupt the model’s economics and reduce future production.
  • The letter also noted that many BTR communities are not structured to be sold off unit-by-unit, making the requirement especially problematic in practice.

What’s Next

  • The House and Senate are out on recess and do not return to Washington until April 14, leaving the future of the broader housing package uncertain. (NYT, Mar. 25)

Whether lawmakers pursue a formal conference or a narrower compromise, RER will continue urging Congress to preserve the bill’s pro-supply provisions while removing language that would reduce rental-housing production and make it more difficult to meet the nation’s growing housing needs.

House Weighs Next Steps on ROAD to Housing Act as White House Issues Housing Executive Orders

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

The Senate’s overwhelming passage of the bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act last week has shifted attention to the House, where lawmakers are weighing how to reconcile the Senate bill with the House-passed housing package approved in February.  (PoliticoPro, March 17 | Politico, March 19)

State of Play

  • The House and Senate remain at odds over how to advance the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, with House Republicans threatening a formal conference to force negotiations while Senate leaders hope the House will ultimately accept the Senate-passed bill.
  • The Senate passed the bill 89-10 on March 12. They then sent it back to the House, which had already passed its own bipartisan housing package—the Housing for the 21st Century Act—by 390-9 on February 9.
  • The Senate-passed bill preserves much of the prior ROAD to Housing bill’s framework and includes several provisions intended to boost housing supply.
  • The Senate version also includes Section 901, which would restrict additional single-family home acquisitions by institutional investors that directly or indirectly own at least 350 homes and require owners to sell build-to-rent (BTR) homes within seven years or face an onerous penalty. The Section also provides unusually broad regulatory authority to the Treasury Department to address “market disruptions” and other situations that could create troubling future regulatory actions. (Roundtable Weekly, March 13 | Forbes, March 17)
  • House Financial Services Chairman French Hill (R-AR) told CNBC’s Squawk Box he is optimistic the House and Senate can work through differences in their housing bills, but stressed that the Senate text contains “some real problems” that need to be corrected. He pointed specifically to the build-to-rent provision requiring homes to be sold within seven years, which he said would undermine efforts to increase housing supply. (Watch Squawk Box CNBC, March 18)

Executive Orders – Housing

  • President Trump issued two executive orders aimed at boosting housing construction and expanding mortgage access, as the House and Senate work through differences over the ROAD Act. (EO Construction | EO Mortgage, March 13)
  • The administration said the orders are intended to reduce regulatory burdens, increase supply, and improve credit access for qualified borrowers. (WSJ, March 13)
  • The construction order, “Removing Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Home Construction,” directs federal agencies to revise or eliminate requirements related to environmental reviews, energy conservation standards for manufactured and federally financed housing, and historic preservation, while directing HUD and the White House Domestic Policy Council to develop best practices for state and local governments to increase housing supply and affordability. (EO Construction, Mar. 13)
  • The mortgage order, “Promoting Access to Mortgage Credit,” is intended to expand access to mortgage credit, particularly through community banks and smaller lenders. (EO Mortgage, March 13)
  • The EOs reinforce the administration’s broader housing message and overlap with parts of both congressional bills focused on cutting red tape, supporting community banks, and expanding supply. (PoliticoPro, March 13)

RER & Industry Advocacy

  • In March, RER joined a series of coalition letters urging senators to remove or revise Section 901, warning that the seven-year sale requirement would effectively eliminate the production of BTR housing. (BisNow, March 12) (Letter, March 5 | Letter, March 13)
  • Last week, RER President and CEO Jeffrey D. DeBoer sent senators an analysis warning that the bill’s forced-sale provision raises serious constitutional concerns and would likely trigger years of litigation. (RER Analysis, March 10)
  • DeBoer stated, “RER supports many provisions in the Senate-passed 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act that would help expand housing supply and reduce barriers to homeownership. But the bill’s forced-disposition provision for build-to-rent would discourage investment in new rental housing and raise serious constitutional concerns. As the House takes up the bill, RER urges lawmakers to remove that language and keep the focus on increasing housing supply and affordability. (NMHC & NAA Statement | NAHB Statement, March 12)

RER will continue urging lawmakers to preserve the bill’s pro-supply provisions while removing language that would reduce rental housing production and chill the capital formation needed to address the nation’s housing shortage.