Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE)
Permanent Housing Affordability Act
A Democratic bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Permanent Housing Affordability Act aims to increase the supply of permanently affordable owner-occupied housing through shared equity models. It establishes a fund to provide low-interest construction loans to eligible entities through state agencies and certified financial institutions. The bill also creates a grant pilot program for purchasing land and existing properties to develop affordable homes. Additionally, it funds research, public awareness campaigns, and outreach regarding community land trusts. Finally, the act allows the government to convey surplus real property to shared equity models at a discounted rate.
Yes· 3 of 37
- Scored +10
Does this make housing cost less?
Directly creates and preserves permanently affordable owner-occupied housing via shared equity models.
- Scored +9
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Specifically targets those at or below 80-120% AMI for affordable homeownership.
- Scored +7
Would Black Americans be better off under this?
Directly addresses redlining and historical displacement through prioritized funding.
The opposite· 3 of 6
- Scored -3
Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this?
Reduces the potential for high-yield speculative real estate investment in these properties.
- Scored -3
Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this?
Shared equity models explicitly limit the profit potential for high-wealth speculators.
- Scored -3
Would billionaires be better off under this?
Resale restrictions prevent the typical high-profit flipping associated with high-wealth real estate portfolios.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Low-Interest Funding for Housing: The bill provides for low-interest construction loans with interest rates not exceeding 3 percent and origination fees capped at 1 percent, which can lower the cost of building affordable homes (Section 3(c)(2)).
-
Targeted Assistance for At-Risk Areas: Loan priority is given to projects in areas with high cost burdens, redlining, or where people face displacement due to rising costs (Section 3(c)(4)).
-
Increased Homeownership for Low-Income Households: The bill ensures that homes developed through the pilot program are sold to households earning 80 percent or less of the area median income, or 120 percent in rural areas (Section 4(d)(3)).
-
Discounted Land for Affordable Housing: The government can convey surplus real property to community land trusts at a discount of at least 75 percent of the market value (Section 6(a)(3)(B)).
-
Public Education and Support: The bill funds public awareness campaigns and technical assistance to help potential homebuyers and the financial sector understand shared equity models (Section 5(b) and 5(c)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Resale Value Restrictions: Homeowners in these programs must sell their properties at a below-market value determined by a resale formula, which limits the equity they can build (Section 3(e)(2) and Section 2(7)(B)).
-
Strict Income Limits: Only "qualified homebuyers" with a household income not more than 120 percent of the area median income can purchase these properties, excluding those who earn above this threshold (Section 2(5)).
-
Long-Term Affordability Requirements: Properties are subject to affordability terms of at least 99 years, or the maximum permitted by state law, which places long-term restrictions on the property (Section 2(7)(A)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Specifically targets those at or below 80-120% AMI for affordable homeownership. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Directly addresses redlining and historical displacement through prioritized funding. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Increases affordable homeownership opportunities for demographics often burdened by high housing costs. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Explicitly includes rural areas with higher income eligibility thresholds. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Focuses on high-cost burden urban areas and those at risk of displacement. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Creates a pathway to homeownership for first-time buyers who are priced out of the traditional market. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Increases availability of affordable housing in high-cost urban areas. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Includes Tribal governments as eligible entities for research and capacity building. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Increases affordable housing stock in areas where immigrant populations often reside. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Beneficial for those on the lower end of the middle class who struggle with high housing costs. Would union members be better off under this? — Increases demand for construction labor and rehabilitation projects. Would children be better off under this? — Provides more stable and affordable housing for families with children. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — Provides more accessible pathways to homeownership for marginalized groups. Would men be better off under this? — Increases housing options and construction employment. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Helps those in the low-to-moderate income bracket secure permanent housing. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Increases affordable housing stock, though not explicitly targeting accessibility. Would retired people be better off under this? — Increases availability of low-cost permanent housing options. Would students be better off under this? — Creates future homeownership options for students entering the workforce. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Increases the overall stock of affordable housing available to veterans. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Benefits low-income white households through increased affordable housing supply. Would women be better off under this? — Supports affordable homeownership, which historically benefits female-headed households. Would business owners be better off under this? — Benefits construction and development firms involved in affordable housing. Would farmers be better off under this? — Provides rural-specific housing affordability measures. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Increases the availability of affordable options that can be used for aging in place. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Resale restrictions prevent the typical high-profit flipping associated with high-wealth real estate portfolios. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Reduces the potential for high-yield speculative real estate investment in these properties. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Shared equity models explicitly limit the profit potential for high-wealth speculators. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Provides no benefit and utilizes public funds that could otherwise be used elsewhere.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — Directly creates and preserves permanently affordable owner-occupied housing via shared equity models. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Prioritizes funding for areas affected by redlining and systemic displacement. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Reduces the cost burden of housing for low-income households, freeing up resources for other needs. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Increases the supply of affordable housing, which is a critical component in preventing and reducing homelessness.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Provides specific funding and higher income eligibility thresholds for affordable housing in rural areas. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Allows for the efficient repurposing of surplus federal real property for community benefit.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — Funding for construction and rehabilitation of housing creates immediate jobs in the building trades. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Stimulates the construction sector and increases homeownership for low-income families. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Provides low-interest construction loans that can benefit smaller eligible developers and nonprofits. Is this likely to slow the rise in prices? — Increasing the supply of affordable housing may help mitigate long-term housing price inflation. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Allocates hundreds of millions in new funding for housing grants and research. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill authorizes new government spending for grants and loan funds.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Expands federal oversight and funding mechanisms for housing models. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires detailed reporting to Congress on the use of funds and number of units created.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — Funds research into best practices for shared equity homeownership models.
- 3/26/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.