Study compares housing costs and rules

Summary#

B26-0822, the Understanding the Cost of Housing Regulations Act of 2026, would create a new requirement; it does not amend an existing Act. Its stated goal is to help the District assess how housing rules affect development costs and delays and recommend ways to reduce them. The bill is introduced and has not become law.

  • The Mayor must procure an independent third-party study comparing District housing development costs and rules with named counties and cities in Maryland and Virginia, plus comparable high-cost jurisdictions elsewhere in the country.
  • The study must measure specified costs and timelines “to the extent possible,” including costs per unit, permit and entitlement times, fees, construction property taxes, and units permitted and completed.
  • The study must identify government requirements that materially add costs or delays, estimate their added cost or delay, and assess whether each is unique to the District, greater than in peer jurisdictions, and supported by enough public benefit to justify it.
  • The study must recommend changes to the identified requirements. The Mayor must send it to the Council within 30 days after it is complete.

What it means for you#

  • Mayor: Must arrange for the study. The bill does not set a deadline for procuring or completing it.
  • Council: Must receive the study within 30 days after it is completed. The bill does not require the Council or Mayor to adopt the recommendations.
  • Housing developers and property owners: The bill does not require them to apply for anything, change their projects, or provide information to the study. It does not change housing rules, taxes, fees, or permits.
  • District residents: The bill does not directly change housing availability, affordability, or construction. Any effect would depend on later decisions about the study’s recommendations.

Money#

The bill requires the Mayor to procure a study, but the available material gives no cost estimate.

  • The bill does not state a study budget or appropriate a specific amount.
  • The text adopts the fiscal impact statement in a committee report, but that report is not included in the supplied material. No publicly available information.

What is unclear#

  • The bill sets no deadline for starting or finishing the study.
  • It does not explain how the third-party reviewer will be chosen or how the reviewer’s independence will be protected.
  • It does not set methods for comparing jurisdictions or define what counts as a “material” cost or delay or a sufficient public benefit.
  • It does not require anyone to provide data, or say how the study will handle missing information.
  • It does not require the government to act on the recommendations or report on any later changes.

Case for#

  • A comparison across jurisdictions could help show which District rules or processes are adding costs or time, rather than assuming every cost has the same cause.
  • Measuring costs alongside public benefits could help the District weigh whether particular requirements justify the added cost or delay.
  • Recommendations could give the Mayor and Council specific options to consider, while leaving later decisions about changing rules to them.

Case against#

  • The bill requires a study and recommendations, not changes to rules. It could identify problems without requiring any response.
  • Without a completion deadline, the study could take an unknown amount of time.
  • The bill leaves key matters—including study methods, data access, and how to judge public benefits—unspecified, which could affect how useful or comparable the findings are.
  • The study will cost public money, but the bill and supplied materials do not state how much.