Transcript Highlights:

• This will allow us to develop an additional five units, which will be all affordable housing—low-income
• I speak in support of House 1482, Senate 969, to establish an accessory dwelling unit trust fund.
• Housing Authority, estimated that there is a 30-year wait list for a non-elderly accessible unit.
• Housing Authority might get the unit when they are 48 years old.
• This adds needed accessible, affordable units to the housing stock to be rented to people like Jorge

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing opened a hybrid hearing focused on housing production bills, with Chairs Julian Cyr and Rich Haggerty emphasizing Massachusetts’ housing shortage and the need to produce more than 200,000 units over the next decade. The committee then heard testimony on a wide range of proposals, including social housing, starter homes and the “missing middle,” accessory dwelling units (ADUs), single-stair residential buildings, permanent affordability homeownership, and housing for people with disabilities. Several witnesses framed the bills as tools to expand supply, lower costs, and address racial and generational wealth gaps. Representative Connolly testified for H. 1478 on the Massachusetts Social Housing Program, describing publicly owned, mixed-income housing financed through a revolving loan fund. Senator Feeney testified for S. 989 on missing middle starter homes, arguing for zoning changes, incentives, and affordability tools to support smaller starter homes and duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes. Multiple witnesses, including housing advocates, real estate representatives, and local officials, supported the ADU trust fund bill and the single-stair study bill, saying they would reduce barriers, support homeowners, and enable more family-sized and infill housing. Some witnesses opposed bills they said would weaken ADU reforms or add new restrictions, while others urged broader deregulation to speed production. A major portion of the hearing focused on H. 1576/S. 1010, the Homes for Lasting Affordability bill, which would create a permanent affordability homeownership program for low- and moderate-income buyers and support small developments with long-term affordability restrictions. Testimony from community land trust leaders, legislators, and housing advocates emphasized that permanent affordability can preserve public investment, stabilize neighborhoods, and help families build wealth over generations. Senator Miranda and Representative Worrell tied the bill to closing the racial wealth gap and expanding access to homeownership for Black and Latino residents. The committee also heard testimony on S. 971, which would reform the Housing Development and Incentive Program to require more affordability in Gateway City projects. The committee additionally heard from Senator Kennedy and disability advocates on S. 1004, which would strengthen the Alternative Housing Voucher Program for people with disabilities by codifying project-based vouchers and aligning the program more closely with other voucher systems. Witnesses described long waitlists and the lack of accessible, affordable units as major barriers that can lead to homelessness or unnecessary institutionalization. No votes were taken during the hearing; the session was devoted to testimony and questions from committee members.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> celebrate the shared values that unite celebrate the shared values that unite us.<00:01:59.920><
• Allegiance to the flag of the United Allegiance to the flag of the United States<00:03:38.319><c> of<
• Second reading of House files. House File 2442. Second reading. Introduction of bills.
• </c> imported $3.8 billion worth of United imported $3.8 billion worth of United States<00:11:33.040>
• The House stands in recess.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So if you’re looking at the number of housing units and saying, “Hey, it’s a lot bigger than that.
• Not every permit is required, and also some permits represent multiple housing units.
• and rent out their house and the other units.
• units.
• Many cities like New York and D.C. have accessed this model to preserve thousands of units of housing

Summary: The Senate Housing Committee heard presentations on a range of housing finance, permitting, and affordability tools. Chattanooga described its affordable housing PILOT program, which uses a per-unit property tax abatement tied to the rent loss from providing affordable units, with a 15-year term and annual compliance monitoring. Committee members asked about the program’s structure, whether it had been used elsewhere, and who was participating; the presenter said the first mixed-income project would bring 278 units with 42 affordable units and that the model was attracting private market-rate developers. Shoreline then described its MFTE and inclusionary zoning approach, emphasizing that longer tax exemption periods and station-area zoning changes had helped spur development, with most current pipeline projects concentrated near light rail stations. The committee also heard from the Municipal Research Services Center and the Department of Commerce on tax increment financing, proportional impact fees, and permit timelines. Commerce explained that TIF can fund public improvements such as roads, utilities, broadband, and some affordable housing or child care facilities, while proportional impact fee guidance is intended to help jurisdictions charge fees more closely aligned with actual project impacts. On permit timelines, Commerce presented its first annual report under recent law changes, using 2024 as a baseline year and noting that reported timelines were generally longer than statutory goals; members asked about outliers, paper versus electronic processing, and whether back-and-forth between applicants and staff was driving delays. Commerce said it would follow up with more data, including on CHIP funding and permit reform practices. Several local governments then shared permitting process improvements. Auburn reported relatively short review cycles and described its move to fully electronic permitting, internal performance standards, and a stock plan program that speeds review for repeated home designs. Bellevue described an AI permitting pilot with a local startup to help with pre-application questions, document triage, and plan review, aiming to reduce incomplete applications and revision cycles. Seattle presented a pilot for accessory dwelling unit co-development in which a mission-driven partner would help homeowners split lots, finance, build, and manage ADUs, with the homeowner eventually buying out the partner and retaining ownership; committee members asked about rent setting, management fees, and default risk, and staff said they would follow up. The committee also heard brief overviews of community land trusts and limited equity cooperatives as permanent affordability models, with presenters urging continued state and local funding support and policy recognition for these approaches.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are not producing the number of housing units that are needed to address the need in the state.
• I think one of your presentations was $500,000, close to $600,000, for an affordable housing unit.
• And that's going to get us, you know, the ELI units that are going to house people that may have been
• You make it easier to build multi-unit housing on an R1 piece of property.
• You make it easier to build multi-unit, you know, housing on a R1 piece of property.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Housing Finance and Affordability held its first hearing of 2025 to examine California’s housing finance system, with opening remarks emphasizing the state’s severe housing shortage, high costs, and the need for practical recommendations to the Legislature and Governor. Co-chairs described the committee as an educational and problem-solving forum focused on financing housing production, first-time homeownership, mixed-income developments, and affordability across the income spectrum. Witnesses from state agencies and the development sector were invited to explain how housing is financed and where the system is breaking down. Panelists from the California Housing Partnership, the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, the Tax Credit Allocation Committee/State Treasurer’s Office, CalHFA, and Related outlined the “capital stack” used to finance affordable housing, stressing that projects typically rely on multiple public and private sources, including federal and state low-income housing tax credits, tax-exempt bonds, state subsidies, local funds, and rental income. Speakers noted that affordable housing rents generally cannot support full project costs without public subsidy, and that recent federal changes—especially the expansion of the 4% and 9% tax credit programs and the reduction of the bond financing threshold for 4% credits—should allow California to finance substantially more units. CalHFA also described its homeownership programs, including My Home, Dream For All, and disaster-related mortgage assistance, as well as its multifamily lending and bond issuance programs. Several witnesses and committee members emphasized that the system remains too complex, too slow, and underfunded. They pointed to the need for more state funding, a housing bond, a permanent funding source, and better coordination among agencies, while also citing recent streamlining efforts such as AB 434’s SuperNOFA, AB 519’s one-stop-shop working group, and the planned California Housing and Homeless Agency reorganization. Members raised concerns about equity, access, missing-middle housing, gender and racial disparities, and whether current programs adequately serve extremely low-income households and those at risk of homelessness. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing; the discussion ended with committee members and witnesses agreeing that both funding and administrative reform are needed to increase production and improve affordability.

Transcript Highlights:

• And if that is the case, we want to provide opportunities for builders to provide those housing units
• And if that is the case, we want to provide opportunities for builders to provide those housing units
• Hearing on engrossed House Bill 1345, establishing limitations on detached accessory dwelling units outside
• Under the GMA, an ADU is defined as a dwelling unit that is located on the same lot as a housing unit
• We believe that this is a good, meaningful step towards allowing for that housing option. dwelling units

Summary: The Senate Housing Committee met on cutoff day and first considered two gubernatorial appointments to the Housing Finance Commission. Aaron T. McGrath and Ann T. Malone each testified about their housing finance and affordable housing backgrounds, their prior commission or sector experience, and their interest in improving housing affordability and equity. Senators asked brief questions and offered supportive comments, and both appointments were heard without objection. The committee then heard and later acted on a series of housing-related bills. ESHB 1500 would expand resale certificate requirements for common interest communities by adding reserve studies, audits, and governing documents, limiting certain fees, allowing rush service fees, and creating enforcement rights; testimony was split between Realtors, who supported the consumer-protection goals but sought clarifications and more time for rescission, and HOA/management representatives, who warned against limiting third-party processing tools and sought more flexibility. EHB 1501 would require associations to answer certified written inquiries from owners within 30 days, subject to reasonable association rules; the sponsor framed it as a basic right to a response, while HOA representatives supported the intent but asked for clearer limits and coordination with existing law. EHB 1345 would allow detached ADUs outside urban growth areas under detailed guardrails; builders, Realtors, counties, and housing advocates supported it as a rural housing tool, and the committee heard that it had been the product of years of negotiation. In executive session, the committee adopted amendments and advanced several bills. It approved a metering requirement for water use in SB 5470 on detached ADUs outside UGAs, narrowed SB 5729 to permit-review provisions, adopted a substitute for SB 6015 on permit-ready factory-built housing plans, and moved forward SB 6069 on transitional, supportive, and emergency housing with zoning and local process changes. It also advanced SB 1686 on deferred utility connection fees, SB 6200 on portable cooling devices for renters and mobile home occupants after rejecting an amendment to remove window units, SB 6201 creating tax exemptions for social housing agencies, SB 6214 establishing land bank authorities, and SB 6237 requiring flood-risk disclosures in rental housing. The committee then returned to public testimony on ESHB 1500, EHB 1501, and EHB 1345, hearing additional support and concerns, and adjourned after thanking staff for their work on cutoff day.

Transcript Highlights:

• How many units listing how many units to be built at each and when?
• listing how many units to be built units listing how many units to be built at<00:02:57.280><c> each
• Aloha United Way, in support. John Ahmoso, in support. Aloha United Way, in support.
• </c> of your units. of your units.
• </c><00:15:29.600><c> So,</c> of a unit. So, of a unit.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint hearing covered several housing-related measures. On SB 2068, which would create an affordable housing land inventory task force within the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development to study how to maximize housing on transit-oriented development and other state and county lands, testimony was mostly supportive from agencies and housing groups, with one opposition witness. In response to questions, OPSD said it was already working on a list of potential parcels but could not yet identify unit counts or a timeline, and estimated about $250,000 would be needed for staffing and contractual support. The committees also heard SB 2227 on rental assistance, which would require HPHA to make monthly rent supplement payments, prioritize certain tenants including kupuna, allow agreements with counties and nonprofits, and create a special fund supported by a transaction fee on recordings. HPHA supported the bill, and the Department of the Attorney General said it recommended amending the measure to describe the fee as a tax. Additional testimony included support from elder and community organizations and one opposition witness. For SB 2061, relating to residential condominiums and the 99-year leasehold program, HCDA and the project developer testified in support of amendments intended to preserve owner-occupant requirements while making the project more marketable and financially feasible. Members focused heavily on parking, affordability, and financing. HCDA and the developer said the parking stalls would be unbundled from the units, that the project would be a 99-year leasehold with 60% of units reserved for buyers at or below 140% AMI and 40% market-rate, and that the state’s $15 million equity contribution would cover only part of the parking garage and commercial component. The hearing then moved on to SB 3327, relating to HCDA and complete communities, but the transcript cuts off before that measure was fully discussed.

Transcript Highlights:

• Even when there are set-aside units at affordable housing sites, there is rarely somebody speaking the
• Even when there are set-aside units at affordable housing sites, there is rarely somebody speaking the
• It's called the Heritage House. It's an 88-unit project.
• We've got 29 units of set-aside farmworker housing there.
• Backtrack to 12 years ago, we had 300 units of permanent supportive housing in Santa Clara County.

Summary: The committee held an outcomes review hearing on AB 457 and related farmworker and rural housing policy, with members and witnesses discussing whether recent streamlining laws are actually increasing production. Chair Haney, Assembly Members Soria and Pellerin, and others described the purpose of AB 457 and its predecessor bills AB 1783 and AB 3035: to make farmworker housing easier to build through ministerial approval and other reforms. Witnesses emphasized that farmworkers face severe overcrowding, high rents, long commutes, and limited access to housing in both rural and coastal agricultural regions. The first panel focused on practical barriers and local models. Napa County described its county-owned farmworker centers, which provide nightly lodging, meals, and services, funded by lodger fees, a grower assessment, and state support. Testimony stressed that these centers function as navigation hubs rather than permanent housing, and that stable, inflation-adjusted operating funding, language access, transportation, and local set-asides are critical. United Farm Workers urged that local farmworkers be prioritized over H-2A workers and warned against displacing long-term resident workers. Several witnesses said the biggest barriers remain infrastructure, land costs, local opposition, and insufficient subsidy rather than approval streamlining alone. The second and third panels addressed AB 457’s implementation and broader state funding issues. Santa Clara County said the bill could help on a county-owned Gilroy site, but financing remains the main obstacle. Self-Help Enterprises said AB 457’s expanded geography and project-size rules may help future sites, but rural projects still struggle with water, sewer, and environmental review costs, and with the state’s Super NOFA process, which tends to favor deeper-income projects that do not match farmworker household incomes. HCD reported that CERNA and other programs have increased farmworker housing production in recent years, but witnesses argued that rural regions still receive too little funding, that infrastructure dollars are too fragmented, and that more rural-specific set-asides, local funding incentives, and predictable allocations are needed. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• CURE would come in and they've done over 140 affordable housing units, but we use this term affordability
• We've looked at government units and other units before that are at $900,000 a door, $1.1 million a door
• Cure would come in and they've done over 140 affordable housing units, but we use this term affordability
• In Dallas, up to eight units.
• ... ...or stopping housing being built from the code or stopping housing in all of these local areas

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development met first as a subcommittee because quorum was initially lacking, then later established quorum and heard five housing-related bills. AB 748 would require local governments to create preapproved housing plan programs for single-family and small multifamily projects under 10 units, expanding a model already used for ADUs; the author and Habitat for Humanity argued it would save time and money, and there was no opposition. The committee later passed AB 748 unanimously to the Assembly Committee on Local Government. AB 739 would require managing agents for common interest developments to provide HOAs a summary of fees charged and paid to management companies. Realtors and community managers supported the bill as a transparency measure, while the California Association of Community Managers initially opposed it but said it would remove opposition if committee amendments were adopted to avoid blanket mailings and cost increases. The committee adopted the amendments and passed AB 739 7-0 to Appropriations. AB 939 would remove the 180-day resale restriction for certain income-restricted for-sale units when a developer is under contract with a qualified nonprofit affordable housing organization, allowing units to be sold sooner to low-income buyers. Habitat for Humanity, the California Building Industry Association, and several housing groups supported the measure as a no-cost fix to reduce vacancy and carrying costs, while the California Association of Realtors opposed it, warning it could create a right of first refusal and set a precedent affecting property rights and competition. After discussion about the narrow scope and committee amendments, the bill passed 6-1 to Appropriations. AB 1070 would direct the state to study and potentially modernize building code treatment for small, middle-housing projects so that low-rise buildings with three to ten units could be regulated more like residential structures rather than commercial ones. Supporters said the current code makes small multifamily projects unnecessarily expensive and that other states have adopted similar approaches; there was no opposition. The committee passed AB 1070 unanimously to Appropriations. Finally, AB 1184, by the vice chair, would increase HOA transparency and resident access to records, including recordings of HOA meetings; it had no witnesses in opposition and passed 8-0 as amended to Appropriations. After the meeting, absent members later added votes, and the final recorded votes were 10-1 for AB 939, 11-0 for AB 1070 and AB 1184, and unanimous support for AB 739 and AB 748.

Transcript Highlights:

• How many units “Let’s look at a multifamily housing project.
• If the average housing cost was $300,000 per unit, it’s a $27 billion problem.
• “Okay, so let’s go with that five units and up. So 20% of it has to be affordable housing.
• Okay, so let’s go with that five units and up. So 20% of it has to be affordable housing.
• Okay, so let's go with that five units and up. So 20% of it has to be affordable housing.

Summary: The committee first heard SB 283, a workforce housing bill that would let local governments designate housing shortage areas and use metropolitan redevelopment tools, including property tax stabilization, to encourage construction and preservation of “missing middle” housing. Supporters said it would preserve local control, increase supply, and help teachers, nurses, first responders, and young workers afford housing. Opponents raised concerns about gentrification, redevelopment in neighborhoods, and whether the affordability requirements were strong enough. After questions about local designation, affordability percentages, and the 14-year term, the committee passed the Senate Tax, Business and Transportation Committee substitute for SB 283 on an 8-0 vote. The committee then considered HB 103, which would keep the residential property tax cap in place when zoning changes occur, so long as the property’s use remains residential. Supporters argued the bill would protect homeowners from tax spikes caused by rezoning and preserve stability for seniors and families. Committee discussion focused on how zoning changes affect valuation, what counts as an upzone, and how assessors currently apply the law. The bill passed on a 6-1 vote. HB 200, a starter-home incentive bill, was heard next. The bill would provide zero-interest loans through the Mortgage Finance Authority to reduce the cost of newly built starter homes, with higher subsidy amounts in Santa Fe, Taos, and Los Alamos. Supporters said it would help young families, retirees, and first-time buyers and encourage construction of smaller homes. Several senators questioned whether the subsidy would simply raise prices, whether the loan structure was the best tool, and whether the program would work equally well across the state. The committee vote ended in a tie, so the bill was held and placed at the top of the next agenda. The committee also passed HB 154 and HB 285 by unanimous votes. HB 154 was approved 6-1 after little discussion. HB 285, a veterans property tax cleanup bill, clarifies how exemptions apply when more than one veteran in a household has a disability rating; it passed 7-0. HB 165, which expands the C-PACE program to include certain economic development projects working through industrial revenue bond arrangements, also passed 8-0 after sponsors said the change was an oversight fix. After HB 165, the committee lost quorum and recessed, with remaining items bumped to the next meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Catchlight Crossings, a 1,000-unit affordable housing community.
• Who are buying large supplies of single-family houses, switching those to rental units.
• Housing units that were constructed in the '90s, who are no Longer under restrictions are coming off,
• We're actually looking at a decrease in affordable housing units throughout the state at a rapid rate
• So the majority of the housing communities that are being built today are in the 80 to 120 units.

Summary: The committee met to hear a panel on workforce and attainable housing, with presentations from Florida Housing Finance Corporation, Pensacola Habitat for Humanity, Wendover Housing Partners, the City of Tallahassee, and Escambia County. Speakers described how state and local tools such as SHIP, the Live Local Act, land trusts, accessory dwelling units, infill development, and public-private partnerships are being used to expand housing supply and preserve long-term affordability. Several panelists emphasized that housing demand is rising across income levels, that workforce households often need subsidy to buy or rent, and that housing location, transportation access, and proximity to jobs and services are critical. They also highlighted challenges including rising construction costs, limited land, insurance, NIMBY opposition, and the need for more flexible financing tools and employer participation. Members asked about area median income thresholds, whether current programs are reaching the households most in need, and what additional tools might help. Florida Housing said its traditional rental programs generally serve households at or below 60% AMI, while need is increasingly reaching up to 80% AMI statewide and higher in some regions; staff also provided examples of AMI levels by county. Other discussion focused on the impact of local government opt-outs, tax abatements, corporate ownership of single-family homes, insurance costs, Fortified construction standards, and whether bonuses or other income calculations can unintentionally disqualify applicants. Panelists urged more political will, more local flexibility, and additional incentives for employers and landowners to support housing near jobs. The committee also used an anonymous interactive polling exercise, and members identified partnerships, SHIP funding, local government action, cost, and insurance as key issues. In closing, the chair said the committee would continue a member-driven process and likely hold a workshop on housing-related topics. No formal votes or bills were taken up in the meeting, and the session adjourned after the discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• A density bonus is a zoning tool that permits developers to build more housing units or taller buildings
• project if at least 50% of the units are used for affordable housing to low-income households.
• So, as our chair has said over and over, Washington needs over one million new housing units in the next
• , 305 of which will be workforce housing units, and this year will mark our first completed project.
• Our current plan envisions 100 to 110 affordable housing units, various community-serving spaces, and

Summary: The Senate Housing Committee heard public testimony on several bills. SB 5885 would expand affordable housing on property owned by religious organizations by lowering the density-bonus affordability threshold from 100% to 50% and adding a sales and use tax exemption for qualifying projects. The sponsor and supporters from Redmond, Tacoma, Spokane, faith organizations, and housing nonprofits said the current standard is too restrictive and that churches and other faith groups have underused land that could help meet the state’s housing shortage. A county planning representative raised concern about an unfunded mandate to update local development regulations, and one testifier said the bill should be paired with funding for county planning work. The committee also heard SB 5884, which would expand a sales and use tax deferral program for redevelopment of underutilized property. The bill would broaden eligible land beyond surface parking lots to include vacant, partially used, or underutilized parcels, and would allow cities to approve projects with at least 50% affordable units, or 20% in designated residential targeted areas. Supporters from Spokane, Vancouver, Kent, Bellingham, and the Washington State Association of Counties said the current program is too narrow and should be available in more places, including counties and more cities. Construction industry groups supported redevelopment but objected to a provision tying eligibility to apprenticeship utilization, saying it could disadvantage nonunion contractors and create compliance burdens. For SB 5937, the committee heard testimony on smart access systems in rental housing. The bill would require landlords, upon request, to offer a non-biometric, non-app-based alternative key and to provide privacy policies and limits on data collection for smart access systems. Tenant advocates supported the bill as a privacy and access protection, citing concerns about app-based locks, data tracking, lockouts, and retaliation. Landlord and multifamily housing groups said they were open to the concept but argued the bill was too broad and could impose burdens on small housing providers or simple keypad systems, and they asked for narrower definitions and clearer implementation language. Finally, the committee took testimony on SB 5938, which would make technical changes to the foreclosure prevention fee created last year, including exempting certain reverse mortgages and chattel loans, preventing duplicate charges on some state-backed transactions, and directing Commerce to study a possible state homeowner assistance fund. Homeownership counselors, legal aid, HOA advocates, and equity organizations supported the bill, saying it would clarify fee collection, protect low- and moderate-income buyers from unnecessary costs, and help sustain foreclosure prevention services. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the transcript, and the meeting ended after public testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• If there is any takeaway from the housing plan, it is that the state needs 222,000 new units over the
• In April, HLC authorized more than $45 million to modernize, repair, and improve public housing units
• modernize their aging infrastructure, and develop new public housing units to meet the growing demand
• units in over 1,500 affordable housing projects.
• It's translated to about 90,000 mortgage loans and close to 92,000 units of rental housing that have

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing opened its second hearing of the session with remarks from Chairs Haggerty and Cyr emphasizing that the hearing was a broad look at Massachusetts’ housing crisis rather than a single bill. They highlighted topics including zoning, permitting, rental assistance, public housing, homelessness prevention, and housing production. The first witness, Housing and Livable Communities Secretary Augustus, reviewed implementation of the Affordable Homes Act and the state’s new housing plan, citing a 1.6% vacancy rate, a projected need for 222,000 new homes over 10 years, and ongoing efforts such as ADUs by right, fair housing enforcement, eviction record sealing, seasonal communities planning, and new funding for affordable housing, public housing, and the Momentum Fund. He also discussed infrastructure support for municipalities, technical assistance for ADUs, and concerns about possible federal funding cuts. Committee members questioned the secretary about ADU financing and technical assistance, the likely unit yield from the Affordable Homes Act, infrastructure barriers in suburban and rural communities, public housing waitlist management, supportive housing, and federal budget risks. MassNAHRO then testified that public housing authorities are facing rising operating and capital costs, a statewide waitlist nearing 300,000, and uncertainty over federal Section 8 and HUD funding. Witnesses described recent state support for operating subsidies, capital improvements, vacancy turnover teams, and resident service coordinators, while warning that proposed federal cuts could sharply affect voucher issuance and agency operations. CDAC’s executive director Roger Herzog described the agency’s role as a quasi-public source of early-stage financing and technical assistance for nonprofit housing developers, noting its loan capital, supportive housing bond programs, home modification loans, and preservation work under Chapter 40T. He said CDAC has helped produce or preserve more than 55,000 units and stressed the importance of patient capital and preservation tools. CHAPA CEO Rachel Heller urged the committee to focus on production, preservation, planning, and political will, supporting goals for affordability, supportive housing, and homeownership, and endorsing policy changes such as YIGBY, clearer site plan review rules, stronger fair housing funding, and more support for vouchers and public housing. MassHousing then outlined its financing role, including mortgage lending, down payment assistance, the Community Climate Bank, and the Momentum Fund, while noting that permitting delays, capital gaps, and possible federal changes could affect production. Members also asked about transparency, prevailing wage compliance, and a recent internal restructuring related to diversity and business engagement.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are no federal public housing units in Franklin County or in most rural areas.
• tax credit, and other critical incentive programs that result in more housing units.
• And then innovative ways to bring additional housing units online.
• And then innovative ways to bring additional housing units online.
• that those units, Types of modular housing and manufactured housing that can be used to make sure that

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing held its second introductory hearing to frame the session’s housing agenda. Chairs Cyr and Haggerty described the hearing as a chance to hear a wide range of perspectives on Massachusetts’ housing crisis, including underbuilding, zoning and permitting barriers, rising costs, and the need for both state and local action. The committee heard from court, municipal, advocacy, and regional housing leaders, with recurring themes of increasing supply, preserving existing housing, preventing displacement, and expanding resources for renters and homeowners. Chief Justice Diana Horan of the Housing Court said the court is handling more than 40,000 new filings annually with only 15 judges, and estimated the court would need about 21 judges to meet demand. She described complications from RAFT-related stays, mental health and guardianship issues, aging housing stock, and the new eviction sealing law, which she said was being implemented smoothly but may require additional resources if filings continue to rise. The Massachusetts Municipal Association and MAPC emphasized that municipalities need flexibility, funding, and better tools such as MassWorks, Housing Works, H-DIP, 40R reforms, inclusionary zoning changes, and a local option transfer fee; they also said local control concerns and long permitting timelines remain major barriers. MAPC and others stressed that supply growth alone will not solve the crisis and urged continued support for subsidized housing, access to counsel, and modular/off-site construction. Advocates and housing providers focused on displacement, preservation, and tenant protections. Homes for All Massachusetts and Mass Law Reform Institute called for rent stabilization, stronger tenant protections, foreclosure prevention, elimination of junk fees, continued funding for RAFT and HomeBASE, and expanded access to counsel. Mass Union of Public Housing Tenants said the state needs far more extremely low-income housing, more operating subsidy, and major investment to repair public housing, while also supporting tenant technical assistance during redevelopment. Franklin County’s housing authority warned that rural communities are being left out of many state programs and asked for a rural LIHTC set-aside, a permanent rural credit boost, and a review of housing choice programs. A Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation researcher presented findings that communities that add housing generally see stronger municipal finances, and that housing growth can improve property tax and state aid outcomes. Seasonal community representatives from Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket described extreme affordability pressures and the need for tailored tools. Nantucket’s housing trust chair said the island has made progress through local funding, inclusionary zoning, and deed-restricted units, but still needs a real estate transfer fee and faster ways to preserve year-round housing. Across the hearing, members and witnesses repeatedly returned to the need for a mix of production, preservation, tenant protections, and local flexibility, rather than relying on any single policy solution.

Transcript Highlights:

• And hopefully that will keep us from losing yet more rental housing units in this state.
• They would be out of pocket, and hopefully that will keep us from losing yet more rental housing units
• And if they do want to install a unit into a window, what is the liability for the housing provider if
• There is simply not enough affordable housing units in our communities.
• Our members provide more than 360,000 units of housing in Washington State.

Summary: The committee heard public hearing testimony on House Bill 2265, which would expand tenant protections during extreme heat. Staff explained that the bill would bar landlords from restricting portable cooling devices, require written notice of tenant rights and landlord immunity for tenant-installed devices, add a cooling duty under the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act, and prohibit sheriffs from physically evicting tenants during defined extreme heat periods. Representative Mena said the bill responds to the 2021 heat dome and is intended to address a gap in housing law, while committee members and the sponsor discussed unresolved questions about what “reasonably required” cooling means, how the eviction pause would work, and whether the bill could raise rents or create liability and operational burdens for landlords. Supporters, including climate, public health, tenant, and clean energy advocates, said extreme heat is a growing health threat and that renters need a right to cooling; opponents from multifamily housing, property management, and rental housing groups argued the bill is too vague, could effectively mandate costly cooling upgrades, create safety and insurance issues, and complicate eviction enforcement. The hearing also included testimony from landlords and housing providers who said the bill should be narrowed or amended, and from tenants and advocates who said it does not go far enough because it mostly permits tenant-installed cooling rather than requiring landlords to provide it. The committee then heard House Bill 1974, a proposed substitute authorizing land banks. Staff described the bill as allowing public corporations, housing authorities, and nonprofit corporations to acquire, hold, improve, lease, transfer, or dispose of property for affordable housing, with 30-year affordability requirements, annual reporting, tax exemptions, and priority transfer of certain tax-foreclosed properties. Vice Chair Hill said the bill was scaled back from earlier versions and is meant to create a flexible tool for turning difficult parcels into housing-ready land aligned with local housing plans. Testifiers from the Spokane Regional Land Bank, housing authorities, developers, youth shelter providers, and housing advocates supported the bill as a way to lower land costs, clear title issues, reduce displacement, and create a pipeline of permanently affordable housing. A counties representative also supported the concept but said they would like the grant program restored. One committee member raised a question about whether the tax-foreclosed property language could bypass the normal surplus distribution process, and staff said the provision is placed in the chapter governing properties that have already gone through foreclosure and auction, though the wording may need further review. Finally, the committee opened House Bill 2452, which would change how rent increase notices are served. Staff said the bill would remove the current requirement that rent increase notices be served like unlawful detainer notices and instead allow service by personal delivery, mail, or posting on the dwelling unit, with service by mail complete when deposited in the mail; the manufactured home version would follow the general notice rules under that act. Representative Connors said the bill responds to problems created when prior legislation required certified mail, which she said has led to tenants not receiving notices and housing providers facing higher costs and administrative burdens. Housing provider and industry witnesses supported the bill, saying certified mail is expensive, inefficient, and often not actually received, while tenant advocates opposed it, arguing that mail-only service weakens notice protections and can cause missed rent increases and displacement; they urged the committee to preserve stronger in-person or posting requirements. Some witnesses also suggested broader changes, including electronic notice, while others said the bill should be expanded to fix certified mail requirements for more than just rent increase notices.

Transcript Highlights:

• and increasing house prices.
• housing.
• The bottom row here shows you their zoned capacity, how many housing units could theoretically be built
• Because I think it's played a key role, particularly in single housing units.
• unit starts.

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and increasing house prices.
• housing.
• In Missoula, for example, the bottom row here shows you their zoned capacity—how many housing units could
• Because I think it's played a key role, particularly in single housing units.
• unit starts.

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on housing affordability and land-use policy, with presentations from Emily Hamilton of the Mercatus Center and Chris Cargill and Maddie Clark of the Mountain States Policy Center. Hamilton argued that housing shortages are driven largely by zoning, permit delays, parking mandates, and building-code rules, and cited examples where deregulation increased housing supply and moderated rents. She also discussed accessory dwelling unit reforms, state-local cooperation on zoning, possible building-code changes such as allowing single-stair mid-rise apartments and more units under the residential code, and said limited federal land releases near existing development could help in some cases. Members asked about single-stair buildings, the role of large institutional investors, the shift toward “missing middle” housing, whether zoning is really a problem in Idaho, and whether federal land should be opened for development. Hamilton said investor demand is often attracted by supply constraints and that easing construction is the best long-term way to expand homeownership. She also said recent price increases were driven by both demand shocks since 2020 and long-term supply constraints. Several members expressed concern that the state is moving away from single-family zoning and that many Idaho residents still prefer detached homes. Cargill and Clark presented polling and research from the Mountain States Policy Center showing strong public concern about housing costs: 86% of Idahoans called affordable housing a serious problem, 78% said legislators should act, 87% supported more flexibility for ADUs, and 69% supported automatic permit approval if regulators miss a reasonable deadline. They said respondents were divided on rent control and public housing versus reducing regulations, and argued that education is needed about the downsides of rent control. An Association of Idaho Cities representative noted Idaho already approves more building permits per capita than any other state and cautioned that automatic approvals could raise safety concerns. No votes were taken; the chair said the hearing was informational and adjourned after thanking the presenters.

Transcript Highlights:

• When people are not able to release an affordable housing unit and move up the housing economic ladder
• , abundant housing, Los Angeles, fieldstead and company, United Way, Greater Los Angeles, Abundant Housing
• Over the last 10 years, we've preserved over 2,000 units of affordable housing, built 800 units, and
• have housing units available today.
• All units will be publicly owned. All housing and land will be public to own.

Summary: The committee first heard AB 1157, the Affordable Rent Act, which would lower California’s annual rent cap, remove the single-family home exemption, and eliminate the sunset on existing tenant protections. The author and supporters argued that renters are facing severe affordability pressures, especially in single-family rentals, and that stronger statewide rent stabilization is needed to prevent displacement and homelessness. Opponents, including apartment, building, and property-owner groups, said the bill would discourage housing production, harm small landlords, and override a deal they said was intended to be temporary while the state focused on building more housing. Public testimony on AB 1157 was extensive, with many renters, tenant advocates, labor groups, and community organizations speaking in support, while many landlords, business groups, and property-owner representatives spoke in opposition. Committee members were split: some praised the bill as a necessary response to the rent crisis, while others warned it could reduce investment and worsen the housing shortage. The committee ultimately voted 7-5 to pass AB 1157 to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. The committee then approved the consent calendar, including AB 413, AB 1152, and AB 1275, on a 9-0 vote. It also heard ACA 3, which would require the University of California to make available a limited number of down payment loans for eligible long-term support staff who are first-time homebuyers. Supporters said the measure would help lower-wage UC workers afford homeownership and improve retention, while UC and other opponents argued the proposal was duplicative of existing state programs, unnecessary, and potentially harmful to UC finances. The discussion focused on financing mechanics and the relationship to CalHFA, but no final vote on ACA 3 was included in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• housing units one way or another.
• They are going to discover potentially housing units which were not even identified on the housing unit
• cannot add housing units?
• So the PES can add housing units.
• Calculated on all housing units, including vacant.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on the Census met on December 8 at 9:32 a.m. to examine the dynamics that drive census undercounts and overcounts, with testimony first from Joseph Salvo and then from Susan Strait of the UMass Donahue Institute. Salvo explained the Census Bureau’s two main evaluation tools: demographic analysis, which uses vital records, migration estimates, and Medicare data to produce a national benchmark, and the post-enumeration survey (PES), which compares a separate sample-based count to the census. He said the 2020 census showed a small national net undercount, but larger age- and race-based disparities, including the highest undercount among children ages 0 to 4, higher undercounts for men, substantial undercounts for Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native populations, and overcounts among some older and college-age groups. He also described how self-response, non-response follow-up, administrative records, proxy responses, and imputation affected data quality, arguing that proxies and imputation were especially weak and that outreach remains critical for 2030. Committee members asked Salvo to clarify the methods and error bands, the role of international migration estimates, and how the PES differs from the census address list and LUCA. He explained that PES is based on a separate sample of blocks and can add units within sampled blocks, but it does not measure units missed entirely from the original address list; LUCA matters because it improves that list before enumeration. He also discussed age heaping, duplicate responses among older adults, and why group quarters and COVID-related disruptions complicated the 2020 count. Senator Driscoll briefly interrupted to describe Randolph’s successful appeal of its 2020 count after an undercount in disability care homes, and Salvo noted that the post-census group quarters review helped correct some missed facilities. Susan Strait then focused on Massachusetts-specific results. She said Massachusetts’ 2020 count was strong overall, with population growth above the national average and a PES-based finding that the state was overcounted by 2.24 percent, though she emphasized that this did not mean all areas were accurately counted. Using demographic analysis, she said Massachusetts had an estimated 4.15 percent undercount of children ages 0 to 4, with the largest county-level undercounts in Hampden, Suffolk, and Essex, and she linked higher child undercounts to lower educational attainment and female-headed households. Strait also reviewed operational metrics showing that Massachusetts had relatively strong internet self-response, but that non-response follow-up relied heavily on household interviews, administrative records, proxies, and imputation in different counties. She highlighted higher proxy use in college-heavy counties such as Hampshire and Suffolk, and said counties with more minority residents were more likely to have population-count-only cases and other indicators of harder-to-count populations. The hearing ended with discussion of how these findings could inform outreach and census planning for 2030.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> housing units that they're pumped housing units that they're pumped regularly.<01:16:35.600><c>
• I think the other thing that you need to... of the housing units being affordable. of the housing units
• of housing, multifamily dwellings with 10 units of housing or more or workforce housing, studio apartments
• I don't want rental house rental units.
• So that was an affordable housing unit.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• to seasonal homes, about 1,000 units a year, we are losing from year-round to seasonal housing, and
• housing plan, and under the high scenario, it could be as high as 262,000 units.
• So we recognize that projected housing unit demand is not the only metric that HLC is using to think
• units for people who are currently living with roommates or parents. 34,000 housing units for people
• When we they're not in households or housing units at the time they're in the shelter system.

Summary: The Senate Committee on the Census, chaired by Senator Will Brownsberger with Senator Liz Miranda and other members participating, held a hearing on mid-decade population estimates and projections for Massachusetts. Susan Strait of the UMass Donahue Institute presented the latest Census Bureau estimates and explained the main components of population change: births, deaths, domestic migration, and international migration. She said Massachusetts has continued to grow, but much more slowly than in the immediate post-2020 period, largely because net international migration has fallen sharply after a pandemic-era surge. She also reviewed fertility and aging trends, noting that births are concentrated among women in their 30s, that the state’s population is aging, and that the share of residents 65 and older is projected to rise substantially, increasing the dependency ratio. Strait and committee members discussed the role of immigration in Massachusetts’ population growth, the concentration of immigrants in Greater Boston and other regions, and the effect of immigration on births and the labor force. They also discussed domestic out-migration, especially among young adults, and the possibility that housing affordability is a major driver. Senators raised questions about how the Census counts people in group quarters such as prisons and dormitories, and Strait explained that the Census counts incarcerated people where they are housed and generally does not treat dormitory residents as migrants in the same way as household residents. She said the Census Bureau is still working on methodological issues such as extending a “college fix” to more areas. Jesse Partridge Guerrero of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council described how MAPC uses Donahue Institute population projections, household headship rates, and UrbanSim to allocate projected households down to regional, municipal, and sub-municipal levels. He said the projections used for MassDOT’s long-range transportation plan anticipated slower statewide growth and regional decline in the Cape and parts of western and central Massachusetts. Tim Reardon of the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities then explained how those projections feed into the statewide housing plan, including three population scenarios and associated housing needs. He said the plan estimates a need for about 115,000 homes to address existing shortages and another 73,000 households even under a low-growth scenario, with total housing needs rising to roughly 222,000 units under the middle scenario and 262,000 under the high scenario. Members pressed him on whether the scenarios may understate future need given the recent drop in immigration and ongoing affordability problems, and he said the state is also pursuing housing production, rental assistance, shelter response, seasonal conversion prevention, and infrastructure support for communities. No votes were taken.