HB5591, the RESIDE Act, would create a federal pilot program within HUD to help convert vacant and abandoned commercial or industrial buildings into attainable housing. The bill defines eligible properties broadly to include warehouses, factories, malls, strip malls, hotels, and similar structures that have been found unsafe or abandoned under local code enforcement or court proceedings. It authorizes the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to award competitive grants to participating jurisdictions to acquire, demolish, remediate, prepare sites, and renovate or rebuild these properties into housing.
The pilot would run for fiscal years 2027 through 2031 and would be funded from excess HOME Investment Partnerships Program appropriations above $1.35 billion, with up to $100 million per year available for the program. Individual grants would generally range from $1 million to $10 million, and awards would be made in addition to, not in place of, a jurisdiction’s regular HOME formula allocation. The bill also directs HUD to prioritize projects in economically distressed communities, opportunity zones, communities with adopted regulatory reforms that reduce barriers to conversion, and projects aligned with local consolidated housing plans. Converted units would remain subject to HOME program rental, sale, and resale requirements.
The bill would affect federal housing policy by creating a new use for HOME funds and by giving HUD limited waiver authority over certain administrative requirements, while preserving fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor, and environmental protections. It would also require HUD to report to Congress on the pilot’s effects on local tax bases, affordable housing access, homeownership, and blight removal. The measure is aimed at state and local participating jurisdictions, developers, and communities with underused commercial properties that could be repurposed for housing.
Because there are no recorded votes or committee transcripts provided, the public sentiment cannot be measured from debate history. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears to be framed as a bipartisan housing supply and revitalization measure, with sponsors from both parties and a focus on adaptive reuse, affordability, and blight reduction. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Financial Services and has not yet advanced further in the provided record.
Potential points of contention include the use of excess HOME funds for a new pilot rather than other housing priorities, the scope of HUD’s waiver authority, and whether the program’s incentives and priorities will effectively target the most distressed properties and communities. Supporters are likely to emphasize housing production, neighborhood revitalization, and reuse of empty buildings, while critics may focus on federal spending, administrative flexibility, and whether conversion projects can be completed cost-effectively and at scale.
The bill would amend federal housing policy by authorizing HUD to create a temporary competitive grant pilot under the HOME Investment Partnerships Program using excess appropriations. It would not change state law directly, but it would interact with state and local abandoned-property, code enforcement, receivership, nuisance abatement, zoning, and land-use frameworks because eligible projects depend on local determinations of vacancy, abandonment, and safety. Participating jurisdictions could use grants for acquisition, demolition, remediation, construction, rehabilitation, and community land trusts, while converted units would remain subject to HOME affordability requirements.
No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to summarize. The bill’s introduction by members of both parties suggests an intent to present it as a bipartisan housing and revitalization proposal. Its stated goals—turning blighted buildings into attainable housing, expanding supply, and removing blight—indicate generally positive framing, with the main support likely centered on affordability and redevelopment.
The main likely areas of contention are fiscal and administrative. Some may question diverting up to $100 million in excess HOME funds annually to a new pilot instead of other housing uses, while others may worry that HUD’s waiver authority could weaken oversight or create uneven standards. There may also be debate over whether prioritizing opportunity zones, distressed communities, and jurisdictions that reduce regulatory barriers is the best way to allocate grants, and whether the program sufficiently protects safety, habitability, and long-term affordability. Supporters would likely favor the flexibility and redevelopment focus, while skeptics may be concerned about implementation, cost, and federal reach.