Congress, don’t mock homeownership month: Fix or flush 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act
MB DAILY NEWS | Raleigh, NC.
As the nation observes National Homeownership Month, Congress faces a pivotal question: Will lawmakers advance meaningful housing reform, or will they celebrate homeownership while ignoring the policies that make it increasingly unattainable?
That question sits at the heart of growing criticism surrounding the proposed 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, a bipartisan housing package that supporters describe as a step toward affordability. However, a growing number of economists, policy analysts, housing advocates, and manufactured housing professionals argue that the legislation risks becoming another well-intentioned but ineffective government response to America’s housing shortage.
For those critics, the message is straightforward: fix the bill—or flush it.
Housing Affordability Remains a National Crisis
The United States continues to face a severe housing shortage that experts estimate ranges from five million to eight million housing units. Consequently, home prices remain near record highs while rents continue to strain household budgets.
The affordability challenge extends beyond traditional homebuyers. Millions of working families now find themselves priced out of homeownership and increasingly burdened by rising rental costs.
According to multiple housing researchers, the fundamental problem is not a lack of government programs. Rather, it is a chronic shortage of housing supply caused by restrictive zoning, regulatory barriers, permitting delays, and financing constraints.
Wall Street Journal Editorial Board Calls Bill a “Bipartisan Housing Fiasco”
Some of the sharpest criticism has come from the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal.
In an editorial titled “A Bipartisan Housing Fiasco,” the board argued that the legislation would increase costs and expand regulatory authority while failing to address the true drivers of housing shortages.
The editorial stated that:
“Housing shortages are the result of restrictive state and local zoning and permitting.”
The board further warned that lawmakers may be eager to claim a political victory on affordability even if the actual policy results prove disappointing.
That criticism echoes concerns raised by economists across the ideological spectrum.
Economists Question Reliance on Subsidies
Heritage Foundation economist E.J. Antoni has argued that many provisions in the ROAD Act focus on demand-side assistance rather than expanding supply.
Antoni stated:
“Unfortunately, though, a lot of them are just more demand subsidies, and they’re more government programs, which aren’t actually going to fix the fundamental mismatch between supply and demand that we face today.”
Similarly, Norbert Michel, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, expressed skepticism about whether the legislation would produce outcomes different from previous federal housing initiatives.
According to Michel:
“You really shouldn’t expect anything radically different from this housing bill. It really doesn’t radically change what we’ve been doing for the past several decades.”
Those critiques point to a broader concern: if policymakers fail to address supply constraints, affordability challenges may persist regardless of how much money government programs distribute.
Manufactured Housing May Be the Missing Piece
While debate continues over the ROAD Act, some housing experts argue that policymakers continue to overlook one of the country’s most affordable forms of homeownership: manufactured housing.
Modern manufactured homes differ significantly from the outdated stereotypes often associated with “mobile homes” or “trailers.” Research from the National Association of Realtors (NAR), HUD, and other organizations has shown that many manufactured homes appreciate in value similarly to conventional housing under the right conditions.
Equally important, manufactured housing offers a dramatically lower construction cost.
According to research cited by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), the average cost per square foot for a new manufactured home was approximately $86.62 in 2023. By comparison, the average site-built home cost roughly $165.94 per square foot, excluding land costs.
For millions of households priced out of conventional housing, that difference can determine whether homeownership remains possible.
Critics Call for Federal Preemption of Local Barriers
Advocates of manufactured housing argue that affordability alone is not enough. They contend that local zoning restrictions and land-use regulations often prevent manufactured homes from being placed where demand exists.
As a result, some industry professionals and policy advocates support federal preemption measures that would override local barriers that unnecessarily restrict affordable housing development.
Supporters believe such reforms could dramatically expand housing supply without requiring large taxpayer-funded subsidy programs.
Without those changes, they argue, federal housing legislation may continue treating symptoms while ignoring underlying causes.
National Homeownership Month Raises an Awkward Question
Every June, organizations such as the National Association of Realtors and the National Association of Home Builders promote National Homeownership Month and highlight the benefits of owning a home.
Yet critics ask a difficult question:
How meaningful are those celebrations if millions of Americans remain unable to afford a home?
The question becomes even more relevant when policymakers simultaneously advance housing legislation that many analysts believe will have limited impact on affordability.
For critics of the ROAD Act, celebrating homeownership while failing to remove barriers to affordable housing risks sending contradictory messages to the public.
The Numbers Suggest a Significant Housing Deficit
Manufactured housing production data illustrates the scale of the challenge.
Between 1995 and 2000, manufacturers produced more than two million homes, averaging nearly 339,000 units annually.
From 2001 through 2025, annual production fell dramatically, averaging roughly 93,000 units per year.
The result is an estimated production deficit exceeding six million manufactured homes over the past quarter century.
Housing advocates argue that those missing units represent one of the most overlooked contributors to today’s affordability crisis.
Simply put, America cannot solve a housing shortage without building substantially more housing.
Fix It—or Flush It
The debate over the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act ultimately comes down to a fundamental policy question.
Should Congress continue relying on subsidies, grants, and regulatory programs that critics say have delivered disappointing results for decades?
Or should lawmakers directly address zoning restrictions, regulatory barriers, financing obstacles, and housing supply shortages?
Supporters of reform argue that Congress still has time to strengthen the legislation. Specifically, they contend that lawmakers should incorporate measures that expand manufactured housing opportunities, improve financing access, and remove barriers that limit development.
If Congress refuses to make those changes, critics say the bill risks becoming another symbolic housing initiative that fails to meaningfully improve affordability.
National Homeownership Month should celebrate pathways into homeownership—not remind Americans how far out of reach that dream has become.
For that reason, lawmakers face a simple choice: fix the ROAD Act or abandon it and pursue solutions that directly address the nation’s housing supply crisis.