The Washington Report

The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development released its fiscal year 2027 spending bill this week. The bill proposes $71.4 billion for HUD, roughly $6 billion or nearly 8 percent below the fiscal year 2026 enacted level. The bill includes cuts to rental assistance, fair housing enforcement, housing counseling, and the HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program. The bill would also prohibit HUD from enforcing the CARES Act 30-day eviction notice requirement and bar the agency from updating minimum energy efficiency standards for new federally financed housing.

Earlier this year, NAR sent a letter to the leadership of the House and Senate Appropriations Committee urging full funding for HUD programs, including the Housing Choice Voucher program, housing counseling, fair housing, and HOME. NAR will continue to engage with appropriators in both chambers as the process moves forward.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), in coordination with the White House, released the State and Local Best Practices for Home Construction on May 20, implementing President Trump's March 13 executive order directing federal agencies to develop regulatory best practices for states and localities on housing construction. The report calls on state and local governments to reduce construction costs, unlock land for residential development, and accelerate permitting timelines through various policy options, noting that regulatory costs account for more than $100,000 of the final price of a new single-family home.

"NAR applauds HUD's State and Local Best Practices for Home Construction as a constructive contribution to the national conversation on housing supply. Today's release reflects the Trump Administration's commitment to addressing the housing supply crisis, building on the President's March executive order directing federal agencies to develop regulatory best practices for states and localities," said Shannon McGahn, NAR executive vice president and chief advocacy officer. "The report's focus on reducing unnecessary regulatory costs, unlocking land for residential development, modernizing permitting, improving transparency, and accelerating construction timelines is consistent with NAR's longstanding support for practical state and local reforms that expand housing opportunity. REALTORS® see firsthand that housing affordability is fundamentally constrained by a lack of available homes, and state and local reforms that reduce barriers to responsible housing production are essential to expanding opportunity for buyers, renters, and communities across the country."

The National Association of REALTORS® (NAR), joined by the New York State Association of REALTORS® (NYSAR) and a coalition of industry partners, filed an amicus brief supporting a group of New York City property owners challenging a city land use fee, otherwise known as an exaction. The property owners are part of the Joint Live Work Quarters for Artists (JLWQA) program and have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate the exaction as an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment. 

The dispute centers on the JLWQA program, a decades old initiative in SoHo and NoHo that allowed certified artists and their families to live in their studios and industrial-zoned buildings. The program played a key role in revitalizing these neighborhoods. 

Over time, however, the city largely stopped enforcing the requirement that only certified JLWQA artists could occupy these units. Many are now inhabited by non-certified residents, and the restriction has little practical effect. Despite this, when the city rezoned the neighborhoods in 2021 to allow broader residential use, it singled out JLWQA properties. Owners must now pay a steep, nonrefundable fee, exceeding 100 dollars per square foot and often totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars, to remove the outdated restriction before they can sell, transfer, or redevelop their property. 

Property owners argue that the fee is unfair and effectively traps them with unsellable properties, since there is no meaningful market for units restricted under the JLWQA program. A lower court agreed, finding that the city failed to show any connection between the fee and a legitimate impact caused by the owners. However, the appellate court reversed that decision, concluding that constitutional protections against government takings do not apply because the city is demanding money rather than land. 

The owners are now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. The central question is whether monetary demands imposed as a condition of using or selling property should be subject to the same constitutional limits as demands for land. 

NAR and its partners warn that allowing governments to impose significant fees without rigorous legal scrutiny could set a troubling nationwide precedent. The Court’s decision on whether to hear the case, and how it ultimately rules, could shape how local governments across the country impose fees in zoning and land use decisions, with implications for property rights far beyond New York City.