In today’s world of polarization and gridlock, when U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, President Donald Trump and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker agree that government is a big part of the housing affordability problem facing Americans, it is time to take note. It is also time to act.

In March, the U.S. Senate passed a bill, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, that would provide modest incentives to reduce government regulations that drive up the cost of housing construction. Pritzker recently proposed a much more far-reaching set of bills that combine carrots and sticks to deal with recalcitrant municipalities.

I have studied housing markets for over 40 years. In essence, we have two separate, but related, housing challenges. For many years, the worst problems were largely confined to very low-income families, roughly 50% of whom pay more than half of their incomes in rent, leaving little for food and other necessities. Today, housing is unaffordable to many in the middle class as well. According to a report released in April by the Council of Economic Advisers, from 2000 to 2023, home prices in real terms went up by 82%, far outstripping the 12% rise in household incomes. Recent research from economists at Northwestern University shows that young adults increasingly feel they will never be able to afford a home, with many stopping their saving and focusing on consumption instead.

If you want to identify one of the principal sources of today’s housing crisis, just look in the mirror. Chances are good you live in a municipality with zoning that severely restricts multifamily housing and heaps expensive requirements on new developments in the name of health and safety, such as minimum lot sizes and parking. These regulations limit supply and drive up the cost of all housing. If you own a home, you probably don’t mind your values going up and may want to avoid anything that could bring them down. But if you or your children want to acquire housing, that’s another thing altogether.

A hundred years ago, when zoning was first upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Euclid v. Ambler Realty, it was pretty obvious what the game was. Land use regulations were legally justified as preventing nuisances, but in reality, the goal of many municipal leaders was to promote socially and racially homogenous neighborhoods, protect property values and keep property taxes low.

Certainly, not all zoning is bad, nor are the requirements of all building codes. No one wants to go back to the days of tenements and apartments with insufficient ventilation or light. But we need to recognize that there is no free lunch and consider the costs as well as the benefits of what we do. Today’s building codes go way beyond what is required for people to live healthy and safe lives, with many provisions the product of lobbying by manufacturers and labor unions.

While Senate passage of the ROAD to Housing Act is a positive development, time and time again, the forces that support NIMBYism have resisted the carrot approach. In contrast, if passed by the Illinois General Assembly, Pritzker’s more muscular approach might actually make a difference. Rather than relying on a city or town to respond to offers of grant assistance, Illinois would directly override practices that inhibit housing construction.

For example, owners of parcels in single-family-zoned areas could build up to eight units as of right, depending upon how big their lot is. Expensive parking requirements would be capped. Accessory dwelling units would be permitted in all districts that allow single-family housing. The act would also establish strict timelines for development plan reviews, uniform impact fees for new development, and allow duplexes, triplexes, townhouses and courtyard housing.

We should expect the usual opposition to mobilize against Pritzker’s BUILD Act. Many counties and municipalities will claim that the act interferes with local autonomy and would lead to out-of-control growth. Some low-income housing advocates will worry that the type of “middle market” housing promoted under the act would not benefit low-income people and may even harm them by making neighborhoods more desirable.

To the municipalities that are concerned about losing control of their growth: You have had decades and decades to get your house in order, and your failure to act has directly contributed to today’s housing shortage that negatively affects the entire state. The BUILD Act would permit only modest amounts of housing beyond what is already allowed and would not be detrimental to the character of neighborhoods. Cumulatively, though, the new construction made possible could be significant.

And housing advocates for low-income residents should understand that more housing benefits all of us, including those in poverty. A recent exhaustive summary of the research done by New York University’s Furman Center finds that the bulk of evidence supports the proposition that building market-rate homes and apartments ultimately leads to lower prices at all rungs of the housing ladder. Deregulation won’t be enough to solve our low-income housing problems; housing subsidies will still be necessary. But it will allow those dollars to help more people.

The housing affordability challenges we are facing right now are as acute as they have been at any time since the 1950s when returning veterans came back by the millions and started families. We finally have broad bipartisan agreement that something needs to be done. Tearing down the regulatory barriers we have erected must be part of the solution.

____

Michael Schill is president emeritus of Northwestern University and the author of dozens of books and articles on housing and real estate.

___

©2026 Chicago Tribune. Visit at chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.