A Bipartisan Housing Package Faces an Uphill Battle in Michigan Legislature
LANSING, MI — A bipartisan package of nine housing bills introduced in the Michigan House last month has encountered significant resistance from local government groups and may not advance in the current legislative session.
The legislation would have capped lot sizes in metro areas at 2,500 square feet, capped minimum dwelling size requirements in metro areas at 500 square feet, and restricted mandatory parking requirements to no more than one space per dwelling unit. The bills would also have permitted duplexes in single-family residential zones within or adjacent to metro areas.
The package drew the ire of local government groups such as the Michigan Townships Association, the Michigan Municipal League, and a grassroots organization calling itself Hands Off My Hometown. These groups argued that the package would erode local control, decrease home values, and impose state mandates on municipalities.
Representative Joey Andrews, a second-term Democratic Representative from St. Joseph, expressed concern about the local government opposition to the legislation.
The package had initially been referred to the House Committee on Regulatory Reform, but has since been moved to the Committee on Government Operations, where its fate may be sealed according to House Speaker Pro Tem Rachelle Smit, a Republican from Shelbyville.
Michigan lawmakers are currently on a two-week break for the Easter and Passover religious holidays, which may further delay any action on the housing legislation.
Context: Rising Housing Costs in Michigan
Housing costs in Michigan have almost doubled in recent years, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Michigan has exceeded the pace of housing inflation found in other states. The average price of homes in the state was about 75 percent of the national average in 2012, but it is roughly 82 percent of the average today, according to Jarrett Skorup, vice president of marketing and communications at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
Inflation, interest rates, and rising construction costs have increased housing prices, but local government red tape is still making things worse according to free-market advocates.
Lessons from Montana
Montana made changes in 2023 and 2025 to legalize duplexes, allow accessory dwelling units, open commercial zones to housing, and permit taller buildings that can accommodate more housing units. The laws faced a legal challenge, but the Montana Supreme Court unanimously upheld the bipartisan legislation.
Montana enacted laws that call for freedom to build duplexes and accessory dwelling units by right with no need for extra approvals in many cities. The Big Sky State also streamlined review processes and simplified public participation.
Housing prices and rents have stabilized since the legislation was enacted in Montana. A broad coalition supported the changes, including builders, real estate agents, free-market advocates, and some local government groups.
"There are a lot of similarities between what is being proposed in Michigan and what we accomplished in Montana," said Forrest Mandeville, a Republican state senator from Stillwater County in Montana.
Michigan House bills 5529, 5530, 5531, 5532, 5581, 5582, 5583, 5584 and 5585 formed the bipartisan package that would have modernized development processes to reduce unnecessary costs and delays.
The Legislative Stalemate
The package had initially been referred to the House Committee on Regulatory Reform, but has since been moved to the Committee on Government Operations, where its fate may be sealed according to House Speaker Pro Tem Rachelle Smit, a Republican from Shelbyville.
State lawmakers are currently on a two-week break for the Easter and Passover religious holidays, which may further delay any action on the housing legislation.
The local government groups argue that municipalities should have the authority to determine their own zoning and development standards. They claim that the bills would interfere with local control and could have unintended consequences for property values and community character.
Representative Andrews and other supporters of the bills argue that the legislation is necessary to address the state's housing affordability crisis. They point to Montana's success as evidence that similar reforms could work in Michigan.
The committee on Government Operations will likely face pressure from both sides as it considers the bills. Local government associations are lobbying against the legislation, while housing advocates and free-market organizations are pushing for passage.
With the Easter and Passover break looming, it remains uncertain whether the committee will take up the housing bills before the legislative session concludes.
What Comes Next
The fate of the bipartisan housing package now rests with the House Committee on Government Operations. The committee will need to balance the concerns of local government associations with the need to address Michigan's housing affordability crisis.
The local government groups, including the Michigan Townships Association, the Michigan Municipal League, and Hands Off My Hometown, have been actively lobbying against the legislation. They argue that municipalities should retain the authority to determine their own zoning and development standards.
Supporters of the bills, including Representative Andrews and other Democrats, along with Republican lawmakers who introduced the package, argue that the legislation is necessary to address the state's housing affordability crisis. They point to Montana's success as evidence that similar reforms could work in Michigan.
The legislative stalemate on housing bills reflects broader tensions in Michigan about the balance of power between state and local governments. The issue has become increasingly important as housing costs continue to rise across the state.