Michigan lawmakers: Fix zoning laws to grow housing

A bipartisan group of Michigan lawmakers unveiled legislation they say would speed up the homebuilding process by removing red tape
The nine-bill package focuses on updating Michigan’s zoning laws. Some measures could be up for debate this week in committee
Among the key policy items in the package: What people are able to build on properties they own — and who has the final say in that

LANSING — As Michigan works to climb its way out of a statewide housing shortage, a bipartisan group of lawmakers say they want to speed up the process by scaling back red tape.

A nine-bill package announced Tuesday but not yet introduced will focus primarily on amending zoning laws — especially when it comes to what people can build on a property, and who has final say in getting it built.

“The costs (of building housing) are rising,” state Rep. Joe Aragona, R-Clinton Township, told reporters. “They’re becoming incredibly unattainable, and that’s why you have this bipartisan, bicameral group together to try and solve this issue, or at least solve part of this issue.”

The legislative package has sponsors from both the Republican-led state House and Democratic-led Senate, but whether it will advance or grow Michigan’s housing stock remains to be seen. Similar legislation stalled in 2024.

Related:

Among other things, the bills seek to:

Establish a statewide definition of what constitutes a “duplex,” while also allowing duplexes by right in single-family residential zones
Cap mandatory parking requirements at no more than one space per unit
Expand the scope of who may protest a development being built, from people within 100 feet of the property’s boundaries to 300 feet
Cap minimum dwelling size requirements at 500 square feet, in an effort to make it easier to build smaller homes and apartments
Prohibit minimum lot size requirements of more than 2,500 square feet for single-family homes
Create standards for local governments to follow when reviewing development requests, including a 60-day timeline for all decisions to be made
Define what constitutes an Accessory Dwelling Unit — otherwise known as a “mother-in-law suite” — on parcels with single-family homes, while allowing them to be built either on- or off-site

State Rep. Kristian Grant, D-Grand Rapids, said the package represents months worth of work by lawmakers who want to “directly impact housing,” not just sound like they’re trying to “fix a problem.”

Supporters contend it is becoming harder for Michiganders – particularly first-time homebuyers and economically disadvantaged residents – to enter the housing market due to what they see as burdensome regulations.

The median age of first-time homebuyers nationwide is now 40 years old, according to a November 2025 report from the National Association of Realtors, with the median age of repeat buyers hitting 62.

That’s in part because, before a contractor purchases a single screw, it costs Michigan homebuilders roughly $94,000 in associated taxes and regulations to build a house, Aragona suggested.

“So, how do you make a home affordable if you’re going to be spending $94,000 … before you ever pay somebody to swing a hammer at that nail and at that 2-by-4?”

But it’s not clear if that math applies to Michigan. The $94,000 figure, often cited by officials, is a national cost estimate, according to a recent Bridge Michigan fact check.

Bob Filka, CEO of the Michigan Association of Homebuilders, told Bridge late last month that he believed Michigan’s cost would be similar but said state figures weren’t available.

Aragona, chair of the House Regulatory Affairs Committee, said he expects to take up a few of the bills this week.

Already, however, they have some detractors.

The legislation is “a disingenuous attempt” at solving the state’s affordable housing crisis that ignores the reality of labor shortages, as well as rising material and land costs, in order to place “the blame on local governments,” Tom Hickson with the Michigan Township Association said in a statement provided to Bridge Michigan.

The proposal “is yet another attempt to preempt local authority and local decisions—which is never the answer,” he added.

It’s a familiar refrain.

Two years ago, groups like the Michigan Township Association and Michigan Municipal League opposed similar legislation, arguing that while the reforms could increase the housing supply, it’s not clear if zoning updates would “affect affordability, or increase affordable units being built.”

“If … savings are happening, there’s nothing in here to require those savings be passed on to the actual buyer or renter,” Jennifer Rigterink, assistant director of state and federal affairs for the Michigan Municipal League, told lawmakers at the time.

She went on to argue that cities were already “dedicated and committed to finding real solutions for the housing crisis” and were determining how to update zoning laws on a city-by-city basis — rather than from the statewide approach the bill package calls for, both in the 2024 and 2026 iterations.

“Our members have been making these reforms by choice,” Rigterink said. “And so we do question the need of ‘one size fits all’ — because one size fits no one.”

The Municipal League last fall called on lawmakers to set aside $800 million over the next five years to help spur affordable housing projects, predicting the cash infusion could result in 10,000 new or rehabilitated homes.

The carrot-over-stick proposal sought to provide funding to developers for projects in communities that relax certain zoning regulations – such as allowing duplexes in residential areas – in an effort to ward off any potential mandates from the state.