Amid forecasts that Virginia will see the third-highest rent increases in the nation this year, lawmakers are acknowledging the affordable housing crisis but remain divided on solutions. While the Senate Committee on Local Government advanced some bills addressing this issue on Monday, others were defeated or delayed for further deliberation.
Housing policy has historically been a local issue, but it has gained attention at the federal level as well. Both former Vice President Kamala Harris and President Donald Trump highlighted housing affordability in their campaigns last year, underscoring its importance as a bipartisan concern.
Meanwhile in Virginia, a proposal from Sen. Ghazala Hashmi, D-Chesterfield, and Sen. Kannan Srinivasan, D-Loudoun, seeks to streamline the process for congregations and nonprofit organizations to use land they own to develop affordable housing.
Several representatives from religious and interfaith groups voiced support for the bill during Monday’s committee hearing, highlighting its potential to address housing shortages.
In addition to this legislation, another affordable housing effort advanced despite challenges. A bill by Sen. Jeremy McPike, D-Prince William, that would enable localities to utilize special tax credits for affordable housing is moving forward once again after being vetoed by Gov. Glenn Youngkin last year.
If passed into law, McPike’s bill would enable localities to create affordable housing programs through zoning ordinances. This includes offering developers incentives to include below-market-rate housing in new developments, potentially expanding housing options for low- and moderate income Virginians.
Affordable housing initiatives in Virginia often rely on Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), which developers use when setting aside portions of their projects for housing within specific income brackets.
Local governments have the authority to approve or reject these projects, but currently, only a limited number of localities in the state have that power. McPike’s bill seeks to change this by granting all Virginia localities the option to implement LIHTC projects, expanding the ability to address housing affordability challenges.
However, the measure has faced resistance from Youngkin. A spokesman for the governor argued that such ordinances “enforce a form of price control” and can affect what developers are willing or able to build. In his veto statement last year, Youngkin described McPike’s proposal as “unnecessary,” noting that current law already allows certain localities to adopt similar policies.
“In general, local governments should take the price of housing into account when considering their zoning policies,” Youngkin wrote. “Current law allows certain local governments with well-documented housing affordability issues the ability to enact such ordinances.”
The localities with that authority, however, have to request special permission from the state legislature. McPike’s bill would simplify the process, allowing any Virginia locality to pursue LIHTC initiatives without additional legislative approval.
McPike emphasized once again that his bill stems directly from a 2021 recommendation by the Joint Legislative and Audit Review Commission (JLARC). Having cleared committee with bipartisan support, the bill is poised to move through the legislature as it did last year — though it may ultimately face another veto from Youngkin.
Still awaiting a vote in the committee is a proposal from Sen. Jennifer Boysko, D-Fairfax, which would grant localities the authority to implement rent protections. Under Boysko’s plan, landlords would be required to provide two months’ written notice before raising rents and adhere to limits on how much rent could increase.
Another measure, proposed bye Sen. Saddam Salim, D-Fairfax, would require local governments to create ordinances for accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The committee opted to give Salim more time to refine his bill before bringing it up for a vote.
ADUs, which can include garage apartments, carriage houses and in-law suites, have been promoted as a versatile housing option to meet the needs of families, students and low-income residents. Typically built on existing housing lots, ADUs are seen as a way to address housing shortages, but regulatory guidance for their approval is sparse across the state.
The committee debated two ADU-related bills on Monday. Salim’s measure faced some pushback over its “may” versus “shall” language. Public comments reflected a desire for clearer mandates.
Meanwhile, Sen. Bill Stanley, R-Franklin, has introduced a related proposal allowing — though not requiring — localities to include ADU regulations in their comprehensive plans. Unlike zoning code, comprehensive plans are guiding documents that localities draft every few years which can inform zoning code. Both bills remain in committee for further discussion.
Two housing measures by Sen. Schuyler VanValkenburg, D-Henrico, were defeated during Monday’s meeting. One aimed to encourage localities to increase housing supply, while the other sought to allow by-right multifamily residential spaces in certain commercial corridors.
By-right zoning permits developments, such as apartments, to proceed without additional government approval. VanValkenburg argued that mixed-use properties, combining residential and commercial, have gained popularity in parts of his district and can help retain young professionals by providing apartments closer to workplaces.
VanValkenburg’s second measure would have required local governments to develop plans for increasing their housing supply by 7.5% over the next five years. The bill included suggested factions for achieving that goal, while also allowing localities to avoid penalties if they could demonstrate good-faith efforts. For jurisdictions that failed to act, the state would have authority to “overturn local decisions and approve applications under certain circumstances.”
The proposals met resistance from Sen. Glenn Sturtevant, R-Chesterfield, who raised concerns about potential state overreach.
“There might be an erosion of local control over zoning and approvals,” he warned.
VanValkenburg acknowledged the trade-off, admitting that “it is some erosion of local control over housing in some way,” but argued the measures were less prescriptive than opponents claimed.
“When you think about where this housing is going to go, it is not going to be as much as you think it is,” he said. “There is give and take in the bill. But I would argue this is more than a local problem, this is a state problem.”
Describing the housing goals as a “soft cap,” VanValkenburg emphasized that the bill aimed to encourage, not enforce, local action.
He expressed his intention to reintroduce the proposals next year.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.