A bipartisan group of Arizona lawmakers is asking Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs to sign the “Arizona Starter Homes Act.”
The bill would cut back on regulations, particularly in municipalities, that proponents say make it difficult for smaller or non-single family homes to be constructed in many communities throughout the state. Namely, the bill would allow more leeway with lot sizes and other amenity guidelines in hopes of increasing the supply of housing statewide.
Senate President Warren Petersen said that legislation will ideally help the next generation of aspiring homeowners.
“You know how my kids feel? Absolute despair,” Petersen said, adding that rising costs of home ownership is impacting people of all different backgrounds.
Hobbs said last week that she was undecided on whether or not she will sign the legislation into law.
“The bill has not been transmitted to me yet. I’m still looking at it. What I have been very clear about is that when it comes to housing, I want to see a package that is negotiated, that has bipartisan support, and is a compromise with local jurisdictions,” Hobbs said said last week.
House Bill 2570 is expected to be transmitted to the governor on Tuesday. It passed the House in a 33-26 vote and the Senate in a 16-13-1 vote.
“This is a true bipartisan product,” said House Majority Leader Leo Biasiucci, the bill’s sponsor.
“When you have regulations that require them to do certain things […] this is when the price goes up,” he continued.
When The Center Square asked the governor’s office if there was any update on Hobbs’ stance, nothing appeared to have changed externally.
“No, and it has not been sent to her desk yet,” a spokesman for Hobbs told The Center Square.
Sen. Anna Hernandez, D-Phoenix, said Democrats in favor of the bill spoke with the governor’s staff last week urging for her signature. Hernandez emphasized that it would bring “character” into neighborhoods, as well as allow for starter homes to be more common once again.
“The residents of my community shouldn’t be forced to only be renters because they cannot afford a starter home,” Hernandez said.
“We’re tired of not having options. This brings us back to have options,” she added.
Opponents of the bill have raised concerns that the legislation could be a slippery slope for certain neighborhoods seeking to maintain a specific environment, and members in favor of the bill have suggested that the Arizona League of Cities and Towns has not been cooperative in working on home ownership legislation like this bill.
The median list price for a home in Arizona is $474,633 as of February 2024, according to Zillow data.
sky high interest rates are killing housing affordability right now
Not the function of government.
I’m curious…is this driven by the oligarchs taking over housing ie: Tricon, Blackstone etc? Then it’s plain and simple BAD! Where I live land is being swallowed up by builders. Where’s the water come from to sustain? So many ?????
For new subdivisions this sounds like a winner. BUT..If you live in a subdivision that’s currently built on one-acre lots, for which you paid a premium, does this bill overturn existing county zoning plans so all those lots can be subdivided into minimum size parcels, which would devalue every large lot in that neighborhood by cramming 200 more houses into one block? How can existing homeowners protect their privacy and not be forced into a sardine can full of strangers?
I just read the bill and I’m on the fence about it. On the one hand, it definitely makes it easier and less expensive to build. My concerns are twofold: a) Housing prices are predominantly set by the market, not the cost of building. Of course, the cost of building determines the minimum price a developer intends to charge. And, if he or she can’t sell their product for that price, they don’t build. But if the market is hot, the price will go up to something comparable to the competition. That defeats the intent of the bill to some extent. b) Sure, the homes will be lower priced, but What is the neighborhood going to look like in 20 years? It doesn’t make sense to lower standards to the point where you’re building the next slum.
On the other hand, it will help people be able to afford a home instead of renting. That’s a huge positive if homeowners are the ones buying them. There’s a lot to weigh for a bill with such simple language. I think I’d support it if speculative buying was somehow blocked for the initial sale.
Oh no, we cant have those evil investors making a profit using their (after tax) capital to buy properties to make a profit.
Just saying that defeats the purpose of the law. If investors gobble up the cheap real estate then those seeking to buy for the first time will remain in the same position but the neighborhoods will be a packed mess.