A recent webinar explored how state and local governments can independently take action to advance affordable housing and healthy communities. Four panelists discussed strategies to rein in corporate power, enforce anti-trust laws, institute public banking, pass reforms that reduce the costs of developing housing, and adjust tax breaks to incentivize new affordable units. Their work offers practical solutions for addressing housing affordability as federal support wanes.
Chattanooga’s Revised Tax Incentives Drive Affordable Housing
Chattanooga, Tennessee, has overhauled its property tax break program to link incentives directly to the volume and income eligibility of affordable units in new developments. The previous system granted developers a fixed tax reduction if half their units were priced for households earning up to 60% of the area median income (AMI). However, this approach did not adapt to local market variations. In high-demand areas, the benefit proved insufficient to justify affordable housing construction, while in weaker markets, it overcompensated for units that could have been built affordably without subsidies.
The city’s updated tax break program now adjusts incentives based on both the number of affordable units and the depth of their subsidy. Developers receive tax breaks proportional to the cost of providing those units, with greater affordability levels earning larger reductions. The system also accounts for neighborhood-specific construction expenses. A public calculator on the city’s website displays how incentives are calculated, ensuring full transparency.
Early results show tangible progress. A 278-unit apartment complex in a previously unaffordable neighborhood—one of Chattanooga’s most sought-after areas—recently began construction under the new system. The project includes affordable units, with some reserved for households earning 60% or less of AMI. The site’s tax revenue increased from $9,000 annually to over $340,000 after accounting for the tax abatement. Before the program’s redesign, no income-restricted housing existed in that neighborhood.
This approach goes beyond merely relocating affordable units—it enables projects that would have been unfeasible under the old rules. A developer new to affordable housing can now structure a mix of market-rate and subsidized units in a way that aligns with financing requirements, a flexibility that rigid thresholds previously prevented. The city’s limited policy tools and revenue constraints made creative solutions essential.
Legal and Organizing Campaigns Target Corporate Landlords
While cities like Chattanooga focus on incentives, other communities are directly confronting the corporate entities driving up rents and deteriorating housing quality. A 2022 investigation by ProPublica exposed how RealPage, a software firm, sold an algorithm called YieldStar to landlords to artificially inflate rents. The tool analyzed tenant data to determine optimal timing for price increases or renewal denials, effectively coordinating rent-fixing across the industry. Multiple state attorneys general subsequently sued RealPage and a dozen corporate landlords for participating in what amounted to a nationwide price-fixing conspiracy.
Legal action alone has proven insufficient. Organizers with the Action Center on Race and the Economy (ACRE) and Bargaining for the Common Good (BCG) are pushing for local enforcement of existing housing laws, particularly those related to habitability. In northern Minneapolis, tenants documented systemic issues—black mold, malfunctioning air conditioning, and foundation cracks—in single-family rentals owned by Progress Residential, one of the state’s largest corporate landlords. The attorney general filed a lawsuit alleging repeated violations of housing codes, including unsafe conditions during extreme heat events.
ACRE’s research demonstrates that corporate landlords frequently exploit loopholes in state preemption laws, which prevent cities from regulating rents or enforcing stricter building standards. The organization argues that local governments can still intervene by funding lawsuits, leveraging pension funds (many of which have public trustees), and passing ordinances to ban rent algorithms or mandate habitable conditions. Their work aims to expose how corporate practices distort markets and demand accountability.
One strategy gaining momentum is tenant organizing. In jurisdictions where state laws block rent control, organizers have pressured landlords by documenting violations, publicizing poor living conditions, and urging local officials to enforce existing codes. This approach combines two tactics: legal challenges and grassroots pressure. When courts move slowly, community groups fill the void by making noncompliance politically costly for landlords.
ACRE’s research shows that corporate landlords account for a disproportionate share of complaints about rent hikes, delayed maintenance, and illegal evictions. The gap between corporate scale and local oversight creates an enforcement vacuum that organizers are now addressing. The challenge remains scaling these efforts from isolated cases to broader systemic change.
Related Post: New Housing Law Grants Permanent Disaster Recovery Funding
The webinar’s middle discussion contrasted these local interventions with past movements. The 1970s saw cities like Boston and New York experiment with rent control and tenant unions, but those efforts often stalled due to federal preemption or corporate lobbying. Today’s campaigns differ in two key aspects: first, the tools are more targeted, Chattanooga’s tax break program, for example, avoids the blunt instrument approach of earlier incentives. Second, the focus is sharper. Whereas previous movements addressed “corporate power” broadly, current campaigns target specific algorithms, landlord networks, and financial mechanisms. The result is a blend of legal pressure and direct action that feels better aligned with the modern housing crisis.
Michigan’s Zoning Reforms Aim to Boost Housing Supply
Michigan is taking a distinct approach to housing shortages through state-level zoning reforms. The Housing Readiness Package, a bipartisan bill, includes provisions designed to reduce development barriers. Among the most significant are changes to parking minimums, a persistent obstacle to affordable housing, and regulations for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), which allow homeowners to construct small apartments on their properties.
One proposed measure would eliminate the requirement for multiple stairwells in multi-unit buildings, a rule that has hindered the construction of duplexes and triplexes in many Michigan communities. Advocates argue that the safety concerns typically cited for these requirements are overstated, while the economic benefits, more housing at lower costs, are clear. The package also includes provisions to streamline site plan reviews, a process that can extend for months and discourage smaller developers.
Michigan’s shortage of over 100,000 units mirrors a national trend: restrictive zoning has artificially constrained supply while demand grows. The state’s bipartisan effort suggests that even in politically divided legislatures, housing shortages can transcend party lines. Advocates emphasize framing the issue as an economic opportunity rather than a social welfare concern. When lawmakers hear that more housing means more jobs and higher property values, the financial argument becomes harder to dismiss.
Lauren Strickland, executive director of Abundant Housing Michigan, illustrated the problem with a personal example: a senior housing development that required dozens of parking spaces despite most residents not owning vehicles. The rule was not only unnecessary but also made the project financially unfeasible for smaller developers. By relaxing such requirements, the state could unlock thousands of units that would otherwise remain undeveloped.
Public Banking and Land Use Reform as Local Alternatives to Federal Inaction
The webinar highlighted two additional strategies for addressing housing instability at the state and local levels: public banking initiatives and zoning reforms. Public banking efforts aim to redirect public funds away from private financial institutions and toward community needs. In California, the Public Banking Alliance has advanced legislation allowing local governments to establish their own banks, which would hold and lend public dollars without Wall Street intermediaries.
This approach seeks to address funding gaps in affordable housing, social services, and infrastructure by leveraging billions in idle public funds currently deposited in private banks. The alliance also promotes universal banking programs, such as the proposed CalAccount, which would provide fee-free accounts to unbanked residents, a critical step for those excluded from traditional financial systems.
Public Banking Redefines Local Funding for Housing
The financial argument is compelling. Cities currently borrow from private banks to build roads, schools, and housing, then repay the loans with interest, often at rates far exceeding what a public bank could charge. The Bank of North Dakota, established in 1919, demonstrates the model’s effectiveness. It has returned significant value to the state, funding schools and services without exposing taxpayer money to Wall Street risks. California’s proposed CalAccount program would expand this further by offering zero-fee bank accounts to all residents, including the millions currently unbanked or underbanked.
Public banks do not compete with local credit unions; they collaborate with them. The model relies on fractional reserve lending, where every dollar deposited can be leveraged up to ten times in loans. If a city deposits $1 billion, the bank could generate $10 billion in lending capacity. The goal is not merely to redirect money but to amplify its impact. Trinity Tran, the alliance’s executive director, describes it as a way to reclaim control over money that already belongs to communities.
