‘Too much change’: Measures to cut Idaho housing costs stumble in Statehouse

A split Senate committee on Tuesday spiked three bills aimed at boosting Idaho’s housing stock by cutting regulations to open more land for homes and to curb climbing costs — particularly for those just entering the housing market.

The Senate Committee on Commerce and Human Resources voted 5-4 to keep all three bills in committee, likely killing the proposals for the 2026 legislative session.

The suite of legislation from Coeur d’Alene Republican Sen. Ben Toews sought a free-market fix to Idaho’s skyrocketing housing costs. The median price for a home in Idaho has more than doubled in the past 10 years, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, reaching $569,000 in January. That’s about 119% more than you’d have paid in January 2016.

“We’re looking at solutions to a real problem here in Idaho,” Toews said. “I’m looking for a future where my kids can live in my community — where they don’t have move to Tennessee or some other state to buy a house.”

To Toews, housing prices are propped up by dated local land use rules that prefer larger — and pricier — single-family homes to dense, compact construction.

“Where we’re at today is the direct result of how local control plays out,” he told the Committee. “My challenge to you is to let the free market play out.”

Senate Bills 1277, 1279 and 1280 would have:

• Struck homeowners association rules or city or county laws that ban duplexes or “twin homes” on lots zoned for single-family houses.
• Lifted restrictions on accessory dwelling units such as backyard cottages and allowed accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, “by right” under local planning laws.
• Removed local laws and HOA restrictions that prevent “starter-home subdivisions” — that is, dense, small-lot homes designed to sell for less than typical single-family options.

At the statehouse Tuesday, opponents, led by Vice Chair Sen. Brian Lenney of Nampa, were uncomfortable with each bill from the start. Lenney, who led the push to block the proposals, seemed leery of pre-empting city and county laws to spur “high density and urbanization.”

“I’m looking at this, and it doesn’t much feel like an Idaho bill,” he said of SB 1277, the ADU bill.

Lenney grew up in Southern California, which he says failed to manage rapid growth.

“That whole model of cramming as many people into whatever space you have is what broke California and caused so many people to leave,” he said of SB 1279, which would have shrunk minimum lot sizes across the state. While he applauded Toews’ attempt to address housing, Lenney and Sen. Jim Guthrie, R-McCammon, worked to stop the bills where they stood, rather than refer them to the floor for amendments.

“I think it’s too much to change too fast,” he said.

Infrastructure a concern for cities, counties

Others in Tuesday’s hearing had concerns about infrastructure like sewer and water, which is strained in some of the state’s fastest-growing areas and limited by rural systems away from urban hubs.

Zach Brooks, a Canyon County commissioner substituting for Nampa Republican Sen. Todd Lakey, said the density demands are “completely untenable” in unincorporated areas, which almost exclusively rely on wells and septic systems throughout the state.

Star, where Trevor Chadwick is mayor, has municipal sewer and water — but it wasn’t scaled for the number of users it would see if single family homes converted to duplexes or added ADUs. While changing the laws wouldn’t cost the state any money, Chadwick testified, it would burden his city — one of the fastest growing in Idaho — beyond what it could bear.

“I can’t emphasize this enough: Infrastructure is our biggest limitation in the state of Idaho,” he said. “If you can’t work with sewer and water, you can’t build. It’s as simple as that.”

Chadwick, who testified against each bill, had other concerns, too — namely that the legislation had no “sideboards” to assure that houses built under the new rules would stay affordable, or would remain open to buyers. He pointed to a new subdivision in Star that a developer sold to a single rental company, sweeping 300 homes out of the ownership pool. An additional 600 approved homesites are ready to build, he said, but developers are dragging their feet.

“We’re not the problem,” Chadwick said. “The market is the problem.”

Affordability ‘important’ this session

Cities like Star could implement the changes Toews proposed themselves, if they wanted to. That would likely take years as jurisdictions incrementally overhaul their comprehensive plans and zoning codes as they come due.

“Our land use laws in Idaho haven’t been amended in a very long time,” Sabrina Minshall, a spokesperson for Treasure Valley developer Hayden Homes, told the committee while testifying in support of SB 1297, the bill to allow starter-home subdivisions. As a result, she said, local laws tend to demand strict limits on density, “rather than asking what infrastructure can support.”

These restrictions translate to larger lots, bigger homes and higher prices, she said. For Hayden, which specializes in workforce housing, that’s no longer what customers are looking for.

“The drivers (of cost) are land size and the size of a home,” Minshall said, “and we’re seeing demand for both be smaller.”

Toews pitched the legislation in conservative terms: a deregulation, allowing businesses like Minshall’s to fill niches as they noticed them. But that framing gave Sen. Treg Bernt, R-Meridian, pause. Bernt was “very sympathetic” but noted that “sometimes I think it’s ironic that we complain about the federal government in this building … but we’re more than willing to tell a local (government) what the hell to do.”

Toews didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

He is also sponsoring a fourth housing-related bill, SB 1278, which would create a legal path for religious organizations to develop housing on church land. That bill has been referred to the Senate State Affairs Committee but has not yet had a hearing.

Despite voting to stall all three bills, Bernt told the committee that he was “hopeful” the Legislature could address affordability “the right way” this session.

“I can see the headlines now: Senator Bernt hates affordability,” he said. “That’s absolutely not true. I don’t think there’s anything else we could work on this session more important than this.”