By Deena Bosworth/Director of Governmental Affairs
Michigan’s housing shortage has become one of the most pressing policy challenges facing communities across the state. As lawmakers search for solutions in Lansing, the debate has taken on many different faces. At its core, the discussion is not a traditional partisan battle. Instead, it reflects a broader tension between the urgent need to increase housing supply and the responsibility of local governments to protect the character, infrastructure, and long-term planning of their communities.
Over the past several weeks, we have heard from the governor about the need for housing reforms and legislators have introduced a series of bills aimed at addressing housing shortages by stripping local decision-making on zoning restrictions. These proposals represent a “stick” approach — state mandates that override local land-use decisions to accelerate housing development. MAC is opposed to such an approach.
The first round of legislation, House Bills 5529-32, would significantly limit the ability of local governments and counties with zoning authority, to regulate residential development. Among other provisions, the bills prohibit ordinances from requiring minimum lot sizes for land splits and for single-family homes larger than 1,500 square feet. They also prevent ordinances from requiring that single-family dwellings exceed 500 square feet, provided the home has access to public water and sewer.
In addition, the legislation would change how protest petitions are heard and limit the scope of site plan reviews and related studies. Supporters argue that these reforms would remove barriers that slow housing construction. However, many planners and local leaders worry that such limits weaken the ability of communities to manage growth responsibly.
A second package of proposals HBs 5582, 5583, 5584 and 5585 go even further. These bills would allow mobile homes in any residential area, permit duplexes in neighborhoods currently zoned for single-family homes, and require that accessory dwelling units be allowed by right on parcels with single-family residences. They also restrict local regulations by prohibiting requirements for more than one parking space per unit in multifamily developments and limiting setback standards to no more than 15 feet in the front and five feet on the sides and at the rear.
While the goal of expanding housing options is widely shared, MAC is particularly concerned that these measures risk severing the long-standing connection between local land-use planning and infrastructure planning. For decades, drain commissioners and water resource commissioners as well as cities and townships have built their stormwater, drinking water and sewer systems around locally adopted master plans that guide where and when growth is expected to occur. These plans help determine when infrastructure must be expanded, where capacity exists, and how redevelopment can be accommodated.
When zoning rules change dramatically without coordination with those plans, the downstream impacts can be significant. Increased density in areas not designed for it can strain aging water and sewer systems, increase flooding, create traffic and parking challenges, and increase long-term infrastructure costs for communities already struggling to maintain existing systems.
Recognizing these concerns, a second approach has begun to emerge in Lansing, a “carrot” rather than a “stick.” Instead of mandating zoning changes from the state level, this strategy focuses on partnerships between the state and local governments.
This week (March 2-6), lawmakers introduced HBs 5560 and 5561, which would allocate $160 million per year for five years to support housing solutions across the state. The funding would be distributed through grants to local governments that voluntarily pursue zoning reforms, as well as to nonprofit developers, land bank authorities, and other development partners.
The intent is to encourage collaborative solutions tailored to the unique needs of individual communities. By providing resources rather than mandates, supporters say the program would help local governments expand housing opportunities while preserving the integrity and planning frameworks that guide community development. MAC is still reviewing these proposals.
As the debate continues in Lansing, one thing is clear: solving Michigan’s housing shortage will require balancing speed with stewardship. Increasing housing supply is essential, but so is ensuring that growth aligns with infrastructure capacity and the character of the places people call home.
For more information on this issue, contact Deena Bosworth at bosworth@micounties.org.