Summary#
The Build Now Act of 2025 is a proposed new law that would add housing-growth adjustments to Community Development Block Grant allocations made under section 106 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Its stated goal is to adjust those allocations based on improvements in housing growth. The bill has not become law; the supplied material does not include the existing Act, so I could not verify how these rules would interact with current allocation rules.
- HUD would calculate eligible local governments’ housing-growth improvement rates using housing-unit counts from two periods.
- A recipient at or above the relevant median rate, or with current annual housing growth of at least 4%, would receive a bonus. Bonus amounts would come from reductions to other eligible recipients’ allocations.
- An eligible recipient below the relevant median would have its otherwise-calculated allocation reduced by 10%.
- Eligibility excludes certain metropolitan cities and urban counties, including those that lack legal authority to enact or update zoning and permitting rules. Other exclusions apply to some places based on rents and home values, rental vacancies, or recent disaster declarations.
- HUD would publish an annual report and, within 60 days of enactment, notify each eligible recipient of its rate and provide guidance on reducing regulatory barriers and increasing housing supply.
What it means for you#
- Metropolitan cities and urban counties receiving CDBG funds: If eligible, their allocation would rise or fall under the new formula. A bonus would be based on the recipient’s share of housing units among recipients receiving bonuses. The bill does not require a local government to change its zoning or permitting rules.
- Local residents and organizations: The bill does not create a direct benefit, application process, or new service for individuals. If a local government’s CDBG allocation changes, that could affect activities it funds, but the bill does not specify which activities would change.
- HUD: The department must calculate rates and allocations, publish reports, notify recipients, and provide guidance.
- The Census Bureau and U.S. Postal Service: They must provide relevant data to HUD when it requests it.
- Taxpayers: The bill does not set a tax or add money to CDBG. It would shift some CDBG allocations among eligible recipients.
Money#
No cost estimate or new appropriation appears in the supplied bill text.
- Recipients below the specified median would lose 10% of the amount they would otherwise receive under section 106. Those reductions would fund bonuses for other eligible recipients.
- HUD must do the calculations, reporting, notifications, and guidance, but the bill gives no staffing or cost estimate.
- The Census Bureau and Postal Service must provide relevant data on request; the bill gives no estimate of the cost of doing so.
What is unclear#
- The bill uses “high-growth outliers” in the reduction rule but does not define that term. It separately defines “extremely high-growth recipient.” The text does not explain whether these terms are meant to refer to the same group.
- The bill does not explain how HUD should calculate the improvement rate if a recipient’s prior annual growth rate is zero or negative.
- It does not specify all data sources or methods for determining median home values and Small Area Fair Market Rents.
- It does not explain how recipients can challenge HUD’s data or calculations.
- The bill sets the start as the second full fiscal year after enactment and says the rules run through fiscal year 2042. The start date depends on when, if ever, the bill is enacted.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to reward eligible local governments whose housing growth has improved, while directing larger bonuses to places with more housing units.
- Using a formula tied to measured housing growth could make allocation changes more consistent across eligible recipients.
- HUD would provide guidance on reducing regulatory barriers and increasing housing supply, alongside the financial incentives.
Case against#
- A 10% cut could reduce funds for a local government even though the bill does not show how housing growth relates to the local needs CDBG funds address.
- The bonus pool is limited to money taken from other eligible recipients; the bill does not add funding overall.
- The undefined “high-growth outliers” term and unclear treatment of zero or negative prior growth rates could make the formula difficult to apply consistently.
- The bill does not explain how HUD’s calculations can be reviewed or corrected, or how recipients’ existing CDBG allocation rules would interact with the new adjustments.