The passage of 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act felt like a rare event in Washington: a two-way, wonderful relationship. In a political climate defined by caustic conflict, the 89-10 vote in the Senate is not a formal victory; it is a confession. It is a bipartisan admission that housing affordability has reached critical levels that threaten the very American Dream; and, obviously, their job security.
As we head toward the 2026 midterm elections and the next race for the White House, it’s becoming increasingly clear that this generation’s “kitchen table” issue isn’t just affordability in the general sense – it’s the direct, crushing cost of a roof over one’s head. Housing availability will determine control of Congress and the presidency. It is the lens through which voters will decide whether the economy works for them or against them.
The good, the bad and the NIMBY
The ROAD to Housing Act does a few things right. By improving environmental reviews and modernizing manufactured housing regulations, it takes a bulldozer to the “red tape” that has historically made construction a slow, expensive nightmare. The “Homes for People, Not Companies” provision — which prevents large institutional investors from gobbling up single-family homes — speaks to the frustration felt by every first-time homebuyer who has been defeated by an algorithm.
However, we have seen this movie before at the state level. In California, ambitious housing reforms are often overturned by sophisticated “Not In My Backyard” (NIMBY) opposition. While federal law can provide tools, local execution remains a battleground. If the federal government doesn’t find a way to bypass or mobilize local obstructionists, this supply-side win will be largely muted.
But the most important failure of the bill is not what it includes – it is what it ignores. It treats housing as a closed infrastructure issue instead of what it really is: a critical workforce issue.
Housing as new retirement
For decades, the American government has realized that if we want citizens to be financially secure in old age, we must encourage employers to help them save. This gave birth to the 401(k) and 403(b). By using tax credits for program management and the status of tax relief, the government has created a bridge between the private sector and the long-term stability of the individual worker.
It’s time we apply that same logic to homes.
Housing is no longer just a personal hurdle to clear; it is a direct drag on corporate productivity. If an employee is “rent-burdened” – spending more than 30% of their salary on housing – they are more likely to become stressed, disengaged from work and end up leaving their job to find less money elsewhere to keep working. This “invisible tax” on high profits and narrow focus is costing American businesses billions.
Each year, tens of thousands of job applicants get jobs they really want, but in the end, they decide not to accept them. Why? Housing affordability. Each year, tens of thousands of workers leave the jobs they love to relocate. Why? Housing affordability.
Employers have a natural, vested interest in the housing stability of their employees. However, the Senate bill missed a big opportunity to make employers cooperate in solving the problem of housing subsidies. For example, the bill would have helped create federal tax-free savings accounts to help workers save for a down payment – “Housing 401(k)” – where employers could receive tax credits for matching contributions. Why does a company get a tax break for helping an employee save a lifetime for 30 years, but have no incentive to help that employee live within 30 minutes of the office today?
Bridging the gap
When I started my company, it was with the realization that most companies have a gap in their benefits package – and it’s as big as a house. Employers offer the basics – health, dental, vision and retirement savings. But they also offer so much more – student loan assistance, interest support, child and elder care, gym memberships, mental health services, pet insurance (yes, pet insurance – what’s up with that event?) We built Oro to make it easy for companies to offer home ownership options and home wealth as a core benefit – providing everything from low down payment plans to credit reporting.
We see every day that when a company invests in building houses for its employees, it is not just “doing something good” – it strengthens its employees. They turn housing affordability into employment and stability.
The Senate bill refers to “opening up private investment,” but fails to include the most important actor in the private sector: the employer. By failing to include corporate tax incentives to match housing savings or provide down payment subsidies, the bill sidesteps the most effective program to bring about financial well-being.
Election authority
Politicians who support this bill have a right to be concerned. The median home price in early 2026 remains nearly five times the median household income, an unsustainable ratio. Young voters, in particular, are no longer looking for incremental change; they are looking for a path to the equality machine that defined the middle class for their parents and grandparents.
If the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act is the end of the conversation, then we are already lost. This bill should be a foundation, not a finished building. We need a Phase Two towards the workplace. We need a policy framework that treats down payment and other forms of employer-sponsored housing support in a tax-advantaged manner as a retirement fund.
The message for the 2026 candidates is simple: If you want to win, you have to do more than just make it easier to build houses; you have to make it easier for people to be able to afford to live in them. It’s time to bring the private sector into the fray. It is time to treat housing as an important workforce infrastructure.
George Fatheree is the CEO of Oroa housing benefits company that enables tenants to provide consistent, affordable options for homeownership and home equity.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of HousingWire’s editorial department and its owners.
To contact the editor responsible for this piece: [email protected]
