More Individual Freedom Key to Affordable Housing

Last month, Americans celebrated Constitution Day.

Here in Pennsylvania, this special commemoration carries a little extra meaning. Just down the road, delegates gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 to sign a document that would fundamentally change the relationship between people and their government.

The Constitution wasn’t written on the assumption that government should make every decision for us. Rather, it created a system of divided and limited governmental power—a system designed to leave room for individuals, families, communities, and states to govern much of their own lives.

Nearly 240 years later, this principle is worth remembering when we talk about something as practical as the cost of housing. Right now, too many Pennsylvanians are finding that one of the biggest obstacles to finding an affordable place to live isn’t simply demand—it’s that we’ve made it harder to create more supply.

Here in the commonwealth, we’re asking Harrisburg to take swift action so that we can build more and meet our housing demands.

It’s basic supply and demand economics: when people need more housing, but regulations make it difficult to build more of it, families end up competing over a limited number of homes. That puts upward pressure on prices.

Look at Austin and Minneapolis, for example. Swift changes to zoning, parking requirements, permitting, and other restrictions led to substantial additions to the housing supply. These examples illustrate the role additional supply can play in increasing choice and easing price pressure.

That’s where an ongoing debate in Harrisburg becomes especially relevant.

Senate Bill 1346 would amend Pennsylvania’s Municipalities Planning Code as it relates to accessory dwelling units, or ADUs. The legislation was reported from the Senate Urban Affairs and Housing Committee by a 10-to-1 vote in July.

An ADU could be an apartment over a garage, a converted portion of a home, or a small cottage on an existing residential property. For families, those spaces can serve very different purposes.

Maybe it’s a place for an aging parent who wants independence while remaining close to children and grandchildren. Perhaps this space is somewhere for a young person to live while saving for a home. Or, perhaps, it’s additional rental income that helps a homeowner pay the mortgage.

The policy debate surrounding SB 1346 therefore touches on two related questions: how do we increase Pennsylvania’s housing supply, and how much freedom should property owners have to decide how their own property is used?

The Constitution itself doesn’t settle Pennsylvania zoning policy. Land-use rules are primarily matters for state and local government, and communities have legitimate interests in questions such as infrastructure, safety, and development. However, Constitution Day does give us an opportunity to think about a broader principle.

Our system of government was built around limits on political power and a recognition that free people don’t need government to make every choice for them. Sometimes solving a problem doesn’t require creating another government program. Rather, it means examining whether rules already on the books are preventing people from solving problems themselves.

Housing is a complicated challenge. No single bill or zoning reform will solve it overnight, but the principle behind the freedom-to-build argument is simple: give people more opportunity to create, give families more choices, and allow supply to respond to demand.

As we reflect on a Constitution written right here in Pennsylvania, it’s worth remembering that freedom isn’t only an idea we celebrate in history books, but something we encounter in the everyday decisions people are allowed to make about their families, their communities, and even their own homes.

Join the fight for property rights by heading to AFPPennsylvania.com.

This is Emily Brey, State Director with Americans for Prosperity-PA.