Can affordable housing live alongside Home Rule, the time honored notion that Indiana's cities and counties should be able to call their own shots?

Hi, I'm Jon Schwantes, and on this week's show, we'll look at state lawmakers efforts to make housing more plentiful and more affordable by eliminating local restrictions.

Indiana Lawmakers is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting Stations, with additional support provided by ParrRichey.

In recent years, lawmakers have worked to address Hoosier housing challenges by increasing supply and by eliminating restrictions.

Priority House bill 1001 focuses on reducing barriers in regulation and in simplifying the construction approval process by curbing local governments, zoning authority HB 1001 should accelerate development.

But many local officials are concerned that the state is overstepping its bounds.

A continued sentiment following last session's property tax debate.

The bill also allows single family homes, duplexes and accessory dwelling units in residential zones to be approved without public hearings.

The average cost of a single family home in Indiana is just over $250,000, though it's well below the median cost of a house nationwide.

The American dream of home ownership is still out of reach for many Hoosiers.

Housing affordability, measured by cost of owning or renting a property relative to income, has declined, while consumers face rising costs while wages remain stagnant.

These high prices have contributed to a rise in homelessness.

In 2025, Indianapolis saw a 7% increase in its unhoused population, with a disproportionate number of African Americans and veterans affected.

The National Low Income Housing Coalition reports a significant shortage in rental homes available to low income families in the state.

The coalition estimates that a household must earn at least $22 per hour in order to pay the average rent for a two bedroom apartment in the state.

Indiana ranks 34th in the country for renter affordability because many renters cannot afford their monthly rate.

Evictions are high across the state.

At a 9% filing rate, according to landlord tenant laws, landlords are responsible for upkeep and repairs in a timely manner, and tenants have the right to privacy and legal action.

These responsibilities are especially important in central Indiana, where more than 1 in 4 rental properties are owned by out-of-state investors.

The Indianapolis housing Agency recently agreed to a sale of seven of its low income properties to a Seattle based developer.

The AIA maintains the sale of the properties ensures high quality housing, while residents worry their new out-of-state management will be less responsive.

Here to weigh in on the debate over ample adequate and affordable housing.

Are Republican Representative Doug Miller of Elkhart, chair of the House Government and Regulatory Reform Committee.

Aspen Clemons, executive director of Prosperity Indiana, a statewide advocacy group dedicated to strengthening Hoosier communities.

And Scott Fadness, the first and so far only mayor of phishers, one of the state's fastest growing communities.

Thank you all for joining us for this discussion as well.

Let me start with you.

You have made affordable housing, you know, the top priority of your organization.

If it were underlined and had asterisks and can be written in bold.

I get the sense that that would have been done in your literature.

Why this concern?

Could you put it into context?

What you see is the burning issue here.

Yeah.

I think Indiana has the overall housing crisis.

I think it's one of the issues that unfortunately spans income, class, race, community type.

We're seeing similar data across rural, suburban and urban communities.

As you know, and as the data shows us that the most need is concentrated at the very bottom of our income spectrum.

But as you crawl up, there are growing needs as house demographics and home and family dynamics shift and what they need for housing.

And so what we're finding is housing stability is becoming a bigger issue for maybe some segments of our population where it never was an issue.

And so when we, you know, affordable housing is a term that we use out here in the field, but it's really housing affordability.

Can people get access to housing that they can say that's safe and stable.

And we're really seeing a shift in the need in the growing population.

And when we to sort of set the stage here, when we talk about housing, we're talking about homeownership and we're talking about, oh, yeah.

Landlord relationships where people both rent both our rental and our homeowner market.

I'm sure as the mayor and Representative Miller can tell you, there are significant concerns on both the supply and preservation side of that and just the affordability.

I know we've had some of the statistics about how what it would take in terms of an hourly wage just to get a typical.

Oh, yeah.

And in the apartment.

Yeah.

In Indiana, it takes an average over $22 here in the Indianapolis metro, over $25.

The problem with that is Hoosier renters wages aren't keeping up with the growing cost of housing.

And so here in Indianapolis, folks make about $21 an hour, meaning there's a $5 per hour $5 difference in the hourly wage between what the housing cost is.

We're seeing that in, legatee.

We're seeing that here in the Indianapolis metro.

We're also seeing it.

I'm sure you're hearing from constituents about just the growing cost of housing.

And let me ask Doug Miller, who, is the author of the biggest bill this year dealing with this issue.

You've been the author of many other bills that set up the ready grant program, which we may talk about other things that sort of have, eased home ownership for Hoosiers and your homebuilder yourself retired, but active at the state and national level.

So, you know the subject.

I've seen the number of, do you agree first that there is a shortage statewide that is sort of equal opportunity problem.

I've seen the number of anywhere from 30,000 housing units short to as many as 70,000, which I guess when you start talking about numbers, it gets sort of hazy and foggy.

But is that about right?

What we need in Indiana?

Yeah, that's that's a great spectrum.

Right.

So I think the number most everyone lands on these days is we're 50,000 housing units short at this very moment in history.

And it's because of the long list of reasons.

But housing availability in all the housing markets is a real issue.

And obviously the states recognize that, by elevating, the awareness of the problem and pursuing solutions, by, putting forth House Bill 201, which addresses a lot of the issues that, the that I've done, that, policies done that, providers have done that advocates have done by looking at other states, see what's working and what's not working.

And we will be spending a considerable amount of time wading into that very bill.

First, I just want to get a sense, as the mayor and the only mayor of, of a city, that is one of the fastest growing.

I mean, I remember as a native of this region when it was 2500 residents celebration, when it hit 5000.

You're over 100,000 now.

What does housing look like in your community?

Are you keeping pace?

We're trying to.

I mean, Hamilton County's been one of the fastest growing counties in the country.

And, a lot of times, those are difficult, challenging conversations.

But they're hard at the local level where community comes together.

I mean, I've been in so many planning commissions where people are voicing their concerns and they don't want a new development.

And we work through that, we lead through that, and we're able to build the type of community that everyone seems to be comfortable with.

And, over that time, we've built, you know, thousands, probably 25,000 homes, to try to keep up with the demand.

So, can Fishers satisfy the demand of everyone in, Indiana?

No.

Nor can Hamilton County.

But I think, a lot of locals are trying to grow their communities.

It seems as if market forces alone are not enough here.

Aspen is.

That is an accurate.

Oh.

To drive the kind of construction.

Absolutely.

You know, I think the range of what the need is on both the rental side as well as the path to homeownership side.

Right.

We're not going to be able to out build our way out of this housing crisis.

We're going to also have to look at some serious strategies, proven strategies for preservation of current housing stock.

What does it look like to get infill houses back online that may have been offline, getting them shored up safe, secure?

How do we incentivize that for our developers?

And then how do we make sure that housing that is currently affordable remains affordable?

As we see, wages have not kept up with the pace of housing cost inflation?

I saw where the average house, I believe nationally nationwide is around 40 years old, but in Indiana it's older and therefore we deal with more issues about, you know, falling down properties, that that either need to be raised and rebuilt or repaired significantly, which I guess is certainly adds to the complexities of this.

You've been patient.

I know you want to talk about HB 1001 and for those who don't follow the process, when you've got 1001, that means it's the priority bill for your caucus.

And your caucus happens to be the supermajority and your in your chamber, which means there's a lot of support for this talk about give us the bottom line about what do you think is most significant in terms of takeaways about why this will solve some of the issues that we've just been hearing about?

Yes, that's fair question.

There's a lot of components inside the underlying bill itself.

Right.

So what the bill actually does is take a very broad approach at a lot of policies that local governments put in place that are well-meaning, they have, a, a record right of getting housing to market.

But over the course of time and so our communities have become very restrictive.

And in order to move housing forward, 1001 creates an opportunity, a very clear path to bring more housing to market faster.

And we all know that if we get more housing to market faster, the free market works, we get more competitive pricing, and we start addressing some of the issues that we've talked about this morning.

The other component, and I find it interesting that prosperity recognizes this.

And I've had other conversations with the, the, the, entry level housing sector is that no one really fosters not only revitalization of urban areas, but it helps bring back what postwar post-World War Two housing was.

And it helps bring back Front porch America.

Right.

And, community supporters are very, very supportive of ten.

Oh one and I think that actually is positive for the state.

So it and short it speeds up the process the permitting process.

It it does away largely with the review process.

If it's already a residential area and you want to put something in there, if you are church and you own property, you can build without review on your on your property.

And you can't have restrictions, a city or municipality or county couldn't say you have to have a certain facade or height of a roof, pitch or setback, right?

I mean, affairs are all component.

Those are all components.

The notion that put it up.

What's mayor what's wrong?

As somebody who has overseen a city that's built a lot and seen a lot of growth, what's wrong with that?

Well, I think it takes away the voice of the residents who live there.

I mean, I think you're really sacrificing the desires and the wants of the people that live there on the altar of the next person that comes in.

And whether you're talking about, impact fees, you know, which has been a policy that allowed growth to pay for growth.

Now we're we're talking about severely restricting that.

So now current residents would have to subsidize the future residents coming into the community.

And if you're just a backup, this is a fee that municipalities would charge the developer to build, say, a park or infrastructure.

Right.

And, to enhance the broader area.

I believe under this, it would have to you'd still be able to do that, but it would have to be within a mile of the so much more limited.

And yeah, and it tightened up the restriction functionally that becomes really challenging.

Like if you think about a wastewater treatment plant is on one end of the city, if you build, this is not going to be it's not going to it's not going to necessarily, work.

And then I think generally people we see this time and time again, every community has a vision for what they want to accomplish in their city.

They they want to have a certain esthetic, they want to have a certain type of community.

And I and I think that needs to be worked out to the local level, frankly.

And, the one size fits all component of this doesn't, to me make a great deal of sense because there are communities that are desperate for new housing and would literally subsidize that.

Well that's fantastic.

Let them go do that in other communities where you're literally trying to just manage growth.

You may have a different set of standards and I think that's appropriate for each community to balance that.

But what has been said, I think, is being overlooked significantly.

I mean, I don't know how many lots are available that are in Indianapolis or in Anderson today where the infrastructure is already there.

There's just no home or the home is dilapidated and needs to be renovated and revitalized.

That would breathe new life into these, communities.

And instead, what I think the flash point has become is, you know, these fast growing suburbs where you're you're buying home ground and turning it into a home that's exceptionally expensive when it comes to infrastructure and things of that nature.

A creative or new model that would revitalize urban areas where there's already that infrastructure in place.

That's an interesting concept to try to tackle.

Aspen, you've heard articulate, champions of the two sides of this issue.

Where do you come down?

I think House Bill 1001 is a great, great start, in addressing Indiana's growing housing crisis, because, let's be honest, it's growing.

I think a couple of points, I think that we need to keep considered at the center of this conversation.

We've got to make sure it aligns with what's happening at the federal level.

As we know, federal investment into housing is becoming more competitive across the state, right.

The process for those grants have changed significantly.

We want to make sure Indiana is in the most competitive position when it comes to applying and competing for federal investment into housing in our infrastructure that support housing.

To the mayor's point, the second piece of that is we want to make sure that while we know we need new stock and we need to preserve and revitalize existing site, we want to make sure that standards remain high.

As people look to homeownership, they look at as an investment, right.

It's a legacy, something they can pass on through generations.

We want to make sure that they're going to be investing in something that holds its value and provides a return for those families.

Housing is still one of the most assured pathways to economic mobility, and we want to make sure that that remains true for Hoosiers who work hard by protecting the investment that which is largely for many American families, the biggest investment and making sure we're not compromising quality for speed.

Doug Miller way.

And so I'll push back a little bit against mayor fairness.

All of the provisions that you talked about, our opt out provisions.

So a local unit of government can opt out, pass an ordinance, and say we believe our plan is better in terms to do that within the first year.

Can they do that any time?

They can do it?

Any time, any time.

Right.

Well, in the initial draft of the bill, it's within the first year.

Okay.

Here's what I thought it.

Yes.

You're correct.

So I mean, there's a reason that we expedite that, right?

Because we want to clearly establish the ground rules for all of our communities moving forward.

I think the the integral part of that conversation and Mayor Faddis articulated it well, as they have a vision for what they want their community to be.

And when I look at that specifically, it's if you have that distinct, vision for your community and you believe that's the best path, then articulate that to those individuals who are not only living there, but who are potential, folks that are going to come there and live and say, this is the reason we believe our processes are the best, our design elements are the best, are our, process for zoning, our process for density.

We believe those are all the best.

And that's why we've opted out and set our own standards.

I don't have a problem with that.

Right.

But I think that based on the research we've done, what other states are doing, Florida, Texas, Montana, Utah, Kentucky, Minnesota, they've all got provisions of 1001 in them, but no one state has consolidated them into one package and said this has the potential to really move housing forward.

I did a, virtual meeting yesterday with Mercatus Institute out of Alexandria, Virginia.

And of the hundreds of bills that are in the general assemblies across the U.S.

right now, House Bill 1001 is their number one pick for having the ability to move housing forward, giving communities option.

And yet, getting at the root challenges that builders, developers and planners faced, bringing, all price points to the market.

And to be clear, you and your colleagues supporting this would have no problem whatsoever.

Or maybe that's an exaggeration.

If Fishers and Carmel and Westfield and Zionsville and everyone else.

That's because a lot of mayors have said, hey, we didn't see this freight train coming.

This is a fundamental change, right?

That's okay.

If they all want to do they opt out of those provisions.

That's certainly their prerogative.

Representative, are you saying that all of the provisions in this bill would be an opt out provision, that the ones that, our hostess articulated are opt out?

There are some provisions that, we're we're shifting the paradigm in that are not the opt out provisions.

And can you articulate what those are, that we wouldn't have the option to opt out of?

Some of those would be, parking some of those would be, minimum number of spaces.

Yeah, minimum number of spaces.

We've got, we've got some, height restrictions or we got some density restrictions and other or the things like that, but things that we have looked at housing over the course of many years, we have made opt out provisions, but we've set baselines for others because, states that have been challenged for housing are up against the wall on most of those issues.

So setback density besides that, he could they could do that where they want to do well.

And I think there's some questions about like accessory dwelling units.

Yes.

Which, sound wonderful.

And I think they'd be great to have in in the appropriate location.

But when you preempt all control over that and say every home is entitled to build a, an accessory dwelling unit in their backyard, we laid it out in Fishers and or front yard, right?

Yeah, it really isn't.

I mean, there's no there's no regulation around that.

So imagine back in the neighborhood that you lived in, back in Fishers, back in the day, if you were entitled to build 1000 square foot, for play somewhere in the yard without any restriction, without any conversation with the neighborhood, without any, regulations, without any discussion about the impact on stormwater or sightlines or anything like that, the amount of consternation and just the degradation of that neighborhood.

Now, I'm not against accessory dwelling units, but you have to you have to integrate that into the community.

To your point about having strong and vital neighborhoods, I'll tell you the two things that get people that show up to a city council meeting one, if they think you're doing anything that might impact their children and two of their largest investment in their life, their home.

And you know what?

A lot of times those, concerns are not real.

And you dismiss those, but other times they have some legitimate complaints.

Where do those complaints go if they're preempted?

Who am I supposed to send them to?

That's when you seem to react.

When when the mayor talked about the accessory housing, that's of concern to you.

I think it's I think it's everything in moderation.

Right.

This is something that's very new for us.

We do know that there are communities with severe needs for these types of housing options, particularly when you think about communities where our public universities are or there are college towns, right.

Or in cases where family dynamics are shifting, people are living multi-generational now.

And so you may have grandparents, parents, children in one home.

What does it look like to have a space out back for grandma and grandpa, right.

To retire and to age healthily?

So those are those are considerations we have to the mayor's point.

I also want to bring up something I don't think we've touched on in the conversation yet.

This idea of Yimby ism, right.

Or NIMBYism?

No.

In my backyard?

Yes.

In my backyard.

It's a very personal topic for lots of families because it's such a large investment.

Home ownership is an investment.

What we haven't talked about and what the bill as currently written, provides for is what we call Higbee.

Yes.

And dad's backyard.

And so because of the nature of what's going on in housing in our state, we've seen some really strange bedfellows come to the table on housing.

And those include our faith based organizations, right.

Traditional institutions of faith, bedrocks and communities who own land, own partnerships that they don't use anymore, have resources purchased, could build what they want to on their property, right?

If they if they own the property, you can't have a land rush after the fact.

But if they owned it as of this date or this date that's defined in the bill, correct.

And after right as it goes through a local process.

And so you could be is a movement that's been happening nationally.

It's received bipartisan support.

So parts of the bill have been passing in states with different types of political makeup.

And where they see most success is restricting or releasing some of the restrictions around what churches can do with their property when it comes to land development for housing.

But we have to be really intentional in our conversation about who gets to build that housing, what type of housing it is, right?

And also making sure that the faith organization is in communication with their local processes and planning department, should they be concerned?

I mean, and just about accessory dwelling, for instance, if I want to put the in-laws in a a jungle hut or a tree house or build a castle, that's 2 or 3 stories in a house, place, a neighborhood of ranch homes or bungalows.

I could do it right under the the way it's currently drafted.

That that's a possibility, right.

One of the things that I look at, especially in that provision, Indiana is very heavily weighted from a property rights standpoint for discussion.

Right?

So I'm trying to I think the goal of this is to be sensitive to those individuals who spent their life in their home, and they need to take care of another person, or they need an, an income.

Right.

A lot of states, California has actually led the way in this.

And I'm not saying that we have to mirror California, but it's great to look at examples.

Right.

And see what kind of success that you've had.

I certainly understand the mayor's concerns.

And I think that particular portion of the legislation needs more discussion and might need more guardrails.

Right.

But it is absolutely, I think, a viable avenue to get more housing stock, to get living units to the market at a faster pace.

But I do agree that it has to be done thoughtfully, and it has to be, designed so that it can work inside the framework that probably currently exists or almost at a time, mayor.

But the, I should touch also on another bill, not ten.

Oh one, but also affects you.

And it does deal with the notion of density control and caps.

Right now, you say that no neighborhood outside of grandfathered properties should be more than 10% rentals.

Which I guess would deprive some home owners of not being able to rent their home.

But I guess the flip side is neighbors want to have protect their investment to and their neighborhood.

So yeah, where does that stand?

It's, like I say, we don't have much time.

Yeah, I think it's a dangerous trend.

You have, corporate America buying up the homes, the very homes that people would want to buy as their starter homes in our community.

There's neighborhoods that are now 41% owned by investors.

33% of those are from out of state there.

And that's denying an entire generation the opportunity to own a home and build equity.

And so what we're trying to do is, simply put, a cap that keeps it from becoming saturated in any one given neighborhood.

It's been wildly popular within our community.

It was unanimously approved by our council years.

I think it's a nine.

Nothing to nine, nothing.

And now we have, you know, there's a strong special interest group here.

I mean, the realtors definitely do not want to see this.

Obviously there's commissions over community in this conversation.

And, and I just disagree with them.

Our members do as well.

And so prosperity membership by and large supports, at least holding out of state investors accountable to upkeep of property as well as maintaining, avenues for Hoosier homeowners.

Final question.

10s or less.

When the bill you mentioned there's some changes, what percentage of the bill now, it's not gonna be 100% the same by the time it reaches the governor's desk.

Give me a figure 75%.

Maybe a little higher.

Between 75 and 100%.

Some more.

It's more or less what it is now.

Yeah, we're we're having great discussions, that's all I'll say.

And we're going to make some changes.

Well, I appreciate the great discussion that you all participated in, here today, an important issue for a lot of people.

Again, my guests have been Republican Representative Doug Miller of Elkhart.

Aspen Clemons, executive director of Prosperity Indiana, and Fishers Mayor Scott Fadness.

And time now for our weekly conversation with analyst Ed Feigenbaum, publisher of the newsletter Indiana Legislative Insight.

Part of Hannah News Service.

And everybody wants a piece of housing affordability.

The president has issued an executive order trying to deal with big time investors.

The U.S.

House this week passed a measure.

The Senate's expected to do something the state's pushing, you know, the locals to react.

Where does the buck stop?

Here.

Everybody wants a piece of the action.

I think the federal action is going to kind of come to a halt.

I'm not sure that the House, in the Senate, the U.S.

House and U.S.

Senate are on the same page.

And I'm not sure that everybody's on the same page with with 1001 here as well.

And what's really interesting is that this is just another component of what some of the local government folks say, or view as the state pushing top down policy on them, and they think that they can make the better decisions.

Now, you heard, Mayor Fadden, is talk about, you know, how he'd like some of those opt out provisions.

But I think as as he and Representative Miller were almost negotiating parts of the bill, some of the key components aren't going to be there.

That the mayors and local governments won.

I remember back in the day, in a 30 something years ago when I served on the Noblesville Planning Commission, we were able to do some unique things for our community.

We we allowed a kind of generational community where you get starter homes and the real nice homes in the same neighborhood, and you can just kind of move on up.

When we had a Super Wal mart coming into town, the employers were telling us, you know, we just don't have the housing for these, these folks.

So we approved a big subdivision of, you know, like $70,000 homes right behind the Super Walmart.

And those things sold out real quickly.

But they were zero lot line houses.

It weren't like the rest of of nobles own what nobles was moving toward.

But I checked yesterday and some of these houses are selling for 250, $260,000.

Now to locals can get it right if they're given the opportunity.

Is is what you're saying.

And that's what people want locally too.

All right, Ed, we'll leave it there.

Interesting issue to watch for sure.

Thanks, as always for your insight.

Thank you Jon.

Although violent crime rates are trending downward in Indianapolis and across the state, there's been no let up in legislative efforts to keep Hoosiers safe.

On the next Indiana lawmakers.

Well, that concludes today's show.

I'm Jon Schwantes, and on behalf of everyone involved in the program, I thank you for joining us.

Until next week, take care.

Indiana Lawmakers is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting Stations, with additional support provided by ParrRichey.