The Build Now Act of 2025 amends how HUD distributes Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds under Section 106 by introducing a housing growth improvement metric. Metropolitan cities and urban counties that are ‘‘eligible recipients’’ will see their Section 106 allocations adjusted: jurisdictions with above‑median improvement or exceptionally high growth can receive bonus funds, while jurisdictions below the median (excluding certain outliers) face a 10% reduction to their otherwise applicable allocation.
The measure relies on Census address-count data and defines precise multi-year windows to calculate current and prior annual housing growth rates, a normalized ‘‘housing growth improvement rate,’’ and an ‘‘extremely high‑growth’’ threshold (4% annual growth). HUD must publish an annual report and notify jurisdictions, provide implementation guidance, and may adjust short timing windows to align with Census data.
The program starts with the third full fiscal year after enactment and runs through fiscal year 2043, effectively reallocating CDBG dollars based on production performance rather than only historical factors.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires HUD to compute a housing growth improvement rate for each metropolitan city and urban county receiving Section 106 funds, using Census master address files and block‑level counts, and to adjust Section 106 allocations accordingly. High‑improvement and ‘‘extremely high‑growth’’ recipients receive bonus amounts funded by proportional redistribution of reductions taken from below‑median recipients; below‑median recipients (excluding certain outliers) receive an automatic 10% cut to their Section 106 share.
Who It Affects
Directly affects metropolitan cities and urban counties that receive Section 106 CDBG funds, HUD’s allocation team, and data partners (Census Bureau, USPS). Indirectly affects local planning departments, builders and housing developers responding to incentives, and nonprofit and municipal programs funded by CDBG dollars.
Why It Matters
This is a structural change to a long‑standing federal formula: it converts a portion of CDBG allocation into a performance‑based pool tied to housing unit growth. That creates new incentives for local land‑use reform and faster permitting, shifts funding between jurisdictions, and raises measurement and administrative questions for HUD and local governments.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a new performance adjustment layered onto existing Section 106 CDBG allocations. HUD will calculate a recent ‘‘current annual growth rate’’ and a longer ‘‘prior annual growth rate’’ for the number of housing units in each metropolitan city and urban county using the Census Master Address File and block‑level counts.
It then computes a normalized ‘‘housing growth improvement rate’’ by comparing the recent and prior rates using a difference-over-sum formula to standardize changes across jurisdictions.
Based on that improvement rate HUD will split recipients into three outcomes: those with improvement at or above the median (excluding extremely high-growth outliers), those designated ‘‘extremely high‑growth’’ (current growth ≥4%), and those below the median. HUD reduces the allocations of below‑median recipients by a flat 10%; the aggregate of those reductions forms a bonus pool.
HUD then distributes that pool to qualifying recipients (median or extremely high‑growth) in proportion to their share of housing units as of the third quarter of the prior fiscal year.The statute includes multiple eligibility carve‑outs to avoid penalizing places where outcomes reflect affordability or disaster dynamics rather than policy choices: jurisdictions are excluded from ‘‘eligible recipient’’ status if their median Small Area Fair Market Rent is low and their median home value is below the national median, if rental vacancy exceeds the national rate, if the area was recently subject to a major disaster/emergency declaration, or if the jurisdiction lacks legal authority over zoning and permitting. HUD must use specific Census products, may request data from the Census Bureau and USPS, and can shift the statutory calculation windows by up to two months to line up with available data.HUD also must publish an annual report listing each eligible recipient’s improvement rate and which jurisdictions received bonuses or reductions, and it must notify every eligible recipient of its status and provide guidance and technical resources within 60 days of enactment.
The allocation adjustments do not take effect immediately: they begin in the third full fiscal year after enactment and continue through fiscal year 2043, giving jurisdictions a lead time to respond to HUD guidance.
The Five Things You Need to Know
HUD calculates current and prior growth using multi‑year windows from the Census Master Address File and computes a normalized housing growth improvement rate (difference divided by sum of the two rates).
If an eligible recipient’s improvement rate is below the median (excluding high‑growth outliers), HUD reduces that recipient’s Section 106 allocation by 10 percent.
The bonus pool equals the aggregate of those 10% reductions and is allocated to qualifying recipients (median‑or‑above and extremely high‑growth) proportionally by each recipient’s number of housing units as of the prior year’s third quarter.
An ‘‘extremely high‑growth’’ recipient is any eligible recipient with a current annual housing growth rate of at least 4 percent; those recipients qualify for bonus funding without meeting the median test.
HUD must notify jurisdictions within 60 days of enactment, publish an annual report showing every eligible recipient’s improvement rate and who gained or lost funds, and the adjustment regime starts in the third full fiscal year after enactment and runs through FY2043.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Simply names the statute the Build Now Act of 2025. Operationally this matters because subsequent guidance, reports, and rulemaking references will use that short title for cross‑referencing HUD materials and communications.
Definitions and eligibility carve‑outs
This section supplies the working definitions HUD must use: covered recipient (metropolitan city/urban county under Section 102 of the 1974 Act), current and prior annual growth rate time windows, the normalized housing growth improvement rate formula, extremely high‑growth threshold (4%), and the meaning of ‘‘eligible recipient.’nThe eligibility test contains four explicit exemptions that remove jurisdictions from the program: (1) low Small Area Fair Market Rents combined with below‑national median home value, (2) above‑national natural rental vacancy rate, (3) recent Stafford Act disaster/emergency declarations, and (4) lack of legal authority to change zoning/permits. Those carve‑outs channel the program away from places where lower production reflects either low housing costs, excess supply, disaster impacts, or legal incapacity to act.
Adjustment mechanics for Section 106 allocations
This is the operational heart of the bill. HUD must apply the improvement metric to each eligible recipient when computing Section 106 allocations. Below‑median eligible recipients (excluding identified outliers) suffer a straight 10% cut to their otherwise applicable allocation; the statute specifies no discretionary relief or phase‑in for those reductions. The aggregate of those cuts becomes the bonus pool HUD redistributes.
The bonus distribution is formulaic: HUD multiplies the aggregate cut pool by each qualifying recipient’s share of housing units as of the prior year third quarter. That design tilts the bonus toward larger jurisdictions and links reward size to stock rather than rate of change alone, which affects how benefits scale with jurisdiction size.
Data sources and calculation rules
HUD must use the Census Bureau’s Current Address Count Listing Files and other Master Address File‑based products and perform calculations at the block level using the most current boundaries. The bill also makes the Census Bureau and USPS statutorily obligated to supply relevant data to HUD on request, creating a formal data pipeline.
Importantly, HUD may shift the statutory quarterly windows by up to two months to align with available Census data. That limited flexibility recognizes practical timing mismatches but preserves the underlying multi‑year comparison approach.
Reporting requirement
HUD must publish an annual report before making Section 106 allocations that lists every eligible recipient’s housing growth improvement rate and identifies which jurisdictions received bonuses and which had their allocations decreased. This creates public transparency that both documents the reallocation and provides a potential evidence base for evaluating whether the incentive changed local behavior.
Notification, guidance, and implementation timing
HUD must notify each eligible recipient of its improvement rate and relative standing (above, at, or below median) within 60 days of enactment, and include guidance and HUD‑developed resources on reducing regulatory barriers. The allocation adjustments themselves begin on the third full fiscal year after enactment and expire at the end of FY2043, giving a delayed start and a fixed sunset for the program.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Metropolitan cities and urban counties that increase housing production (especially those with current growth ≥4%). They receive bonus CDBG funds tied to their share of housing stock, improving discretionary resources for local development, infrastructure, or service needs.
- Builders and housing developers operating in high‑growth jurisdictions. The new funding signal and potential local push for zoning/permitting reform create stronger market incentives to accelerate projects and expand pipelines.
- Jurisdictions with larger housing stocks among growth winners. Because the bonus is allocated proportionally by housing units, larger jurisdictions that improve growth capture a bigger share of the redistributed pool, increasing capacity to invest in supporting infrastructure and services.
Who Bears the Cost
- Below‑median eligible recipients face an immediate 10% reduction to their Section 106 allocation with no statutory phase‑in, creating fiscal pressure on municipalities reliant on CDBG for community services, rehabilitation, and anti‑poverty programs.
- HUD and its data teams must build new operational capacity to ingest, validate, and reconcile Census Master Address File and USPS data at block level, implement the comparative formulas, and produce annual public reports — an unfunded administrative lift implied by the statute.
- CDBG‑funded social service providers and non‑housing community programs in jurisdictions with lowered allocations. Because CDBG funds are fungible, a 10% cut to local allocations may translate into service reductions or reprioritization away from non‑production activities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits a desire to reward measurable housing production against the risk of penalizing jurisdictions where low growth reflects policy choices, geographic limits, affordability, or disaster impacts. Rewarding production with reallocations promotes supply‑focused reforms, but using a census‑based, zero‑sum formula risks redistributing funds away from communities with acute needs or structural constraints — a trade‑off between performance incentives and equitable treatment of diverse local circumstances.
Measurement and timing create the first set of practical risks. The bill ties large fiscal shifts to changes in address counts and block‑level housing unit tallies that can be noisy year‑to‑year and influenced by data processing lags, address homogenization, or temporary counts of uncompleted structures.
HUD’s authority to move windows by up to two months mitigates timing mismatch but does not solve measurement error or seasonal construction cycles. That makes auditability and data validation critical to prevent misallocation or disputes.
The redistribution design is explicitly zero‑sum: bonuses are funded by flat reductions to below‑median recipients. That produces political and equity trade‑offs — places with constrained growth because of preservation goals, historic districts, geographic limits, or legitimate affordability policies could be penalized despite clear policy reasons to limit new units.
The bonus allocation by total housing units further advantages larger jurisdictions and may dilute the per‑unit incentive effect in smaller jurisdictions whose marginal policy changes would produce proportionally larger percentage increases.
Finally, the statute creates gaming and unintended‑consequence risks. Jurisdictions could accelerate permitting or temporary address additions to push counts up without producing long‑term, affordable housing, or shift CDBG‑eligible spending toward short‑term capital projects that boost production metrics.
HUD’s guidance and technical assistance obligation helps, but the act leaves many operational choices to HUD about validation, appeals, and how to treat incomplete or demolition‑replacement cycles — all unresolved implementation details that will determine whether the incentives produce durable housing supply increases or merely reallocate federal dollars.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.