On October 5, 2026, the Build America Caucus, a bipartisan House group founded in 2025 to advance supply-side housing solutions, released what it calls the "Build More Agenda": a package of more than 60 policy proposals covering housing finance, zoning reform, building codes, construction costs, and federal land use. It was put together by Reps. Josh Harder (D-CA) and Celeste Maloy (R-UT), who also helped drive the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act earlier this year.

This is not legislation. It is a pre-legislative policy framework, an attempt to build consensus around a set of ideas before the next Congress convenes. Rep. Harder described it as a way to "kickstart the conversation of what comes next" after the ROAD Act, with the goal of developing these proposals over the coming months.

We read it. Here is an honest breakdown of what matters for multifamily operators and investors, and why we think the direction of travel is worth paying attention to.

1. A Federal Revolving Loan Fund for Housing

The first major proposal is the creation of a federal revolving loan fund that would make below-market-rate loans to housing projects. The key structural feature: loans get repaid and recycled back into the fund, which is how Rep. Harder argues it could be run at "basically no cost to the federal government."

For multifamily developers and operators, this is the most immediately interesting financing proposal in the agenda. There is a class of housing projects, particularly workforce housing in constrained markets, that can support debt service at a below-market rate but does not pencil at current conventional rates. A federal loan fund targeting that gap would open deals that the current financing environment closes.

The comparable model here is the Housing Finance Agency bond program, which has funded workforce housing for decades using a similar revolving structure. A federal version at scale would represent a meaningful expansion of available capital for the sector.

Investor takeaway: A federal revolving loan fund would lower the cost of capital on certain project types, particularly workforce housing. That translates directly to improved deal economics: lower required returns to achieve the same NOI yield, or the ability to execute deals in markets that are currently too expensive to develop. This is the kind of structural capital market change that benefits operators with a long-term view.

Plain English: The government would create a pool of money specifically for housing projects. Developers borrow from it at below-market rates, build housing, and pay the loans back. The money goes back into the pool and gets lent again. It is designed to cost the government little or nothing over time. If it gets built, it makes certain housing deals financially viable that are not viable today.

2. FHA Modernization: Closing a 9-Month Gap

The agenda proposes streamlining FHA financing for infill housing and updating HUD's underwriting processes and technology. The stated goal: close the gap between FHA's current closing timeline, which can run up to a year, and conventional financing, which typically closes in two to three months.

This gap is real, and it is a significant reason why FHA financing is underutilized relative to its potential. FHA-insured multifamily loans carry lower rates and longer terms than conventional financing, which makes them structurally attractive for workforce housing. But a 9 to 12 month closing process creates carrying costs that erode much of the rate advantage. Developers who need to move quickly on a site or meet a construction start window simply cannot use FHA.

HUD's technology infrastructure is widely acknowledged to be outdated. Modernizing it is not a controversial proposal. The question is execution: federal technology modernization projects have a long history of running over budget and over schedule. What matters is whether the political commitment behind this proposal is sufficient to drive real operational change at the agency.

Investor takeaway: A modernized FHA that closes in 60 to 90 days rather than 9 to 12 months would be a genuine game-changer for multifamily financing. It would bring a large, below-market capital source into active competition with conventional lending, which would drive down blended financing costs across the sector. Projects that currently use bridge debt and conventional permanent financing might shift to FHA from the start, improving hold-period economics.

Plain English: The federal government already has a loan program for apartment buildings that offers good rates. The problem is it takes almost a year to close, so most developers don't use it. This proposal would modernize the process so it works more like a normal loan: faster, more predictable, and actually usable. If it works, it means cheaper financing for more housing projects.

3. Right-to-Build Zones: A Voluntary Zoning Reform Model

The right-to-build zone proposal offers localities that opt in additional federal support in exchange for allowing multifamily housing by right, provided projects meet specified criteria. This is a carrots-not-sticks approach to zoning reform.

The design philosophy matters here. Mandatory federal zoning preemption, the idea that Congress or HUD could override local land use decisions, is constitutionally and politically difficult. It has been proposed and rejected multiple times. This proposal sidesteps that fight by making participation voluntary: cities and counties that want the federal dollars agree to streamline multifamily approvals. Those that don't, don't.

The practical effect depends entirely on how attractive the federal support is and what the opt-in criteria require. If the support is meaningful and the criteria are workable, you could see a wave of jurisdictions opening up their zoning for multifamily in high-demand corridors. If the support is modest, participation will be thin.

For operators like FCP, the most important question is whether any of our existing or target markets would opt in, and what that would mean for competitive supply. More by-right approvals in metro Atlanta, Tampa, or Charleston could accelerate new supply in those markets, which is a headwind for rents. It is also a signal that those markets are structurally committed to housing growth, which supports long-term demand.

Investor takeaway: Right-to-build zones would reduce one of the primary cost and timeline risks in multifamily development: entitlement uncertainty. By-right approvals eliminate the zoning approval process, which can add months or years to a project timeline and substantial carrying costs. For investors, that translates to faster project starts, lower entitlement risk, and more predictable development timelines in participating markets.

Plain English: Cities and towns that agree to allow apartment buildings to be built without a lengthy approval process would get extra federal money. Nobody is forced to do it. But the hope is that enough communities will take the deal that it meaningfully speeds up housing production. Less red tape, faster approvals, more housing.

4. Transit-Oriented Development and Building Code Reform

Two additional proposals deserve mention together because they address the same underlying problem: the mismatch between where housing is needed and where it is allowed to be built.

The transit-oriented development proposal would reduce zoning barriers near train and bus lines, pairing federal transit investment with housing density. This is straightforward supply-side logic: the federal government spends billions on transit infrastructure to make locations accessible, then allows local zoning to prevent the housing density that would justify and use that investment. Aligning transit investment with housing permission is the most efficient use of both.

The building code standardization proposal addresses a different but related friction: the patchwork of local codes that raises construction costs for multifamily projects specifically. Rep. Harder called this out directly, noting that complex, inconsistent codes are especially burdensome for apartment buildings, which must be designed and built to different standards in every market. Standardization would not eliminate all variation, but reducing the number of market-specific code interpretations a developer must navigate would lower soft costs meaningfully.

Investor takeaway: Both proposals address structural cost and supply constraints that depress returns on new development. Transit-oriented housing density improvements would increase the addressable market for new supply in high-demand corridors. Building code standardization would lower per-unit construction costs, improving project economics across the board. Neither is a near-term catalyst, but both point toward a policy environment that is more favorable to multifamily supply over the next decade.

Plain English: The federal government builds train and bus lines to connect people to jobs and services, then local zoning often blocks apartments from being built near those transit lines. This proposal would make it easier to build housing near transit. Separately, every city has its own building rules, which makes it expensive and complicated to build apartments in multiple markets. Standardizing those rules would make construction cheaper and faster.

5. What This Means for the FCP Portfolio

None of the proposals in the Build More Agenda are law yet. Some may never become law. Policy timelines are long, implementation is uncertain, and the next Congress may have different priorities. We are not building our investment thesis on the assumption that any specific proposal passes.

What we are watching is the direction of travel. A bipartisan policy framework that treats housing supply as a national priority, that includes both demand-side financing improvements and supply-side zoning and construction cost reforms, is a meaningfully different environment than one that treats housing as a local problem. The ROAD Act passed. The Build More Agenda is the successor conversation. That conversation is happening at the federal level, with real political support from both parties, for the first time in a generation.

For Faris Capital Partners, the relevant implications are:

• Our markets remain structurally undersupplied. Metro Atlanta, Tampa, and Charleston are among the fastest-growing metros in the country, with chronic housing undersupply that persists regardless of near-term policy changes. That is the foundation of our investment thesis.

• Policy tailwinds are building. FHA modernization, a federal loan fund, and transit-oriented zoning reform would all be structural positives for workforce housing operators over a multi-year horizon. We are positioned to benefit from each.

• Construction cost relief matters. Building code standardization and other supply-side cost reforms would improve the economics of new development in our target markets. As FCP evaluates ground-up and value-add development, a more standardized regulatory environment reduces the cost and complexity of execution.

• Competition will increase, but so will demand. More by-right approvals and lower development costs mean more supply. In a demand-constrained market, more supply is a headwind. In a demand-driven market, it is evidence that the market can absorb it. Our underwriting accounts for both.

Investor takeaway: The Build More Agenda does not change the near-term fundamentals of the multifamily market. It does signal a meaningful shift in the political environment around housing supply, one that, if translated into policy over the next several years, would be structurally favorable for well-positioned, workforce-housing-focused operators. FCP is built for the market that exists today and positioned for the market that is being built.

Plain English: This policy agenda does not change our business today. What it does tell us is that both political parties are taking housing supply seriously in a way they have not in a long time. That is a good sign for operators like us who are investing in markets that need more housing. We will keep watching this closely and sharing what we see.

Plain-English Recap

A bipartisan House group called the Build America Caucus released more than 60 housing policy proposals on October 5, 2026. The most significant for multifamily operators and investors are: a federal revolving loan fund that would make below-market loans for housing projects, FHA modernization to cut closing times from nearly a year to two or three months, voluntary right-to-build zones that would give cities federal money in exchange for streamlining multifamily approvals, transit-oriented development reforms to allow denser housing near transit lines, and building code standardization to reduce construction costs across markets. None of this is law yet. It is a pre-legislative framework intended to shape the next Congress. But the direction matters: both parties are talking about the same housing problem, and the solutions they are proposing are supply-side and structural. For Faris Capital Partners, that is the policy environment we want to be operating in. Our markets are undersupplied, our business is workforce housing, and the reforms being proposed would make more of what we do easier to finance, permit, and build.

If you'd like to be added to our investor list to see future opportunities, please schedule a call with our team.