Event Summary: Housing Policy Summit

Overview

On September 18, 2025, the Sycamore Institute convened policymakers, nonprofit leaders, developers, financial institutions, community advocates, and other stakeholders to examine Tennessee’s housing affordability challenges and opportunities. Across urban and rural contexts, speakers emphasized a persistent housing shortage, rising demand from population growth, and challenges in zoning, financing, and community politics. The event highlighted policy tools and case studies that offer both immediate steps and long-term steps to expand access to affordable housing.

Note: To the extent possible, the facts noted in this summary have been verified and linked to sources. The views and opinions expressed in this summary do not necessarily reflect those of the Sycamore Institute. The Sycamore Institute provides space for shared learning and dialogue and does not advocate or lobby for specific policies. 

Opening Remarks

The Housing Policy Summit opened with remarks from Ralph Perrey, the Executive Director of the Tennessee Housing Development Agency (THDA). He emphasized that housing affordability is a concern statewide – especially as Tennessee continues to be a top destination for newcomers – and stressed local action on zoning, permitting, and regulations to enable housing. He highlighted examples of innovative housing strategies from Chattanooga, Nashville, Memphis, and Knoxville. He also underscored THDA’s role in generating over a billion dollars annually in affordable housing investment through bonds and tax credits. Overall, Perrey emphasized the importance of community engagement and messaging to expand access to affordable housing.

Following Perrey’s opening remarks, the Sycamore Institute presented highlights from its recent publications on housing, including:

• Why Housing Matters for Tennessee explores the connections between housing and economic security and growth, health and safety, transportation, and education for both individuals and communities.
• Tennessee’s Housing Challenges: Where and Why It Got So Expensive explains how historic changes in Tennessee’s housing market, population, and economy have converged over the last two decades.
• Access to Housing in Tennessee: The Federal, State, and Local Policy Levers explains the factors that influence housing access, supply, and affordability and identifies the policy levers that can affect these factors at the federal, state, and local levels.

Panel: The Levers and Limits of Housing Policy

Moderator: Brian Straessle (President, The Sycamore Institute)

Panelists: Laurel Graefe (Former Official at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta), Maggie Riden (Chief of External Affairs, FAHE), John Zeanah (Chief of Development & Infrastructure, City of Memphis)

This panel focused on simplifying the homebuilding process, addressing regulatory barriers, and expanding housing supply and variety. Panelists explored local, state, and federal levers to lower costs, speed up development, and ensure housing is accessible across income levels. A recurring theme was the importance of predictability, simplification, and multi-level coordination to reduce barriers for builders and affordability challenges for families. Key insights from the panel included:

• Simplification & Predictability: Reducing regulatory hurdles, streamlining permitting, and aligning building codes can lower costs and speed up housing delivery. Specifically, Zeanah highlighted how Memphis streamlined permitting with a pre-approval system for stock plans—cutting approval times from weeks to days. Graefe emphasized that predictability in construction timelines, financing, labor, and materials can have just as much impact than big policy changes.

• Innovation & Labor: Housing construction is constrained by labor shortages, but standardized building methods and prefabrication could boost productivity. Graefe noted that the U.S. lags in prefabricated and standardized construction methods due to fragmented codes. Zeanah mentioned that local code amendments sometimes reduce costs but broader reform at state and national code levels could better enable innovation.

• Affordability Gaps: Affordable housing projects require subsidies and often face funding gaps, making nonprofit and public-private partnerships essential. Riden stated that affordable housing “doesn’t pencil out” without subsidies and that tools like federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs) are effective in urban areas but fall short in rural communities.

• Policy Alignment: Misalignment across federal, state, and local programs creates inefficiencies and regulatory burdens and transaction costs. Riden noted that state-level risk aversion adds layers of requirements to federal programs—limiting flexibility—and urged aligning federal rules with local realities and addressing benefits cliffs. Zeanah emphasized that local governments often undermine their own housing goals with high development fees (e.g., stormwater, sewer, utilities) and suggested shifting cost recovery to post-construction tax revenue.

• Variety of Housing Options: A healthy market requires varied housing options to serve different income levels and life stages. Zeanah advocated for zoning reforms to enable accessory dwelling units (ADUs), cottage courts, and small multifamily units. He also emphasized the value of comprehensive planning and meaningful community-wide engagement in zoning reform—versus piecemeal exceptions in which community input serves as a veto point. Graefe encouraged more flexible rental and ownership pathways and noted that limiting people to homeownership too early can stifle long-term wealth-building and geographic mobility.

• Financial Barriers for Families: Credit scoring, insurance costs, and benefit cliffs affect households’ ability to secure and maintain housing. Graefe warned of credit risks from student loans and “buy now, pay later” debt dragging down scores. Riden added that medical debt, childcare, and rising insurance premiums are pricing families out—even after they clean up their credit.

Panel: Permit or Prevent? Local Tools that Shape Housing

Moderator: Mandy Spears (Executive Vice President, The Sycamore Institute)

Panelists: Gem Bell (Civic Leader, Haywood County), Jamie Hollin (Land Use and Zoning Attorney), Rollin Horton (Chair, Nashville Council’s Planning and Zoning Committee)

This panel explored how local zoning, permitting, and codes shape housing supply, affordability, and neighborhood character. Panelists compared urban and rural perspectives, showing how both large cities like Nashville and smaller communities like Haywood County face similar pressures—rising demand, inadequate infrastructure, and political challenges. The conversation focused on the barriers created by local processes, community opposition, and infrastructure costs and how state-level reforms and broader community engagement could help. Key insights from the panel included:

• Zoning Restrictions and Housing Shortages: Single-family zoning dominates in many cities, creating scarcity. Rural counties are now learning zoning’s impact as new industries like Ford’s Blue Oval City drive demand. Horton cited that less than 9% of residents in Nashville can afford a typical home and affordability drops to less than 1% for black and Hispanic families.

• Community Opposition & Political Dynamics: Differing stakeholder priorities and competing interests can sometimes delay projects. Some communities may have long-standing leadership structures that pose challenges to pursuing new housing opportunities. Horton stated that small groups of wealthy, well-connected residents often dominate public hearings while not necessarily representing the broader community’s needs. Hollin called for citizen engagement with elected officials to push for housing as a statewide priority.
• Infrastructure Costs & Delays: Water, sewer, and stormwater upgrades can add millions in costs and years in delays, driving up housing prices. Lack of infrastructure in rural areas is a fundamental barrier. Bell shared that lack of water and sewage access makes development prohibitively expensive in rural areas, and he’s advocated for incentives to attract developers and expand the tax base.
• Codes & Regulatory Barriers: Outdated building codes (e.g., staircase requirements) limit housing types and affordability, but these often require policy changes at multiple levels of government to be removed. Reforms are slowly making family-sized apartments more viable. Hollin noted that some communities have been slower than others to reform outdated building codes after state-level barriers are removed.
• Process Reform & Political Will: Approval processes are stacked against housing, with multiple community veto points. Affordable housing deals often die because of political fear or local obstruction. Bell noted that in Haywood County, growth-oriented policies can face uphill battles due to local politics and entrenched personal interests.

Panel: Stacked for Impact: How Affordable Housing Deals Get Done

Moderator: Dhathri Chunduru, PhD, (Director of Research and Planning, Tennessee Housing Development Agency)

Panelists: Josh Haston (Development Manager, LDG Development, LLC), Hanneke van Deursen (Director of Housing Finance, City of Chattanooga), Matt Wiltshire (SVP, Affordable Housing & President of Pathway Housing Fund)  

This panel examined financing affordable housing development through financial tools, subsidies, and partnerships, and access to housing for lower-income households. For the purpose of this panel, affordable housing refers to a specific type of housing made available for households with incomes below an area’s typical income. Panelists highlighted how lending practices, equity investment, federal and state programs, and community-based approaches can either enable or restrict affordable housing opportunities. The conversation balanced the perspectives of finance professionals, nonprofit leaders, and policy advocates. Key insights from the panel included:

• Financing Barriers & Credit Access: Many families face barriers to homeownership due to mortgage requirements, student debt, or a lack of credit history. Developers also face financing gaps, especially for projects in rural or lower-income areas. Van Deursen suggested alternative ways to assess risk, such as rental or utility payment histories, to address financing barriers for families.

• Subsidies & Incentives: Affordable housing projects rarely work financially without subsidies (e.g., tax credits, grants, loan pools). Local, state, and federal alignment is key to scaling affordable options. Haston noted that local government support through tax abatements, land contributions, or infrastructure support can make otherwise infeasible projects viable. Wiltshire emphasized recent legislation that authorizes cities to issue debt for affordable housing projects through their industrial development board, IBD, and encouraged local governments to consider this option to fill financing gaps.

• Equity Investment & Partnerships: Public-private partnerships and philanthropic dollars help fill financing gaps. Collaboration between banks, nonprofits, and governments is necessary to address financial risk. Wiltshire stated that philanthropy and impact investment can play a meaningful role, but they must be paired with scalable and systemic financing strategies rather than one-off projects. Haston shared that private companies, such as Amazon, helped finance affordable housing projects in Nashville by providing low interest loans.

• Household Support & Stability: Financial assistance (e.g., down-payment help, rent relief, credit repair) stabilizes families and opens pathways to ownership. Beyond finance, stable housing is tied to broader outcomes in health, education, and economic mobility. Haston noted that insurance and other rising household costs further threaten stability, even for families who secure housing.

• Regulatory & Market Challenges: Appraisal gaps, insurance costs, and construction financing constraints make it difficult to deliver starter homes. Misaligned policies often slow down or complicate financing affordable housing. Wiltshire stated that predictability in programs and appraisals is essential for capital providers to invest at scale.

Quick Builds: Case Studies of Innovation and Impact

Speakers: Brooxie Carlton (Assistant Commissioner of Community and Rural Development at the Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development), Maeghan Jones (President of Community Foundation of Greater Chattanooga)

The Housing Policy Summit concluded with two leaders in Tennessee sharing examples of how their organizations take innovative approaches and lean on partnerships to address housing affordability.

• Maeghan Jones emphasized the role of philanthropy in addressing housing affordability through impact investing and shifting from one-off grants to systemic change by leveraging invested assets. She shared how the Community Foundation of Greater Chattanooga (CFGC) partnered with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to secure a $5 million line-of-credit from invested assets to finance affordable housing projects. The pilot model aims to demonstrate how foundations can mobilize the assets not typically used for grantmaking to support mission-driven work.

To implement the initiative, CFGC created a real estate committee of local experts to vet deals—targeting projects for those at or below 80% of the area median income and focusing on developments in amenity-rich areas near schools, jobs, and transit. Jones shared several examples of innovative partnerships, including faith communities contributing underutilized land and a donor redirecting a property gift to Habitat for Humanity, which resulted in a 22-townhouse development. She also emphasized the importance of philanthropic organizations working to educate their boards and stakeholders, negotiating terms with national funders to fit local contexts, and the value of being nimble as a smaller foundation. Read more about the project here.

• Brooxie Carlton highlighted how state-level economic development planning intersects with housing needs—particularly in rural areas. She described how the Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development (ECD), which historically focused on company recruitment and infrastructure, has prioritized housing planning due to overwhelming concerns voiced in statewide listening sessions. She highlighted Ford’s Blue Oval City project, which will bring 5,700 jobs to rural West Tennessee. Projections show the population in the surrounding 21 counties will grow by 11% by 2045, compared to less than 4% growth without the project. Carlton’s team partnered with Gresham Smith to conduct housing market analyses, land use plans, and governance plans for small communities—many of which had little prior planning capacity.

Carlton also noted cultural and political barriers, including skepticism of outside developers and concerns about farmland loss. She emphasized the need for tangible tools for local officials, who often serve part-time while juggling other jobs, and called for resources like a rural housing development manual to streamline processes for developers. Carlton concluded that without proactive planning and infrastructure upgrades, rural communities risk missing the economic benefits of industrial growth. 

Parting Words

The Housing Policy Summit emphasized that addressing Tennessee’s housing challenges requires sustained collaboration among public, private, and philanthropic sectors, as well as coordinated action across local, state, and federal levels. Speakers underscored that while financing mechanisms, regulatory change, and policy alignment are essential components, lasting progress also depends on political commitment, strategic communication, and investment across various communities. The Sycamore Institute extends its gratitude to all speakers, panelists, and participants for sharing their expertise, insights, and dedication to advancing thoughtful, data-driven housing policy in Tennessee.