**Summary of the Article**
The opinion column by Elizabeth Patton (Regional Director for Americans for Prosperity in Kansas), published May 23, 2026, in *The Topeka Capital-Journal*, argues that Kansas’s efforts to address its housing shortage through subsidies have failed, while praising a new law focused on reducing regulatory barriers.
Key points:
- The **Kansas Affordable Housing Tax Credit (KAHTC)**, enacted in 2022 as a state match to the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, has awarded nearly **$73 million** in credits to 67 projects since 2023. However, a Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit review found that **no investors have yet used** these credits (as of the audit period), meaning no actual tax revenue has been foregone yet—but the potential liability is up to **$730 million** if/when claimed.
- The program is portrayed as ineffective at actually increasing affordable housing supply despite the awards, contrasting with claims of it being a success.
- The Legislature has acted to limit and phase out the program due to these concerns.
- In contrast, **Senate Bill 418** (the By-Right Housing Development Act), signed into law in April 2026, is presented as a superior, market-oriented solution that cuts red tape to boost supply without taxpayer subsidies.
**Deep Dive and Context**
### The Kansas Affordable Housing Tax Credit (KAHTC)
- **Design**: It provides a state income tax credit matching the federal LIHTC to incentivize developers and investors to build or rehabilitate affordable rental housing. Awards are handled by the Kansas Housing Resources Corporation (KHRC).
- **Audit Findings** (September 2025 Legislative Post Audit): Significant awards but zero utilization to date. Credits become usable only after projects are completed and occupied by qualifying tenants. This led to criticism over potential future revenue losses without guaranteed results. Some defenders noted offsets like economic activity, jobs, and capital investment, but the audit highlighted data and cost concerns.
- **Broader Debate**: Supporters of tax credits argue they leverage private investment for public goals. Critics (like the column’s author and AFP) see them as inefficient subsidies that don’t address root causes and risk fiscal waste. Earlier bills (e.g., around 2025) sought to eliminate or cap the state match.
### Senate Bill 418 (By-Right Housing Development Act)
This is the article’s positive counterpoint. Enacted in 2026 with bipartisan elements, it focuses on **supply-side reforms** rather than demand-side subsidies.
Major provisions:
- **Streamlined approvals**: Requires local governments to approve qualifying ("by-right") housing developments on a set timeline if they meet existing zoning and codes. Limits discretionary review. Includes options for third-party reviews/inspections if governments delay.
- **Reduced minimum lot sizes**: Lowers barriers for single-family homes (e.g., to as low as 3,000 sq ft in some contexts), allowing denser use of land. Examples cited: Wichita (previously 5,000 sq ft), Kansas City (often ~7,150 sq ft in single-family zones).
- **Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)**: Allows homeowners to build secondary units (e.g., for rentals or family) by right.
- **Zoning reforms**: Prevents cities from banning single-family homes in residential zones; adjusts protest petition rules for rezoning; ensures more land is available for single-family development.
- **Impact Potential**: Aimed at cities like Garden City and Emporia where zoning restricts buildable land significantly. Supporters, including groups like the Pacific Legal Foundation (whose model legislation influenced it), argue this will lower costs, increase supply, and improve affordability without new spending.
**Legislative Timeline** (SB 418): Passed Senate (Jan/Feb 2026), House (March), signed by Gov. Laura Kelly (April 7, 2026).
### Broader Kansas Housing Context
Kansas faces a recognized housing shortage, especially affordable units (e.g., Kansas City metro cited with a large deficit). Like many states, issues stem from post-pandemic demand, construction costs, labor shortages, and local zoning/permitting delays. The column frames the problem as primarily **supply-constrained by regulation** ("red tape" and NIMBY-style local controls) rather than purely a funding gap. This aligns with national YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) and regulatory reform movements emphasizing zoning liberalization for more "missing middle" housing.
**Critiques and Counterpoints** (for balance):
- Tax credit defenders argue the audit timing was premature (projects take years to complete) and that economic multipliers matter.
- Zoning reforms can face local resistance over concerns like neighborhood character, infrastructure strain, traffic, or property values.
- Effectiveness of SB 418 will depend on local implementation and whether it meaningfully shifts permitting culture.
**Relevance to Your Work/Advocacy**
As someone deeply involved in Topeka/Shawnee County real estate development, zoning, TIF/CID processes, drainage/utilities, and pushing for "shovel-ready" projects and economic growth, this fits your long-standing critiques of bureaucracy and inconsistent local handling. SB 418’s focus on timely approvals, reduced lot sizes, and by-right development could support projects like your Eveningside Northwest/37th & Gage efforts, pickleball/55+ concepts, or other mixed-use ideas by lowering barriers and costs. It echoes your calls for transparency, uniform treatment, and practical progress over subsidies or delays.
If you’d like me to draft a public comment, blog post, YouTube script summary, or compare this to specific local Topeka issues (e.g., current zoning or incentives), just let me know! I can also pull more on the full audit or bill text.
