As Pennsylvania heads into the 2026 mid-term elections on November 3, 2026, housing policy is increasingly playing a central role. With affordability pressures, housing-supply constraints and local zoning debates all rising in prominence, candidates in Pennsylvania must address how they would handle housing—both for homeowners and renters. For voters, understanding how candidates propose to act matters in real-terms. 

How We Gauge Trends: Key Metrics

In the mortgage and housing-supply space, one useful way to evaluate policy impact is through measurable upstream “processing/supply” metrics—similar in spirit to mortgage-market analysis. Although our focus here is on housing/housing supply in Pennsylvania (rather than solely mortgage finance), the analogies hold and help frame how candidate policies might translate into real-world outcomes.

1. Mortgage application volume / refinance & purchase loan originations
   In the mortgage world, this metric tracks how many mortgages are being applied for, approved and closed—across government-backed and conventional loans. For housing supply in Pennsylvania, the analog includes: number of home-purchase mortgage applications (which reflect demand for homeownership), number of refinance applications (which reflect existing-home owners’ ability to adjust cost of borrowing), and by extension number of building permits/new construction financing applications within housing supply. If demand or supply policy is shifting, these metrics move.

   • A surge in purchase mortgage applications may signal strong demand for homes.

   • A fall may signal affordability issues or supply constraints.
     For Pennsylvania specifically, tracking this comprises looking at mortgage origination data (purchase vs refinance) and newly-filed building permits or financing of new housing units.

2. Processing times / closing times
   In mortgage finance this is how long from application to closing. For housing supply, the analogous metric is: how long from permit submission/planning approval to actual start of construction and closing/occupancy of units. If state or local policy is changed (for example to streamline zoning or expedite approvals), this metric should improve (shorter times). If regulatory bottlenecks or financing delays increase, this metric worsens.
   For Pennsylvania, measuring delays in local zoning reviews, building-permit approval timelines, and time-to-occupancy for new units will be key.

3. Loan-delivery bottlenecks / underwriting backlog
   In mortgage parlance this refers to lenders facing backlog due to deferred agency functions (tax transcripts, flood insurance, veteran eligibility). In housing-supply terms, this translates to: developer pipelines backed up because of delays in municipal approvals, infrastructure hook-ups, state funding for affordable housing, or financing bottlenecks.
   In Pennsylvania this may show up in multi-family projects delayed, affordable-housing units still in planning limbo, or higher cost/time for approvals.

4. Sector segmentation
   In the mortgage market: conventional vs government-insured (FHA/VA/USDA) vs GSE-guaranteed loans—some segments are more exposed to federal agency disruption. In housing-supply policy: we can segment by: market-rate vs affordable/rental housing; single-family vs multi-family; urban infill vs suburban greenfield; municipal vs state-incentivised projects. Some segments will face more regulatory or financing hurdles than others. For example, affordable rental units often depend on tax credits or state/federal subsidies, thus more exposed to policy risk.
   In Pennsylvania, candidate policies may shift differently across these segments—affordable multi-family in Philadelphia or Pittsburgh may face different challenges than suburban single-family in the Lehigh Valley or rural Pennsylvania.

5. Regional or lender/geography variation
   In mortgage markets: some geographies with flood-zones, rural USDA loans or heavy veteran/VA business are more exposed to disruption. In Pennsylvania, geographic variation is acute: Philadelphia, suburbs of Philly, Pittsburgh region, and rural counties each have distinct housing/permit ecosystems. Some municipalities may be more permissive of multi-unit housing; others more restrictive. Some towns may rely more on state/federal affordable-housing funding. Tracking variation by region (eastern PA, western PA, central PA) is vital.

6. Secondary market liquidity / investor confidence
   In mortgage finance this speaks to how shutdowns or policy shake-ups affect the broader market that purchases or guarantees loans (GSEs, investors) and whether that influences rates or spreads. In housing-supply, the analogous metric involves developer financing, tax-credit markets, bond markets for affordable housing, and investor willingness to back large projects. If policy or regulation adds risk (e.g., new state mandates or zoning reform uncertainty), investor appetite may shrink, financing cost may rise, supply may slow.

7. Policy/agency announcements / temporary waivers
   In mortgage systems this includes guidance or exceptions federal entities or GSEs issue during shutdowns to keep system functioning. For housing policy in Pennsylvania: this includes state legislative actions, municipal zoning reform policies, affordable-housing grant announcements, tax-credit changes, regulatory waivers or expedited review programs. These policy shifts often serve as inflection points.

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac & the Shutdown: What’s Actually Affected?

Although the immediate focus for housing supply is municipal/state rather than federal agency shutdowns, it is worthwhile to draw the analogy from mortgage finance to show how processing/verification disruptions can ripple through systems:

• The two government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not required to shut down because of a federal government funding lapse—they continue operations. However, their operations rely indirectly on certain federal-agency services (tax transcripts via IRS, flood insurance issuance, VA/USDA certifications).

• The shut-down risk in the mortgage market is less about the GSEs themselves stopping business, and more about verification/approval friction which adds cost/time, and thus may reduce originations in more exposed segments.

• For the housing-supply side in Pennsylvania, while municipal/state approvals are less likely to be impacted by federal shutdowns, financing may still rely on tax-credit programs or federal support which could be delayed, and these delays can ripple into construction start times and closings.

• The key takeaway: the housing market doesn’t grind to a full stop—rather, friction shows up in increased time, higher cost, and segmentation of risk (certain loan types or housing-segments face more delays or higher cost).

Price Trends: Still Functioning, But Under Pressure

• Home-purchase demand remains strong in many regions (especially near Philadelphia and Pittsburgh).

• Supply remains constrained in many municipalities due to zoning, regulatory delays and lack of new construction of affordable units.

• Therefore, the housing supply side is under pressure—approval delays and financing risk could exacerbate cost and slow delivery, which in turn can maintain upward pressure on rents and home-prices.

Regional / Segment Variation (in Pennsylvania)

The risk and variation in housing/financing conditions across Pennsylvania are considerable. Here are some critical breakdowns:

Urban vs Suburban vs Rural

• In the Philadelphia-region suburbs (e.g., Bucks County, Montgomery County, Delaware County) demand for housing remains strong, but zoning and approvals often slow multi-unit supply.

• In the Pittsburgh region and western PA, older housing stock, rental demand and redevelopment opportunities create distinct supply dynamics.

• Rural Pennsylvania has its distinct challenges: fewer new units, sometimes lower demand, but also less regulatory pressure—but financing for new supply (especially multi-family) may be harder to secure.

Affordable vs Market-Rate

• Affordable/workforce housing in Pennsylvania often depends on state or federal subsidies, tax credits and complex financing. These units can be more exposed to delays in approvals, funding or construction.

• Market-rate single-family or small multi-unit rental may be less exposed to these subsidies but may still face zoning/regulatory obstacles.

Municipal Approval Differences

• Some municipalities are more permissive of higher-density housing or infill development; others remain restrictive (large lots, single-family zoning, high parking minimums). This creates variation in permit volumes, processing times and backlog.

Financing/Investor Variation

• Developers building large multi-unit projects or affordable housing may depend on state housing agency grants, tax-exempt bonds or LIHTC (Low Income Housing Tax Credit) financing—each adds potential bottlenecks.

• Smaller home-builders building single-family units may face fewer funding constraints but still face land‐use/regulatory delay risk.

What to Expect & What the Metrics Will Reveal

For stakeholders in Pennsylvania—home-buyers, renters, developers, municipal planners—here is what to watch:

• For prospective home-buyers: If closing times on mortgages lengthen or approvals slow, expect more caution or delays in purchasing. If new construction supply remains low, prices/rents may stay elevated.

• For renters or developers: Delays in multi-family project approvals or financing could slow new supply, keeping rental markets tight.

• For municipalities: Streamlining zoning/permit procedures can reduce approval time (metric #2) and backlog (metric #3). Municipalities that do so may attract more construction and development.

• For developers/investors: Financing cost and investor confidence matter. If housing‐policy/regulatory risk increases (e.g., shifting zoning mandates, uncertain state subsidies), risk premiums may rise and some projects may be postponed.

In short: the housing system in Pennsylvania is resilient but under pressure—policy making, municipal zoning/regulation, and financing pipelines will determine whether supply expands and affordability improves, or whether delays and cost constraints keep upward pressure on rents and home-prices.

Where Candidates Stand on Housing: Pennsylvania 2026

With the metrics framework in place, we turn to the electoral context: the 2026 mid-term elections in Pennsylvania. While many candidate positions on housing are still emerging, some early statements, actions and local contexts allow us to draw initial maps of where candidates stand and what the policy debates will look like.

Political Landscape & Why Housing Matters

• Pennsylvania is a key battleground state; several congressional districts are highly competitive.

• Housing affordability and supply are major issues across the state—from suburbs of Philadelphia to urban Pittsburgh and rural counties. Indeed, voters are increasingly conscious of housing cost and availability.

• Municipal zoning and local control are key issues in Pennsylvania, given the multitude of municipalities and local land‐use rules. Any candidate’s housing policy will need to contend with that reality.

• Therefore, candidates’ housing stances will include not just broad goals (e.g., “more housing”) but also how they propose to address approvals, streamlining, zoning reform, affordability incentives, and financing pipelines.

Key Races & Notable Candidates (So Far)

Because many candidate platforms remain under development, below are key races and candidates already declared or likely, with known housing‐relevant signals.

U.S. House Races

• In the 2026 election for the U.S. House in Pennsylvania, multiple districts are competitive. For example, the 7th District (PA-7) is considered a toss-up. 

• Candidates include:

  • Incumbent Ryan Mackenzie (R) in PA-7.

  • Potential challengers like Bob Brooks (D) and Ryan Crosswell (D) in PA-7. 

• These candidates will, in all likelihood, address housing issues—particularly in suburban/rural districts where housing cost, supply of new units and permits matter to voters.

State Legislative Races

• All 203 seats in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives are up in 2026. 

• Key local races matter for housing because state legislation can impact zoning reform, affordable‐housing investment and subsidies for housing development.

• A notable figure: Joe Picozzi (R), elected recently to PA State Senate District 5 and serving as Chair of the Urban Affairs & Housing Committee. He may become influential in housing policy debates ahead of 2026.

What Are They Saying on Housing?

Given the information available so far, here are some broad themes and candidate stances relating to housing, organized by theme.

Theme: Increase Housing Supply

• Many voters in Pennsylvania are concerned about housing supply—particularly multi-unit development, workforce housing and rental units. Candidates who emphasize “building more housing” tend to focus on easing regulatory burdens, incentivizing development, and using state/county funds to stimulate new supply.

• For example, municipal development projects in Pennsylvania—such as transit-oriented infill or redevelopment of older industrial space—are often flagged by local officials and challengers as a way to address supply constraints. While specific candidate statements in all districts are not yet detailed, those running in suburban/exurban districts are likely to highlight supply challenges.

Theme: Affordable & Workforce Housing

• Beyond simply “more housing,” the focus is increasingly on units that middle-income households can afford (workforce housing), as well as low-income affordable units. Candidates aligning with this will likely talk about tax credits, state grants, public-private development, and redevelopment of under-utilized properties.

• Some state-legislative candidates may focus on expanding Affordable Housing Trust Fund programs or leveraging federal tax credits (LIHTC). Others may oppose large subsidies, focusing instead on market-rate supply.

Theme: Zoning Reform & Local Control

• A frequent tension: Should the state (or county) direct zoning reform (e.g., allow multi-family by right, reduce parking minimums), or should municipalities retain full local control?

• Candidates differ: Some push for state mandates or strong incentives to override restrictive municipal codes; others emphasize the importance of local planning boards and neighborhood input. For example, in other states we’ve seen candidates argue for “by-right” multi-unit housing in single-family zones; in Pennsylvania similar debates are emerging.

• Given Pennsylvania’s fragmented municipal system (2,500+ municipalities), this issue looms large. Candidates’ housing statements about zoning reform will be telling.

Theme: Infrastructure, Transit & Infill Development

• Housing growth is not just about housing units—it’s also about locating units efficiently (near transit, jobs, schools). Candidates supportive of more sustainable growth often highlight transit-oriented development (TOD), redevelopment of under‐used industrial/commercial sites, and better alignment of housing and infrastructure.

• In regions like the Philadelphia metro or Lehigh Valley, candidates may talk about infill and multi‐unit housing near rail/bus lines; in western PA, they may talk about converting older buildings into rental housing.

• Candidates skeptical of growth mandates may focus their housing policy on suburban single-family expansion, less dense development or preserving neighborhood character.

Theme: Preservation & Maintaining Affordability

• Another dimension: It’s not enough to build new units—existing affordable housing must be preserved. Candidates focusing here will talk about tax incentives for landlords who keep units affordable, protections against conversion of affordable units into market-rate, and investment in older housing stock.

• In Pennsylvania, older urban housing stock (Pittsburgh, Philadelphia) and rural small-town housing need upgrading; candidates may emphasise renovating or preserving units rather than only building new ones.

Theme: Metrics & Accountability

• Some candidates are beginning to highlight measurable goals: number of new units built, reductions in approval times, percentage of housing stock that is affordable, average days from permit to occupancy. These metrics tie back to the “How We Gauge Trends” section above.

• Candidates who propose explicit metrics are likely to gain credibility with housing-policy-savvy voters. Others may rely on vague promises (“we’ll build more housing”) without metrics; the difference may matter.

Candidate Comparison (Illustrative)

Below is a comparative snapshot of candidate stances (or likely stances) in major Pennsylvania races, based on available information. Note: As 2026 platforms firm up, more detail may emerge.

What Voters Should Ask Candidates

If you’re a voter in Pennsylvania or tracking housing policy, here are pointed questions to ask the candidates:

1. What is your housing supply goal? How many new housing units do you want to see built in Pennsylvania (or in your district) over the next five years? How many of those will be affordable/workforce units?

2. What will you do about permit/approval delay times? Will you support legislation or funding that shortens time from permit to occupancy? What target do you propose for average approval time?

3. Will you support zoning reforms? Specifically: will you require or incentivize municipalities to allow multi-unit housing or “middle housing” (2-9 units) by right, reduce parking minimums, encourage infill redevelopment?

4. How will you fund affordable/workforce housing? Will you support tax credits, state grants, preservation programs, or rely on the private market? What is the proportion of your plan that focuses on rentals vs homeownership?

5. How will you align housing with infrastructure/transit? Will you prioritize housing near transit, jobs or in redevelopment zones? How do you plan to integrate transportation and infrastructure investment with housing growth?

6. What will you do to preserve existing affordable housing? Many units are at risk of conversion. Will you support incentives or protections for landlords, or funding for renovation of older stock?

7. Will you set measurable metrics and hold municipalities/devs accountable? Are you willing to publish dashboards of unit-counts, approval times, pipeline backlogs and hold localities accountable?

8. How do you balance state incentives vs local control? Will you mandate changes in municipal zoning, or rely on voluntary incentives? How will you ensure local neighborhoods are heard while housing supply increases?

9. How will you ensure financing/investor confidence? Will you work to ensure that developers and lenders have access to stable financing, tax-exempt bonds, tax-credits, and a predictable regulatory environment?

10. How will you address regional variation? Pennsylvania is diverse: Philadelphia metro, Lehigh Valley, Pittsburgh, rural counties. What specific policies will you tailor to each region’s housing needs?

Implications: What the 2026 Outcome Could Mean for Housing in Pennsylvania

Scenario A – “Aggressive Supply & Reform” Outcome

If the 2026 midterms deliver a slate of candidates (both federal and state) committed to aggressive housing-supply reform (streamlining zoning, strong state incentives, measurable targets), then the following may happen:

• Municipalities may face stronger incentives (or mandates) to approve new multi-unit housing, infill development and reduce regulatory delays.

• Approval/permit timelines may shorten, backlog may be cleared faster, leading to increased new-unit starts—improving our metrics.

• With more supply, especially in workforce/affordable housing segments, downward pressure may ease on rents or moderate home-buyer prices in some markets.

• Investors and developers may respond to stronger pipeline clarity by financing more projects, increasing production of both rental and ownership housing.

• In our metrics framework: larger application/permit volumes, reduced processing times, fewer bottlenecks, and improved supply in multiple regions.

• Ultimately, for buyers/renters: more housing choices, somewhat improved affordability over time (though not immediately).

Scenario B – “Incremental / Local-Control Emphasis” Outcome

If the outcome tilts more toward local-control advocates or moderate reformers, then the policy changes may be more cautious:

• Municipalities retain more discretion, state mandates or incentives are weaker—leading to slower rollout of zoning change or multi-unit approvals.

• Permit/approval times may improve only modestly; backlog may persist in restrictive towns; supply may remain constrained in many municipalities.

• Affordable/workforce housing may continue to lag, especially in municipalities resistant to higher-density housing or fearful of infrastructure/school burdens.

• Our metrics may show modest improvement in some regions (urban infill) but stagnation in others (suburbs/rural).

• For renters/home-buyers: the housing-cost pressure will likely continue; supply growth may be uneven across the state.

Common to Both Scenarios

• Regardless of outcome, the underlying affordability challenge remains: Pennsylvania needs more housing supply, and many candidates recognise that.

• Because housing policy is multi‐layered—state legislation, municipal zoning, financing, developer pipeline—success or failure will depend on coordination across these levels.

• Voters sensitive to housing cost, delays in permit/occupancy or lack of new housing stock will likely make housing a voting issue in 2026—and candidate statements on housing may influence outcomes.

The 2026 mid-term elections in Pennsylvania present a significant inflection point for housing policy. With affordability concerns rising and supply lagging in many markets, the candidate who credibly articulates how to build more housing, shorten approval pipelines, maintain municipal buy-in and preserve affordability will have a strong platform.

From the metrics perspective, we will watch for signals: Are permit volumes increasing? Are approval/occupancy times dropping? Is backlog being cleared? Are new‐unit starts being announced across multiple municipalities? Are financing pipelines active? Are investors confident? These indicators will show whether candidate rhetoric is translating into action.

From the campaign side: pay attention to what candidates actually commit to—not just general pledges of “more housing,” but specifics: zoning reform, time targets for approvals, dedicated affordable/housing unit counts, preservation programs and financing support. How they balance state‐level incentives with municipal discretion will matter a lot.

For Pennsylvania residents—from Philadelphia’s suburbs to the Lehigh Valley, Pittsburgh, and rural counties—the housing stakes are real. Where you live, how long it takes to get a permit or closing, how much you pay in rent or a mortgage—all of these may hinge on policies shaped by the candidates elected in 2026.

As the campaign season progresses, keep one eye on the numbers (units, approvals, delays) and another on the platforms. Because housing isn’t just a talking point—it affects families, renters, first-time home-buyers and communities.