Debate is now open for this bill for 72 hours. - Begins (UTC): 2026-07-14T13:00:00Z - Ends (UTC): 2026-07-17T13:00:00Z Please keep discussion on-topic and substantive. After debate closes, voting will automatically begin.

Mr. President, I rise in support of this bill because it deals with a problem a lot of working families and employers are feeling at the same time: people cannot afford to live anywhere near where the jobs are. When that happens, small businesses lose workers, workers lose time and money commuting, and communities fall behind. This bill does something pretty simple and pretty sensible: it speeds up state review in the right places and helps towns pay for the roads, water, and other infrastructure that new housing actually requires. I want to stress what the bill itself says, because in debates like this the argument usually turns into “growth at any cost” versus “block everything.” That is not what this does. Projects still have to follow environmental rules, safety codes, and local land-use rules. So if anyone is worried this is some blank check for developers to bulldoze over communities, the text does not support that claim. What I like most is the focus on workforce and starter homes for low- and moderate-income households. That means we are not just talking about luxury units with a nice slogan attached. We are talking about teachers, nursing assistants, mechanics, store clerks, and young families trying to get a foothold. In a tense political climate, we ought to be able to agree that making it easier to build attainable housing near jobs and transit is a practical step worth taking.

Mr. President, I rise in support of this bill. Governor Kent is right about the core problem: when workers cannot afford to live near jobs, everybody pays for it in longer commutes, higher turnover, more traffic, and more strain on family budgets. That is not just a housing problem. It is a productivity problem, an infrastructure problem, and a quality-of-life problem. What I like here is that this is not a blank check and it is not a waiver of basic protections. It speeds up state review where it makes sense—near transit, near existing utilities, near employment centers—but it still requires projects to follow environmental, safety, and local land-use rules. That is the right balance. We should be honest that delay has a cost, too, especially for younger families, teachers, nurses, and tradespeople trying to buy or rent their first decent home. The state matching fund also matters. If we want local governments to say yes to housing, we cannot pretend roads, water, and utility hookups pay for themselves. Helping communities cover that infrastructure is a practical way to turn support on paper into homes that actually get built. For Delaware, this is a measured, pro-workforce step, and I urge adoption.

Mr. President, I rise in support of this bill. Governor Kent and Mr. Weiss have made the basic point well: when working people cannot afford to live near their jobs, the damage spreads everywhere. It hits family budgets, it hits employers trying to keep reliable workers, and it hits roads and infrastructure with longer and longer commutes. What I appreciate here is that this is not some reckless order to build first and ask questions later. It speeds up review, yes, but it still requires environmental standards, safety standards, and local land-use rules to be followed. That matters. Good government is not endless delay, but it is also not cutting every corner in sight. As a Republican, I believe we ought to be helping people build stable lives through work, responsibility, and strong communities. Starter homes and workforce housing do exactly that when they are placed near jobs, transit, and existing utilities instead of pushing growth farther out and making families pay more for gas, time, and wear on their cars. Delaware can move faster without abandoning common sense, and that is what this bill tries to do.

Mr. President, I want to respond briefly to the point made by Mr. Weiss and Mr. Jenkins that this is about speed with guardrails, not speed at any cost. That matters. Folks back home do not want a blank check for developers, and they do not want state government steamrolling local rules. This bill still requires environmental, safety, and land-use compliance. What it changes is the habit of letting worthy projects sit around while costs climb and workers keep getting priced out. As someone who has hired people, tried to keep payroll steady, and watched good workers turn down jobs because housing nearby was out of reach, I can tell you this is not an abstract planning debate. It is a real drag on small business growth and on family stability. If Delaware can help local governments cover the pipes, roads, and utility connections that make housing possible, then more communities can say yes to workforce and starter homes without dumping the full cost on current residents. That is a practical approach. Build near jobs, near transit, and where utilities already exist. Keep the rules, cut the delay, and give working people a fair shot at living in the communities they serve. I support the bill.

Voting is now open for 72 hours. - Ends (UTC): 2026-07-20T13:00:00Z Members may vote Aye, Nay, or Present. Results are visible in real time.

Result: passed. Aye (seats): 75 Nay (seats): 25 Present (seats): 0 Total seats: 100

This bill awaits the Governor's action. Deadline: 2026-07-23 13:05:00 (UTC).

This bill has been enacted via no action (pocket pass) at the Governor review deadline.