Home values, gross rent, homeownership, housing cost burdens, and the pressure from prices and incomes.
Median owner-occupied home value$418.6K2020–2024 · #12 of 50 · highest first
Median gross rent$1.24K2020–2024 · #24 of 50 · highest first
Homeownership rate72.1%2020–2024 · #8 of 50 · highest first
Idaho over time
Explore Idaho readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Idaho officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Idaho effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Idaho change.
Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear
Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.
Home-price growth since 2016 Idaho · source units
IdahoPublished U.S. benchmark
Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.
3 of 3 reviewed Idaho actions match · 3 date markers shown. 26 major events shown separately.
Idaho · 2025: +141.7% · Rank #1 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: Not available
FactVote averages the four quarterly, not-seasonally-adjusted FHFA all-transactions HPI observations for each year. It compares that series with BEA annual per-capita personal income distributed by FRED, then rebases both to 100 in 2016. This is a pressure indicator, not a home-price-to-income ratio and not a measure of monthly mortgage affordability. Both series are nominal; neither is adjusted for inflation. Per-capita personal income includes earnings, property income, and transfers and is not median household income. Annual observations use December 31; monthly observations use the first of the month. Lines connect consecutive readings and do not supply values between them. Missing observations break the lines.
The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.
Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.
Idaho · state comparison
Home values, rent, and homeownership
Census values are estimates for occupied housing, rather than current listing or sale prices.
Idaho · 2020–2024$418,600
Idaho rank#12among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$332,700Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Median owner-occupied home value
Median reported value of owner-occupied housing.
2024 dollars; a higher value can benefit owners and make buying harder.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Idaho stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Idaho has a dark outline.
Lower value · $162.6KHigher value · $839.1KStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Idaho · $418,6002020–2024 · Rank #12 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Idaho with every state · 50 ranked
Median owner-occupied home value · 2020–2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Hawaii
$839,100
—
#2
California
$734,700
—
#3
Washington
$564,600
—
#4
Massachusetts
$562,100
—
#5
Colorado
$539,400
—
#6
Utah
$489,400
—
#7
Oregon
$477,600
—
#8
New Jersey
$454,400
—
#9
Nevada
$435,400
—
#10
New York
$423,800
—
#11
Maryland
$419,900
—
#12
Idaho · your comparison
$418,600
—
#13
Rhode Island
$404,200
—
#14
New Hampshire
$402,500
—
#15
Arizona
$394,500
—
#16
Virginia
$383,700
—
#17
Montana
$375,800
—
#18
Connecticut
$366,900
—
#19
Florida
$359,000
—
#20
Alaska
$352,900
—
#21
Delaware
$352,000
—
#22
Minnesota
$329,300
—
#23
Vermont
$316,600
—
#24
Wyoming
$309,700
—
#25
Georgia
$303,300
—
#26
Maine
$296,600
—
#27
North Carolina
$288,900
—
#28
Tennessee
$286,700
—
#29
Texas
$283,800
—
#30
Wisconsin
$266,500
—
#31
Illinois
$263,300
—
#32
South Carolina
$259,000
—
#33
South Dakota
$257,400
—
#34
Pennsylvania
$254,500
—
#35
North Dakota
$249,900
—
#36
New Mexico
$248,100
—
#37
Nebraska
$238,600
—
#38
Michigan
$231,600
—
#39
Missouri
$230,300
—
#40
Indiana
$218,200
—
#41
Kansas
$217,200
—
#42
Louisiana
$216,500
—
#43
Ohio
$214,800
—
#44
Alabama
$209,900
—
#45
Iowa
$208,000
—
#46
Kentucky
$205,600
—
#47
Oklahoma
$199,800
—
#48
Arkansas
$188,000
—
#49
Mississippi
$169,800
—
#50
West Virginia
$162,600
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Median monthly gross rent for renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent, including contract rent plus estimated average utility and fuel costs paid by the renter.
This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.
Method and limitations
U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts, sourced from the American Community Survey 2020–2024 five-year estimate and expressed in 2024 dollars.
This is a multi-year statewide estimate, not a current asking-rent measure.
The median obscures differences by location, unit size, housing quality, and renter circumstances.
Compare moderate-or-severe and severe housing cost burdens for three distinct housing groups.
Idaho · 2020–202446.9%
Idaho rank#36among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark51.1%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Renters · spending at least 30% of income
Housing costs as a share of household income, excluding households for which a ratio cannot be computed.
Renters and owners have separate denominators. Ratios use the Census computed-income universe.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Idaho stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Idaho has a dark outline.
Lower value · 38.9%Higher value · 60.1%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Idaho · 46.9%2020–2024 · Rank #36 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Idaho with every state · 50 ranked
Renters · spending at least 30% of income · 2020–2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Florida
60.1%
—
#2
Hawaii
56.7%
—
#3
Nevada
55.9%
—
#4
California
55.3%
—
#5
Louisiana
54.8%
—
#6
Colorado
52.9%
—
#7
Connecticut
52.6%
—
#8
Oregon
52.5%
—
#9
Georgia
52.4%
—
#10
South Carolina
52.1%
—
#11
New York
52.1%
—
#12
Massachusetts
51.8%
—
#13
Texas
51.7%
—
#14
New Jersey
51.6%
—
#15
Maryland
51.5%
—
#16
Arizona
51.4%
—
#17
Mississippi
51.3%
—
#18
Michigan
50.4%
—
#19
New Mexico
50.2%
—
#20
Washington
49.9%
—
#21
Delaware
49.6%
—
#22
North Carolina
48.9%
—
#23
West Virginia
48.9%
—
#24
Tennessee
48.8%
—
#25
Alabama
48.8%
—
#26
Virginia
48.5%
—
#27
Maine
48.4%
—
#28
Vermont
48.4%
—
#29
New Hampshire
48.2%
—
#30
Pennsylvania
48.2%
—
#31
Minnesota
48.1%
—
#32
Indiana
48.1%
—
#33
Rhode Island
48%
—
#34
Illinois
47.9%
—
#35
Utah
47.2%
—
#36
Idaho · your comparison
46.9%
—
#37
Oklahoma
46.3%
—
#38
Ohio
45.9%
—
#39
Missouri
45.6%
—
#40
Kentucky
45.4%
—
#41
Nebraska
45.1%
—
#42
Arkansas
44.8%
—
#43
Montana
44.8%
—
#44
Alaska
44.6%
—
#45
Iowa
43.9%
—
#46
Wisconsin
43.7%
—
#47
Kansas
43.5%
—
#48
Wyoming
43.1%
—
#49
South Dakota
39.8%
—
#50
North Dakota
38.9%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Both series start at 100 in 2016. The gap describes price pressure; it is not a mortgage payment or a price-to-income ratio.
Idaho · 2025+141.7%
Idaho rank#1among all 50 states
U.S. benchmarkNot availableSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Home-price growth since 2016
FactVote averages the four quarterly, not-seasonally-adjusted FHFA all-transactions HPI observations for each year. It compares that series with BEA annual per-capita personal income distributed by FRED, then rebases both to 100 in 2016.
This is a pressure indicator, not a home-price-to-income ratio and not a measure of monthly mortgage affordability. Both series are nominal; neither is adjusted for inflation. Per-capita personal income includes earnings, property income, and transfers and is not median household income.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
Idaho
2025 · Idaho: +141.7% · Rank #1 of 50, highest first · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Idaho Home-price growth since 2016 history
Period
Idaho
Compare
2016
+0%
2017
+8.4%
2018
+20.8%
2019
+33.1%
2020
+47.2%
2021
+85.6%
2022
+120.6%
2023
+123.6%
2024
+133%
2025
+141.7%
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Idaho stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Idaho has a dark outline.
Lower value · +38.2%Higher value · +141.7%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Idaho · +141.7%2025 · Rank #1 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at the index base (0% growth); #1 means the highest value.
Compare Idaho with every state · 50 ranked
Home-price growth since 2016 · 2025 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Idaho · your comparison
+141.7%
—
#2
Florida
+114.5%
—
#3
Maine
+113.7%
—
#4
Utah
+113.6%
—
#5
Tennessee
+112.4%
—
#6
Arizona
+112.3%
—
#7
New Hampshire
+110.1%
—
#8
Rhode Island
+108%
—
#9
Georgia
+107.6%
—
#10
North Carolina
+107.1%
—
#11
Montana
+106.7%
—
#12
Nevada
+106.1%
—
#13
South Carolina
+105.5%
—
#14
Washington
+100.2%
—
#15
Indiana
+94.5%
—
#16
Wisconsin
+94%
—
#17
Michigan
+93.7%
—
#18
Ohio
+93.3%
—
#19
Vermont
+92.6%
—
#20
New Jersey
+88.9%
—
#21
Missouri
+86.9%
—
#22
New York
+85.9%
—
#23
Nebraska
+84.6%
—
#24
Massachusetts
+84.3%
—
#24
South Dakota
+84.3%
—
#26
Texas
+83.3%
—
#27
Kentucky
+83.2%
—
#28
Colorado
+83.1%
—
#29
Kansas
+82.5%
—
#30
New Mexico
+82.3%
—
#31
Alabama
+81.3%
—
#32
Arkansas
+80.8%
—
#33
Connecticut
+79.8%
—
#34
Pennsylvania
+78.4%
—
#35
Virginia
+76.5%
—
#36
Delaware
+75.4%
—
#37
Oregon
+74.7%
—
#38
California
+72.7%
—
#39
Oklahoma
+71.9%
—
#40
Minnesota
+70%
—
#41
Wyoming
+69.3%
—
#42
Illinois
+65.3%
—
#43
Iowa
+64.2%
—
#44
Mississippi
+63.9%
—
#45
Hawaii
+63%
—
#46
Maryland
+59.4%
—
#47
West Virginia
+58.6%
—
#48
Alaska
+51.9%
—
#49
North Dakota
+45.9%
—
#50
Louisiana
+38.2%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
State building activity, vacant units, mortgage performance, and borrowing rates are different measures.
Idaho · 202517,944
Idaho rank#24among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark1,431,616Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Total housing units authorized
New privately owned housing units authorized by building permits; final annual, not seasonally adjusted.
A permit is authorization, not a start or completed home. Absolute counts reflect the size of a state. Units in permit-issuing places; excludes public housing.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Idaho stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Idaho has a dark outline.
Lower value · 848Higher value · 210,217Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Idaho · 17,9442025 · Rank #24 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Idaho with every state · 50 ranked
Total housing units authorized · 2025 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Texas
210,217
—
#2
Florida
178,297
—
#3
California
103,856
—
#4
North Carolina
86,167
—
#5
Georgia
61,196
—
#6
Arizona
51,532
—
#7
South Carolina
45,862
—
#8
Tennessee
43,374
—
#9
New York
38,667
—
#10
Washington
34,913
—
#11
Colorado
33,754
—
#12
Ohio
33,640
—
#13
Virginia
33,094
—
#14
Indiana
29,076
—
#15
New Jersey
27,661
—
#16
Utah
26,775
—
#17
Pennsylvania
25,709
—
#18
Wisconsin
25,569
—
#19
Michigan
23,075
—
#20
Minnesota
20,947
—
#21
Alabama
19,061
—
#22
Illinois
18,551
—
#23
Nevada
18,540
—
#24
Idaho · your comparison
17,944
—
#25
Missouri
17,474
—
#26
Oklahoma
15,513
—
#27
Arkansas
15,492
—
#28
Kentucky
14,940
—
#29
Oregon
14,839
—
#30
Louisiana
14,203
—
#31
Iowa
13,664
—
#32
Maryland
13,358
—
#33
Massachusetts
12,477
—
#34
Nebraska
10,596
—
#35
Kansas
10,299
—
#36
Mississippi
8,405
—
#37
New Mexico
7,747
—
#38
Connecticut
7,273
—
#39
Maine
6,979
—
#40
Delaware
6,468
—
#41
South Dakota
5,305
—
#42
Montana
5,258
—
#43
New Hampshire
5,030
—
#44
West Virginia
3,962
—
#45
Hawaii
3,708
—
#46
North Dakota
2,440
—
#47
Vermont
2,294
—
#48
Wyoming
2,238
—
#49
Rhode Island
1,738
—
#50
Alaska
848
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Explore current officeholders and explicitly reviewed historical executive officials, labeled at the time of their actions. Timeline dates, action type, status and search also filter this list. Read any record’s summary, latest recorded status and official evidence below, or open it beside the timeline.
3 of 3 reviewed Idaho actions · newest first
Mar 31, 2026 · SB 1354 · ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS – Amends and adds to existing law to revise provisions regarding prohibitions against restrictive covenants banning accessory dwelling units and to establish provisions regarding accessory dwelling units in the Local Land Use Planning Act. · SignedGovernor · SB 1354
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS – Amends and adds to existing law to revise provisions regarding prohibitions against restrictive covenants banning accessory dwelling units and to establish provisions regarding accessory dwelling units in the Local Land Use Planning Act.
Mar 31, 2026 · Signed
Gov. Brad Little · Signed
FactVote reviewed summary
Brad Little signed SB 1354. The amended SB 1354 limits city bans on accessory dwelling units and requires specified land-use changes by February 1, 2027. The defined units have their own cooking, sleeping and sanitation facilities on the same lot as a single-family primary dwelling; internal, attached and detached units qualify, while motorhomes, campers, recreational vehicles and similar dwellings on wheels do not. Section 2 applies only to cities with more than 10,000 residents, includes historic-area exceptions, bars owner-occupancy requirements, and provides administrative approval for qualifying projects. Existing public-health, safety, infrastructure and environmental protections remain. The rental-supply component is relevant to housing costs; the law does not require a particular rent or establish that additional rental units were built.
Signed by Governor on 2026-03-31, Chapter 265 of the 2026 regular session. Signing, effectiveness, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
Median gross rent includes contract rent and estimated tenant-paid utility and fuel costs. Accessory dwellings can form part of the rental supply; allowing them does not establish that units were built or the statewide median changed. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Idaho evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
SECTION 2. That Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code, be, and the same is hereby amended by the addition thereto of a NEW SECTION, to be known and designated as Section 67-6541, Idaho Code, and to read as follows: 67-6541. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. (1) No city shall enact or enforce any ordinance, rule, regulation, or policy that bans accessory dwelling units in any residential zoning area within its jurisdiction. An accessory dwelling unit shall be classified as a residential land use for zoning purposes subject to all applicable zoning requirements. "Accessory dwelling unit" means a self-contained living unit that includes its own cooking, sleeping, and sanitation facilities and that is located on the same lot as a single-family primary dwelling. An accessory dwelling unit may be internal, attached, or detached but does not include a motorhome, camper, recreational vehicle, tiny home on wheels, or other such similar dwellings on wheels. (2) By February 1, 2027, by resolution or ordinance adopted, amended, or repealed in accordance with the notice and hearing procedures provided under section 67-6509, Idaho Code, each city governing board shall amend its comprehensive plan and land use regulations for all land zoned for singlefamily residential uses, except for lands falling within an area defined as a historic district under section 67-4607, Idaho Code, or designated as a historic property pursuant to section 67-4614, Idaho Code, to: (a) Allow for either one (1) internal accessory dwelling unit within the single-family dwelling or one (1) detached accessory dwelling unit per lot in the rear yard or subject to setbacks required of the primary dwelling; (b) Prohibit requiring any off-street parking or guest parking for any accessory dwelling unit unless the principal dwelling unit does not have off-street parking or the street is not paved and designed or constructed for on-street parking or unless the principal dwelling unit is within one-fourth (1/4) mile of transit, an employment area, or commercial services; (c) Prohibit imposing impact fees or utility connection fees on accessory dwelling units that are greater than those imposed on other single-family dwellings; (d) Prohibit limiting the size of an accessory dwelling unit to less than one thousand (1000) square feet or seventy-five percent (75%) of the size of the primary dwelling; (e) Prohibit an owner-occupancy requirement for the primary dwelling or for the accessory dwelling unit; (f) Prohibit imposing a limit on building height that is less than the height of an existing single-family primary dwelling on a lot; and (g) Prohibit restrictions for accessory dwelling units that are more restrictive than restrictions for single-family dwellings within the same zoning district with regard to setbacks, lot size, or coverage or building frontage. (3) Accessory dwelling unit projects that meet the jurisdiction's established land use requirements shall be approved administratively and as a matter of right, without the need for discretionary approval. (4) Any approval standards, special conditions, and procedures for approval adopted by a local government shall be clear and objective and shall not have the effect, either singularly or cumulatively, of discouraging the development of accessory dwelling units through unreasonable cost or delay. (5) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a city from enacting a regulation, standard, or condition that is less restrictive than the requirements of this section. (6) The provisions of this section shall apply only to cities with a population greater than ten thousand (10,000). (7) The provisions of this section shall not supersede state or local laws that protect public health, safety, and welfare, including: (a) Building codes, fire safety standards, and flood plain regulations; (b) Laws regarding water, sewer, storm drainage, road access, and utility services necessary to support the required density; (c) Laws regarding environmental hazards, aquifer recharge zones, steep slopes, and critical habitat protections; and (d) Laws and regulations regarding setback requirements for rights-ofway and easements.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Mar 31, 2026 · SB 1354 · ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS – Amends and adds to existing law to revise provisions regarding prohibitions against restrictive covenants banning accessory dwelling units and to establish provisions regarding accessory dwelling units in the Local Land Use Planning Act. · Enacted · Chapter 265Idaho Legislature · SB 1354
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS – Amends and adds to existing law to revise provisions regarding prohibitions against restrictive covenants banning accessory dwelling units and to establish provisions regarding accessory dwelling units in the Local Land Use Planning Act.
Mar 31, 2026 · Enacted · Chapter 265
Ben Toews · Floor sponsor / Erin M. Bingham · Floor sponsor
FactVote reviewed summary
The amended SB 1354 limits city bans on accessory dwelling units and requires specified land-use changes by February 1, 2027. The defined units have their own cooking, sleeping and sanitation facilities on the same lot as a single-family primary dwelling; internal, attached and detached units qualify, while motorhomes, campers, recreational vehicles and similar dwellings on wheels do not. Section 2 applies only to cities with more than 10,000 residents, includes historic-area exceptions, bars owner-occupancy requirements, and provides administrative approval for qualifying projects. Existing public-health, safety, infrastructure and environmental protections remain. The rental-supply component is relevant to housing costs; the law does not require a particular rent or establish that additional rental units were built.
Signed by Governor on 2026-03-31, Chapter 265 of the 2026 regular session. Signing, effectiveness, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
Median gross rent includes contract rent and estimated tenant-paid utility and fuel costs. Accessory dwellings can form part of the rental supply; allowing them does not establish that units were built or the statewide median changed. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Idaho evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
SECTION 2. That Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code, be, and the same is hereby amended by the addition thereto of a NEW SECTION, to be known and designated as Section 67-6541, Idaho Code, and to read as follows: 67-6541. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. (1) No city shall enact or enforce any ordinance, rule, regulation, or policy that bans accessory dwelling units in any residential zoning area within its jurisdiction. An accessory dwelling unit shall be classified as a residential land use for zoning purposes subject to all applicable zoning requirements. "Accessory dwelling unit" means a self-contained living unit that includes its own cooking, sleeping, and sanitation facilities and that is located on the same lot as a single-family primary dwelling. An accessory dwelling unit may be internal, attached, or detached but does not include a motorhome, camper, recreational vehicle, tiny home on wheels, or other such similar dwellings on wheels. (2) By February 1, 2027, by resolution or ordinance adopted, amended, or repealed in accordance with the notice and hearing procedures provided under section 67-6509, Idaho Code, each city governing board shall amend its comprehensive plan and land use regulations for all land zoned for singlefamily residential uses, except for lands falling within an area defined as a historic district under section 67-4607, Idaho Code, or designated as a historic property pursuant to section 67-4614, Idaho Code, to: (a) Allow for either one (1) internal accessory dwelling unit within the single-family dwelling or one (1) detached accessory dwelling unit per lot in the rear yard or subject to setbacks required of the primary dwelling; (b) Prohibit requiring any off-street parking or guest parking for any accessory dwelling unit unless the principal dwelling unit does not have off-street parking or the street is not paved and designed or constructed for on-street parking or unless the principal dwelling unit is within one-fourth (1/4) mile of transit, an employment area, or commercial services; (c) Prohibit imposing impact fees or utility connection fees on accessory dwelling units that are greater than those imposed on other single-family dwellings; (d) Prohibit limiting the size of an accessory dwelling unit to less than one thousand (1000) square feet or seventy-five percent (75%) of the size of the primary dwelling; (e) Prohibit an owner-occupancy requirement for the primary dwelling or for the accessory dwelling unit; (f) Prohibit imposing a limit on building height that is less than the height of an existing single-family primary dwelling on a lot; and (g) Prohibit restrictions for accessory dwelling units that are more restrictive than restrictions for single-family dwellings within the same zoning district with regard to setbacks, lot size, or coverage or building frontage. (3) Accessory dwelling unit projects that meet the jurisdiction's established land use requirements shall be approved administratively and as a matter of right, without the need for discretionary approval. (4) Any approval standards, special conditions, and procedures for approval adopted by a local government shall be clear and objective and shall not have the effect, either singularly or cumulatively, of discouraging the development of accessory dwelling units through unreasonable cost or delay. (5) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a city from enacting a regulation, standard, or condition that is less restrictive than the requirements of this section. (6) The provisions of this section shall apply only to cities with a population greater than ten thousand (10,000). (7) The provisions of this section shall not supersede state or local laws that protect public health, safety, and welfare, including: (a) Building codes, fire safety standards, and flood plain regulations; (b) Laws regarding water, sewer, storm drainage, road access, and utility services necessary to support the required density; (c) Laws regarding environmental hazards, aquifer recharge zones, steep slopes, and critical habitat protections; and (d) Laws and regulations regarding setback requirements for rights-ofway and easements.
The proposed Hearing Protection Act would remove silencers from the National Firearms Act definition, change registration and record requirements, preempt specified state silencer taxes and registration requirements, and impose a separate 10% manufacturers’ excise tax. State preemption applies to covered silencers in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce and excepts generally applicable sales or use taxes. The proposal directs destruction of the specified federal silencer registration and identifying application records within 365 days. Its NFA-definition change and excise-tax provisions use calendar quarters beginning more than 90 days after enactment; the excise tax applies to articles sold by manufacturers, producers or importers. Other title 18 provisions remain material. The bill is a proposal about silencer regulation and access, not evidence of enactment or a measured mortality effect.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
The firearm mortality series includes deaths across intents, including homicide and suicide. Transfer procedures and concealed-carry instruction concern firearm access or training; they do not establish an effect on deaths. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Idaho evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
2.Equal treatment of silencers and firearms (a)In generalSection 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking (7) any silencer and all that follows through ; and (8) and inserting and (7). (b)Effective dateThe amendment made by this section shall apply to calendar quarters beginning more than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 3.Treatment of certain silencersSection 5841 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following: (f)Firearm silencersA person acquiring or possessing a firearm silencer in accordance with chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, shall be treated as meeting any registration and licensing requirements of the National Firearms Act with respect to such silencer.. 4.Preemption of certain State laws in relation to firearm silencersSection 927 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a law of a State or a political subdivision of a State that imposes a tax, other than a generally applicable sales or use tax, on making, transferring, using, possessing, or transporting a firearm silencer in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or imposes a marking, recordkeeping, or registration requirement with respect to such a firearm silencer, shall have no force or effect.. 5.Destruction of recordsNot later than 365 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall destroy any registration of a silencer maintained in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record pursuant to section 5841 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, any application to transfer filed under section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that identifies the transferee of a silencer, and any application to make filed under section 5822 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that identifies the maker of a silencer. 6.Amendments to title 18, United States CodeChapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended— (1)in section 921(a), by striking paragraph (25) and inserting the following: (25)The terms firearm silencer and firearm muffler mean— (A)any device designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended— (i)to silence, muffle, or diminish the auditory report of a portable firearm; and (ii)to be attached to a portable firearm, directly or through a mount, adaptor, or other device that is not a firearm silencer or firearm muffler; or (B)the outer tube or other single part of any device that— (i)provides the primary housing or is the primary structure for internal sound-reduction components designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to silence, muffle, or diminish the auditory report of a portable firearm; and (ii)attaches to a portable firearm, directly or through a mount, adaptor, or other device that is not a firearm silencer or firearm muffler.; (2)in section 922(b)— (A)in paragraph (1), by striking shotgun or rifle the first place it appears and inserting shotgun, rifle, firearm silencer, or firearm muffler; and (B)in paragraph (3), by striking rifle or shotgun and inserting shotgun, rifle, firearm silencer, or firearm muffler; and (3)in section 923(i)— (A)by striking Licensed and inserting the following: (1) In the case of a firearm other than a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, licensed; and (B)by adding at the end the following: (2)In the case of a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, licensed importers and licensed manufacturers shall identify by means of a serial number engraved or cast on the outer tube or other single part that provides the primary housing or primary structure of the firearm silencer or firearm muffler, in such manner as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe, each firearm silencer or firearm muffler imported or manufactured by such importer or manufacturer, except that, if marking the outer tube or other single part that provides the primary housing or primary structure is impractical, licensed importers or licensed manufacturers shall submit a request for a marking variance to the Attorney General. The Attorney General shall grant such a request except on showing good cause that marking the firearm silencer or firearm muffler as requested would not further the purposes of this chapter.. 7.Imposition of tax on firearm silencers or firearm mufflers (a)In generalSection 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end of the list relating to Articles taxable at 10 percent the following: Firearm silencers or firearm mufflers. (b)Firearm silencers; firearm mufflersSection 4181 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following: For purposes of this part, the terms firearm silencer and firearm muffler mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm.. (c)Conforming amendments (1)Section 4181 of such Code is amended by striking other than pistols and revolvers and inserting other than articles taxable at 10 percent under this section. (2)Section 4182(b) of such Code is amended by striking firearms, pistols, revolvers, shells, and cartridges and inserting articles described in section 4181 and. (3)Section 4182(c)(1) of such Code is amended by striking or firearm and inserting firearm, firearm silencer, or firearm muffler,. (d)Effective dateThe amendments made by this section shall apply to articles sold by the manufacturer, producer, or importer in any calendar quarter beginning more than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Records come from published fact relationships or reviewed topic records with official supporting evidence and verified Idaho officeholder attribution. Historical executive officials require evidence tied to the action date and are excluded from incumbent proposals. Inclusion follows an explicit topic review, a related state fact, or the action’s title and supporting evidence. Explicit topic reviews take priority; repeated actions use the most recent explicit review for this topic. Duplicate actions attached to several facts appear once. This topic match is not a new finding that an action caused a result, and the reviewed collection is selective. Collection reviewed Sep 16, 2026.
What candidates are saying
Explore statements about housing, rent, homeownership and borrowing costs from FactVote’s Idaho candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.
18 statements from 8 candidates
2026 Idaho Governor — General Election
1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement
Idaho should never allow 'For Profit' prisons to house Idaho inmates. 'For profit' prisons will allow fighting, abuse of prisoners, riots, and breaking of laws by prisoners so that they can retain a larger prison population and insure profit. 'For Profit' prisons are slow to recommend parole and qui…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Public safety and justice
Candidate campaign source
Idaho should never allow 'For Profit' prisons to house Idaho inmates. 'For profit' prisons will allow fighting, abuse of prisoners, riots, and breaking of laws by prisoners so that they can retain a larger prison population and insure profit. 'For Profit' prisons are slow to recommend parole and quick to find infractions thus retaining prisoners. Certain Idaho jails profit from housing prisoners from other jurisdictions, this same revenue motive can harm people in jail via poor food, lack of space, poor heating and air quality. A good governor would always be investigating such abuse, and the revenue/ profit motive in jailing.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026
Growth should pay for itself but under this administration, families are paying the price. Housing is unattainable, infrastructure is lagging, and rural communities are being left behind. Idaho needs leadership that plans ahead, invests in roads and water systems, and makes growth sustainable for th…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Public lands, natural resources, and energy
Candidate campaign source
Growth should pay for itself but under this administration, families are paying the price. Housing is unattainable, infrastructure is lagging, and rural communities are being left behind. Idaho needs leadership that plans ahead, invests in roads and water systems, and makes growth sustainable for the next generation, not just profitable for developers and politicians who hold stake in the game today.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026
Social Security must be unconditionally guaranteed for future generations with automatic, real-world cost of living increases. These cost of living adjustments (COLA) must give American seniors the actual opportunity to retire comfortably and with full dignity. We must crack down on corporate Medica…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care and reproductive policy
Candidate campaign source
Social Security must be unconditionally guaranteed for future generations with automatic, real-world cost of living increases. These cost of living adjustments (COLA) must give American seniors the actual opportunity to retire comfortably and with full dignity. We must crack down on corporate Medicare Advantage plans, forcing private insurance companies to guarantee comprehensive coverage and ensure affordable prescription drug prices for the massive population being left behind by the current model. It is far more fiscally responsible and humane to proactively fund secure retirement structures than to let seniors slide into homelessness or face preventable medical emergencies due to state neglect.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026
Large investment firms and Wall Street hedge funds currently own a staggering 26% of all single-family homes in the United States. This corporate hoarding is estimated to skyrocket to 40% of the market by the year 2030. Preventing massive firms from artificially inflating the costs of rent and home …
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Housing affordability and homeownership
Candidate campaign source
Large investment firms and Wall Street hedge funds currently own a staggering 26% of all single-family homes in the United States. This corporate hoarding is estimated to skyrocket to 40% of the market by the year 2030. Preventing massive firms from artificially inflating the costs of rent and home prices must be handled at the federal level first. We must look at aggressively revising the tax code and HUD to create solid incentives for local builders and developers; currently, broken tax breaks favor corporate developers holding on to vacant commercial lots rather than creating diverse, accessible housing opportunities. Lastly, we have to directly confront the cost of building supplies that are driving up prices for builders and buyers alike. Solid, protective trade policies, expanding American-made manufacturing markets, and building out domestic infrastructure for necessary building supplies are the structural ways we bring home prices down permanently.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026
This section matches specific housing, rent, homeownership and borrowing costs terms in retained, attributed source text from published Idaho candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.
Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.
Idaho incumbents
What incumbents are proposing
Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current Idaho legislators and Idaho’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Idaho’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
1 matching sponsorship or proposal · 1 Idaho incumbent. These filters apply only to this section.
Sen. Mike Crapo
U.S. Senate, Idaho · R–ID
1 proposalView proposals from Sen. Mike CrapoU.S. Congress · Idaho delegation · S 364
Hearing Protection Act
Feb 3, 2025 · In Congress
Sen. Mike Crapo · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The proposed Hearing Protection Act would remove silencers from the National Firearms Act definition, change registration and record requirements, preempt specified state silencer taxes and registration requirements, and impose a separate 10% manufacturers’ excise tax. State preemption applies to covered silencers in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce and excepts generally applicable sales or use taxes. The proposal directs destruction of the specified federal silencer registration and identifying application records within 365 days. Its NFA-definition change and excise-tax provisions use calendar quarters beginning more than 90 days after enactment; the excise tax applies to articles sold by manufacturers, producers or importers. Other title 18 provisions remain material. The bill is a proposal about silencer regulation and access, not evidence of enactment or a measured mortality effect.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
The firearm mortality series includes deaths across intents, including homicide and suicide. Transfer procedures and concealed-carry instruction concern firearm access or training; they do not establish an effect on deaths. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Idaho evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
2.Equal treatment of silencers and firearms (a)In generalSection 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking (7) any silencer and all that follows through ; and (8) and inserting and (7). (b)Effective dateThe amendment made by this section shall apply to calendar quarters beginning more than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 3.Treatment of certain silencersSection 5841 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following: (f)Firearm silencersA person acquiring or possessing a firearm silencer in accordance with chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, shall be treated as meeting any registration and licensing requirements of the National Firearms Act with respect to such silencer.. 4.Preemption of certain State laws in relation to firearm silencersSection 927 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a law of a State or a political subdivision of a State that imposes a tax, other than a generally applicable sales or use tax, on making, transferring, using, possessing, or transporting a firearm silencer in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or imposes a marking, recordkeeping, or registration requirement with respect to such a firearm silencer, shall have no force or effect.. 5.Destruction of recordsNot later than 365 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall destroy any registration of a silencer maintained in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record pursuant to section 5841 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, any application to transfer filed under section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that identifies the transferee of a silencer, and any application to make filed under section 5822 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that identifies the maker of a silencer. 6.Amendments to title 18, United States CodeChapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended— (1)in section 921(a), by striking paragraph (25) and inserting the following: (25)The terms firearm silencer and firearm muffler mean— (A)any device designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended— (i)to silence, muffle, or diminish the auditory report of a portable firearm; and (ii)to be attached to a portable firearm, directly or through a mount, adaptor, or other device that is not a firearm silencer or firearm muffler; or (B)the outer tube or other single part of any device that— (i)provides the primary housing or is the primary structure for internal sound-reduction components designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to silence, muffle, or diminish the auditory report of a portable firearm; and (ii)attaches to a portable firearm, directly or through a mount, adaptor, or other device that is not a firearm silencer or firearm muffler.; (2)in section 922(b)— (A)in paragraph (1), by striking shotgun or rifle the first place it appears and inserting shotgun, rifle, firearm silencer, or firearm muffler; and (B)in paragraph (3), by striking rifle or shotgun and inserting shotgun, rifle, firearm silencer, or firearm muffler; and (3)in section 923(i)— (A)by striking Licensed and inserting the following: (1) In the case of a firearm other than a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, licensed; and (B)by adding at the end the following: (2)In the case of a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, licensed importers and licensed manufacturers shall identify by means of a serial number engraved or cast on the outer tube or other single part that provides the primary housing or primary structure of the firearm silencer or firearm muffler, in such manner as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe, each firearm silencer or firearm muffler imported or manufactured by such importer or manufacturer, except that, if marking the outer tube or other single part that provides the primary housing or primary structure is impractical, licensed importers or licensed manufacturers shall submit a request for a marking variance to the Attorney General. The Attorney General shall grant such a request except on showing good cause that marking the firearm silencer or firearm muffler as requested would not further the purposes of this chapter.. 7.Imposition of tax on firearm silencers or firearm mufflers (a)In generalSection 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end of the list relating to Articles taxable at 10 percent the following: Firearm silencers or firearm mufflers. (b)Firearm silencers; firearm mufflersSection 4181 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following: For purposes of this part, the terms firearm silencer and firearm muffler mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm.. (c)Conforming amendments (1)Section 4181 of such Code is amended by striking other than pistols and revolvers and inserting other than articles taxable at 10 percent under this section. (2)Section 4182(b) of such Code is amended by striking firearms, pistols, revolvers, shells, and cartridges and inserting articles described in section 4181 and. (3)Section 4182(c)(1) of such Code is amended by striking or firearm and inserting firearm, firearm silencer, or firearm muffler,. (d)Effective dateThe amendments made by this section shall apply to articles sold by the manufacturer, producer, or importer in any calendar quarter beginning more than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Only current Idaho officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.
Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a Idaho statistic. Collection reviewed Sep 16, 2026.
Sources & methods
Every section retains its primary sources, units, reporting periods and comparison limits. Maps, graphs and tables use the same observation and cohort. All 50 states are listed; D.C. and territories are excluded. Missing and suppressed values remain unavailable and never become zero.
#1 is the highest measured value. Equal source values share a rank and leave gaps (1, 2, 2, 4). Ranks use source precision and are descriptive, not a score of the state. Survey uncertainty and reporting coverage can limit comparisons. Published U.S. benchmarks are used where available; a state average is not substituted.
Idaho snapshots and fiscal sources keep their own dates and accounting scope. National events and federal distribution explainers describe national context. Actions and statements are filtered to Idaho, retain their reviewed evidence, and do not establish that a policy caused a measured change.
Retained state source collections assembled October 5, 2026. Original review and source dates remain visible. Refreshing this page does not refresh an official data release.