75 percent of the opposition to housing construction comes from the left. I served almost 5 years as chief of staff to former Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio. During that time, over 100 significant housing projects came across our desks. Every single one faced significant community opposition. In every case, that opposition was led by people who vote Democrat. A high-rise tower replacing the parking lot for a golf course, in easy walking distance of Phoenix’s light rail? Opposed on the basis it would block light to nearby houses. An infill apartment complex near a major shopping district? Opposed because construction would be too much of a burden on the surrounding neighborhood. The list goes on.
That experience makes the burgeoning Presidential debate around housing – and leftstream media coverage of it – nothing short of laughable. Axios has a piece out today claiming Kamala Harris has a far more extensive plan for housing than Donald Trump: then for proof links to…an Axios article. Why? Probably because this is the entire text of Harris’ plan, per her website:
“Vice President Harris has always stood up for renters and homeowners — as Attorney General of California, she took on the big banks to deliver $20 billion for middle-class families who faced foreclosure and helped pass a homeowner bill of rights, one of the first of its kind in the nation.
Vice President Harris knows that a home is more than a house — it represents financial security and an opportunity to build intergenerational wealth. But for too many Americans, homeownership is too far out of reach. Vice President Harris has put forward a comprehensive plan to build three million more rental units and homes that are affordable to end the national housing supply crisis in her first term. And she will cut red tape to make sure we build more housing faster and penalize firms that hoard available homes to drive up prices for local homebuyers. Vice President Harris knows rent is too high and will sign legislation to outlaw new forms of price fixing by corporate landlords.
As more new homes are built and affordable housing supply increases, Vice President Harris will provide first-time homebuyers with up to $25,000 to help with their down payments, with more generous support for first-generation homeowners. This will help more Americans experience the pride of homeownership and the financial security that it represents and brings — offering more Americans a path to the middle class and economic opportunity.”
That’s 233 words, 17 of which constitute policy. The rest is buzzword salad. Axios tries, fraudulently, to claim there’s more meat on this tiny bone, but there isn’t. It is also worth noting that the California “Homeowners Bill of Rights” that Harris’ website touts her role in helping pass is part of the left-wing “Tenants Rights” movement that has led to an explosion of illegal squatters in blue states – demonstrating just how poor her legal acumen and judgement really is.
As for Trump, his website is also light on specific housing policy, that’s true, but the assertion Axios makes that his only answer to housing is to deport people is laughably false. Trump has plans for veteran housing, lowering energy costs, and opening more federal land to development. All would be helpful in reducing housing prices. Together, they constitute far more detail than Kamala Harris has provided, despite Axios’ biased assertion otherwise. Further, Axios’ claim that removing 10-plus million people who came to this country illegally over the last four years wouldn’t have much impact on housing is laughable. Even if, as Axios opines, a lot of migrants are stuffing together in homes (likely true, especially given the financial incentives Biden/Harris and blue states have created for criminals and fraudsters to take advantage of housing programs for illegals) then let’s say that deporting all 10 million would free up 1 million homes…sorry, Axios, a swing of one million homes on the market is not peanuts.
Axios also lies by omission when they acknowledge that a $25,000 federal handout for new homebuyers would increase demand – but fail to acknowledge that it would also directly increase housing prices by $25,000. Without increased supply, the Harris Handout is just a taxpayer gift to sellers and builders.
Personally, I’m not impressed with the plans either candidate has put forward in this area. Based on my direct experience, there is actually a lot the federal government could do in this area:
Time = Cost in new construction. Bar ALL federal funding for local jurisdictions that maintain lengthy, complicated zoning and permitting processes. Mandate a shortened timeframe.
Specify a limited list of quality-of-life issues that can be cited by jurisdictions as justification for rejecting a proposal. Issues that fall outside these areas shouldn’t be considered.
Don’t offer direct subsidies (which increase prices), offer government assisted interest rate buydowns for first time homebuyers (lower payments, but maintains market equilibrium).
Rather than Trump’s all-new “Freedom Cities”, open federal lands adjacent to existing jurisdictions throughout the West for the construction of low-cost housing.
Exempt housing from National Environmental Protection Act lawsuits.
Streamline and reduce the Fire Code (sounds scary, I know, but quietly in 2020 Firefighter unions across the country pushed for and got massive expansions to construction and inspection requirements for housing and other buildings – and all these onerous changes did was result in the hiring of more fire inspectors and increase the cost of construction. Safety gains were essentially non-existent – we didn’t have an epidemic of buildings burning down to start with.
Given that the primary barrier to new housing comes from Democrat community activists, anyone counting on a Democrat to solve the problem is fooling themselves.
Note: the opinions expressed herein are those of Sam Stone only and not his co-host Chuck Warren or Breaking Battlegrounds’ staff.
