Access to adequate, affordable housing remains an elusive goal for millions across the United States, ensuring it remains a significant topic of discussion in an upcoming election. The reasons behind this dilemma have nothing to do with a lack of ideas but everything to do with a serious deficit in available homes for purchase. Experts believe the housing shortfall fluctuates between 1 million and 4 million homes, which has caused a decade-long surge in price wars, essentially keeping the American Dream out of reach for the average citizen.
The shortage of homes in the market has propelled the median price of a previously owned property to a staggering $426,900 as of June – essentially, levels never seen before. Couple this with a serious slump in house sales over the last two years, and you begin to understand why home ownership is so elusive to many Americans. Moreover, with mortgage rates on 30-year loans peaking to an almost 23-year high of 8%, it’s no surprise prospective homeowners have been on the back bench.
Even renting hasn’t proven to be a smooth ride. While rents have begun to steady after a wave of new apartment constructions came into the market, the median asking rent is still around 20% higher when contrasted with pre-pandemic levels. To put it simply, the cost of adequate housing has been on a consistent rise, making life increasingly difficult for those at the bottom of the income pyramid.
To tackle this daunting issue, Vice President Kamala Harris insists on dishing out a series of unrealistic proposals, claiming to make the American Dream more accessible to the average citizen. Harris’ plan supposedly revolves around the provision of a roadmap to affordable housing for both home buyers and renters. However, the policy lacks credibility, resting heavily on offering cash incentives to first-time home buyers and tax breaks to push construction companies to build more homes faster.
Harris has made a rather extravagant promise of adding 3 million new housing units to the market within the next four years, a stance that seems to be influenced more by ambition than practicality. For those who understand the dynamics of the housing market, Harris’ proposition comes off as nothing more than an impractical solution to a complex problem, a shortsighted attempt to win votes in the upcoming election.
In stark contrast, Donald Trump’s proposed policies seem slightly more grounded, albeit with hazy details. The former President believes in reducing regulatory overheads on the construction of homes and providing access to federal land for housing purposes. Despite the lack of specifics, Trump expects his policies to lead to a drop in housing costs by suppressing inflation and curbing illegal immigration, a stance that many consider vastly oversimplified and over-ambitious.
Even with their distinct standpoints, it’s important to consider that whether it’s Trump’s or Harris’s policies that come into effect, they’re subject to approval by a majority of lawmakers in Congress – a guaranteed support the next president may not quite have. Moreover, economists believe that while these platforms might present some innovative ideas, they may not provide all the answers required for the challenges plaguing the housing market.
Trump has often equated the nation’s real estate woes with immigration issues, insinuating that mass deportations could alleviate housing demand, therefore, making it more widely accessible and affordable. While it might be easy for potential voters to buy into such dogmatic messaging, experts believe such a stance could be detrimental rather than beneficial.
Jim Tobin, the CEO of the National Association of Home Builders, provides a unique perspective, suggesting that Trump’s proposal may exacerbate the existing shortage. According to Tobin, a significant portion – about one-third – of the workforce in the homebuilding industry comprises foreign-born laborers. Trump’s proposal to disrupt the inflow of these laborers, Tobin suggests, could be terribly disruptive and possibly counterproductive.
However, among all the controversy and questionable propositions, there remain a few concepts where both candidates find common ground. Both Trump and Harris agree on the need to relax existing zoning laws and employ federal lands to expedite residential construction. Though there’s much debate on the effectiveness of this approach, it remains one piece of common ground between the competing parties.
Harris has proposed the establishment of a $40 billion fund to prompt local governments, who hold authority over zoning laws, to expedite their regulations and consequently reduce the time builders spend on project completion. Yet Harris’s plan comes with a caveat: state and local governments can only receive federal assistances if they guarantee the construction of affordable housing.
Similarly, Trump expresses a desire to combat zoning and other construction legislation to speed up the production of houses. However, as with many of Trump’s promises, details on implementation remain largely ambiguous, leaving a cloud of uncertainty hovering over the efficacy of such a proposal.
Both Trump and Harris have also voiced support for the utilization of ‘limited portions’ or ‘specific’ federal lands for residential development. Harris in particular has highlighted a Las Vegas initiative where significantly discounted land was sold off for the construction of affordable houses. However, as it’s often the case, the execution and feasibility of these policies remain to be seen.