Happy Tuesday and welcome to another edition of Free rent. This is, of course, not just any Tuesday, but Election Day, when the country will decide who gets to control Congress, the White House, and countless state and local offices, and vote on a slew of issues. electoral initiatives.

My initial idea for the newsletter was to do aggressive counterprogramming and not mention the presidential race at all. But with everyone thinking about Donald Trump versus Kamala Harris, I’m not sure I can pull it off.

Instead, I offer readers some thoughts on why victory in the fight for cheaper housing, a more liberal land use regime, and broader property rights will not come from the White House .

Real estate elections that will not solve the housing crisis

Presidential elections rarely revolve around housing policy. This could change in 2024.

Polls repeatedly to show that high and rising housing costs are an increasingly important issue for voters. This is true for the electorate as a whole and for large sub-demographics of voters, since Generation Z has Catholics.

High and rising housing costs are fueling voter concern in both countries. Sunbelt swing states and the faltering The “blue wall” of the Midwest.

Even if the effects of the housing crisis don’t ultimately affect how people vote, they could still determine the election by influencing where people vote.

The more expensive and more regulated blue states lost their residents and electoral votes to the more pro-growth purple and red states in the South and West. New York’s inability to solve the housing crisis means megaconstruction in Texas has slightly more influence on national election outcomes. That could matter in an election that appears incredibly close.

Democrats would have won with this map in 2020 but would lose with it in 2024 because New York and California haven’t built housing. pic.twitter.com/m9WXVvXlh5

– Open New York (@OpenNYForAll) October 30, 2024

The “housing theory of everything” strikes again.

Both Harris and Trump have responded to the growing importance of housing costs by talking much more about how they could reduce those costs. Their running mates too.

Washington Post ironically the journalist Jeff Stein note On the night of the vice-presidential debate between Minnesota Democratic Governor Tim Walz and Senator JD Vance (R-Ohio), the last vice-presidential debates contained no reference to housing. But Walz and Vance have raised the issue dozens of times.

In the context of extremely politically light elections, both big party campaigns have released modestly fleshed out housing policy platforms, detailing how they will reduce costs.

Harris has embraced YIMBY (“yes in my backyard”) rhetoric about the need to cut state and local red tape that stifles housing construction. In addition, she promised to provide down payment assistance to first-time home buyers, tax credits to home builders, and to reduce rents through a mix of rent control and crackdowns on corporate speculators and rent recommendation software.

Trump has combined NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) rhetoric with calls to open federal lands to housing development, roll back federal environmental regulations on home construction, and deport millions of immigrant consumers. shelters.

Of the two, Harris certainly speaks better about the need to increase housing supply. But national and local administrative formalities are those over which she will have the least influence as president.

The Biden administration’s efforts to use the carrot of federal grants to spur local zoning deregulation was a failure. There is no indication that Harris is pursuing more aggressive federal tax interventions that could actually spur land use liberalization at the local level.

Meanwhile, elements of Harris’ housing plan that could raise prices (subsidies to homebuyers and builders) and reduce supply (rent controls and a crackdown on business investment) would be much easier to implement. works at the federal level.

On the other hand, Trump’s NIMBY comments cannot stop local and state governments from pursuing their own forms of deregulation.

The pro-offer parts of his agenda (environmental deregulation and opening federal lands to development) are things the federal government could easily implement. But so are his plans for mass expulsions of immigrants who build housing and to raise tariffs on imported construction materials.

In short, the net impact of the next occupant of the White House on housing construction rates and housing costs is ambiguous and likely negative, regardless of who wins.

More broadly, the presidential election offers a very small opportunity for people who actually care about ending the country’s housing shortage to have an impact on this issue.

The call to build more housing is one of the last remaining issues in an increasingly polarized country. Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Libertarians are all part of the YIMBY coalition.

But an unfortunate corollary to the presence of YIMBYs (and NIMBYs) in both major parties is that even the most ardent housing activists do not base their partisan affiliation and presidential choices on who is best on housing policy. accommodation.

This is the “dark side of bipartisanship on housing.” wrote about in March 2024, on the heels of Arizona Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs’ veto of a reasonable starter home bill that would have eased regulations on building smaller single-family homes.

The coalitions on either side of this bill were oddly bipartisan, with progressive Democrats and conservative Republicans voting yes, and an equally odd mix of R’s and D’s voting no.

YIMBY Democrats were understandably furious at Hobbs’ veto. However, following her veto, a former Arizona Democratic congresswoman and YIMBY activist said The AtlanticDemsas of Jerusalem, “If (Hobbs) ended up being the biggest NIMBY in our state, I would still vote for his re-election because of zoning, even though I am one of the biggest advocates for zoning reform in the ‘State…it’s still not the case. I won’t go high enough for me to overturn my vote.’

Likewise, I doubt any of Arizona’s NIMBY Republicans will decide to vote for Hobbs as a thank you for this veto.

The lesson is that if a governor with immense influence over housing policy can stab housing activists in the back on a single issue while counting on their votes, the electoral incentives for a president with minimal influence over housing policy accommodation to solve this problem are basically non-existent. .

Consider this thought experiment. Imagine for a moment that your chosen presidential candidate has the worst housing policy agenda you can imagine, but is otherwise completely and sincerely aligned with all of your other federal policy views. Would you vote against them? (Be honest.)

Housing is an increasingly important issue, and for good reason.

The last half century of land use planning policy has been a disaster. Restrictive zoning laws, laborious environmental assessment requirements, discretionary approval processes, and lengthy and excessive permitting regimes have driven housing costs to unsustainable levels while stifling choice, economic opportunity and growth.

The good news is that the last decade has given rise to a concerted movement to address these disastrous results and the policies that produced them.

This fight has so far played out in city halls, state legislatures, and state and local courtrooms. This is where real, productive change can happen. This will remain true regardless of who wins the White House.

This year’s presidential race may be a housing election, but it won’t solve the housing crisis.

Quick links

• Numerous local real estate initiatives are on the ballot This year. Jared Walczak of the Tax Foundation wrote a lengthy report explaining why property taxes are the least bad tax and the reforms that could mitigate their worst impacts.
• Perhaps one way to solve Washington’s housing crisis would be for the next president to appoint a group of justices to the Supreme Court who declare zoning unconstitutional. Law professors Ilya Somin and Josh Braver provide the intellectual ammunition judges would need to finalized version from their article, “The Constitutional Arguments Against Exclusionary Zoning.”
• New York City Council members have released a counterproposal to Mayor Eric Adams’ City of Yes for Housing Opportunities. called “City for all”. It appears to be essentially an unproductive mix of additional housing spending and strengthened affordability mandates.
• New Jersey municipalities are suing to overturn a long-standing state framework for affordable housing that has effectively forced Garden State localities to allow more housing construction.
• On the other hand, California is pursue one of its municipalities for banning new homeless shelters.