The housing crisis is currently affecting over 40 million Americans. The way Democratic nominee Kamala Harris handles it will be critical to her campaign’s success. A recent Center for Popular Democracy poll found that the majority of registered voters in five swing states would personally benefit from policies that reduce the high cost of housing. Harris said she intends to build 3 million new homes, make housing more affordable, and ensure Americans build wealth through property value. In theory, this sounds great, but in practice, it could prove much easier said than done.
Vice president Harris has proposed a few main solutions for the housing crisis. The first one is a $40 billion fund for tax credits meant to encourage businesses and builders to create more low income housing. If all goes well, this policy would result in many more affordable renting units for Americans to live in. But, most likely, all will not go well.
The biggest issue with this proposal is getting funding, which would have to be approved by Congress. This would be no easy feat, especially with so many pressing political issues demanding money at the moment. Another hurdle would be zoning regulations. The Nonpartisan Urban Institute’s Jung Choi states that “[zoning] rules are controlled by states and cities, not the federal government,” which would make it “difficult to attain that 3 million goal,” specifically due to lack of land. One potential solution for this issue is the use of federal land for construction, an idea that Harris has expressed support for.
Kamala Harris Outlining Plans For Tax Cuts Meant To Spur Home Construction | New York Times
Harris has also proposed a $25,000 benefit to first time home buyers for down payments, describing purchasing property as “part of the American dream and their aspiration.” The biggest problem with this idea, according to American Enterprise Institute economist Michael Strain, is that “the ultimate beneficiary of that credit is not going to be first-time home buyers. It’s going to be people selling homes.” And this sentiment is shared by many other economists. Essentially, by giving buyers more money, Harris increases the demand for starter homes. Without increasing the supply of said homes, the benefit will simply cause the price to increase until the equilibrium quantity is met–at a higher price. But other economists, such as National Housing Conference CEO David Dworkin, disagree with Strain’s sentiment, arguing that “as long as the program is targeted and well distributed, it is unlikely to inflate housing prices.” With economists in disagreement, it seems it will come down to how well Harris implements the program.
With the housing crisis increasing in severity each day, it’s clear that affordable housing will be a hot topic in the upcoming election. As almost 12% of Americans are affected, Harris will be expected to present tangible policy solutions. And the way the public views her proposals could greatly help – or greatly harm – her campaign.
Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/30/business/economy/housing-plan-harris-trump.html
https://www.housingwire.com/articles/harris-offers-key-new-details-on-housing-plan/
5 comments:
I think housing should be a collective good; we know people need water, food, and shelter to survive. But currently, for many reasons, it’s definitely not. I commend Harris for proposing this, but I also don’t know if she can pull it off if she wins the election because it could be tricky in practice. Opponents of affordable housing and government aid in the housing crisis might be afraid of housing price inflation or they may be proponents of individualism, believing people should be able to support themselves in society without the government’s help. I think in theory, this is a solid idea for the Democratic nominee, though.
I agree that the American housing crisis urgently needs to be addressed, but it’s clear that doing so is much more challenging than it seems. With inflation driving up prices for housing, groceries, gas, and other essentials, the economy is in decline, which increases the severity of the housing crisis and makes funding solutions even more costly. The point about zoning regulations being controlled by states and cities highlights how complex the issue is on the national level. Local governments could collaborate with federal officials through incentives to adjust zoning rules or prioritize affordable housing projects. However, affordable housing initiatives alone might not provide a long-term solution without addressing income inequality and wage stagnation.
The housing crisis is one of the most contentious issues in politics and both parties agree that it is a problem that needs to be addressed, albeit with different solutions. Harris's plan to make housing more affordable seems to ignore some of the major issues behind the crisis and is built on faulty economic principles, which can possibly increase inflation. Building entirely new houses can reduce the strain of the housing crisis, but it only increases the issues of suburbanization and the process is slow and costly. Harris's plan touched upon zoning laws, which I think should be the plan's main focus as many cities are resistant to denser and mixed-used developments; even though, it can fix many issues in urban centers today. Kamala Harris's housing plan has some good thoughts behind it, but when it comes to putting it into affect, she should go back to the drawing board.
Throughout the past couple decades housing has been a big issue. It is definitely an issue that should be resolved as soon as possible but it will be very difficult. I think what Kamala is proposing is good in theory but it will be very difficult to actually execute. I agree with what everyone else has mentioned that this task will be made even more difficult as a result of inflation constantly causing the prices of everything to increase. Overall I think Kamala's proposal is a good concept but I just think it will be hard to actually accomplish.
I agree with Harris intentions upon the issue. In the neighborhood around our high school, one can see the steep cost of living, and prices of property, which have seemed to increase exponentially over the past few years. While I am no economist, I do see the logic of the professionals in the field who believe that this policy would only drive inflation; as more money to buyers would benefit the sellers ultimately, and could add fuel to the problem at hand. I think that broadening state programs for affordable housing are a good start, as well as managing the price of renting homes. As after all, property ownership is important for sustainable expenses, and extended rights (Not having to operate around a landlord's personal beliefs or renters laws). Moreover, since California is so densely populated, it does not meet the amount of homes available in order for each person to be accommodated; if more living spaces were built, this would obviously slow the progression of the problem-- I think a different plan is needed to approach this problem over all-- A complicated problem does not have an easy solution.
Post a Comment