On Tuesday, former President Barack Obama gave an address to the Democrat National Convention (DNC) which, in part, broached the issue of housing affordability. On the matter, he said:
“If we want to make it easier for more young people to buy a home, we need to build more units and clear away some of the outdated laws and regulations that made it harder to build homes for working people in this country.”
On the surface, Obama’s remarks sound well-and-good. After all, just about everyone agrees that “housing costs too much” and even conservative organizations, like the Texas Public Policy Foundation, have made it a clear priority to “help Texans get closer to realizing the American Dream.” But beneath the shallow meaning of these statements lies an unhelpful method and purpose that may actually make today’s housing situation worse, not better.
Regarding method, consider Obama’s comment exactly when he says: “we need to build more units.” Implied here is a collective responsibility to act which, if the past is any guide, would mean putting the federal government in the driver’s seat or at least assigning it a prominent role. Such government-centric framing fits with Vice President Harris’ housing agenda too, which calls for “the construction of 3 million new housing units in her first four years in office” and would seek to do so by “offer[ing] a $25,000 down-payment subsidy and $10,000 tax credit to first-time homebuyers; provid[ing] tax incentives for builders constructing affordable starter homes for those buyers; repurpos[ing] federal land for affordable housing; and ban[ning] algorithm-based price setting tools that raise the rent.” Of course, the trouble with letting government play a central role in building houses is that it is chiefly the problem stopping houses from being built in the first place. Any action the government proposes to take, like providing subsidies and tax credits, will simply exacerbate affordability issues for anyone who is not an immediate beneficiary. In other words, since government is redistributionist in its nature, any benefit conveyed to the few must ultimately be borne by the many in the form of higher taxes and debt, increased inflation, or some other cost.
Instead of pressing for collective action, a better approach is to remove federal, state, and local governments from the equation to the greatest possible extent and let market forces determine the quantity of housing supply needed, the price point and incentives required, and everything else.
Regarding purpose, Obama did not necessarily state it here directly, but in the past, he has articulated a link between government-directed housing reforms and other progressive policy goals, like engineering a system in which: “smart housing regulation optimizes transportation system use, reduces commute times, and increases use of public transit, biking and walking.”
Such an interventionist viewpoint is common on the Left, with many seeing the present crisis as an opportunity to increase density, centralize control, and remake the urban landscape according to their own designs. This is, of course, at odds with the free-market view which is more interested in enabling market participants to design and direct property development. And, if as a result of that free-market approach, density increases and people voluntarily choose to live in a certain way, then all the better; but if it does not result, then society should respect free people making free choices about how and where to live. Therein lies a key difference between Obama’s view versus those on the Right—the freedom from coercion and control.
Thus, while it is encouraging to hear Obama and others at the DNC talk about today’s affordability crisis, we, as conservatives, must recognize that there is a right way and wrong way to go about fixing it. And, perhaps more importantly, there is a critical underlying distinction motivating both sides to act.