Staff Reports
Kamala Harris has recently unveiled a housing plan that promises to tackle the nation’s housing crisis, but one has to wonder whether the only thing getting tackled is the notion of progress. Instead of fostering growth in a housing market that desperately needs a building surge, her plan threatens to bog down potential developers with a slew of regulations that would make even the most optimistic contractor cringe.
The proposed regulations sound like a bureaucrat’s dream project—an endless list of requirements that will do little more than kick sand in the faces of builders trying to provide affordable housing. As if that wasn’t enough, the plan also introduces subsidies that, instead of lowering costs for homeowners, would likely lead to sky-high prices driven up even further by an influx of government involvement. It’s as if someone decided that what this housing market really needs is a sprinkling of federal interference, rather than a healthy dose of free-market principles.
Harris’ disastrous housing plan would inflate costs and make the crisis worse https://t.co/uyLokPOEQ2 pic.twitter.com/6qNhxSOIBo
— NY Post Opinion (@NYPostOpinion) August 29, 2024
What many may see as an attempt to help low-income families might actually be more akin to pouring gasoline on an already blazing wildfire. These subsidies could create a distorted market where prices are inflated beyond reason, benefiting only the bureaucrats on the government’s payroll who enjoy juggling red tape for a living while families continue to struggle with affordable housing. The irony here is thick enough to cut with a knife—helping the poor by making homes even more expensive. Sounds like a plot twist for a bad sitcom.
Rather than unleashing builders and letting them do what they do best—constructing homes—this plan seems intent on tying them up with regulatory chains. Some might say it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what drives housing prices in the first place. Housing demand isn’t the problem; it’s the supply that’s being stifled by government regulations. The approach taken here is treating the symptom, not the disease, and doing so in a way reminiscent of a garden hose used to put out a fire: ineffective, and likely to make things worse.
For those who value personal responsibility and limited government, this approach is not just misguided—it’s downright laughable. The consolidation of housing under the thumb of big government might make for feel-good headlines, but in reality, it’s a surefire recipe for disaster. This housing plan might sound noble, but it takes a real estate market that’s struggling to meet the needs of American families and replaces it with a government-run scheme that promises little more than inflated costs and additional red tape. In the end, it seems glamorous plans for housing might just be glitter painted over a crumbling foundation.
