Housing Showdown: Trump vs. Harris on Key Issues

As the presidential election approaches, housing remains a significant concern for voters, prompting candidates to unveil their strategies to address the ongoing crisis. Amid rising prices and tightened supply, Democratic candidate Kamala Harris and Republican candidate Donald Trump are focusing on this pressing issue, though their approaches differ markedly.

The pandemic has exacerbated housing challenges, highlighting a pressing need for solutions. According to a Journal of Housing Economics study, various factors, including supply chain disruptions and increased demand, have driven up housing costs. In a context where homelessness has surged to a record high, the urgency for effective policies is palpable.

Harris proposes a bold plan to build 3 million homes over four years, addressing an estimated shortfall of 3.8 million units in the U.S. Additionally, her initiatives aim to tackle issues like the skyrocketing rents that burden over 22 million renter households, where individuals pay more than 30% of their income on housing. “This multi-prong approach addresses the various factors contributing to high rents and affordability,” Harris stated in a recent interview.

In contrast, Trump’s strategy emphasizes single-family zoning, opposing multi-family units. He suggests that such zoning protects neighborhoods from perceived threats associated with low-income developments. Trump’s rhetoric indicates a clear stance: “There will be no low-income housing developments built in areas that are right next to your house,” he proclaimed during an August rally.

With the election potentially shifting the balance of power in Congress, whatever housing plans emerge will require bipartisan support. Ted Tozer of the Urban Institute warns that funding remains a critical bottleneck for both candidates. “How much money is going to really be available without substantial increases in revenue?” he questioned.

Harris’ agenda calls for legislative backing on initiatives to restrict private equity firms from buying homes in bulk and prevent rent inflation through algorithmic manipulation. Both measures would need to pass through a deeply divided Senate, highlighting the gridlock that often stymies housing reform efforts.

Her proposed $25,000 down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers aims to aid approximately 4 million individuals but is viewed skeptically by some experts. Concerns arise that such assistance could inadvertently inflate home prices, intensifying competition in an already challenging market. Harris has also suggested a $40 billion fund for local government housing innovations, contingent on congressional approval.

Both candidates acknowledge the potential of utilizing federal lands for housing development, a proposal that requires further clarification. The federal government holds about 650 million acres that could be repurposed for affordable housing, a prospect neither candidate has detailed extensively.

Despite Harris’ ambitious plans, Trump’s housing policy remains elusive, as he has yet to offer a comprehensive proposal. His administration’s past efforts, including budget cuts to housing assistance programs, faced significant backlash and limited efficacy. His approach seems to favor deregulation and tariffs, which critics argue could raise construction costs and limit housing availability.

Trump’s immigration policies, focusing on mass deportations, are posited as a potential means to alleviate housing strains. However, experts caution that such measures could further complicate the workforce availability essential for construction. “By shutting down the border, you might be limiting your capacity to build houses,” Tozer noted, encapsulating the intertwined nature of housing and immigration dynamics.