“the demise of public housing was not an inevitable outcome. As my colleague Rachel Cohen has pointed out, other countries have successfully pulled it off. Governments around the world have shown that they can operate mixed-income housing developments that have reliable maintenance and upkeep and that public housing doesn’t have to segregate poor people away from the middle class.
So why did public housing in the United States age so poorly?”
…
“efforts to undermine public housing are about as old as the efforts to build it. From the outset, opposition was fierce. Many Americans didn’t like the idea of the government using their tax dollars to subsidize poor people’s housing, and real estate developers were concerned about having to compete with the government.
The Housing Act of 1949, which had a goal of providing “a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family,” bolstered America’s public housing plans by heavily investing in the construction of new housing units. But by then, the federal government had already undermined its own stated plans by capping construction costs (which encouraged using cheap materials and discouraged modern appliances) and allowing racial segregation. Congress had also doomed public housing authorities’ ability to raise revenue through rents in 1936 when it passed the George-Healey Act, which established income limits for who can qualify for public housing — making mixed-income public housing models impossible for federally funded projects.
As housing projects started to draw more Black residents, white people who lived in public housing started leaving, especially after the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s banned racial discrimination in housing. This was partly because the Federal Housing Authority pushed for more people to own homes and expanded its loans mostly to white people, helping white families move out of the projects. Black families didn’t receive the same opportunity.
“You saw a change in the racial composition, which simply added to the stigma and the pattern of administrative neglect that characterized many housing authorities,” the historian Ed Goetz told The Atlantic in 2015.
Starting with President Richard Nixon — who declared that the US government had turned into “the biggest slumlord in history” and suspended federal spending on subsidized housing — public housing started facing serious austerity measures and never recovered. Federal investments shifted away from building new public housing units and toward housing vouchers and public-private partnerships.
In the decades that followed, public housing started declining in quality, and Congress funded a program to demolish dilapidated public housing units and replace them with newly constructed or renovated mixed-income developments. But according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, those demolitions were an “overcorrection”; public housing simply needed more funding and better management.”
“Zoning cops have a knack for blocking affordable housing, but in Troy, New York, regulators greenlit an 11-unit apartment building on a vacant lot. Just as construction was about to kick off, however, the project ran up against a different, familiar hurdle.
Concerned neighbors—who already have housing—filed a lawsuit to keep outsiders out. Rather than challenge the developer directly, the project opponents instead took the city to court, insisting regulators hadn’t done enough research before granting a zoning change. The city won a trial court victory in 2023, but opponents appealed and scored a reversal on October 24, 2024.
What have the “concerned citizens” given as reason for legal action? Evidence of a nearby quarry allegedly used by Native Americans in the distant past. Strangely, proximity to this site was not an issue when these residents secured housing for themselves. The “high archaeological sensitivity,” as they frame it, came later.
New York’s State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) makes it easy for citizens to stall or kill housing in New York with almost any excuse they can cook up. Courts can be swayed by vague concepts like “community” or “neighborhood character.” Project opponents can even cite generic concerns without showing specific harm.
In Guilderland, New York, a citizen group raised alarms about global climate change when developers proposed five apartment buildings and a Costco. This group, represented by the same lawyer now working to derail housing in Troy, won at the trial court level. But an appellate court reversed the decision in 2022 noting that construction would result in less driving, not more, producing a net gain for air quality.
But these NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) activists don’t need a win in court to achieve their goals. Even when they lose, they can use SEQRA to freeze construction for months or longer. In Old Westbury, Long Island, developers waited 25 years for permission to build religious facilities. The legal labyrinth is also expensive. SEQRA litigation added $2 million to a single housing project in Hempstead, New York.”
“The biggest housing issue on the California ballot was rent control. Proposition 33 would have repealed all state-level limits on local rent control policies, thus giving cities and counties a free hand to regulate rents however they pleased.
The measure went down in flames on Election Day, with roughly 60 percent of voters casting a “no” ballot.
That result is good news for the availability of rental housing in California, given rent control’s well-documented history of reducing rental housing supply and quality.
It is nevertheless a somewhat surprising result. California has a much higher proportion of renters than most other states and polls consistently find that rent control is supported by a wide majority of respondents. Dozens of cities already have rent control policies on the books.”
…
“Prop. 36 asked California voters if they wanted to increase legal penalties for certain drug and theft crimes. With roughly 70 percent of ballots counted, some 70 percent of voters said yes they do. Prop. 36 has earned majority support in every single county in the state.”
“Last fall, Milei eliminated what The Wall Street Journal termed one of the world’s “strictest” rent-control laws. Per its report: “The Argentine capital is undergoing a rental-market boom. Landlords are rushing to put their properties back on the market, with Buenos Aires rental supplies increasing by over 170 percent. While rents are still up in nominal terms, many renters are getting better deals than ever, with a 40 percent decline in the real price of rental properties when adjusted for inflation.”
With price controls, businesses flee the market because they cannot get a sufficient return on investment. As a result, supply for whatever is controlled falls even as demand stays steady or rises. That’s why price controls on gasoline lead to long lines at gas stations. If prices can’t adjust to reflect supply and demand, then people simply can’t get the items they want.
Sure, removing controls initially raises prices—but then new businesses jump into the fray to capitalize on the market and the boost in competition then reduces prices. By contrast, tightening up government price controls just leads to increasing levels of scarcity and misery.”
“The short-lived pandemic-era child tax credit expansion cut child poverty by more than a third. And the bolstered social safety net from Covid relief bills nearly halved child poverty in a single year — the sharpest drop on record. Once those programs expired, however, the child poverty rate bounced right back.”
…
“Homeowners are told that their homes are the key to building wealth, so they reasonably want their property values to keep rising. For renters, on the other hand, any increase in housing costs is a loss. So while renters might want lawmakers to make room for more housing, homeowners often resist any change that could make their home prices stagnate.”
His plans increase the deficit, which is inflationary.
Large and broad tariffs are inflationary.
A massive crackdown on illegal immigration will also be inflationary as without cheap labor, making products will be more expensive or won’t happen here at all–particularly agricultural goods and housing.
Trump wants to end the independence of the Federal Reserve. Trump has been in favor of lower interest rates, which will increase inflation.
“Argentina’s 2020 Rental Law, intended to protect tenants, ended up making housing unaffordable for the average Buenos Aires resident. The issue isn’t unique to Argentina—rent control measures have had similar outcomes elsewhere. In San Francisco, expanded rent control laws led to in a spike in evictions. Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, rent caps have prompted property owners to sell their buildings and exit the rental market, according to Reason’s Christian Britschgi.
Argentina’s experience should serve as a cautionary tale for policymakers: Well-intentioned policies aimed at protecting tenants can sometimes backfire, causing more harm than good.”