FortunaFavetFortibus
8 hours ago
How Trump Can Ease the Housing Crisis
President-elect Trump has the opportunity to provide our children and grandchildren the same homeownership opportunities as earlier generations. He can do it without the massive subsidies, home-price inflation and market inefficiencies that Kamala Harris’s housing plan would have required. Mr. Trump should consider five steps to make homeownership great again.
First, he should direct his interior secretary to have the Bureau of Land Management auction off land suitable for residential development. Land sales totaling 828 square miles would be enough to build about 4.2 million new homes over 10 years. This constitutes 0.3% of the BLM’s 269,000 square miles in 10 states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming.
These 10 states, along with Alaska, account for virtually all the land the BLM manages. They also suffer from severe housing unaffordability: Their median home price is more than six times median income—in California, more than eight times.
Greater land supply would decrease the cost of newly constructed homes, allowing home-price appreciation to track more closely with income growth. The Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act of 1998, for instance, made about 106 square miles of BLM land in the Las Vegas Valley available to be auctioned off to private bidders. The sales have since increased housing supply and generated over $4 billion in revenue.
Freeing up federal land is part of the 2024 Republican Party platform, and it would return the BLM to one of its original functions—overseeing the transfer of federal land to state and private ownership. Auctioning off this BLM-managed land would also generate about $105 billion for the Treasury.
Second, expand oil and gas production by reviving new pipeline infrastructure. Greater energy supply would reduce inflation and the cost of homeownership by lowering energy expenses.
Third, roll back energy regulations that drive up homeownership costs. The nonprofit Alliance for Consumers finds that Biden-Harris energy regulations have added up to $9,166 in household expenses per home. In April, the Department of Housing and Urban Development mandated that federally financed homes be built in compliance with the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code. According to the National Association of Homebuilders, these stringent regulations could add as much as $31,000 to the price of a new home. It could take up to 90 years for some home buyers to break even on this added cost.
Fourth, follow through on the planned deportation or repatriation of illegal immigrants. Deporting two million people over the next two years would free up about 370,000 housing units—equal to over three months of new-housing production. To put this in perspective, during Barack Obama’s eight years as president, deportations and repatriations totaled 5.24 million—about 655,000 units a year.
Fifth, end tax deductions for mortgage interest on second homes. Eliminating this deduction would reduce the demand for second homes. I estimate that over the next decade, it would free up about 650,000 existing homes—10% of the current number of second homes in the country—for primary occupants. This is the equivalent of about six months of housing production. Based on my calculations, ending this tax deduction would generate more than $27 billion over 10 years.
State and local governments can also do their part to increase housing availability without costly government handouts. They can enact smaller lot size limits for both single-family detached houses and town houses. Florida built 1.8 million homes between 2000 and 2023 with a median lot size of 10,019 square feet. If the state averaged about 5,700-square-foot lots for single-family detached homes—and used about 20% of the land for 2,000-square-foot town-house lots—that number would have more than doubled to 3.8 million. Moreover, houses would have sold for an average of $439,000 rather than $550,000 (in 2023 dollars). These smaller lot sizes would allow areas with little new construction but high land prices—such as California, New York and New Jersey—to replace old, energy-inefficient single-family homes with duplexes, triplexes and town houses.
These steps would add or free up millions of affordable homes, all without inflationary and deficit-increasing subsidies or income limits. It would also reduce homelessness and stimulate economic growth, as more people would have opportunities for upward mobility. Unless we take steps now to provide our children and grandchildren with robust housing opportunities, America will endure a self-perpetuating cycle of housing doom.
Mr. Pinto is co-director of the American Enterprise Institute’s Housing Center.
navycmdr
12 hours ago
How Trump Can Ease the Housing Crisis
His five-step plan should include auctioning off federal land,
deporting illegal immigrants and rolling back regulations.
By Edward Pinto - Dec. 19, 2024 5:45 pm ET
President-elect Trump has the opportunity to provide our children and grandchildren
he same homeownership opportunities as earlier generations. He can do it without
the massive subsidies, home-price inflation and market inefficiencies that Kamala
Harris’s housing plan would have required. Mr. Trump should consider five steps to
make homeownership great again.
First, he should direct his interior secretary to have the Bureau of Land Management
auction off land suitable for residential development. Land sales totaling 828 square
miles would be enough to build about 4.2 million new homes over 10 years. This
constitutes 0.3% of the BLM’s 269,000 square miles in 10 states: Arizona, California,
Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming.
HappyAlways
18 hours ago
Agree. I can live with the 10% interest (or dividend as some prefer to call it) per the original contract. But, the NWS in 2012 is clearly a case of illegal taking of private property.
Just as an example. In the next crisis, UST can request all TBTF to mark to the market all their assets. I guarantee that most of them will need some bailout. Just in case they fail one interest payment, UST steps in and change the bailout terms to the modern time slavery term of "give me all your have quarterly and forever". Ever since the NWS, it will mean that you can never reclaim yourself.
In the case of Fannie and Freddie, UST and FHFA changed the terms to Net Worth Sweep in 2012. Later in the same year, the GSEs paid UST almost $200B per the NWS. Remember, total bailout balance (or Liquidity Preference as some prefer to call it) was $191B. 10% interest was $19.1B. The GSEs paid UST $141B (if I remember correctly) in excess. Can we call that an coincidence or a highway robbery ? That $141B in 2012 should be now $300B per the same 10% interest rate charged to the GSEs per the SPSPA. What a shame to USG ! Is it time now to rectify this ?
Barron4664
22 hours ago
Very dishonest post Kt. You know perfectly well that FHFA wears two hats. One as regulator, and one as Conservator. Rodney is correct. And you are wrong on purpose because you have a motive to obfuscate and decieve for some reason. The Statute that Rodney quotes applys strictly to FHFA as Regulator of the GSEs. That Statute says that the FHFA director must give himself (the FHFA director acting as conservator) permission to make a capital distribution when undercapitalized. And only for the purposes enumerated in the Statute. Ie the list of options in Rodneys post. Further, Congress in the Charter Act requires this permission from the Director of FHFA acting as regulator, (not the Directors signature acting as Conservator in the SPSPA) to be in writing prior to each capital distribution. Neither Collins or the Supreme Court entertained any action of the FHFA as regulator. Stop conflating HERA Conservator Powers granted FHFA that have been fully adjudicated with the actions of the FHFA regulator that are covered by the APA that I will attempt to bring suit. In my opinion and hope to prove, every time a capital distribution is paid to Treasury under the SPSPA terms, at least 3 federal statutes are broken: Safety and Soundness Act, Charter Act, and APA.