With

Donald
Trump’s
victory
now
secured,
housing
advocates
and
experts
are
closely
watching
for
signs
of
what
his
second
term
as
president
could
mean
for
the
nation’s
growing
housing
crisis.

Housing
was
a

key
topic
throughout
the
presidential
election
cycle,
and
it
was
one
of
the
policy
areas
discussed
by
Trump
and
Vice
President
Kamala
Harris
during
their

September
debate.
But
much
is
still
unknown,
including
Trump’s

nomination
for
director
of
the

U.S.
Department
of
Housing
and
Urban
Development
(HUD),
as
well
as
a
detailed
housing
plan. 

Throughout
his
campaign,
Trump
focused
on
deregulation,
tax
cuts
and

reducing
mortgage
rates.
In
speeches,
including

one
at
the

Economic
Club
of
New
York
in
September
and
a

press
conference
in
August,
Trump
reiterated
his
promise
to
reduce
regulatory
barriers
and
vowed
to
make
federal
land
available
for
extensive
housing
projects.

Politico
reported
in
August
that
proposals
to
sell
federal
land
to
developers
for
housing
construction
have
notably
appeared
in
both
the
Republican
National
Committee’s
2024
platform
and
in
President
Joe
Biden’s

housing
plan,
when
he
was
still
in
the
running.
Harris
also
included
housing
construction
and

affordable
housing
initiatives
in
her
agenda.
Other
administrations
have
attempted
this
feat,
but
the
plans
are
easily
vetoed.

“I
think
that,
politically,
it’s
always
been
easy
to
kill
because
people
who
live
near
those
lands
like
them
nice
and
empty,
and
they
can
oppose
affordable
housing
while
enjoying
their
own
as
well
as
the
benefit
of
living
near
federal
lands,”
said
David
Dworkin,
president
and
CEO
of
the

National
Housing
Conference.

“When
we
talk
about

affordable
housing,
it’s
something
that
people
are
often
happy
to
have
in
somebody
else’s
neighborhood
or
community,
but
not
their
own,
and
it’s
a
hypocrisy
we
see
both
in
blue
states
and
blue
communities
as
well
as
red
ones.”

If
the
plan
were
to
move
forward,
the
federal
government
—
which

controls
about
650
million
acres
of
land
—
would
invite
developers
to
bid
on
parcels,
provided
they
commit
to
maintaining
a
percentage
of
units
at
affordable
rates
for
local
communities.

“We’re
generations
past
the
federal
government
building
affordable
housing
because
we
found
that
the
private
sector
does
a
better
job
at
it
and
can
leverage
the
investment
better,”
Dworkin
said.
“Having
the
private
sector
do
this
work
actually
makes
a
lot
of
sense
and
that,
by
definition,
means
the
private
sector
is
going
to
make
a
private
profit.
And
there’s
nothing
wrong
with
that,
as
long
as
the
housing
is
affordable
to
working-class
people.”

Redfin
chief
economist
Daryl
Fairweather
said
that
Trump’s
plans
for
housing
are
“small
potatoes”
compared
to
two
main
policies
—
neither
of
which
are
directly
related
to
housing
—
that
would
impact
the
industry
the
most.
Trump
has
a

tentative
plan
for
tariffs
and
has
repeatedly
promised

increased
levels
of
deportation
of
undocumented
immigrants. 

“A
lot
of
construction
labor
is
undocumented
labor,”
Fairweather
said.
“If
you
look
at
non-citizens
working
in
the
construction
industry,
according
to
the
census,
it’s
about
a
third
of
construction
workers.
And
it
could
be
quite
disruptive.
…
For
the
construction
industry,
that
can
mean
that
you
think
a
certain
person
will
show
up
to
work
today,
and
they
just
don’t
show
up.
So,
it’s
not
even
something
that
can
be
prepared
for.”

The
plan
is
hard
to
imagine,
Dworkin
said,
because
the
amount
of
land
that
actually
can
accommodate
infrastructure
is
unknown.
But
he
said
the
western
U.S.
has
plenty
of
open
land
—
even
in
unsuspecting,
high-priced
areas
of
the
country
like

San
Francisco. 

Some
federal
land
isn’t
feasible
for
a
host
of
reasons,
said
Andrew
Jakabovics,
vice
president
for
policy
development
at

Enterprise
Community
Partners.
He
argues
that
rural
areas
should
be
taken
out
of
the
land-use
equation.

“[It
starts]
obviously
with
environmental
impact
but
also
just
the
cost
of
trying
to
build,
bringing
materials
out
to
the
middle
of
nowhere,
and
the
labor
force
out
to
the
middle
of
nowhere,
which
is
not
going
to
be
feasible.
But
there
is
a
lot
of
federally
controlled
land
that’s
already
within
municipal
boundaries,
that’s
already
within
metro
areas,
that
is
underutilized,”
Jakabovics
said.

Intention
with
land
use
is
imperative,
he
added,
but
also
it’s
too
soon
for
the
incoming
administration
to
have
a
plan.
“I
think
it’s
about
building
more
in
the
places
where
we’ve
already
got
housing
and
we’ve
already
got
infrastructure
and
we’ve
already
got
schools
and
shopping
centers,
and
the
amenities
that
make
places
livable,”
Jakabovics
said.

Dworkin
agrees
that
balancing
developers’
profit
motives
with
sensible
land
use
is
critical.
“Developers
will
naturally
target
the
most
viable
opportunities,”
he
said.
“The
government
needs
a
process
that’s
fair,
equitable
and
efficient.”

The
need
for
affordable
housing
is
pressing.
“Homelessness
grows
daily,
fueled
by
the
lack
of
affordable
housing,”
Dworkin
noted.
“Addressing
this
crisis
requires
building
more
affordable
housing
in
places
where
it’s
needed
—
not
just
in
coastal
cities
but
in
places
like
Phoenix,
Boise,
Omaha
and
Nashville.”

Jakabovics
said
that
using
federal
land
for
the
purpose
of
building
more
homes
hasn’t
worked
on
a
wider
scale
before
because
state
and
federal
officials
are
playing
hot
potato
with
the

issue
of
affordable
housing.

“[Land
use]
has
largely
been
seen
as
a
state
and
local
issue.
We’ve
typically
left
the
development
to
the
market
to
produce,
you
know,
and
even
the
way
we
build
affordable
housing
right
is
through
incentivizing
the
private
sector
to
build
right
with
targeted
affordability,”
he
said.

Fairweather
is
doubtful
that
Trump’s
plan
could
come
to
fruition.
“If
you
look
at

[Agenda]
47,
he
specifically
says
he
doesn’t
want
to
bring
low-income
housing
to
the
suburbs.
So,
I
don’t
think
he’s
talking
about
putting
subsidized
housing
on
post
offices,
the
way
that
Harris
was,”
she
said.
“And
builders
are
very
profit
motivated,
and
I’m
not
sure
how
much
of
federal
land
has
market
value.”

In
a
related
development,
the
Biden-Harris
administration
last
month
announced
the
sale
of
20
acres
of
public
lands,
for
just
$100
per
acre,
to
build

affordable
housing
projects
in
southern
Nevada.
The

Bureau
of
Land
Management
sold
the
land,
valued
at
nearly
$20
million,
to
Clark
County
for
$2,000.

The
county
plans
to
develop
210
single-family
homes
for
households
earning
$70,000
or
less.
Located
in
southwest
Las
Vegas,
the
project
known
as
Cactus
Trails
will
also
create
more
than
100
jobs.

“There’s
a
lot
of
bipartisan
ground
to
make
progress
on
—
and
this
is
one
of
them,”
Dworkin
said.

Related