With the 2024 presidential election approaching rapidly, the housing policies put forth by Democrat Kamala Harris and Republican Donald Trump are starting to gain more clarity. Despite being overshadowed by pressing issues like immigration and inflation during debates, both candidates are making their cases to potential voters, prompting discussions about the significant housing challenges facing the nation.
The backdrop for this electoral showdown is troubling; many economists predict 2024 could witness the worst year for home sales since 1995. Unfortunately, discussions surrounding housing policy have been relatively sparse, with candidates focusing more on partisan talking points than concrete solutions.
During the debates, housing policy was barely touched on. For example, during the Sept. 10 debate, Harris briefly advanced her proposal of providing $25,000 for down payment assistance to first-time homebuyers. Trump's response, rather than engaging with the policy discussion, was filled with criticisms aimed at Harris, declaring, "She is destroying our country," and making false assertions about her plan to defund police and restrict fracking.
Fact-checkers caught both candidates at various points for their claims. Harris, for example, suggested Trump was responsible for the worst unemployment numbers since the Great Depression, glossing over the fact unemployment rates had fallen significantly by the end of his presidency.
Overall, housing seems to become lost amid the more sensational aspects of their campaigns. This lack of attention was noted by industry experts, including those from the National Association of Home Builders, who expressed disappointment over the absence of substantial housing discussions during debates. Jim Tobin, one of the trade group’s executives, stated, "I’m completely disappointed in the lack of a real policy discussion. Certainly, going in, we were expecting housing to be one of the main questions."
While the presidential candidates have skirted detailed dialogues on housing policy, their vice presidential running mates have been more open about the topic. During the Oct. 1 debate featuring Tim Walz from the Harris campaign and J.D. Vance representing Trump, the dialogue around housing was more pronounced.
Walz highlighted proposals aimed at combating the housing supply crisis, stating the Harris administration would push for extra funding to build 3 million homes. Vance, on the other hand, characterized inflation and illegal immigration as key culprits behind rising home prices and promoted the idea of utilizing federal land for new housing developments.
Harris and her campaign underline the lack of housing supply as the primary challenge. Their approach emphasizes government intervention, striving for what they deem "the most significant effort to expand housing supply since World War II." This approach also positions large corporate landlords and institutional investors as adversaries, claiming their practices are pushing rental prices up and limiting access to affordable housing.
Conversely, Trump’s perspective revolves around easing regulations and cutting government involvement. He has portrayed the current episode of rising home costs as primarily fueled by inflation, regulations, and immigration, holding the Biden administration accountable for those problems.
Trump’s solutions to housing issues remain underdeveloped, yet they include drastic measures like announcing intentions to execute what he calls the "largest deportation operation" should he win reelection. Hidden behind these proposals lies Trump's previous endeavor to privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which may resurface should he regain the presidency. This potential move could lead to heated discussions about the balance between federal oversight and the privatization of housing finance.
This forthcoming debate over housing issues is set against the backdrop of mounting pressures for both candidates. Voter sentiments are changing, and there’s urgency to provide concrete, actionable plans to address the challenges impacting Americans. Voter engagement among communities disproportionately affected by these issues—like Black and Latino populations—is also making its way back to the forefront of these discussions, as seen through targeted outreach efforts from both candidates.
The upcoming weeks leading to the election will likely shape the narrative surrounding housing themes, with both candidates seeking to draw distinctions between their plans to tackle the nation's housing crisis. Harris continues to stress the importance of expansive governmental initiatives, aiming to position herself as the candidate who will facilitate access to affordable housing, especially for underrepresented communities.
Meanwhile, Trump’s focus remains on dismantling regulations he deems burdensome and promoting his vision of limited government interference—an ideology perceived as appealing to certain voter bases concerned with growing governmental reach.
With the race tightening, it’s evident both candidates are conscious of the weight of housing policy on their campaigns. The challenge remains to translate broader arguments about inflation and immigration directly to the pressing issue of housing affordability. The electorate appears to be demanding something more than rhetoric. They want actual engagement on how to reshape the housing market according to their realities—something the upcoming town halls and candidate events might be pressured to deliver.
Final weeks of campaigning will illuminate how each candidate plans to address housing policies, especially as the consequences of their decisions and their philosophies directly impact the lives of countless current and future homeowners. The tension between offering governmental solutions for housing expansion versus privatization strategies could define the service they seek to provide to the American populace. Whether they can separate themselves from the noise of political drama to prioritize showing their vision remains to be seen, but voters are hungry for action, not platitudes.
Stay tuned as the narratives evolve. The public will closely watch how each candidate integrates housing policy within their campaign framework leading up to the November elections. Each statement, debate, and interview will contribute to shaping the outcome, particularly for voters disenchanted with the status quo and eager for transformative change.
