Targeting Renters, Not Immigration, is the Key to Building More Housing

A progressive policy institute is proposing a fresh approach to the build more housing message by targeting a group often ignored in housing debates: renters. While catchy slogans and quick fixes like 3D-printed homes, modular construction, or New Yorks mayor-elects promise to freeze the rent grab attention, the reality is far more complicated. Each so-called simple solution involves intricate regulatory and bureaucratic steps before becoming practical.

The housing supply issue is complex, shaped by local land use policies, zoning laws, design review boards, and building codes. These factors make developing housing across different regions challenging and resistant to one-line solutions. Recognizing this, the Center for American Progress (CAP) recently released a housing policy plan that blends straightforward messaging with actionable policy. Their mantra: "build more housing"but with a twist: prioritize renters.

CAP suggests appealing to renters using direct financial incentives. Michael Negron, a senior fellow at CAP, explains that their report, co-authored with Jared Bernstein and Natalie Baker, addresses the imbalance between housing supply and demand that has grown since the financial crisis. The federal government, the authors argue, can help alleviate high housing costs by promoting new construction, supporting innovation, and easing local regulatory barriers like zoning and land use rules.

The concept isnt new. Previous Democratic initiatives, including proposals from Vice President Kamala Harris, envisioned federal funds to encourage local governments to streamline regulations and build more housing. However, many cities resist change, with homeowners often opposing new construction. Studies show 30 to 40 percent of Americans believe that adding housing will raise rents and home prices, despite evidence from regions like the Sun Belt to the contrary.

CAPs solution, Rent Relief for Reform (R3), aims to mobilize renters. It proposes identifying Housing Cost Crisis Zones (HCCZs) where rents are exceptionally high or growing rapidly. The federal government would set housing targets for these areas and provide funds for rent rebates if targets are met. These payments, ranging from $640 to $860 annually in cities like Los Angeles, serve as temporary relief and signal the potential reduction in future rents as new units are added.

By giving renters a tangible stake, the plan hopes to increase their participation in local planning and zoning meetings. Negron emphasizes that homeowners usually dominate these meetings, blocking new development. Engaged renters could shift the political calculus, making it advantageous for elected officials to support new construction.

Meanwhile, Republican strategies focus on restricting immigration as a solution to housing shortages. Vice President JD Vance and other figures have argued that undocumented immigrants take housing from citizens, with some policies including mass deportations. However, CAP points out that these measures worsen the housing supply problem. Recent surveys show construction firms struggling to find workers, partially due to immigration enforcement, highlighting the counterproductive effects of this approach.

Ultimately, the CAP plan acknowledges the complexities of building more housing but believes that direct financial support for renters provides a clear, understandable way to engage voters and drive policy action. By combining incentives with regulatory reform, they aim to make build more housing a politically viable strategy that addresses both supply and demand.

Author: Zoe Harrison