View this post on the web at [link removed]
By Kileen Lindgren [ [link removed] ] and Mark Miller [ [link removed] ]
From “Full House” to “Little House on the Prairie,” “I Love Lucy” to “The Brady Bunch” and “Friends” to “Frasier,” the home has always been a central feature of American television. And the common denominator among these shows is that there is no common denominator in what makes a house a home. There is no ideal American home except one that meets the needs and desires of those living there.
Whether their housing decisions are based on financial needs, desires for companionship or lifestyle choices, Americans have always considered the ability to access what they need and want for housing essential to their pursuit of their personal American Dream. Recognizing that reality, the 2024 presidential candidates have made housing availability and affordability a centerpiece of their campaigns. But the policies they have presented are neither principled nor practical.
Vice President Kamala Harris favors rent control [ [link removed] ]—government interference with rental pricing that causes the greatest harm to the renters with the fewest resources. Rent control arbitrarily meddles with the housing market, discourages investment in rental properties—including crucial maintenance—and cuts off opportunities for renting to own. This policy undercuts the very demographics that its supporters claim to help—young people, racial and ethnic minorities and those with lower incomes who are more likely to rent [ [link removed] ]. Even in Harris’ home state of California—a place infamously plagued by bad policies that have led to sky-high housing costs and rampant homelessness—voters said no to a 2020 ballot measure [ [link removed] ] that would have expanded rent control. It has been tried before, and it simply does not work.
Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump’s campaign clings to a limited vision of the American Dream that attempts to put everyone in the single-family-home box. But not everyone wants to live in a house like the Cleavers. Others who ultimately want that sort of living arrangement cannot afford to have it at this stage of their lives. Trying to force people into one-size-fits-all single-family residences does not meet them where they are. American housing policy solutions should primarily address the unique needs of all American households.
When addressing the housing crisis, all policymakers should heed the words of Founding Father John Adams, who said that property and liberty were inseparable. He recognized [ [link removed] ] that property is “as sacred as the laws of God” and that there should be a “force of law and public justice to protect it.” This is just as true in building new housing; building more is the key remedy to treat and solve the current national housing crisis.
To get that new housing built, we need solutions that get government bureaucracy out of the way, which will bring down building costs. Cutting red tape will allow Americans to build more housing and use their property best for themselves and their families, free of unreasonable government barriers. Further, in the context of existing housing, this means defending the expanded use of property for things like adding mother-in-law suites that allow people to care for aging family members or to have roommates to keep costs down and pay off mortgages.
These are housing solutions often dismissed by local governments and opposed by neighbors who dislike the aesthetic of seeing “too many” people next door. There is no place for this out-of-touch elitism in the Land of Opportunity. Individuals who do not violate nuisance laws or create true hazards for adjacent property owners should be able to use their property as they see fit and build equity in their investments.
Other commonsense reforms will increase the building of needed housing while respecting local considerations. Among these reforms are models for establishing permitting approval timelines that make the process predictable, requiring localities to approve applications that have met all requirements rather than letting bureaucrats exercise unfair discretion on a case-by-case basis, and preventing third parties from bringing frivolous legal challenges that tie up building projects over neighbors’ personal preferences rather than legitimate harms. Regardless of the presidential election’s outcome, state legislators have the power to act quickly to address the housing crisis in their own backyards by adopting those sorts of simple but meaningful policy reforms.
There are other reforms that ought to be made on the state level, as well. For example, earlier this year the Supreme Court issued a decision in favor of George Sheetz [ [link removed] ], a grandfather in California who bought a vacant lot to build a small retirement home where he and his wife could raise their grandson. But before giving him his building permit, the county demanded $23,000 for a so-called traffic impact fee that was not clearly tied to a defined impact the Sheetzes would have on the local roads or traffic.
Talk about highway robbery.
In the wake of this decision, states have an obligation to step in and ensure state law prohibits this type of unconstitutionally burdensome fee scheme for future developments. Whether the builder is one family or a large developer, removing unjustified costly barriers to building will increase the production and affordability of housing and put roofs over people’s heads.
Property rights are the foundation of liberty. The right to own, enjoy and put property to productive use is a source of personal security, dignity and prosperity. It is the government’s job to maintain a system that promotes these rights rather than implementing processes that hinder them. Citizens would revolt if they were told they could only talk about sports in one neighborhood, books in the next and art in another. Yet Americans too readily accept zoning laws that are just as inflexible—preventing people who can only afford duplexes, want to build a separate suite for grandma or travel a lot and prefer to live in a secure apartment complex from coexisting. It is just as inexcusable—and unconstitutional—to deprive individuals of the use of their property as it is to deny them basic speech rights.
The Declaration of Independence proclaims “that all men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This language expounds upon John Locke’s earlier assertion [ [link removed] ] that “no one ought to harm another in his life ... liberty, or possessions”—that individuals are born with these natural rights. Whether you are in your Carrie Bradshaw phase, Golden Girls era or somewhere in between, you have the right to pursue the home that fits your lifestyle and needs best. Using your private property as you see fit for the housing option of your choice is one key to a productive society where free individuals can shape their destinies.
This is the real American Dream.
Kileen Lindgren is the legal policy manager and Mark Miller is a senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, a public interest law firm that defends Americans’ liberty against government overreach and abuse.
Unsubscribe [link removed]?
