Harris's housing policy is, like her, more of the same

While Kamala Harris’s proposed housing policies are not entirely bad, they are nothing new. Like most Democratic policies, they are marred by a religious trust in the private sector and by the Democrats’ typically limp-wristed approach to solving problems.

The “Preventing the Algorithmic Facilitation of Rental Housing Cartels Act” is likely the best part of her proposed policies, and this isn’t saying much. This policy aims to crack down on software tools used by landlords that result in artificial increases in rental prices. While this is a legitimate problem, simply restricting the use of these tools is a half-measure at best. Even though it also arguably only treats a symptom of the country’s housing woes, a national rent control bill would be much more effective at reigning in rents.

Up next is the “Stop Predatory Investing Act” which would prevent property owners who own 50 or more single-family homes from deducting interest or depreciation from their taxes. This is laughable. This disincentive doesn’t even come close to outweighing the sheer economic benefit of owning fifty or more homes. Not only is this a band-aid solution, but it is an awful band-aid solution. No one should own fifty or more homes. Period. Housing is not an investment vehicle or a luxury; it is a public good, and it should be treated as such. This bill is pathetic and will do little if anything towards fixing America’s housing shortage.

Harris also proposes a $40 billion “innovation fund” to help local governments with affordable housing construction. While the details on this are nebulous, the chance that this funding appreciably contributes to providing affordable housing is far less than the chance that this money will mostly find its way into housing developers’ pockets.

The Vice President has also expressed support for deregulating housing to incentivize construction with the goal of adding 3 million more housing units. While this is not bad per se, she has not explained what “deregulating” means. For instance, eliminating single-family zoning and enforcing a quota for mixed-use housing developments could go a long way in increasing our housing stock. However, without such requirements in place, this policy could result in more suburban sprawl and more inefficient, expensive single-family homes.

Furthermore, it isn’t apparent that simply increasing housing supply will result in more affordable housing. For example, there are roughly 16,000 empty housing units in Knox County, yet rents and home prices continue to soar. 

The final policy to be addressed here is Harris’s $25,000 tax credit for first time home buyers. This policy is nothing more than a reward for people who already have money. It will only benefit people who can already afford a down payment on a home, and this extra $25,000 could very well be eaten up by home prices that increase in response to this policy. Additionally, there is a requirement for anyone who uses this tax credit to have paid their rent on time for two years, which not only requires potential homeowners to spend their money renting but also to have stable enough circumstances to not miss a payment for two years, which is becoming increasingly rare for more and more working Americans.

If these policies are any indication of what’s to come from the Harris-Walz campaign, then we are in for more disappointment and half-baked solutions that are bound to become even more tepid once they actually go through Congress. Harris may be a new face compared to Joe Biden, but she is nothing new. Make no mistake, Harris is a machine Democrat, and these policies are likely to be the best we’re going to get from her.