Vice President Kamala Harris has recently promised to build 3 million new homes if she becomes president. Her plan includes offering new tax incentives to companies that build homes for first-time buyers and creating a $40 billion fund to help local governments solve housing shortages and use federal land for affordable housing.
However, building new homes has been challenging in California. Governor Gavin Newsom promised to build 3.5 million new homes by 2025, but as of this summer, he is about 87% short of that goal.
Here’s what experts think about Harris’s plan:
Caroline Freund, UC San Diego:
NO: Campaign promises are often too optimistic. To meet the 3 million homes goal, huge financial support and changes in local regulations would be needed. Right now, it’s hard to make these changes because of local opposition.
Ray Major, Economist:
YES: Some parts of Harris’s plan could help, just like injecting money into any sector can boost growth. But her plan’s focus on rent control and subsidies may just shift wealth around instead of solving the housing shortage.
Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research:
NO: Building 3 million homes in four years is unrealistic. The U.S. has built about 1.45 million homes per year recently, so increasing that by such a large amount would be very difficult. Local regulations and price controls won’t help much.
Alan Gin, University of San Diego:
YES: There is some bipartisan support for increasing housing supply. Federal support and land use changes could help meet the goal more effectively at the national level than at the state level in California.
James Hamilton, UC San Diego:
NO: Using tax changes to boost home construction doesn’t work well when high interest rates are discouraging building. Long-term effects are limited, and local issues need to be addressed directly.
Norm Miller, University of San Diego:
NO: Tax credits and grants might help, but they could also raise prices and distort the market. Relaxing local building codes could help, but it’s not enough on its own.
David Ely, San Diego State University:
YES: Harris’s plan aims to expand housing supply significantly. Incentives for builders and using federal land could help address the shortage, though challenges will remain.
Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere:
NO: This plan seems unlikely to succeed. Similar promises in the past haven’t been met. Even if new construction is spurred, it could lead to higher home prices and taxpayer costs.
Phil Blair, Manpower:
YES: With a coordinated effort, it’s possible to increase housing. Using unused land and modifying zoning laws could help build more homes, though they might be smaller and more densely packed.
Gary London, London Moeder Advisors:
NO: Federal help is not enough; local issues and zoning laws need to change. Reducing minimum lot sizes could encourage more affordable housing in San Diego.
Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates:
NO: Harris’s plan is unlikely to significantly lower housing prices due to interest rates and market forces. Tax breaks for developers won’t solve the problem.
Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth:
NO: Harris’s focus on helping first-time buyers might raise prices further. More details on increasing supply are needed to address the affordability issue effectively.
Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health:
YES: Federal tax incentives could encourage some new buildings, but state and local regulations will still be a big challenge. Getting Congress to pass new laws is also a major hurdle.
Haney Hong, San Diego County Taxpayers Association:
NO: It’s unlikely that Washington will create an effective housing policy. Local control and market dynamics often mean that more interventions might not be the best solution.