pull down to refresh

18 sats \ 3 replies \ @didiplaywell 19 Mar \ parent \ on: Trump’s Executive Order Is a Big Win for Housing Politics_And_Law econ Construction_and_Engineering

Hey thank you, I should have noticed. I just read his last answer and the list-scheme plus final argumental contortion seals it. So, "you are exactly right!".

write
compose
7 sats \ 2 replies \ @Yermin 19 Mar

Trump's EO is not addressing the supply issue directly. Without that, it doesn't move the needle for the 65 out of 100 extremely low income renters who can't find housing.

reply
7 sats \ 1 reply \ @Yermin 19 Mar

The binding constraint on supply is still local land-use regulation: zoning, density caps, and minimum lot sizes.

reply
23 sats \ 0 replies \ @Yermin 19 Mar -50 sats

What could have been in the EO:

  • 3 million new homes over four years
  • tax incentives for builders
  • a $40 billion affordable-housing fund

What the EO actually does:

  • trims federal (not local) permitting and regulatory friction
  • pushes best practices for states and cities
  • leans toward single-family / manufactured housing

What it does not do:

  • override local zoning
  • remove density caps
  • cut minimum lot sizes

That distinction matters.

Austin’s rent drop followed a real supply surge:
about 120,000 units, roughly 30% more housing stock.

That pushed vacancies up, landlord leverage down, and rents lower, including for lower-end units.

Austin changed the local rules that block supply.
This EO doesn’t come close to reproducing that mechanism at scale.