The Housing Shortage Helped Trump Win

On Election Day, Democrats suffered a difficult loss. I suspect the reason is rooted in the housing shortage and bad governance in urban areas. We thought we had a good chance to beat the failed 45th President who tried to overthrow the government. I believe VP Harris ran as near a perfect campaign as anyone could with only a handful of months to do it. She raised a ton of money, had people in the field, and laid a hopeful vision for the future. Despite the Democratic enthusiasm and Trump’s unfavorable numbers, VP Harris lost all nine battleground states and is on track to lose the popular vote. This will be the first time Republicans have won the popular vote since George W. Bush in 2004. Early data seems to indicate that the failure of blue governments to build housing contributed to the overwhelming swing to Trump across almost every region and demographic. Democrats need to build housing and govern better if we want voters to trust us on the economy.

As of Wednesday evening the Electoral College and popular vote are at 312 and 50.2% in favor of the former President. Economist Jed Kolko wrote in Slow Boring that Trump saw some of the biggest swings in big cities, Latino centers, and Native American lands. Trump’s gamble to focus on low-propensity voters by going to non-traditional media helped to get him across the finish line. I thought the Democratic ground game would have made a larger difference, but Trump was able to do something most campaigns can’t, turn out low-propensity voters. In campaigns you can win by a combination of two things, persuading voters and turning out voters. In this election, he focused on expanding his base among working-class, young, and new voters who made a significant difference when we saw a small drop in turnout across the board. A combination of frustration over the high cost of living and a heavy presence in non-traditional media likely helped drive them to the polls.

How did this happen? One pain point that voters consistently brought up is the economy, specifically housing costs. In exit polls and follow-up interviews, the cost of living has been one of the most significant reasons people voted for Trump. It’s not surprising, because in California we’ve been dealing with high costs of housing since we began the recovery from the Great Recession. We’ve all seen the news articles and social media posts of people in our communities moving to a lower-cost state for a chance to own a home. We’ve also seen how many of those communities then begin to get expensive as more Californians arrive. Zillow wrote that “there is a [national] housing shortage of more than 4.5 million.” Our state by itself has a 3.5 million shortage. We also need to build an additional 2.5 million homes to meet the demand forecast by our housing element process. So, to be clear, 3.5 million homes to address the shortage and 2.5 million to address the growing population at our current growth rate. In a state where Democrats have a trifecta and supermajorities in both chambers of the legislature, we have no excuse for not fixing these problems.

When Governor Newsom won his first gubernatorial race, he promised to help get 3.5 million homes built by 2025. Since he became governor in 2018, per California’s Department. of Housing & Community Development (HCD), 707,741 units have been entitled, 752,443 have been permitted, and 541,234 have been built. The problem isn’t that he’s blocking housing production bills from being signed. Every year the legislature has big fights over housing bills which typically result in a watered-down version. Meanwhile, local elected officials across the state do everything they can to block housing such as when affluent Woodside declaresd itself a mountain lion sanctuary. Within political organizations and across communities we have been fighting over how much housing, what kind of housing, and the location of housing all while people continue to struggle to keep a roof over their head. The public discourse over housing has been mired in ideological symbolism through arguments such as vacancy trutherism, affordable housing only, etc. What we need is a focus on results. Is homelessness going down? Is the cost of housing dropping? Are people spending less of their income on housing? Those should be the questions we ask as we build homes. The current trajectory we are on will lead to larger losses to Republicans in California and losing electoral college seats to Texas, Florida, and other states.

We don’t need to reinvent the wheel. America has suffered a national housing shortage before. During the Great Depression and World War 2, new housing construction trickled to a near halt. After the war, we had a housing boom that led to the suburbanization of America. It was mostly fueled by the Home Owner’s Loan Corporation (HOLC), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and the G.I. Bill but the units were primarily privately built and sold at market rate. It’s not that complicated, if we want to reduce the cost of living and make homeownership a reality for younger generations, we need to build homes now. Some policy experts in this area have pinpointed some legislative changes we need from zoning changes, streamlining, single stair reform, and condo defect laws to name a few. This isn’t a resource issue as much as an issue of political will. Failure to build housing in blue states and urban areas in general has led to housing being built in distant suburbs and exurbs leading to more traffic and reduced quality of life. Is it any wonder then that working-class people are angry when they have to move farther and farther out to find decent housing?

Those who can afford to live in the expensive cities are left wanting basic city services and communities afflicted with struggling schools, crime, and potholes. Our cities are the daily punching bags on conservative media shows. The whole purpose of governing should be to make communities better through balanced budgets, improved services, and better life outcomes. Instead of expanding and diversifying our revenue, most cities seem to focus on increasing taxes on their tax base without seeing any benefits. I’m a firm believer that California needs a total tax reform but that can be the subject of another blog. In the meantime, housing is the tool that will unlock new revenues for cities as they build denser mixed-use projects. This is the fastest way to begin improving the quality of life for most residents. As more housing is built, it increases people’s choices for housing near jobs, it helps make old housing stock affordable, and it brings in new property tax revenue for local government. 

More affordable and abundant housing also means that local companies and grow and hire more people. Many policymakers talk about bringing more jobs to their community but when I talk to workforce experts and businesses, the common barrier to business investment and expansion is the lack of housing. The availability is either too low, the price is too high, or both. We need to be realistic about how different government agencies are funded and make sure we nurture those sources rather than driving them out. When residents have a decent home, a career, and extra money in their pockets, that’s when we can say the economy is doing well. 

It’s time to get brutally honest about housing and governing. If we want residents to trust that we will improve their lives then we need to focus on delivering results. If we as advocates and policymakers can’t help provide the necessities that everyone needs, then what are we doing with our positions?