Disclaimer: As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, Breaktime is not allowed to endorse or oppose any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for political office, but we are permitted to educate the public on policy issues.
Homelessness remains one of the most critical issues in the upcoming presidential election, with millions of Americans experiencing housing instability each year. At Breaktime, we see how the cycle of homelessness disproportionately impacts people of different backgrounds and regions every day. The growing housing crisis demands robust solutions and political attention, yet few policy specifics have been shared in the debates and rallies leading up to this Tuesday’s monumental election. Below, we’re diving into the differing housing solutions that have been proposed and could begin to take shape over the next four years. Understanding these differences is not just about politics – it is about how different solutions will support those seeking affordable housing across America.
Single-Family Homes vs. Transit-Oriented Development
Housing has emerged as the second-most pressing issue among voters this election season, following inflation. Both political parties recognize the urgency of increasing affordable housing and are approaching the solution from different angles. The two most common methods to address housing in America offer distinct strengths and weaknesses.
Emphasizing the development of single-family homes is one such solution. This approach, backed by Republican candidate Donald Trump, aims to expand housing stock by reducing regulations, and creating "Opportunity Zones" where affordable housing can be developed with minimal government oversight. Shifting responsibility to local governments, this solution will cut regulations and shrink the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) funding. A large part of this policy plan includes building homes on federally owned lands, but with most of these areas located in remote regions like Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana, the housing crisis in urban centers like Boston—where rent averages around $3,500 a month—would remain largely unaddressed.
Conversely, experts have offered transit-oriented development (TOD) as a solution, which VP Kamala Harris favors. TOD is a planning and design strategy that integrates land use and transportation to create walkable, mixed-use communities near public transit. They are designed to be compact, pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly, and to promote sustainable and equitable communities, especially in cities, where land-use efficiency and transportation access are critical. By streamlining federal subsidies and permitting processes, this plan seeks to boost the supply of affordable housing in high-density areas, though it may not serve rural communities as effectively.
In short, one model focuses on housing construction with fewer regulations but may be less feasible for denser urban populations. The TOD approach, on the other hand, supports urban revitalization but could struggle to meet the needs of rural areas.
Addressing Housing Insecurity: Young Homeowners and Starter Homes
It’s no secret that soaring home prices across the country have prohibited homeownership for many Americans since the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly young people looking for their first homes. One solution to more accessible homeownership centers around tax incentives for homebuilders focusing on affordable starter homes and credits for first-time home buyers. This approach, supported by the Harris-Walz ticket, proposes the construction of 3 million new housing units behind this tax incentive to help create a fair rental market. It also suggests providing working families who have paid their rent on time for two years and are buying their first home up to $25,000 in down-payment assistance, with more generous support for first-generation homeowners. These targeted measures aim to address housing shortages while boosting homeownership and economic mobility, although they may also come at a significant cost to the American taxpayer.
Another approach to addressing housing insecurity emphasizes a deregulated market approach. This policy, supported by the Trump-Vance ticket, suggests that cutting regulations, including ending zoning restrictions and removing limits on housing, would encourage private developers to build more homes. Reducing government oversight is expected to make it easier and quicker for the market to increase housing supply, naturally lowering costs and expanding access to housing.
In short, one approach leans on government intervention to protect renters and provide down payment assistance to young home buyers, while the opposing approach leaves housing development to market forces, potentially widening the gap for those struggling with unemployment or economic instability.
The Rental Market
The rental market, which has primarily been dominated by Wall Street investors and large financial institutions, has predominantly been a bipartisan issue. The Stop Predatory Investing Act aims to curb corporate control over rental housing by removing tax benefits for major investors who purchase homes in bulk. This policy, a key component of Harris’ platform, could ease market pressure, making it easier for first-time buyers and local renters to compete. However, the act could also reduce overall housing investment, slowing down neighborhood revitalization or inadvertently harming smaller landlords who rely on tax benefits to maintain rental properties.
Opposing policies to the rental market have been less defined, but are likely to follow the overarching theme of deregulation. Policies built around curbing inflation and limiting government spending, two approaches central to the Trump campaign, could support smaller landlords and gentrifying neighborhoods. But at the same time, limits to this renting plan will hurt those relying on public support to sustain stable finances and housing.
Homelessness
The issue of homelessness has been under national scrutiny since June, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the rights of Grants Pass, OR, to fine and jail people experiencing homelessness who violate an ordinance against camping on public property, even when no shelter space was available. One approach to mitigating the homelessness crisis builds on this ruling, focusing on the wide-spread banning of urban camping and removal of existing encampments. In this proposal, backed by Trump, states could arrest people who violate the encampment bans and relocate them to government-run “tent cities” built on “large parcels of inexpensive land,” staffed with doctors, psychiatrists, social workers, and drug rehab specialists. People sent to the tent cities would be given the option of treatment and services. According to the Boston Globe, two key distinguishers of this approach are its cost-effectiveness and the belief that “stabilized, permanent housing should be made available only after certain treatment benchmarks are met.”
The opposing approach known as “Housing First” prioritizes getting people experiencing homelessness into stable housing before providing any wraparound services needed to deal with larger problems such as addiction and mental illness. Favored by Harris, this approach first became policy during the Obama administration, and has been part of federal programs ever since. According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, there is growing evidence demonstrating that providing housing access via the Housing First model generally results in cost savings for communities because housed people are less likely to use emergency services, including hospitals, jails, and emergency shelter, than those who are experiencing homelessness.
Conclusion
As we approach the upcoming election, it’s crucial to consider how policies proposed by the presidential candidates will impact those experiencing housing instability. How our candidates prioritize the affordability of homes, the supply of housing, and market regulations, will all play a role in how the incidence of homelessness shifts here in America. Voting in this election is crucial to ensuring that solutions to homelessness and housing instability remain at the forefront of national discourse. We encourage you to exercise your right to vote on Tuesday, November 5th!