Was Kamala Right About Housing? NIMBY, Land Trusts and Down Payment assistance.

The housing crisis is often framed as a lack of compassion, but a closer look at the economics suggests it’s actually a lack of supply, exacerbated by the very policies meant to fix it. This brings us to a central question of the recent political cycle: Was Kamala Harris right about housing? While her 2024 Presidential platform focused on relief for buyers, the underlying mechanics of her proposals merit a deeper look.

The Preservation Paradox

One of the most effective ways to keep housing prices high is to simply ensure no houses are built. This is often achieved through land trusts and legislation like the Community Preservation Act (CPA). Passed in 2000, the CPA allows Massachusetts towns to surcharge taxpayers to fund four specific goals: preserving open space, protecting historic buildings, developing recreation, and supporting affordable housing.

While these goals sound noble, the reality in many towns is different. By locking away land under the "preservation" banner, these municipalities effectively pull the ladder up behind them, reducing the available land for new development and ensuring incumbent property values stay artificially inflated.

The Down Payment Dilemma

If "preservation" restricts the supply, the type of down payment assistance championed by the Harris campaign (such as the proposed $25,000 credit for first-time buyers) can inadvertently spike the demand.

It’s a basic economic trap: when you provide additional funding for housing acquisition, you aren't just helping a buyer; you're equipping them to pay more than they otherwise would have. This doesn't just enable the recipient; it increases competition across the board. When more people enter the marketplace with "extra" cash, sellers simply raise their floor. This upward pressure is further intensified by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which back loans with as little as 3% to 5% down, allowing a massive influx of buyers into a market that doesn't have the inventory to house them.

Shifting the Focus to the Supply Side

To truly lower home prices, or at least stop the bleeding, we have to stop subsidizing demand and start permitting supply. Instead of incentivizing towns to "buy up and preserve" land to keep it empty, state and federal policy should encourage:

• Reduced lot size minimums to allow for more efficient use of land.

• Elimination of parking requirements in cities with robust public transit.

• Streamlined zoning that favors density over "NIMBY" (Not In My Backyard) interests.

The Bottom Line

While Kamala Harris’s focus on the "unaffordability" of the American Dream was correct, the solution of subsidizing buyers mirrors the unintended consequences of NIMBYism and the CPA. These programs may help a few lucky families get across the finish line, but their aggregate impact is to increase overall prices and benefit incumbent homeowners. If we want to fix housing, we have to stop trying to outbid the market and start building for it.