Skip to main content

Housing Solutions and the Dangers of the Strawman Argument


It was frustrating to read about the “right” housing affordability strategy in the Washington Post today. The article positioned those who support affordability through increasing overall housing supply on one side against those who support government policies to address housing on the other.

Your first reaction may be, “Why can't both approaches be part of the solution?” If so, you are absolutely right.

It is 2026 and we need complex solutions to our pressing societal challenges, including the cost of living, and the biggest expense for most families: housing costs. Arguing against an approach because it doesn't immediately solve all challenges when described in its simplest form is not only frustrating, but potentially misleading. 

Also, the belief that there is one magical solution that will simply and quickly solve all the housing challenges we face is equivalent to the snake-oil salesperson from centuries ago - not the modern solutions we need today. Placing compatible perspectives at odds and against one another as if it is a zero-sum game is counterproductive and helps no one.

There is nothing preventing us from encouraging the construction of more housing AND taking policy actions to ensure that more people have an affordable place to live AND ensuring that communities remain livable and strong AND addressing other issues. 

For example, a community can remove barriers to building ADUs in single family neighborhoods and more "middle housing" types near transit, AND add incentives for building with universal design, AND have a housing voucher program AND have design regulations and code enforcement to ensure safety and cleanliness AND build/support subsidized housing AND ensure that housing policies are applied fairly. 

These are just some of the tools in the toolbox, and we must also consider many issues adjacent to “housing policy” that influence the local landscape: those related to monetary policy, economic forces, transportation, building materials and design, demographic change, development patterns, family structures, culture, historical practices and on and on. Success means interweaving housing opportunities with related concepts such as safety, healthy living, social engagement, economic opportunity and fairness for all residents.

The real solutions come from having a wide lens and harnessing actions by policymakers, industry, non-profits / philanthropy, and families / individuals. All of these perspectives go together and actions must be informed by research to be most effective. Importantly, we must prioritize and activate solutions based on what we can do and what conditions we face.

You have seen me and teams I have worked with create an index that measures communities across interrelated issues, draft model policies, support smart growth / livable community initiatives, and most importantly, champion approaches that address today's problems, consider future impacts while recognizing the impact of actions in the past, and work with a range of partners to spread the word. Addressing our housing challenges involves everyone.

At this point in our nation’s evolution, we have many complex challenges, as the easy ones have already been solved. Our housing challenges are deep and rooted in a wide range of causes, and local conditions vary. That should not make the challenge more intimidating, but instead raise the profile of addressing it. 

I once took a course where we were encouraged to "yes, and" ideas - instead of shooting a potentially good idea down in its early stages, you would build on and improve it by saying “yes” to the idea and add to it to improve it. We need that approach for all of our pressing policy challenges.

If we are serious about addressing our housing needs and addressing the root causes, we would have a real national, statewide, community, and family conversation about what we could do. Let's “yes, and” the approaches that tackle parts of the challenge, and eventually, we can tackle enough of it to make a real difference. In the meantime, let's not distract ourselves by arguing about which one tactic is the "right" answer.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The "Boom" in Golden Girls-Style Shared Housing: Where’s the Beef?

NBC, Touchstone Television and their partners should be proud– it has been 22 years since the final episode aired, yet the influence of The Golden Girls   means that every year reporters ask about the boom in “Golden Girls Housing .”  This form of shared housing receives a great amount of attention, but we'll miss the big picture if we look for big numbers. For the last few years, I have looked at data from the Current Population Survey  (analyzed by the AARP Public Policy Institute ) to count households that are all female (or all male) with at least one non-related housemate or roommate, no spouses, and no one under 50 in the home. This is the classic “Golden Girls” formula.   The result has become familiar: a very small portion of the population lives in a “golden” situation, around one percent.  The small numbers of people in those situations means that it’s hard to figure out whether it has become more popular.  Though the percentage ap...

What Is a Livable Community, and How Do We Measure One?

Today, I kicked off AARP Public Policy Institute 's Livability Index project with a blog and two papers on new project webpage: bi.tly/LivIndex .  The PPI blog, " What Is a Livable Community, and How Do We Measure One? " introduces the project to the world. You may have wondered why I haven't been writing as much lately, and this project is what has been keeping me busy recently. In a way, this has been keeping me busy for years.

Rethinking the Value of Diversity after the End of Race-Based Admissions Decisions

The recent Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College has sparked great discourse in the week since the decision, and in particular, fear amongst those who worry about losing a key tool to fight the legacy of discrimination and the continuing disadvantages that impact people of color in the US. In its decision, the Court’s majority ruled that admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. While a range of others, including Justices Jackson and Sotomayor, have laid out dissents and critiques of the decision, I have seen little discussion of the path forward for those who seek to ensure that more people from families and communities that have been impacted by racial prejudice over the nation’s history can benefit from a college education in the future.    You will read a different perspective here, building from experiences at four diffe...