Kamala Harris has a new advertising push to draw attention to her plan to build 3 million new homes over four years, a move designed to contain inflationary pressures that also draws a sharp contrast to Republican Donald Trump’s approach.

Harris, the Democratic nominee for president, highlights her plan in a new minute-long ad that uses her personal experience, growing up in rental housing while her mother had saved for a decade before she could buy a home. The ad targets voters in the swing states including Arizona and Nevada. Campaign surrogates are also holding 20 events this week focused on housing issues.

In addition to increasing home construction, Harris is proposing the government provide as much as $25,000 in assistance to first-time buyers. That message carries weight at this moment as housing costs have kept upward pressure on the consumer price index. Shelter costs are up 5.1% over the past 12 months, compared to overall inflation being 2.9%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“Vice President Harris knows we need to do more to address our housing crisis, that’s why she has a plan to end the housing shortage” and will crack down on “corporate landlords and Wall Street banks hiking up rents and housing costs,” said Dan Kanninen, the campaign’s battleground states director.

-13 points
Associated Press - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for Associated Press:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://apnews.com/article/harris-trump-housing-home-inflation-build-construction-00ae665790649d3b25d77a6cc0d111d0

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

permalink
report
reply
-11 points
*

increasing stock does not mean prices will magically go down and cool the inflation

living wages, pushing for fixed mortgage rates, pushing for nondiscriminatory banking policies nationwide, increasing the education budget are things that do that

increasing the number of overpriced houses instead of fighting for the people to have living wages is not helping

and all these homes would require the roads to be torn up and repiped

where is that budget? is places like Flint going to finally get the nonlead pipes?

logistics were not expanded on in the article

what about the already over stressed water table here in the US?

impact studies seem to be a thing of the past when it comes to new construction

even the article linked in the article mentions nothing about anything that would actually go towards solving the issues at hand

https://apnews.com/article/harris-economy-taxes-homes-food-prices-insurance-e1ad3f26f2ce8e6cb365a4ffe2ca3e6b

and in this statement

In her speech, Harris offered stark contrasts with Trump’s economic proposals, including his call for steep tariffs on foreign goods. She said that her opponent “wants to impose what is, in effect, a national sales tax on everyday products and basic necessities that we import from other countries.”

Biden and Harris has been doing steep tariffs that amount to more the citizens have to pay for goods

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/05/14/fact-sheet-president-biden-takes-action-to-protect-american-workers-and-businesses-from-chinas-unfair-trade-practices/

every election cycle makes it more obvious that neither party have our interests at heart

permalink
report
reply
9 points

increasing stock does not mean prices will magically go down

Actually, it does.

living wages, pushing for fixed mortgage rates, pushing for nondiscriminatory banking policies nationwideo, increasing the education budget are things that do that

All of which are also in policy proposal

and all these homes would require the roads to be torn up and repiped

To be offset by additional tax base.

is places like Flint going to finally get the nonlead pipes

Flint is covered by the Infrastructure Act

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

Flint needed help a decade ago and still does

https://www.britannica.com/event/Flint-water-crisis

Flint water crisis, human-made public health crisis (April 2014–June 2016) involving the municipal water supply system of Flint, Michigan. Tens of thousands of Flint residents were exposed to dangerous levels of lead, and outbreaks of Legionnaire disease killed at least 12 people and sickened dozens more.

https://truthout.org/articles/the-2024-presidential-election-may-slow-plans-to-replace-lead-pipes/

The proposal from the Biden administration builds on different rules put out in the waning days of the Trump term that allowed up to 30 years for service line replacement, triggered only when lead levels test higher than 15 parts per billion. The new proposal, which would largely supplant the Trump rules, calls for stricter monitoring, enhanced public education, and the 10-year pipe replacement mandate regardless of lead levels.

An October deadline looms for the new rules to be adopted; otherwise, enforcement of the less-stringent Trump administration rules will begin. And complicating matters more: November’s election results could shake up whose rules the nation must follow.

While many cities and states have begun to replace their lead pipes, some utilities and officials say the 10-year time frame is unfeasible and too expensive. They say it would be difficult for water utilities to follow the rules while dealing with new EPA limits on five PFAS contaminants, known as “forever chemicals,” and failing pipes, among other issues.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

The Infrastructure Act has provision for eliminating iron piping from US city water supply. It was passed a year ago. In a place as big as Flint, it’s a big F’n job. It took years to put in the system and it will take years to replace it. I’m sure Big Gretch has eyes on.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Wealth tax is the answer to “where will the money come from”

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

I appreciate the optimism, but who is going to pass a wealth tax?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

The American public?

permalink
report
parent
reply
37 points
*

It’s such a complex problem, it’s going to take a long time to fix. Part of the problem is people don’t really understand what the real problem is. They think the problem is that there aren’t enough detached, single family homes being built. I get why people would focus on single family homes because that’s what Americans want. The “American Dream” is to own your own home in the suburbs, and if you think that everyone who wants a single family home should be able to buy one, then, yeah, you’re going to see the problem as one of not enough single family homes being built. However, I would argue that the American dream itself is the problem.

Suburbs are expensive, and inefficient, bad for the environment, and bad for our physical and mental health. Suburbs necessitate car dependence, and cars themselves require a lot of expensive infrastructure. I know a lot of Americans don’t like to hear it, but we really do need to be living in higher density urban areas. Higher density, mixed use urban areas allow people to walk and bike more, which is better for our health. It’s also less expensive. The farther apart everything is, the more you’ll need to drive, and that means owning your own car, which is expensive.

I don’t think people even necessarily know why they want a single family home. I think Americans want single family homes because we’re told from day one that is what we should want. It’s our culture. You grow up, get married, buy a home in the suburbs, and start a family. You own at least two cars, you drive everywhere, that’s the American dream. I think we need to start questioning if this is really what’s best, and if we should really want it. I know I have, and I’ve decided it isn’t best. I think I would be happier and healthier living in a mixed use urban area, where I could walk or bike to a lot of places, or take public transportation, and if I needed to drive somewhere, maybe I’d take a taxi or rent a car or use some car sharing service.

Very few places like these exist in the US, and that’s because too many people still want to live in a single family home in the suburbs, and many of those people, also have most of their personal wealth in their home, so they push for restrictive zoning laws and other regulations, limiting how much higher density housing and mixed development can be built, thus making such areas relatively rare and thus expensive. There’s a battle going on between people who want single family homes and people who want higher density, mixed use areas.

I know people don’t want to talk about that, because they don’t want to make it an us vs them thing, but it just is. Our desires are mutually exclusive, due to the finite nature of land. A given piece of land cannot be both a low density, single family suburb and a higher density, mixed use area, simultaneously. It must be one or the other. How we “fix” the housing crisis depends on which we choose to prioritize. We either find ways to build more and more suburbs, or we eliminate single family zoning and invest in building many more, higher density, mixed use urban areas. I know which one I choose.

permalink
report
reply
22 points

living in a city with a lot of housing demand, people definitely don’t all want a single-family house. The big push is for zoning changes that allow higher density development: townhomes and small multifamily construction on what were single family lots with setbacks, accessory dwelling units, mixed use apartment buildings with less parking, etc.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

Meh my suburb definitely helps my health. I border open space, have a great trail that goes all the way to the city center, and to a state park in the other direction. I either ride my bike or use a convenient bus line to get around, unless I have explicit cause to drive. Many of my friends live within a mile or so of me and we regularly meet at the neighborhood fenced off leash dog park, or walk over to the nearby brewery or coffee shop. My grocery store is easy biking distance.

It’s not all suburbs, many are just built shitty. I love where I live and I am definitely enriched by my neighborhood.

That said, it’s not for everyone, and to your point lots of higher density housing should be made.

Probably best not to do widely generalize what all Americans want, or suffer from. Edit the larger problem is corporate gobbling of houses as investments when homes should be a wellness, social stability thing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Certainly some suburbs are better than others. I’m glad that your suburb does not negatively impact your mental and physical wellbeing. Indeed, I am generalizing. However, I would argue that even the best suburbs are still more expensive and worse for the environment than the best urban areas. The more concentrated human population centers are, the more wild land there can be, and that’s better for the planet.

That being said, I don’t necessarily want to outlaw detached, single family homes, or force people to leave their suburb and move into densely populated urban areas. If your suburb works for you, you should be able to stay there. I do think any tax policies that result in urban areas subsidizing the costs of suburban areas should be eliminated, though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I think we can find shared agreement on the need to attack zoning and land use in urban areas where office space should be converted to housing.

We can also agree that rewilding open space, increasing the quantity and quality of public transit, modern energy production, polyculturing the suburban yard (from a grass monoculture) are all great things that reduce the impact of suburbs. In my area those topics are increasing popular. I’m regularly seeing people ripping out their grass, for example. But I acknowledge the current status quo of many suburbs which are just grass, detached pickup truck storage.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Mostly agreed! But here’s my tale:

I’m exactly where I want to be, home on the edge of a suburb, countryside a mile to the north. The neighborhood was about half developed, half woods. There’s been a few dozen new home built in the past several years, and I’m not happy about it.

Know those complexes having a couple of hundred apartments? Yeah, losing my home and having to move to one is my nightmare. I hate living packed in like rats and following bullshit rules. Can’t wash your car outside! What if one of your fellow rats slips?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

I understand. I don’t necessarily have a problem with relatively restrictive zoning in rural areas. But, I do think restrictive zoning becomes a significant problem, the closer you get to population centers, or the centers of towns and cities. Limiting higher density housing in city and town centers kind of necessitates people moving into suburbs and even, eventually, rural areas. If there isn’t enough suitable, affordable, relatively dense housing where the jobs and schools and shops are, the suburbs will grow and spread. So, if you want to keep your area as rural as possible, you need to make sure people have plenty of housing options in the city and town centers. Unfortunately, much of the land in many city and town centers is currently zoned exclusively for single family homes. That has to change or sprawl will continue.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

You live on the edge of the developed area, with suburb on one side and countryside on the other.

And more homes went up, transforming the area that you’re in into more suburb, and cutting you off from nature.

Do you think the people who moved into those houses also wanted to live with suburb on one side and nature on the other? Conversely, how do you think the people living near the previous edge of the suburb felt when your house went up?

Do you see the problem with this kind of development?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

You can’t understand how someone wouldn’t want to live in a sardine can?

Some people like having space.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I didn’t think people should have to live in sardine cans, I think people should have the opportunity to live in apartments or condos that meet their needs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

All I’m saying is that people absolutely know why they want their own house. Pretending otherwise is a little ridiculous.

If people want to live in an apartment that’s great, but it should be a choice.

There should always be suburban and country living.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

They also like not living in a cacophony of fucking noise all day.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-33 points

3 million homes

Not happening. She’s trying to win the votes by implying she can reduce prices of homes, but she knows this won’t happen. She lies into your faces

permalink
report
reply
0 points

So you’re saying that supply will not change cost?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-16 points

No, I’m saying there will be no more supply than it is now. She ain’t building these homes

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

The government uses incentive for builders and land owners to build certain types of projects. For instance, there are incentives for them to build low cost senior housing at fixed end cost. This is no different.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

This would reduce the price of homes. Hell… even just announcing this plan might have an impact. I know I would be sweating if I were an investment organization that’s been buying up houses.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-32 points

I know I would be sweating if I were an investment organization that’s been buying up houses.

It’s the exact reason why she’s going to fail. This is a metric ton of current homeowners votes to be lost, and another metric ton of political enemies to be made.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

I’m a current homeowner and the idea of 3 million more new homes makes me very excited! This plus the credit for first time buyers is definitely what we need. Bolstering the middle class helps everyone.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Every homeowner I know is interested in more volume on the market. Most homes are way in the black on value but homeowners feel unable to sell or move due to high rates and low inventory.

3 million homes won’t make a serious dent in value but will help the market unlock so people can make changes

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Get the fuck outta here with your “fuck you I got mine” mentality

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points
*

I’m sure you feel like you’re correct with your armchair analysis. But that’s just your feelings behind the matter, which we all can throw in the trash.

permalink
report
parent
reply
117 points

Let’s ban corporations from owning residential property. It makes zero sense.

permalink
report
reply
25 points
*

thatd take actual political will instead

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

best we can do is neoiberal handouts to rich people…

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Keep repeating it and see what happens.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 10K

    Monthly active users

  • 17K

    Posts

  • 481K

    Comments