Schatz: National Housing Shortage Is A Problem The Government Has Created; We Can Fix It

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i) spoke on the Senate floor today about the national housing shortage in the United States and the urgent need to cut onerous regulations that stand in the way of building more housing. Schatz introduced three bipartisan housing bills this week, including the Build More Housing Near Transit Act and the YIMBY Act. The Build More Housing Near Transit Act incentivizes local governments to build housing near federally-funded transit projects. The YIMBY Act encourages localities to cut regulations and adopt pro-housing policies.

“When it comes to one of the most basic necessities in life for people – housing – both political parties have failed,” said Senator Schatz. “This crisis was not inevitable. It is a problem that the government has created. There is not enough housing in this country because we have made it virtually impossible to build housing. But the good news is this if the government got us into this mess in the first place, it can help to get us out. And mainly that means getting out of our own way and not preventing the very things that we say that we like.

Senator Schatz added, “We can and we do disagree about almost everything. But on this we should all be able to agree: in the richest country in the history of the world, people should not have to worry about having a roof over their heads. We can fix this, and we must.”

A transcript of Senator Schatz’s remarks is below. Video is available here.

When it comes to one of the most basic necessities in life for people – housing – both political parties have failed. Housing costs more than ever today, with the median home costing five times as much as the median income for your average American. First time home buyers are fewer and older than ever. 1 in 4 renters are being forced to spend more than half of their income on rent, and homelessness is plaguing more people than ever before.

This crisis was not inevitable. It is a problem that the government has created. There is not enough housing in this country because we have made it virtually impossible to build housing. Ask anyone who has tried to build anything a shed, a patio, or an accessory dwelling unit for their in-laws. They will tell you that the moment you try to do something, there are endless procedural hurdles and regulatory barriers that immediately get in the way. Exclusionary zoning. Minimum lot sizes. Height restrictions. Requirements for multiple staircases, environmental reviews, dozens of public meetings where the grouchiest people in your neighborhood can stop the most virtuous project in your neighborhood. Extensive permitting paperwork. Yearslong battles with community organizations and boards. And if you want to expedite your permit. You can pay a permit expediter. If you've got ten grand, they'll put your thing on the top of the pile.

Nobody should like this system. I cannot think of something so essential to American life: housing. Whether you rent or you want to own, so essential to American life, where the government has created the shortage on purpose. And then it strokes its chin, confused as to why there is a shortage there is a shortage. There is a shortage because of the government itself, making it hard to construct the thing that we all say we want.

But the good news is this if the government got us into this mess in the first place, it can help to get us out. And mainly that means getting out of our own way and not preventing the very things that we say that we like. A lot of progressives in my own party like to say we're for housing, we're for clean energy, we're for transit and infrastructure. But you can't be for something if you don't want it near you. If you're for housing, you’ve got to see the housing. If you're for clean energy, you're going to see a windmill or a wind farm or a nuclear power plant somewhere. As we envision a just and sustainable and wealthy country, we have to actually make the things that make us more sustainable and wealthy.

There is nothing progressive about preventing a nurse, or a firefighter, or a teacher, or a small business owner from actually living in the community in which they work. There is nothing progressive about making people drive an hour to work or in Hawaii, forcing people to leave the state. Lawn sizes and building heights don't make neighborhoods – people do.

And yet, you'll often hear people who oppose new housing say things like, ‘Well, we want to preserve the unique character of the neighborhood.’ And this is something that I'm embarrassed to say I didn't know until I came to the United States Senate. Understand what those words mean and where they came from. They are echoing a dark time in American history: the Jim Crow era. It was a time when communities specifically codified into law language that prohibited Black people and other racial minorities from moving into certain neighborhoods. The racial covenants would literally say, “No lot covered by this indenture, or any part thereof, shall ever be sold, resold, conveyed, granted, devised, leased or rented to or occupied by, or in any way used by, any person or persons not of the Caucasian Race.” That's from a covenant in St. Louis from 1949. And there were contracts just like that one in neighborhoods all across the country.

And then racial covenants were outlawed. But their legacy continues today, because what happened was the racists, after this was outlawed, figured out a proxy for race. Figured out a way to keep people separated and figured out a way to keep people out of their neighborhoods. Figured out a way to make housing more constrained. And that's exclusionary zoning. That's minimum lot sizes. That means you need interior staircases. All of these things that sound virtuous: safety, sanitation, environmental review, historic preservation – all of those things actually matter. But understand that they are being weaponized against the working class.

And I'm not sure if this is permissible under the rules, but I'm looking at a bunch of Senate pages, all 16 years old, trying to figure out: ‘Where am I going to live when I get a job? Do I have to live with my folks? And for how long? Am I going to be able to move to a suburb, or a city, or stay in my hometown? Where am I going to live?’

So how do we fix it? First of all, government has a role that is not just getting out of the way. On the financing side, on the public housing stock side, on vouchers, on Section 8, on HUD-VASH – there are lots of programs that work. A lot of government – things that we do – that have helped and can help more.

But the truth is that the throughput capacity of the system is being constrained by the government itself. We could allocate $3 trillion to affordable housing. And if it's still hard to build a house in an individual neighborhood, all that money would get stuck. Actually, the state of California tried that. They allocated an enormous amount of money to housing, and they didn't get very much built. The County of Maui many years ago said no new housing unless it's affordable. Which kind of lands on the ears in a wonderful way, right? No new housing unless it's affordable. You know what happened? There was no new housing at all for a full decade.

The reason I care about this is because I think it is the single most impactful economic policy that we can implement to make it easier to build housing for working people, for students, for the disabled, for the elderly, for the entrepreneurs, for cities, for towns, for rural neighborhoods. This is important because I care about that. Now, if you are a conservative, the basic principle is almost even more simple, which is it's your damn property. You should be permitted to do what you want with your property, within certain safety boundaries and all the rest of it. But if it's your property and if you've got a quarter of an acre and you want to build an accessory dwelling unit for your kids because they're adults and they just had a baby, you should be allowed to do pretty much whatever you want with your property.

But we have inverted the presumption so that it's your neighbors that get to decide what you get to do with your property. So if you're a private property rights person, you should love the idea of deregulating the housing market. And if you are a progressive and you see how much people are struggling right now, you should love the idea of deregulating the housing market. We need to reform land use laws for upzoning to allow higher density, reduce minimum lot sizes, deploy manufactured homes, enable single room occupancy development wherever multifamily housing is allowed. And we know all of this works because it's working in certain places.

It's hard to keep any issue out of the partisan crossfire, where everyone retreats to their own corner and starts talking past each other and trying to light the algorithm on fire. Our ability to come together, use common sense, and find a way forward will affect how people live and succeed for generations to come. Just this week, Senator Banks and I introduced legislation to incentivize local governments to build more housing near federally funded transit projects. Senator Young and I introduced the YIMBY Act – the Yes in My Backyard Act – which encourages localities to cut onerous regulations and adopt pro-housing policies.

We can and we do disagree about almost everything. But on this we should all be able to agree: in the richest country in the history of the world, people should not have to worry about having a roof over their heads. We can fix this, and we must.

###