A couple weeks back I wrote about the similarities between President Trump and incoming New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani as it relates to populism. The basic idea is that there is growing discontent amongst the populace that government wasn’t or isn’t working for them. A libertarian point of view is that the government isn’t supposed to be working for us at all, but rather getting out of the way. As President Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.’” Liberalism mirrors that idea of minimal governance, as does neoliberalism, with an emphasis on free-market capitalism. The emerging ideology of leftism is anti-capitalist and focuses on radical change of the system. While people refer to the left as liberals and the right as conservatives, it is safe to say that, by definition, Trump and Mamdani are neither liberal nor conservative.
But that’s semantics. Populism, whether on the right or the left, boils down to affordability, and we are in a crisis of it. It’s why Trump won in 2024, and why Mamdami won in 2025. It’s why both are promising things from cash payments to free bus rides for the regular folks.
What will be interesting is seeing how this idea of making government work for people trickles down. Already, we have seen nascent California gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer pushing for affordability, when really his policies are just repackaged Bernie planks with some YIMBY screws and nails. Dreaming is not becoming. We tried deregulating utilities and we got rolling blackouts.
We are currently in the midst of streamlining regulations and if that was the key, then state Sen. Scott Wiener should be running for governor. But look to Manhattan to see if we can build our way to affordability. Not downing supply, it’s just not a new philosophy.
There have to be better ways. Let’s consider some simple thoughts. Raising taxes won’t help affordability right? The state collects a lot of taxes and fees. Same with local governments.
If one were to streamline regulations, that means fewer fees for cities right? It could also mean lower wages for workers, and that’s a tough hill to climb for anyone. Do we really want lower wages and lower fees that pay for parks, arts and other important city services?
So what if the state decided to provide tax credits for renters as long as that money is set aside into an account that would be used for a down payment or other home buying assistance program that is open to all and without giving the state an equity stake? What if first-time homebuyers got a state income tax break for their first five years?
Recommended for you
Or maybe even an extremely low-interest loan (.5%) for a silent second? What if HOA fees were deducted from state taxes or the state provided its own tax credit for them, so first-time condo owners could squeeze in?
Point is, there are other ways to help people out through tax credits and government programs that don’t have to make money for private lenders but can charge a small amount to be self-perpetuating.
At the local level, here in San Mateo County, there are a number of brewing tax measures for essential needs and, as I said before, raising taxes certainly doesn’t help with affordability.
There are also a number of local elections as well, from school boards to city councils and county offices. Ideally, candidates for those offices will read the budget and see if there might be ways to create efficiencies and will consider ways to increase affordability. And it would be good if the ideas were new, and not repackaged old philosophies. It comes down to this: How can we create government assistance for our affordability crisis without additional bureaucracy, regulations, taxes or fees?
Affordability comes in many forms, but the cost of housing is a primary one. We want our children to be able to live here. We want workers to be able to live here. We are currently at a societal tipping point when it comes to Gen Z, with reports that they are becoming nihilistic when it comes to their financial future, and taking risks with their money through the stock market, crypto and gambling because the idea of ever buying a house is becoming ever more out of reach. Cutting off a generation to the opportunity of home ownership and the stability it provides will only be to the detriment of us all. It’s also cruel.
At the local level, we need home-buying assistance open to all, more starter homes and assistance with HOA fees if a condominium is the only option. We need places for our youth and new people. And we need more original ideas on overall affordability. Candidates! Put your thinking caps on. It’s time for creativity.
Thanks, Mr. Mays, for your column today highlighting potential solutions to housing affordability. A few issues to comment on (although folks much more attuned to the issue have written hundreds, if not thousands, of articles on problems with our housing market)…
The price to develop housing, affordable or not, is not affordable due to tacked on fees and assessments and whatever else local governments attempt to extort from developers. Costs ultimately paid for by buyers. Let’s find ways to lower tacked on fees and assessments. And we have government mandates that want developers to include solar roofing, EV chargers (whether folks have an EV or not), no gas appliances, or anything, low-flow showerheads, waterless toilets, etc. Let’s find ways to remove these silly “green” mandates that add costs to develop. Costs ultimately paid for by buyers.
There are numerous folks within our country who are not legally in the country. Let’s work to remove those folks from housing so folks in our country legally can access those units. There are homeowners that would like to downsize but why would they if their mortgage rates are 3% or lower? Implement portable mortgages so these folks can downsize and aren’t penalized with higher mortgage rates. There are folks who won’t sell because they’re penalized with capital gains taxes. Allow folks to sell their homes without paying a capital gains tax. Or increase the exclusion limit to $2 million over their baseline.
But will any of these solutions, including the ones you’ve listed, work? I’d say follow the money. Which means Democrats won’t do much to lower the costs of building or allow homeowners to move without penalty. They want/need the money. And increased housing costs help them, due to property taxes based on purchase prices (the higher the better). I could be wrong but history shows I won’t be. I’d say we’d see more affordability progress under the Trump administration than in California. And that’s assuming California doesn’t sue Trump for the umpteenth time because “orange man bad.” After all, if Trump is for it, Democrats will be against it.
Some good ideas here, Jon. The avg age for a first-time homebuyer today is 40 y/o. The avg for a repeat buyer is 62. Housing affordability is around the corner but will take time. Experts predict 2026-2036 that 13-15 million homes will become available as the Boomers pass away. Combined with low immigration and even lower birth rates, supply and demand will shift significantly in the favor of affordability. It will be a slow process. Raising the limits on capital gains for older homeowners could help today with downsizing and opening up inventory to first-time buyers. Important point is using incentives over handouts.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(2) comments
Thanks, Mr. Mays, for your column today highlighting potential solutions to housing affordability. A few issues to comment on (although folks much more attuned to the issue have written hundreds, if not thousands, of articles on problems with our housing market)…
The price to develop housing, affordable or not, is not affordable due to tacked on fees and assessments and whatever else local governments attempt to extort from developers. Costs ultimately paid for by buyers. Let’s find ways to lower tacked on fees and assessments. And we have government mandates that want developers to include solar roofing, EV chargers (whether folks have an EV or not), no gas appliances, or anything, low-flow showerheads, waterless toilets, etc. Let’s find ways to remove these silly “green” mandates that add costs to develop. Costs ultimately paid for by buyers.
There are numerous folks within our country who are not legally in the country. Let’s work to remove those folks from housing so folks in our country legally can access those units. There are homeowners that would like to downsize but why would they if their mortgage rates are 3% or lower? Implement portable mortgages so these folks can downsize and aren’t penalized with higher mortgage rates. There are folks who won’t sell because they’re penalized with capital gains taxes. Allow folks to sell their homes without paying a capital gains tax. Or increase the exclusion limit to $2 million over their baseline.
But will any of these solutions, including the ones you’ve listed, work? I’d say follow the money. Which means Democrats won’t do much to lower the costs of building or allow homeowners to move without penalty. They want/need the money. And increased housing costs help them, due to property taxes based on purchase prices (the higher the better). I could be wrong but history shows I won’t be. I’d say we’d see more affordability progress under the Trump administration than in California. And that’s assuming California doesn’t sue Trump for the umpteenth time because “orange man bad.” After all, if Trump is for it, Democrats will be against it.
Some good ideas here, Jon. The avg age for a first-time homebuyer today is 40 y/o. The avg for a repeat buyer is 62. Housing affordability is around the corner but will take time. Experts predict 2026-2036 that 13-15 million homes will become available as the Boomers pass away. Combined with low immigration and even lower birth rates, supply and demand will shift significantly in the favor of affordability. It will be a slow process. Raising the limits on capital gains for older homeowners could help today with downsizing and opening up inventory to first-time buyers. Important point is using incentives over handouts.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.