Housing is an important issue. Many people, myself included, believe it is a cornerstone issue for so much of what ails America. If we can solve housing, many other solutions would be within our grasp. Yet so many policy proposals seek only to address the secondary effects of housing rather than the core problem itself.
The fundamental issue here is supply and demand. There is a tight housing market in many places in the country where supply is already constrained—though that is generally not the case in Kansas City or St. Louis. Housing policies that focus on boosting demand rather than increasing supply tend to backfire. The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 and the Clinton administration’s National Homeownership Strategy both drove temporary housing booms followed by market crashes. These policies didn’t solve affordability; they exacerbated it.
The same flawed logic has shaped housing markets in Kansas City and St. Louis, where misguided interventions have made housing less affordable. Kansas City’s adoption of the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) stifled new home construction by inflating costs. Builders, facing steep regulatory burdens, simply stopped building. In St. Louis, a reliance on tax credits and incentives for flashy developments has left vast swaths of the city with vacant lots and dilapidated buildings. In both cities, the results are clear: policies that ignore basic market principles fail to deliver desired results.
Kansas City and St. Louis offer cautionary tales. We don’t need more interventions that drive prices higher. We need policies that foster more housing construction, deregulate land use, and let the market work. Housing affordability won’t improve with more government spending—it will improve when we stop putting obstacles in the way.
