
The anti-market delusion at the heart of the housing crisis
I thought this one was pretty clearly stated and could be useful to share. None of the arguments are really new to anyone who's already here, though.

I thought this one was pretty clearly stated and could be useful to share. None of the arguments are really new to anyone who's already here, though.
"Amendments to SB 1361 dramatically reshaped the tone—and the coalition—around the bill in committee, turning what had been organized opposition into a near-universal shift to neutral or support."
The homes that housed Michigan's middle-class throughout the 20th century were significantly more affordable because they were allowed to be smaller buildings on smaller lots. These were the traditional "starter homes" that gave our families and workforce a footing to build a future here.
But today, the starter home doesn't exists in-part because they're banned out of existence. Unworkable zoning rules often include requirements that homes be built larger than they need to be -- and it's not that large homes are bad. The problem is that smaller homes are banned.
For instance, the average square footage of a single family home in 1950 was 983 sq ft. Today, that size of a single-family home would be flat-out banned in a vast majority of the top 50 municipalities in Michigan. The result is straight-forward: affordable homes are just not legal to build.
The good news is that we can address this issue by simply legalizing the starter home again -- the whole purpose of the Michigan Housing Readiness bill package: HB 5529-5532 and HB 5581-5585. Tell your State Representatives to legalize affordable homes and address our cost of living TODAY!
Data source: AARP Publication: The ABCs of ADUs, Census Reporter, ACS 2023 1-Year, National Association of Home Builders, "Cost of Constructing a Home 2024", Eric Lynch, 2025
Since the Great Recession, banks have basically stopped giving loans for family residential construction, and this is a major reason for the collapse in home construction for the past 2 decades.
A general perception I've noticed among critics of Blue States is that Texas's housing policy is so ingenious that it is single-handedly driving the explosive population growth, absence of poverty, and economic dynamism.
I've personally been skeptical that Texas's policy is alone to drive their cheap housing, and I'm mixed about whether or not the current legislation we've seen enacted in that state we'll see Austin reach Brooklyn or Queens levels of density within the next 1-2 decades. I think we seriously underrated the impact of historical context and Texas's relative newness by being only settled en-masse after the normalization of AC and large-scale elimination of Malaria helped with the fact that they don't really have NIMBY communities.
Now, the thing is that this makes me worried that there might be other circumstances that aren't just housing policy that might define the slowdown of housing construction in Blue states. Idk how certain we can reverse what's happening in California and turn it into a PRD or Taiheyo belt style megalopolis if we just focused on emulating SB 840.