Obama administration introduced “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” which was replaced by the “Yes in My Back Yard” of Trump’s administration. Ben Carson, head of Trump’s Department of Housing and Urban Development represented this plan which was quite thoughtful.
The previous policy was quite troublesome which required complex detailed demographics compositions of the neighbourhood to be analyzed by the local governments if they didn’t want to continue federal funds. The administration was checking out the functionality of the plan. After the flirtations, it was rejected by President Trump. Trump and Carson are trying to make the best of their efforts to protect the suburbs of America.
President Donald Trump also tweeted on this issue :
Notably, at the beginning of August, the final HUD policy was released that was a modified version of “Affirmatively Further Fair Housing”. The alterations were under the influence of the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
The federal government did a commendable job by not meddling in the local affairs. Carson tried to make some uncalled changes in the policy. It is not sinful to say that density resisting regulations are very horrendous in the housing for both big cities and suburbs. These regulations make housing extra expensive for not just working-class but middle class also. Such regulations decided how much landlords can build on their property. This could hinder the growth aspect of economically strong cities as the working class will find it hard to accommodate them there.
If such classes do not live at their needful place then this will misallocate the labour supply and eventually mobility will stunt. Reforms and regulations suggested by the government can be in any form such as density restriction, height restrictions, growth boundaries and many more. The free market is itself capable of providing housing supply as per the demand of people. A growing city is always a thoughtful mixture of single-family homes, detached, semi-detached homes, apartments etc. These buildings are as per the preference and also the geographical fit of the area.
These regulations can be shed off but only in the best possible legitimate way that has been suggested by Mr. Trump and head of HUD. Here we have different cases of Oregon and Westchester to showcase the federal meddling in the free housing market. In Oregon, state over rid the local reformations of housing. In Westchester, the federal government forced the county to change its zoning rules and regulations. However, the relationship between the federal government and state & states and local cities is completely different. The federal government can interfere in only specific matters. However, local governments are established by states and have pre-destined powers allocated by the states.
With the removal of federal meddling, states can now make their own reforms as suitable. States should follow the lead of Minneapolis of shedding federal housing regulations to make housing prices less expensive.
