Speaker 1: Here's a question. When's the last time you saw an
Speaker 1: ad for an apartment for rent or a house for
Speaker 1: sale and thought, yeah, that's a fair price.
Speaker 2: Like places aren't renovated when they're charging the arm and
Speaker 2: the leg. So it's very interesting to see, like there's
Speaker 2: not modern at all, and I'm paying two thousand or
Speaker 2: whatever for a one bedroom. I think it's crazy.
Speaker 3: Now we're living at a place that is much more
Speaker 3: expensive than what we want, and I'm just forced to
Speaker 3: compromise elsewhere and make it work.
Speaker 4: We were these second people to tour that place, and
Speaker 4: we just had to commit on the spot there because
Speaker 4: we don't have time to like really be wishy washy
Speaker 4: about it.
Speaker 1: The fact is the US doesn't have nearly enough affordable housing,
Speaker 1: especially DNSE housing like apartment buildings and duplexes and triplexes,
Speaker 1: and we've gotten worse as a nation at building them
Speaker 1: than in past decades. Partly that's because it can be
Speaker 1: hard to find a place to put them. Many people
Speaker 1: have strong feelings about not having certain buildings in their neighborhoods,
Speaker 1: especially if it's dense housing or designated as affordable housing.
Speaker 1: It's the Nimbi effect. Sure build them somewhere, just not
Speaker 1: in my backyard.
Speaker 4: Even though the arguments can be very logical about why
Speaker 4: this neighborhood in particular might not have an apartment building,
Speaker 4: If you just apply that across the whole nation, what
Speaker 4: you get are these disastrous effects like we see today.
Speaker 1: That's Bloomberg City Lab reporter Kristin Capps. He's been following
Speaker 1: changes in housing policy for years and Christian Rights that
Speaker 1: now states with some of the most severe housing shortages,
Speaker 1: like California, are getting serious about enforcing affordable housing plans
Speaker 1: that are already on the books, and in some cases
Speaker 1: pushing cities to build more with consequences if they don't.
Speaker 1: Or is City Lab reporter Sarah Holder puts.
Speaker 5: In, if you don't build a little, we're gonna make
Speaker 5: you build a lot, or if you don't build anything,
Speaker 5: We're going to make you build something.
Speaker 1: I'm West Kasova today on the Big Take States say
Speaker 1: yes in your backyard, Sarah. We hear a lot these
Speaker 1: days about the housing shortage, how hard it is to
Speaker 1: find an apartment or buy a house. We used to
Speaker 1: waste you about New York. Oh you can't find a place,
Speaker 1: But now that describes just about everywhere can you kind
Speaker 1: of paint us a picture of this nationwide housing shortage?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean one of the most striking examples that
Speaker 5: I come back to year after year is this annual
Speaker 5: report from the National Low Income Housing Coalition, which shows
Speaker 5: that there are no states, and no cities and no
Speaker 5: counties where a minimum wage worker can afford a two
Speaker 5: bedroom apartment working a standard forty hour a week. So
Speaker 5: let that sink in. Nowhere in the country, even where
Speaker 5: minimum wage is twenty dollars an hour or seven to
Speaker 5: twenty five an hour, which is the federal minimum wage,
Speaker 5: can someone working a standard work week afford to live
Speaker 5: in a modest two bedroom And in only nine percent
Speaker 5: of states can people working a minimum wage job afford
Speaker 5: a honest one bedroom. To give some contacts, in California,
Speaker 5: you have to make forty dollars an hour to afford
Speaker 5: a place to stay. And so that speaks to sort
Speaker 5: of the broader affordability crisis that we're dealing with as
Speaker 5: a nation. That also speaks to the fact that we're
Speaker 5: dealing with a shortage of both affordable and just general
Speaker 5: housing in this country. The National Low Income Housing Coalition
Speaker 5: also estimated that there's a shortage of about seven million
Speaker 5: affordable units in the country. Fannie May estimated in twenty
Speaker 5: nineteen that there is a housing shortage of about four
Speaker 5: million units nationwide, which could have only gotten worse during
Speaker 5: the pandemic as there were labor shortages, supply chain issues,
Speaker 5: and we've seen sort of the effects of that.
Speaker 1: What's the rental market? What's the picture for people who
Speaker 1: want to buy a house?
Speaker 4: Opportunities for homeowners are limited to It used to be
Speaker 4: the case that a young family could buy a starter home,
Speaker 4: invest build up some equity, kind of move up as
Speaker 4: their family grew. Those starter homes are harder and harder
Speaker 4: to come by, and they're such lucrative investments that big
Speaker 4: institutional buyers have jumped in to buy these homes turn
Speaker 4: them into rentals, and so what were once single family
Speaker 4: homes for buyers are now the kind of properties that
Speaker 4: people are hoping to rent or even struggling to rent
Speaker 4: because you know, they could raise the rents because opportunities
Speaker 4: for renters are so limited.
Speaker 1: And I guess that's one reason why we have this
Speaker 1: housing shortage, Sarah, what are some of the other reasons,
Speaker 1: Like why are homes so hard to find?
Speaker 5: One of the issues is that there just hasn't been
Speaker 5: enough building to keep up with the demand. Especially after
Speaker 5: the Great Recession, building slowed down. Housing prices have been
Speaker 5: rising faster than wages can keep up, and zoning restrictions
Speaker 5: are making it really hard for new housing to get
Speaker 5: off the ground, even where it's needed.
Speaker 1: Sarah, can you just tell us what exactly is building zoning?
Speaker 5: So zoning rules determine what can be built where in
Speaker 5: American cities. For a long time, zoning was pretty loose.
Speaker 5: You know, American cities could build a single family home,
Speaker 5: they could convert it into a three story development. But
Speaker 5: after some of the struggles of urban renewal, which saw
Speaker 5: a lot of destruction and a lot of tearing apart
Speaker 5: of communities, especially communities of color, there was a movement
Speaker 5: to down zone whole swaths of the country. So instead
Speaker 5: of being able to build a single family home here,
Speaker 5: a three story home there, having sort of diverse and
Speaker 5: multi use kinds of neighborhoods, there's an effort to restrict
Speaker 5: building more so in some places you would only be
Speaker 5: able to build a single family home for miles and miles.
Speaker 5: It led to a situation where in California, for example,
Speaker 5: two thirds of the land was restricted to only build
Speaker 5: single family homes until very recently.
Speaker 4: One thing that's really interesting is that a lot of
Speaker 4: cities have zoning that would not allow the cities that
Speaker 4: exist to be built today. In Seattle, for example, you
Speaker 4: have whole areas that are zoned for single families where
Speaker 4: people really value the character of the local community. But
Speaker 4: what's actually built in those neighborhoods and in those streets
Speaker 4: are smaller apartment buildings, duplex's, triplexes, things that have been
Speaker 4: allowed over time, things that have changed over time, the
Speaker 4: way that cities kind of normally typically evolve. So when
Speaker 4: people local homeowners talk about the character of the community
Speaker 4: they cherish and wanting to keep that zoning that's restricted
Speaker 4: to single family homes. Especially, that's not actually the character
Speaker 4: of the community that they're often describing.
Speaker 1: So what is the reason for this restrictive zoning? Where
Speaker 1: are they trying to achieve with it?
Speaker 5: A lot of the times it is homeowners that want
Speaker 5: to preserve that character that Kristen was talking about. They
Speaker 5: are used to a cul de sac a neighborhood with
Speaker 5: these single family homes, and they're afraid of what might
Speaker 5: happen if an apartment or even a duplex or a
Speaker 5: triplex was built, and it ends up sort of preserving
Speaker 5: homogeneity of neighborhoods and separating density from sprawl.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and density is something we hear about a lot.
Speaker 1: How much of this is just concerned that we're going
Speaker 1: to pack so many people into small places that it's
Speaker 1: going to make it an unpleasant place to live.
Speaker 4: You know, those fears about infrastructure, those fears about local use, traffic, noise,
Speaker 4: cars on the street where people are going to park,
Speaker 4: always get raised in any kind of conversation, But there
Speaker 4: are really negative impacts of not allowing any density, of
Speaker 4: keeping very exclusive communities. While it might be very good
Speaker 4: if you are a homeowner in that area and you
Speaker 4: have access to great amenities like good schools and great
Speaker 4: parks and low noise and low crime, it's bad to
Speaker 4: exclude people from that. And it also hurts those families
Speaker 4: who are on the inside eventually, you know, if they
Speaker 4: have kids, those kids, when they come out and are
Speaker 4: trying to make their own way, don't have the incomes
Speaker 4: to afford to live in those exclusive communities, have to live,
Speaker 4: you know, somewhere else. So even though the arguments can
Speaker 4: be very logical about why this neighborhood in particular might
Speaker 4: not have an apartment building, if you just apply that
Speaker 4: across the whole nation, what you get are you know,
Speaker 4: these disastrous effects like we see today.
Speaker 5: One of the other things that happen when there is
Speaker 5: this exclusive zoning and neighborhoods is there becomes a big
Speaker 5: housing jobs mismatch, a spatial mismatch where people who do
Speaker 5: the work in the cities can't afford to live nearby
Speaker 5: those jobs. And that also has ripple effects both for
Speaker 5: people who are having to commute long distances, contributing to
Speaker 5: carbon impact and a reduce quality of life, and also
Speaker 5: for folks who live in these cities who are not
Speaker 5: having access to a functioning and stable economy. People can't
Speaker 5: afford to live where they work.
Speaker 4: Zoning also serves as the de facto color lines. In
Speaker 4: the United States. Racial segregation is no longer legal. A
Speaker 4: neighborhood can't say that no people of color can move in,
Speaker 4: that no families of a certain size can't move in,
Speaker 4: no immigrants can move in. What we have seen is
Speaker 4: that by communities setting up these rules about what kinds
Speaker 4: of housing can be built. They have managed to set
Speaker 4: up barriers to entry that affect primarily renters, that affect
Speaker 4: a lot of people of color, minorities, and it has
Speaker 4: resis resulted in segregated communities across the United States, many
Speaker 4: decades after segregation was ruled illegal and unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: After the break, California gets serious with cities that don't
Speaker 1: build housing, Kristen, A lot of states have tried to
Speaker 1: figure out what to do about this problem. You recently
Speaker 1: wrote a big piece that focuses on California, which is
Speaker 1: a place I think a lot of people know as
Speaker 1: being a place where housing is very expensive, and you
Speaker 1: write about this state housing policy called a builder's remedy.
Speaker 1: It's kind of complicated. Can you explain it in simple terms?
Speaker 4: The state of California has set in recent years certain
Speaker 4: goals for housing production across the state. It is said
Speaker 4: to cities and communities, you've got to start allowing housing
Speaker 4: to be built, and here are the numbers that you
Speaker 4: need to meet as a region, as an area. If
Speaker 4: cities don't meet those targets and don't permit that housing,
Speaker 4: then the thing that they fear most happens. The state
Speaker 4: comes in tells developers, there's a zoning holiday, you can
Speaker 4: build what you want. That's what cities fear. They don't
Speaker 4: want builders coming in without they're having some say on
Speaker 4: what gets built. So a builder's remedy or a zoning holiday.
Speaker 4: Is that kind of triggered situation when a city isn't
Speaker 4: meeting its goals and a state is sepping in said
Speaker 4: you're not doing enough, so we're going to do it
Speaker 4: for you.
Speaker 1: So it's kind of like a carrot and a stick
Speaker 1: at the same time, Is that right, sir?
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's saying if you don't build a little, we're
Speaker 5: going to make you build a lot, or if you
Speaker 5: don't build anything, we're going to make you build something.
Speaker 1: And so the idea here is that this never actually happens,
Speaker 1: that it's such a punitive step that states will fall
Speaker 1: in line so that the builders don't just get to
Speaker 1: come in and build high rises everywhere and there's nothing
Speaker 1: they can do to stop it.
Speaker 4: Right, you're not actually supposed to trigger the builder's remedy.
Speaker 4: The state never intended that. They didn't outline it that way.
Speaker 4: A State Senator Scott Wiener, who's been really instrumentally designing
Speaker 4: a lot of these housing laws for California over the
Speaker 4: last few years. He told me, it's a chaotic situation
Speaker 4: when the builder's remedy kicks in. Ideally we don't want
Speaker 4: it to kick in.
Speaker 1: So how has this worked out, Sarah? Since they put
Speaker 1: this in place in California, are cities now snapping to
Speaker 1: attention and approving housing projects.
Speaker 5: The impacts of this have been small so far, but
Speaker 5: we're already seeing some cities get into fights with the
Speaker 5: state and the state Attorney General over whether they're meeting
Speaker 5: their housing production goals and the builder's remedy has been
Speaker 5: brought to bear.
Speaker 4: As you might imagine, a lot of this activity is
Speaker 4: focused around the San Francisco Bay area and the Loss
Speaker 4: Angelis metro area. In those places, they had mixed results
Speaker 4: when it came to delivering their actual housing production targets,
Speaker 4: basically certifying a plan that would say we're going to
Speaker 4: build this much like the state has told us to,
Speaker 4: this is how we're going to do it. What State
Speaker 4: Senator Scott Weener told me was that in his discussions,
Speaker 4: you had certain cities where it was easy. You had
Speaker 4: certain cities where they had to be dragged to the
Speaker 4: table to make these goals, and then you had a
Speaker 4: few that said, no way, we're not doing it. We
Speaker 4: don't really think that's a law. For example, in the
Speaker 4: Bay Area, a suburb Sonoma said no thanks to the
Speaker 4: builder's remedy. In Los Alto's Hills, which is in Silicon Valley,
Speaker 4: they said they just weren't going to take these applications.
Speaker 4: And what happened, Well, now the state has to enforce
Speaker 4: its law. This is the outcome that nobody wanted, but
Speaker 4: it's happening. Huntington, for example, which is in Orange County,
Speaker 4: past a local law banning builder's remedy applications, so the
Speaker 4: state Attorney general sued.
Speaker 5: In some places, this is starting to work as intended.
Speaker 5: In San Francisco, for example, which has been historically pretty
Speaker 5: resistant to change in its zoning into building, they drew
Speaker 5: up an ambitious plan to build eighty two thousand new
Speaker 5: units by twenty thirty two, and Kristin describes that that
Speaker 5: was done out of fear of what might happen if
Speaker 5: developers were given this free reign that we're talking about.
Speaker 1: Are there any places where the city didn't meet the
Speaker 1: state requirements? Builders moved in and did build new construction
Speaker 1: against the city's wishes.
Speaker 4: Yes, that's happening. There are a few examples across California
Speaker 4: where builders are taking advantage of a zoning holiday. In
Speaker 4: Santa Monica, for example, the city kind of got roiled
Speaker 4: by this argument about exactly how they were going to
Speaker 4: meet this housing production plan. They couldn't come together. The
Speaker 4: deadline came and passed, and so developer showed up with
Speaker 4: plans to move about sixteen projects, some reaching up to
Speaker 4: fifteen stories tall, which is just way, way taller than
Speaker 4: anyone in Santa Monica wants to build. So that has
Speaker 4: a way of focusing the mind, and suddenly they got
Speaker 4: their housing production targets in order.
Speaker 1: Christin, you also report that there's kind of another wrinkle,
Speaker 1: which is, even though developers are able to move in
Speaker 1: and build in places where they don't meet the state requirements,
Speaker 1: they don't necessarily want to do it. They don't want
Speaker 1: to have a big fight with a city.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that was one of the most interesting things I
Speaker 4: learned from my reporting, and that was from talking to
Speaker 4: an advocate named Sonya Traus. She has led this movement
Speaker 4: to try to use the law on behalf of people
Speaker 4: who might live in these apartment buildings were they ever built.
Speaker 4: What she explained to me is that developers don't really
Speaker 4: want to have these knockdown, drag out battles with local
Speaker 4: officials who they work with every day and need to
Speaker 4: work with every day. Oftentimes, if a city comes back
Speaker 4: to a developer and says no, this plan won't work,
Speaker 4: the developer will just change course. They can build something else,
Speaker 4: They can build somewhere else. So it's been a goal
Speaker 4: of housing advocates who are really passionate about this whole
Speaker 4: project to zoe those cities in order to get those
Speaker 4: projects pass, even if developers aren't the one fighting tooth
Speaker 4: and nail to make that happen.
Speaker 5: Another thing Trus said that I thought was interesting was
Speaker 5: that if developers don't want to fight these battles and
Speaker 5: they end up going somewhere else, the somewhere else they
Speaker 5: often go is potentially more economically desperate, less exclusive already,
Speaker 5: and so the exclusive neighborhoods that are really ready to
Speaker 5: fight new development stay exclusive, and the poorer, less affluent,
Speaker 5: more open to new housing neighborhoods end up absorbing a
Speaker 5: lot of that growth when.
Speaker 1: We come back. Is one solution to the housing crisis.
Speaker 1: Suing the suburbs Kristian before the break, Serah was talking
Speaker 1: about how advocates are pressing pretty hard for more housing,
Speaker 1: and one of the things we're seeing is this sue
Speaker 1: the suburbs movement. Can you tell us what that is.
Speaker 4: Yeah, advocates want to hold these places accountable. They want
Speaker 4: to compel them to follow state law and build housing
Speaker 4: even when they do not want to. I'll give you
Speaker 4: an example in Lafayette, California. That's a small town in
Speaker 4: Contra Coasta County, a very affluent area. In twenty eleven,
Speaker 4: a developer approach the city with a three hundred and
Speaker 4: fifteen unit apartment complex on a twenty two acre property,
Speaker 4: pretty standard. The city shot that down, so the develop
Speaker 4: leupper came back with proposal for forty four single family homes.
Speaker 4: Four years later, the city had approved this plan. That's
Speaker 4: when trial's housing advocate in California, who's let a lot
Speaker 4: of these sue the suburbs efforts, sued the Suburbs and said, no,
Speaker 4: you actually do have to approve that apartment building. And
Speaker 4: it went, you know, back and forth for years and years.
Speaker 4: The California Supreme Court just settled that matter. This is
Speaker 4: a twelve year saga over a three hundred plus unit
Speaker 4: apartment building. So that's the kind of inertia that we're
Speaker 4: talking about overcoming. And it's an uphill battle for these
Speaker 4: advocates and these attorneys who have really seized on it.
Speaker 4: But they're hoping that it will snowball. Cities will see this,
Speaker 4: They'll say, I don't want to be sued for the
Speaker 4: next twelve years. I'm just going to approve the apartment building.
Speaker 1: Sarah. We're talking all about California, but it's not just there.
Speaker 1: If you go all the way across the other side
Speaker 1: of the country in New York, we're seeing Governor Kathy
Speaker 1: Hochel also pushing for more housing development. What's going on there.
Speaker 5: So Hokel had an ambitious plan to compel suburbs to
Speaker 5: build more housing, especially near transit. The numbers would have
Speaker 5: been really ambitious. There was talk of building eight hundred
Speaker 5: thousand units over the next decade, but the Senate and
Speaker 5: the Assembly both rejected her proposal. During the budget process,
Speaker 5: they were favoring an approach that would offer more carrots
Speaker 5: than sticks, so basically incentivizing and rewarding suburbs that did
Speaker 5: build housing. Instead of punishing suburbs that didn't.
Speaker 1: This is going to be something I'm going to continue
Speaker 1: to work on until we solve this, and that's my
Speaker 1: commitment to New Yorkers. I feel a little bit like
Speaker 1: Wayne Bretzky, you missed one hundred percent of the shots
Speaker 1: you don't take. I took the shot.
Speaker 5: The dissolution of this landmark plan that Hochel was pushing
Speaker 5: to produce more housing in New York State over the
Speaker 5: next decade really exemplify sort of the backlash from the
Speaker 5: again typically wealthier suburbs to allow housing to be built
Speaker 5: in their backyards. And it's also a really powerful constituency
Speaker 5: in New York. It also showed that these issues don't
Speaker 5: leave so neatly across party lines, like you think of
Speaker 5: New York State as this blue state. At the Hochel
Speaker 5: she's a Democrat. A lot of people in the state
Speaker 5: Senate and the Assembly are Democrats as well, but that
Speaker 5: doesn't mean that they're open to new housing.
Speaker 4: New York tried to borrow from all these different places.
Speaker 4: They had an element that was builder's remedy from California.
Speaker 4: They had parts of Massachusetts affordable housing prescriptions. They had
Speaker 4: parts of plans in New Jersey, they were looking internationally
Speaker 4: and they had a really complicated blend of carrots and
Speaker 4: sticks to really really overhaul housing not just in New
Speaker 4: York City but across the state. And it just ran
Speaker 4: against the shoals of exclusive suburbs. And until those lawmakers
Speaker 4: see the peril of keeping housing out see the cost
Speaker 4: that that means not just for the state but for
Speaker 4: their communities too, it's going to be really difficult for
Speaker 4: even a unified government all the way to pass this
Speaker 4: kind of legislation.
Speaker 1: Christin, you mentioned Massachusetts as a place that New York
Speaker 1: is looking to for ideas. What are they doing there
Speaker 1: that New York would want to copy.
Speaker 4: They had this law on the books. It's called Chapter
Speaker 4: forty B. This law and a lot of laws that
Speaker 4: we're talking about that have been around forever, haven't totally
Speaker 4: been enforced, who have been on state books, were passed
Speaker 4: after Martin Luther King's assassination, and this long Massachusetts requires
Speaker 4: communities across the state to guarantee that at least ten
Speaker 4: percent of housing everywhere, every town, every city has to
Speaker 4: be deemed affordable. That was meant to allow for more
Speaker 4: integration across neighborhoods, and they have a builder's remedy too
Speaker 4: for cities that aren't meeting that target.
Speaker 1: And how did that turn out?
Speaker 4: What advocates say in Massachusetts is that, you know, it's
Speaker 4: mostly happened around the Boston area, as you might expect,
Speaker 4: and there have been some suits to force different cities
Speaker 4: to comply. It's worked, and yet Massachusetts still has an
Speaker 4: affordable housing program. And that's because it's a pretty arbitrary
Speaker 4: thing to have state lawmakers say in nineteen sixty nine,
Speaker 4: this is going to be the level of affordable housing
Speaker 4: we're going to have, and that's what we're going to
Speaker 4: use for the next fifty sixty years. So what they're
Speaker 4: looking to do is to you know, change those numbers,
Speaker 4: build a more modern program, get different ways of making
Speaker 4: sure affordable housing is built in places that don't want
Speaker 4: to build it.
Speaker 1: Sarah, I guess this entire conversation really illustrates where we began,
Speaker 1: which is to explain why it's been so difficult to
Speaker 1: build affordable housing. There are so many entrenched power centers,
Speaker 1: all of them fighting each other. And you mentioned something interesting.
Speaker 1: You know, we hear about Nimby all the time, not
Speaker 1: in my backyard. But there's this other side of this
Speaker 1: movement among advocates, the yimbi yes in my backyard movement.
Speaker 1: Is this actually gaining momentum? Do you think over time
Speaker 1: we are going to start to see more housing being developed.
Speaker 5: You can see the change just in the amount of
Speaker 5: policies that are being passed in the state level. In California,
Speaker 5: Kristen and I have covered Senator Scott Wiener's struggle year
Speaker 5: after year to get these kinds of sweeping up zoning
Speaker 5: bills pass and we've covered them as they've failed and
Speaker 5: now as they've succeeded. That's being mirrored in other states
Speaker 5: like Montana and even New York's push to try and
Speaker 5: up zone was sort of a symbol of how far
Speaker 5: this movement has come. We talked a little bit about
Speaker 5: how slow some of the progress has been in seeing
Speaker 5: results on the streets in terms of the number of
Speaker 5: housing units actually built regardless of these policy changes, or
Speaker 5: you know, even the number of unhoused people on our streets.
Speaker 5: But you have to remember that for as long as
Speaker 5: it takes for policy to be passed, it also takes
Speaker 5: a long time to build things. You know, there's getting
Speaker 5: the budget together, getting the permits together. The supply is
Speaker 5: the labor, and you know, inherently some of the things
Speaker 5: getting approved today under these policies take years to finish.
Speaker 5: That's a whole other problem that advocates are also tackling.
Speaker 5: It's definitely seems like there's been a ground swell in
Speaker 5: terms of momentum and urgency, and the question is when
Speaker 5: we'll be able to see that when I go out
Speaker 5: and look for an affordable apartment to rent.
Speaker 1: And Sarah and Kristen, what do you think the answer
Speaker 1: to that question is, you've both been covering housing policy
Speaker 1: for a while. What are you looking for is you
Speaker 1: continue to write about this.
Speaker 5: I'm interested in looking at what other states and what
Speaker 5: other cities sort of carry the torch from places like California.
Speaker 5: I'm also personally really interested in tenant protections and other
Speaker 5: sorts of policies down the stream that can prevent displacement
Speaker 5: of people who have found affordable units in this difficult
Speaker 5: housing market.
Speaker 4: I'm interested to see how these different efforts to promote
Speaker 4: housing wind up getting polarized. In Montana, this really fascinating
Speaker 4: thing happened where they look to California and all the
Speaker 4: Californians that they fear or moving to Montana and said,
Speaker 4: we don't want that, we don't want those housing problems.
Speaker 4: And so socially conservative Republicans united with progressive Democrats and
Speaker 4: passed the sweeping number of housing bills like within like
Speaker 4: a single hunting season. It's just under a year. They
Speaker 4: went from talking about the problem to passing bills that
Speaker 4: California had taken a decade to get done. I'm interested
Speaker 4: in seeing how this plays out, especially when we're talking
Speaker 4: about builder's remedy or zoning holiday. That's a state forcing
Speaker 4: cities to act, and you can imagine a lot of
Speaker 4: places I'm thinking Texas, Florida where a governor might say
Speaker 4: to liberal cities, you got to start building homes. And
Speaker 4: I have the power to make that happen. And I
Speaker 4: wonder why we haven't seen more of that.
Speaker 1: Kristin Sarah, thanks so much for coming on the show,
Speaker 1: Thanks for having us, thanks for listening to us here
Speaker 1: at the Big Take. It's a daily podcast from Bloomberg
Speaker 1: and iHeartRadio. For more shows from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen. And we'd love to
Speaker 1: hear from you. Email us questions or comments to Big
Speaker 1: Take at Bloomberg dot net. The supervising producer of the
Speaker 1: Big Take is Vicky Burgalina. Our senior producer is Catherine Fink.
Speaker 1: Our producers are Michael Falleero and Mobarrow. Bill de Garcia
Speaker 1: is engineer. Original music by Leo Sidron. I'm West Kasova.
Speaker 1: We'll be back tomorrow with another Big Take.