A ray of housing hope is emerging in Washington
Tribune News Service
Housing affordability is a key issue for the American consumer on which the Trump administration has done nothing useful. From tariffs on construction material to higher budget deficits driving up interest rates to deporting building trades workers, virtually every policy lever is being thrown in an anti-supply direction. At the same time, good news may be coming from Congress where last week the powerful Senate Banking Committee passed an important package of bipartisan housing reforms with unanimous support. The only fly in the ointment is that the package is so ambitious, and the emergence of consensus between Republican Chairman Tim Scott and ranking member Elizabeth Warren so unexpected, that little groundwork has been laid for advancing these ideas in the House. But if champions for these ideas can be found in the lower house, Congress would have the opportunity to get something critical done on the long-neglected issue of federal housing policy.
One particular aspect of the package that I've been following for years is the somewhat obscure topic of chassis requirements for manufactured homes. Most aspects of housing policy are state and local in nature, but since the 1970s the federal government, through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, has been the primary regulatory of houses that are built in factories and transported to their ultimate destination. The process of transporting these 'trailers' generally requires them to have an attached chassis that allows them to be transferred from the factory to their destination. But HUD, for no particularly good reason, requires the chassis to be permanently attached to the structure.
This requirement was adopted amidst a boom in the market share of manufactured homes as part of a deliberate regulatory crackdown pushed by traditional homebuilders and affiliated labor interests. The chassis requirement is not single-handedly responsible for the shrinkage of the manufactured housing sector, but it is a big factor as the chassis makes it hard to site trailers on top of basements, hard to engage in architectural innovation, and easy for exclusion-minded local governments to discriminate in favor of stick-built homes.
Both Scott and the Biden administration were agreed on the desirability of repealing the chassis rule and promoting a new boom in manufactured housing. But in the previous Congress, Scott paired chassis reform with an effort to roll back some Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regulations that he felt were unduly squelching the market for entry-level mortgages. Former Senate Banking Chairman Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, strongly objected to Scott's mortgage changes and the whole thing was deadlocked. Brown lost last his Senate seat in November, but that meant he was replaced as top Democrat on the committee by Warren — the CFPB's biggest champion — in a way that made progress seem, if anything, less likely.
But rather than continue the deadlock, Warren worked out a deal that includes Scott's proposals on both manufactured housing and mortgages and expands them by some other ideas.
One of these is the Build More Housing Near Transit Act long championed by Democratic Rep. Scott Peters of California which would have the Department of Transportation prioritize funding mass transit projects in places that are relaxing zoning requirements to allow dense construction near the stations. Another is the Housing Supply Frameworks Act that would direct HUD to promulgate a set of best practices for supply-friendly local land use planning. The Better Use of Intergovernmental and Local Development for Housing Act (the name makes no sense, but it lets them call it BUILD Housing) and the Unlocking Housing Supply Through Streamlined and Modernized Reviews Act both streamline National Environmental Policy Act reviews for infill housing, along with a few modifications or the creation of new pro-supply grant programs.
A very intriguing development is a small $200 million competitive grant program for local governments that take regulatory action to increase housing supply.
This is a notion that has been kicked around in Washington in concept form at least since President Barack Obama's second term but was stymied by, among other things, questions about how to measure compliance. A new Census product based on the agency's Master Address File allows for housing production to be measured at the Census block level for the first time. This administrative improvement makes it possible to take the idea of 'race to the top, but for housing' from concept to legislation. The $200 million isn't enough to radically alter American housing policy, but it will do some good on its own while more importantly allowing advocates to field test the new measurement system and lay the groundwork for more aggressive ideas.
If the grant program is a small carrot, Warren of Massachusetts and Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana worked together on a provision that would wield Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) as a stick by depriving high-priced communities that stymie new housing of their federal grant money. For years now, even the most YIMBY-minded Republicans have tended to shy away from the federalism implications of conditioning federal grants on zoning changes. CDBG is perhaps an easier program for them to get to yes on since it primarily goes to urban areas where Democrats live.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
3 hours ago
- Gulf Today
How is the US economy doing after Trump tariffs?
The June 2025 trade figures for imports and exports indicate that the imports have fallen substantially, and the exports inched up, and the resultant narrowing of trade deficit is to be seen as good news for the American economy. But the figures that are being highlighted are for a narrow period of time, and it has to be seen whether the trend will continue for a longer period. The overall trade gap came down to 16 per cent in June to $60.2 billion. The trade deficit in goods went down to 10.8 per cent, the lowest since September 2023. American exports of goods and services stood at $277.3 billion, down from $278 billion in May. The imports fell to $337.5 billion in the month of June, consumer goods fell by $8.4 billion, industrial supplies and materials by $2.7 billion, auto and parts by $1.3 billion. The reduced trade deficit is seen as a contributory factor to the rise in GDP. The economy has expanded by 3 per cent in the second quarter after contracting 0.5 per cent in the first. This looks like clutching at straws. The trade deficit with China came down to $9.5 billion, the lowest since 2004. Imports from China dropped to $18.9 billion, the lowest since 2009. China has been the main target of President Trump's tariff fury. The question remains as to whether by unleashing punitive tariffs against all the trade partners, has Trump strengthened the American economy? The jury is out on that issue. Inflation is slightly above the mandatory 2 per cent. People are feeling the pinch of inflation. Jobs have not grown. Trump realizes that there will be pain in the transition. He is promising that in the long term, his trade policy will make the American economy strong. Trade deficit has certainly declined because imports into the country have gone down. Is it because the countries that export to America have held back because of the high tariffs, or the demand in the American markets has gone down because the Americans were not willing to buy the higher prices caused by the higher tariffs? It looks like that both the United States and its major trading partners will have to adjust to the new conditions. Reducing trade deficit may be a good thing for a short period and range. If there is local demand, especially for the industries in terms of material inputs, then the American industries will suffer. Similarly, if the import of consumer goods has fallen steeply, either the domestic producers should benefit in the long term, or the American consumers will have to cut back on their needs. It is not possible for American producers to meet the domestic consumer demand, and the tariffs make the imports costlier for the American consumer. The consequences of high tariffs will play out gradually, and they cannot be seen immediately. The long-term effects of high tariffs are likely to be harmful than beneficial for international trade as well as domestic economies. There is no denying the fact that the tariff regime in the US has been liberal. The fact that the US is the most indebted country and this is being traced to the low tariffs and the flood of imports. The connection looks plausible but it is not accurate. The reason for American indebtedness is due to internal social and economic weaknesses. The limited educational levels of most Americans and the difficulty in employing them in frontier technology enterprises. The remedy for American problems does not exactly lie in high tariffs. It lies in the social sphere. And impromptu Trump solutions do not work.
Arabian Post
4 hours ago
- Arabian Post
Gulf Emerging as Key Hub for Indian Jewellery Exports
Arabian Post Staff -Dubai The Gulf region is fast becoming a significant alternative hub for Indian jewellery manufacturing and exports, spurred by rising trade tensions between the US and India. Experts point to the growing challenges faced by Indian jewellers, particularly as American tariffs on Indian imports climb in response to geopolitical factors, including India's continued oil purchases from Russia. The latest move by the US, led by an executive order from President Donald Trump, has intensified trade uncertainties. The executive order, signed on Wednesday, introduces a hefty 25 per cent tariff on Indian goods, with specific implications for the jewellery sector. This tariff hike, effective in three weeks, increases the overall tariff burden on Indian imports to 50 per cent—one of the highest rates the US has imposed on its trading partners. For years, India has been the global leader in jewellery manufacturing, with a robust presence in the international market, particularly in the US. However, the imposition of punitive tariffs has forced many Indian jewellers to rethink their export strategies. The Gulf region, traditionally a key market for Indian gold and precious stones, is now gaining prominence as a strategic manufacturing base, offering a more favourable trade environment. ADVERTISEMENT The decision to shift operations to the Gulf is driven by a combination of factors, including the region's strategic geographic position and its trade agreements with major markets. Countries like the UAE and Bahrain have long been involved in the jewellery trade, but as tariffs increase on Indian exports to the US, their roles are now being redefined. Experts suggest that the Gulf's advanced infrastructure, coupled with an array of free trade agreements, makes it an attractive destination for manufacturing and re-exporting high-end jewellery to global markets, including the US. The Dubai Gold and Jewellery Group, one of the region's leading jewellery trade bodies, has welcomed the shift, noting the opportunities it presents for growth. The UAE, in particular, has developed an attractive ecosystem for jewellery manufacturers, offering tax incentives, access to advanced technology, and a well-established logistics network. These benefits make it an appealing alternative for Indian jewellers seeking to bypass the punitive tariffs imposed by the US. India's reliance on the US market for jewellery exports, particularly in the high-end sector, has been significant. However, as the tariff burden becomes heavier, companies are exploring alternatives that provide both cost-effectiveness and access to lucrative international markets. Several large manufacturers have already established bases in the UAE, with plans to expand their operations further into the region. A noteworthy trend is the increasing collaboration between Indian and Gulf-based jewellery firms. These partnerships are focused on expanding manufacturing capabilities while reducing reliance on traditional export routes. The UAE, with its business-friendly policies, is proving to be an ideal locale for jewellery production, particularly for smaller-scale businesses that are unable to absorb the full impact of the US tariffs. One of the key drivers of this shift is the growing US demand for luxury goods, including jewellery. The tariff hike, while discouraging direct exports from India, has not dampened the appetite for high-quality jewellery. Instead, it has prompted companies to explore alternative routes to meet this demand. Experts point out that the Gulf provides a strategic advantage for such businesses, offering them the flexibility to maintain their competitive edge without the added burden of trade barriers. ADVERTISEMENT The Gulf's importance in the global jewellery trade has long been overlooked in favour of established centres like India. However, as geopolitical tensions continue to shape trade flows, the region's position as a central player in the jewellery manufacturing process is becoming more evident. Industry insiders predict that over the next few years, the Gulf's jewellery manufacturing and export capabilities will only grow stronger, reshaping the global jewellery supply chain. For Indian jewellery manufacturers, the shift to the Gulf represents a broader strategy to diversify their risk exposure. By establishing a presence in markets that are less susceptible to abrupt policy changes, Indian companies are better positioned to mitigate the impact of volatile geopolitical situations. The expansion of Gulf-based jewellery production also ensures that India maintains a foothold in the lucrative US market, even as tariffs continue to escalate.
Dubai Eye
18 hours ago
- Dubai Eye
Trump, Putin to meet in Alaska for Ukraine talks
US President Donald Trump will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin on August 15 in Alaska to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine, Trump said on Friday. Trump made the highly anticipated announcement on social media after he said that the parties, including Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, were close to a ceasefire deal that could resolve the three-and-a-half-year conflict, one that could require Ukraine to surrender significant territory. Addressing reporters at the White House earlier on Friday, Trump suggested an agreement would involve some exchange of land. "There'll be some swapping of territories to the betterment of both," the Republican president said. The Kremlin subsequently confirmed the summit in an online statement. The two leaders will "focus on discussing options for achieving a long-term peaceful resolution to the Ukrainian crisis," Putin aide Yuri Ushakov said. "This will evidently be a challenging process, but we will engage in it actively and energetically," Ushakov said. In his evening address to the nation on Friday, Zelenskyy said it was possible to achieve a ceasefire as long as adequate pressure was applied to Russia. He said he had held more than a dozen conversations with leaders of different countries and his team was in constant contact with the United States. Putin claims four Ukrainian regions – Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson – as well as the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea, which he annexed in 2014. His forces do not fully control all the territory in the four regions. Earlier, Bloomberg News reported that US and Russian officials were working towards an agreement that would lock in Moscow's occupation of territory seized during its military invasion. A White House official said the Bloomberg story was speculation. A Kremlin spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. Reuters was unable to confirm aspects of the Bloomberg report. Ukraine has previously signaled a willingness to be flexible in the search for an end to a war that has ravaged its towns and cities and killed large numbers of its soldiers and citizens. But accepting the loss of around a fifth of Ukraine's territory would be painful and politically challenging for Zelenskyy and his government. Tyson Barker, the US State Department's former deputy special representative for Ukraine's economic recovery, said the peace proposal as outlined in the Bloomberg report would be immediately rejected by the Ukrainians. "The best the Ukrainians can do is remain firm in their objections and their conditions for a negotiated settlement, while demonstrating their gratitude for American support," said Barker, a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council. Under the putative deal, according to Bloomberg, Russia would halt its offensive in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions along current battle lines. But President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Saturday that Ukraine could not violate its constitution on territorial issues, adding that "Ukrainians will not give their land to occupiers". He said Ukraine was ready for real solutions that could bring peace but added that any solutions without Kyiv would be solutions against peace.
