Kamala Harris has a new advertising push to draw attention to her plan to build 3 million new homes over four years, a move designed to contain inflationary pressures that also draws a sharp contrast to Republican Donald Trump’s approach.

Harris, the Democratic nominee for president, highlights her plan in a new minute-long ad that uses her personal experience, growing up in rental housing while her mother had saved for a decade before she could buy a home. The ad targets voters in the swing states including Arizona and Nevada. Campaign surrogates are also holding 20 events this week focused on housing issues.

In addition to increasing home construction, Harris is proposing the government provide as much as $25,000 in assistance to first-time buyers. That message carries weight at this moment as housing costs have kept upward pressure on the consumer price index. Shelter costs are up 5.1% over the past 12 months, compared to overall inflation being 2.9%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“Vice President Harris knows we need to do more to address our housing crisis, that’s why she has a plan to end the housing shortage” and will crack down on “corporate landlords and Wall Street banks hiking up rents and housing costs,” said Dan Kanninen, the campaign’s battleground states director.

  • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    as long as corporations and land horders are allowed to keep buying home and lands to keep the market scarce and rent and sell prices high, it doesnt matter how many homes you build.

    and if you issue an immediate ban on mass home hording, and issue massive monthly fines for exceeding the limit, fines that are multiples of the profit that they make, not fractions, enough homes will immediately flood the market and will bring prices and rent down

    • BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      We all must be missing something. This is too obviously the path forward for there not to be some sort of issue with implementing it ASAP.

      • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        The issue is that implementing it would basically require an act of God, because the property owners are the ones bribing the lawmakers who would be writing the laws.

        When you look at whether a piece of legislation is popular vs whether it’ll be passed, it’s basically no correlation if you’re poor. The graph is basically a flat line, with about a 30% pass rating regardless of how popular it is. Regardless of whether it’s extremely popular or horribly unpopular, the bill has about a 30% chance of getting passed.

        But if you look at the graph for people who are rich, the graph looks more like a 1:1 line, where pass rates increase as popularity increases. And conversely, the pass rate decreases as it’s less popular with the rich.

        Money talks, and the SCOTUS has legalized bribery.

      • WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        The issue is rich people don’t want it to happen cause they invest their money in real estate and want the value to keep going up. So they’re gonna make sure neither party pushes for anything like that.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        You all are missing the fact that the problem existing makes you vote for those who promise to solve it. The problem being solved stops that.