There’s a growing chorus in Democratic circles calling for “abundance” as the solution to America’s housing crisis—a vision rooted in the idea that if we simply build more, prices will fall, supply will meet demand, and prosperity will follow.
It’s an appealing narrative. It frames housing as a problem of scarcity, not justice; of logistics, not power.
But the deeper question confronting Democrats is whether this new rhetoric of abundance amounts to transformation or just another layer of technocratic window dressing on a fundamentally broken system.
In housing, the stakes are real. Voters across income levels, especially in blue states like California, are feeling the pain of sky-high rents, generational lockout from homeownership, and chronic homelessness.
The old playbook—subsidized programs that never scaled, zoning fights that dragged on for decades—has failed to deliver. Into that vacuum has stepped the “abundance” camp: a wonky, optimistic coalition of thinkers and advocates who argue that the solution is to build, deregulate, and unleash the private sector.
But as UC Davis Law Professor Chris Elmendorf recently noted in a thread unpacking the ideological stakes of this debate, abundance isn’t just a housing policy—it’s a theory of political salvation for Democrats.
If progressive cities can fix housing, they can prove to the rest of the country that liberal governance works. If California becomes affordable again, maybe the middle class won’t keep fleeing to Texas and Arizona.
And if blue states can solve the housing problem, maybe voters in red states will start to ask: why can’t we have nice things too?
That’s the promise. But the backlash—especially from the left—is fierce.
In their recent law review article, “Post-Neoliberal Housing Policy,” Ganesh Sitaraman and Chris Serkin argue that supply-side reforms alone are not enough.
They call for an industrial policy for housing—one that wields public power to shape markets, curbs speculation, and expands the nonprofit and public sectors. It’s not just about building more—it’s about building differently, and for different ends.
Their critique isn’t about opposing growth. It’s about rejecting the idea that markets, left to themselves, will ever prioritize equity.
They call for Pigouvian taxes on vacancy and property hoarding. They support public options for housing finance and construction. They see the housing crisis as a structural failure of capitalism, not a glitch in permitting software or an outdated elevator code.
And that’s where the deeper conflict lies. Abundance is, at heart, a positive-sum vision. Its champions believe that more housing for the rich trickles down to more housing for everyone.
They emphasize technical fixes—upzoning, pre-approved building templates, modular construction. Their model is Tokyo or Helsinki: build enough homes, fast and cheaply enough, and prices will stabilize.
But the left, or what Elmendorf calls the “defund-the-billionaires crew,” sees that vision as politically naïve.
Their agenda is built around moral clarity, not optimization. It thrives on naming villains—landlords, developers, billionaires—and redistributing power.
As Elmendorf notes, their politics depend on a zero-sum view of the world: if the rich are winning, the rest of us must be losing.
The critique isn’t always fair. Abundance liberals aren’t defending the status quo—they’re trying to escape the scarcity mindset that has long paralyzed housing politics.
But the problem is that the politics of abundance can feel weightless, as Ned Resnikoff recently wrote—more a branding exercise than a movement. It’s too easily absorbed by the same systems it claims to reform.
This is especially clear in the yawning gap between the rhetoric of abundance and the lived reality in cities like San Francisco or Los Angeles. These are places where even modest reforms like legalizing duplexes or streamlining permitting face years of delay, lawsuits, and organized opposition.
Where the word “affordable” often means $3,000 a month. Where the promise of housing for all remains as distant as ever.
The truth is that housing justice can’t be achieved without real redistribution—of land, of resources, of political power. That means confronting entrenched interests, including homeowners and local governments that have used zoning and process to block change for decades.
It means building social housing at scale, not just clearing red tape for luxury condos. It means taxing vacant units and absentee investors, not just wooing tech firms to build prefab homes.
Some argue that these are compatible agendas. That we can build more and build fairer. That abundance is a necessary condition for justice, even if it’s not sufficient. That may be true. But the challenge is political, not technical.
As Saikat Chakrabarti observed, the public is hungry for mission-driven leadership—something bigger than tweaks around the edges. “People’s wages have been stagnating,” he said. “We actually need to fix that.” That’s what voters thought they were getting with Obama, Trump, and Biden: someone who would change the game, not just improve the rules.
In that context, the abundance pitch risks sounding like another version of Clinton-era triangulation: market-friendly, technocratically precise, and politically bloodless. That’s not what this moment demands.
The real housing crisis isn’t just about units—it’s about values. What kind of cities do we want? Who gets to live in them? Who belongs? Do we treat housing as a commodity or a human right? These are the questions Democrats must answer if they want to be the party of working people again.
Abundance may be part of that answer—but only if it’s grounded in justice, equity, and democratic accountability. Otherwise, it’s just more window dressing on a system rigged for the few.
“But as UC Davis Law Professor Chris Elmendorf recently noted . . . ”
And that’s where I stopped reading :-|
Just kidding . . . : -|
“If progressive cities can fix housing, they can prove to the rest of the country that liberal governance works.”
Now you’re a comedian :-|
“If California becomes affordable again . . . ”
Still telling jokes :-|
“And if blue states can solve the housing problem, maybe voters in red states will start to ask: why can’t we have nice things too?”
You’re killing it. The club wants to book you for two weeks.
“That’s the promise. But the backlash—especially from the left—is fierce.”
Backlash? More like ouroboration :-|
In their recent law review article, [they] argue that supply-side reforms alone are not enough. ”
Ah, so deregulation is not enough . . .
“They call for an industrial policy for housing—one that wields public power to shape markets . . . ”
Ah, so deregulation is not enough, we also need regulation! (or communism)
” . . . rejecting the idea that markets, left to themselves, will ever prioritize equity.”
True
“They call for Pigouvian taxes on vacancy and property hoarding.”
So not only deregulation, and regulation, but taxes . . .
“They support public options for housing finance and construction.”
As opposed to banks . . .
“They see the housing crisis as a structural failure of capitalism . . . ”
So not deregulation, even . . . rather, tear down the system, comrades.
“And that’s where the deeper conflict lies.”
I’ll say :-|
“Their agenda is built around moral clarity, not optimization.”
That’s what I’ve always said, so moral :-|
“It thrives on naming villains—landlords, developers, billionaires—and redistributing power.”
Sure does :-|
“As Elmendorf notes, their politics depend on a zero-sum view of the world: if the rich are winning, the rest of us must be losing.”
I’ve heard that somewhere before :-|
“Abundance liberals aren’t defending the status quo—they’re trying to escape the scarcity mindset that has long paralyzed housing politics.”
‘abundance liberals’, eh?
“But the problem is that the politics of abundance can feel weightless, as Ned Resnikoff recently wrote—more a branding exercise than a movement.”
Weightless — that’s how I feel about the Vanguard content on days that end in ‘-day’.
“These are places where even modest reforms like legalizing duplexes or streamlining permitting face years of delay, lawsuits, and organized opposition.”
And always will, unless Wiener :-|
“Where the word “affordable” often means $3,000 a month.”
That’s why I don’t live there. And if it were cheaper, a lot more people would try to live there, worsening the housing problem. Thus: markets.
“Where the promise of housing for all remains as distant as ever.”
Not everyone can live in unaffordable cities. Empty the slums! Empty the slums! Turn them into parks!
“The truth is that housing justice can’t be achieved without real redistribution—of land, of resources, of political power.”
Oh, so yes, communism.
“That means confronting entrenched interests, including homeowners and local governments that have used zoning and process to block change for decades.”
Also entrenched interests like democracy.
“It means building social housing at scale, not just clearing red tape for luxury condos.”
‘social housing’, is that yet another word for ‘subsidized’ ?
“But the challenge is political, not technical.”
Revolution by any other name.
“That’s what voters thought they were getting with Obama, Trump, and Biden: someone who would change the game, not just improve the rules.”
Keep voting for Democrats and Republicans, fools :-|
“In that context, the abundance pitch risks sounding like another version of Clinton-era triangulation: market-friendly, technocratically precise, and politically bloodless. That’s not what this moment demands.”
Revolution?
“The real housing crisis isn’t just about units—it’s about values. What kind of cities do we want? Who gets to live in them?”
Everyone, apparently . . . for ‘equity’ :-|
“Who belongs?”
Everyone, apparently . . . for ‘equity’ :-|
“Do we treat housing as a commodity or a human right?”
Housing for everyone, everywhere! :-|
“These are the questions Democrats must answer if they want to be the party of working people again.”
Good luck with that :-|
“Abundance may be part of that answer—but only if it’s grounded in justice, equity, and democratic accountability.”
And subsidy :-|
Longest…..comment…..ever
I think Alan took the three comment rule to heart. That’s what we’re going to see, less but much more content per comment.
“Do we treat housing as a commodity or a human right?”
“Housing for everyone, everywhere! :-|”
We can house the world. Just come to America, we’ve got a house for you it’s your human right.
House the world, the US ranks between 145 and 160th in population density in the world.
So? Does that mean we should get denser housing so we can house the world?
We can debate whether or not we should get denser housing. I would argue for a lot of reasons. We probably should as the debates here on housing have demonstrated. But my point is the the data certainly indicates that the notion that we’re housing the world is hyperbole.
We are certainly expected to somehow house all of the illegal immigrants that come here. So we’ll never have enough housing no matter how much gets built especially when the next democrat president is elected some day. Hopefully that some day is way down the road.
Keith O
No one is proposing to house the world. The correct response is allow citizens of other nations to retain their wealth rather than handing it over to American-owned corporations so they desire to remain in their own countries. You don’t see a flood of European or Canadian immigrants to the US because the wealth balance is much more equitable. If we did our best to address those imbalances elsewhere then the “immigrant problem” disappears. The solution is not to imprison people in their poorly run, exploited countries.
“No one is proposing to house the world.”
I didn’t mean every person in the whole world, I guess you and David take everything literally. But we did let in many millions with the last administration, should we give them all a home?
Hey Alan – you could have saved yourself a lot time by saying – “this is what they came up with?”
“Davis is a place of abundance with a scarcity mindset.”
I think you can find that comment from me going back around ten years if you know how to search the Vanguard. A local developer said it to me back then.
The critique of abundance in this article fails because it imagines that the failures of our current system of housing must be replaced when the reality is that a totally free market in housing hasn’t been the model in the USA since the 1930’s.
Do we need more subsidized housing? Yes. Do we need more free market housing? Yes. Do we need more multi-family housing, more single family housing, more duplexes, more ADU’s, more condos, more townhouses? Yes, yes, yes, and yes. Anyone who argues otherwise is arguing for scarcity not abundance, They are arguing for limiting supply the root cause of price increases in a community within a region with a growing economy.
I recently read an interview with Stanford historian Richard White where he took on progressives without indicating whether he was talking about 20th century or 21st century progressives. His argument is that Progressivism is fundamentally undemocratic because it’s based on people who believe they know better how others should live imposing their vision on the rest of the community, or on society as a whole.
We see this locally with people demanding certain kinds of housing or where the demands of those who “know better” how others should live insisting that the perfect is not the enemy of the good but instead is paramount to the imperatives of the future. Of course I often find that those who make these progressive demands fail the test of leadership by example when it comes to living in the kind of homes they seek to impose for others,