Key points:
- US housing crisis deepens with 69% of Americans saying housing costs are too high.
- Majority of renters and homeowners struggle with unaffordable housing costs.
- High housing costs may reshape US political power by 2030 Census.
A new set of surveys and reports from the Searchlight Institute underscores the urgency of the U.S. housing crisis while revealing that Americans remain divided on how to solve it. The findings show widespread agreement that housing is unaffordable, yet there is little consensus on whether the path forward should focus on building more homes, regulating costs, or both.
The Searchlight Housing Poll, conducted in late July with more than 2,100 adults, illustrates the depth of concern. A majority of respondents said housing costs are too high. The topline numbers show that 69 percent of Americans said their housing costs were “too high,” while just 25 percent said they were “about right.”
Among renters, the concern was even greater, with nearly three-quarters saying their costs were unaffordable.
The poll revealed sharp partisan divides. Democrats and Republicans were nearly evenly split on their presidential preferences in 2024, yet both groups identified housing as a major problem.
What differed was their sense of the solution.
Many Democrats leaned toward regulatory approaches, while Republicans favored deregulation and incentives.
One survey item asked whether “the government should do more to lower housing costs even if it means more construction in my community.”
Fifty-nine percent agreed, while 32 percent disagreed. That margin showed majority support, but also demonstrated that a large minority of Americans remain resistant to new development.
The survey highlighted how affordability is experienced across demographic groups. Younger respondents were far more likely to express frustration, with 81 percent of those under 35 saying costs were too high.
Black and Hispanic respondents also reported greater housing burdens than white respondents. But even among homeowners, nearly half said their costs were higher than they could comfortably manage.
While the public is united in its sense of crisis, it is deeply divided on whom or what to blame. A separate academic study, The Folk Economics of Housing, led by UC Davis law professor Christopher Elmendorf along with political scientists Clayton Nall and Stan Oklobdzija, sheds light on this contradiction.
The authors wrote, “The mass public’s views about the price effects of housing supply shocks are weak and unstable—significantly more so than their views about the price effects of supply shocks in other markets.”
They added that voters “do have a clear set of ‘folk economics’ beliefs about who is to blame for the high cost of housing—and some strongly-held preferences concerning what should be done about it.”
According to their findings, “developers and landlords bear the brunt of the blame.”
The study found that price controls, restrictions on big investors, and mandates that developers provide below-market units were among the most popular responses among voters. Elmendorf and his co-authors warned that these preferences may not reduce costs in the long term and could, in fact, reduce the amount of housing that gets built.
This misunderstanding has major policy consequences. Economists broadly agree that restrictive zoning and slow permitting are central drivers of America’s housing shortage. Yet public opinion does not always align with the evidence.
Voters may support restrictions on development out of fear that new construction will change their neighborhoods or reduce their property values, while also demanding relief from rising costs. This contradiction makes it harder for policymakers to pursue supply-side solutions, which often provoke local opposition despite their long-term benefits.
The Searchlight Institute’s report Winning the Census argues that the consequences extend beyond affordability. It warns that the 2030 Census could reshape political power across the country, and that housing will play a critical role in determining which states gain or lose congressional representation.
States such as California, New York, and Illinois are projected to lose seats, while Texas, Florida, Arizona, Georgia, Utah, and Idaho are expected to gain. The authors noted that between 2020 and 2024, California lost more than one million residents, with high housing costs cited as a leading cause of outmigration.
“One key lever: Build more housing and lower housing costs,” the report stated.
It noted that governors have immediate tools at their disposal that do not require new legislation. By using executive authority, they can act on permitting, state-owned land, and modular construction in ways that could make a difference before the 2030 Census.
The report recommended several strategies. One is repurposing excess or underutilized state-owned land for housing development.
A 2019 executive order in California directed agencies to identify and expedite such sites for affordable housing. That effort has already produced more than 4,300 units in the pipeline.
Massachusetts has pursued a similar approach, identifying 100 state-owned sites with the potential to yield nearly 10,000 homes over five years.
Another strategy is streamlining state-level permitting.
Although most housing approvals occur locally, state governments still control aspects of environmental review, infrastructure connections, and building permits.
Some governors have used their authority to impose deadlines and accountability on agencies, with requirements that application fees be refunded if timelines are not met. These measures are designed to prevent bureaucratic delays from slowing projects.
The report also encourages governors to invest in off-site construction, such as modular housing factories, which can reduce building time by as much as half. By supporting these facilities with federal funds and state housing trust resources, states can speed up the pace of new housing delivery.
Even incremental progress could make a difference. Past census counts have shown that a state’s congressional representation can hinge on margins as small as a few hundred people.
Public opinion, however, remains a significant obstacle.
While most Americans agree that housing is too expensive, there is no consensus about which solutions should take priority.
In the Searchlight Housing Poll, 62 percent of respondents agreed with the statement that “new housing construction is necessary to make housing more affordable,” but only 48 percent said they would support an apartment complex being built in their own neighborhood.
The gap between abstract support and local opposition underscores the persistence of “not in my backyard” sentiment.
The divide also reflects generational and racial differences. Younger adults, especially those under 35, were more likely to favor building new housing and supported a wider range of policy interventions.
Black and Hispanic respondents, who report higher rates of cost burden, expressed stronger support for government action than white respondents.
At the same time, both homeowners and renters overwhelmingly identified affordability as a serious problem, showing that the concern crosses demographic lines.
For policymakers, the findings point to a dual challenge. They must both address the structural barriers that limit housing supply and confront the misconceptions that shape voter preferences.
Efforts to expand zoning capacity, speed up permitting, or subsidize construction may be necessary to improve affordability, but those steps alone may not satisfy a public that wants to see landlords and developers held accountable. Balancing these demands will require political leadership as well as public education.
The broader implication of the Searchlight Institute’s work is that housing is not just a matter of economics but also of democracy.
The ability of states to retain and attract residents will shape their representation in Congress and, by extension, the distribution of political power in the 2030s. If high-cost states continue to lose population, their voices in Washington will diminish. If fast-growing, lower-cost states continue to expand, they will gain influence. The outcome will help determine the political balance of the next decade.
In that sense, the housing crisis is both a local issue and a national one. It affects where people live, how they vote, and how they are represented. It affects economic opportunity and social mobility. And as the Searchlight reports and the academic research make clear, it is an issue that cannot be ignored.
Americans may not agree on every solution, but they overwhelmingly agree on the problem. As one topline figure from the survey put it plainly: “69 percent say their housing costs are too high.”
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Seems to me that (based on constant news reports regarding inflation), Americans think the cost of “everything” is too high – whether it’s housing, food, energy, healthcare, vehicles, insurance (for both housing and vehicles), taxes, college education, etc.
There is, in fact, an insurance crisis regarding housing more than anything else. In Florida, even more than California. But as most people know, there are vast areas of California where private insurance companies have dropped coverage – and some major insurance companies have stopped writing new policies ANYWHERE in California.
Inflation in general is also one of the reasons that Trump was elected (perhaps the main reason). But then, he went ahead and implemented tariffs (still haven’t seen any in-depth analysis anywhere regarding the impact of that).
“…62 percent of respondents agreed with the statement that “new housing construction is necessary to make housing more affordable,” but only 48 percent said they would support an apartment complex being built in their own neighborhood.”
This is why peripheral development is easier to do than infill.
Another way to ask that question is, “how much do you think housing prices would be reduced by EITHER sprawl, or infill? Put forth some numbers.”
“And do you support a policy of sprawl or infill assuming that you think it will lower housing costs (by XX amount)?”
“And do you think there actually is a housing shortage in light of a university study which shows there isn’t one, in a declining-price housing market which is experiencing a vast increase in the number of houses for sale, in a country with a birth rate well-below replacement levels”?
“And do you trust those who claim there is a housing shortage, if such claims arise from those with a financial interest in promoting such claims”?
As a side note, I was just looking at how much utility rates have risen over the past few years in California. Yikes! Does that mean that there’s a “shortage” of it? What about food, medical care, insurance, rising taxes, vehicles, cost of college education, etc.? (All in “short supply”?)
I don’t know the answer to many of the questions you ask in your non sequitur reply to my post but one thing I am certain of is that increasing supply of a commodity in an otherwise stable market reduces price.
You are aware, I assume, that the “law of demand” shows that demand decreases, when prices increase – including for “commodities” (though I don’t believe housing is generally classified as a commodity).
Ron O
As I’ve said before, high prices in one location relative to other locations shows that there is excess demand for that location. California in general has excess demand relative to the rest of the US (despite some people leaving) and Davis has excess demand relative to other communities in the Sacramento Valley based on this fundamental economic metric.
Sounds like Davis prices need to be higher than they are, to reduce demand. (Law of demand.)
I’d suggest doubling those prices, and see how much demand is reduced at that point.
Maybe try to sell the “best” house in Davis for $5 million or so, and see how many takers there are.
Not necessarily. First of all, that data points to near neighbor effects but not necessarily global opposition to infill. Second, for example, a few years ago I saw polling on some Davis Measure J projects that showed that about 40 percent of the voters opposed any peripheral project – meaning that opposition in Davis at least theoretically starts with 40 percent before any details are known.
Rezoning for infill likely causes an INCREASE in property values – in the same way that rezoning farmland for development causes an increase in value for that property owner.
That’s why the “protect property values” claim leveled at those labeled as NIMBYs who resist infill is an outright lie. Those “NIMBYs” are actually resisting an increase in value of their own property.
It’s about “quality of life” issues in regard to infill.
I don’t think your point makes any sense
You can “think” whatever you want, but it is a reality that rezoning for density means that there’s more development opportunity for current property owners.
It’s a similar situation with the increased value of farmland, when it’s rezoned for development.
Does this actually need to be explained?
Ron O
The value per ACRE will increase, but the value per HOUSING UNIT developed will decrease. Farmers don’t build houses, they just farm land. Existing homeowners will gain a value windfall, while new residents will gain more affordable housing in Davis. You’ve completely missed the obvious math here–densifying puts more units on an acre.
What makes you think I missed the point? It’s exactly what I pointed out – existing property owners would see an INCREASE in value for their parcels, if they’re allowed to redevelop them.
As far as “farmer’s” are concerned – there’s an old saying that I heard many years ago – “scratch a farmer, and you’ll find a developer underneath”. Heck, Whitcombe is a “farm owner”.
Of course, those denser housing units you’re referring to will cost more per square foot than ANYTHING else in Davis – and they’d likely be occupied by UCD students more than any other cohort.
Are you sure that “I’m” the one who wants to wreck the town?
“What makes you think I missed the point?”
Perhaps it was your response?
My response in which I said that existing property owners would see more value, as a result of the ability to redevelop their properties due to a change in zoning? (Assuming that demand is sufficient to justify the cost of tearing down and rebuilding.)
Even in San Francisco, there’s very little of that occurring.
It could be that (despite the new housing laws), the growth monkeys are just going to have to realize that there’s practical limits – especially when the population itself isn’t growing.
Somehow, we’re not even talking about the lack of child-bearing, these days – nowhere near replacement levels.
Charlie Kirk DID address this, but advocated for something more-along the lines that you and Richard would probably prefer in regard to society – to have more kids.
You, Richard, the “other” Ron, Elon Musk, and Charlie Kirk all seem to be on the same page regarding that.
I, on the other hand, and more in-tune with the younger generation regarding this issue.
My brain just exploded
Well, that’s one less housing unit that will be needed, then. :-)
But seriously, he (Charlie Kirk and Elon Musk) would likely be on your side regarding all of this – the advocacy for more development, the “need” for more kids, etc.
Though admittedly, you probably would prefer to address that via illegal immigration, more than Kirk would at least. (However, Musk might be on your side regarding that, in regard to his own industries and workers. This was one of the sources of conflict between Musk and the rest of the MAGA crowd.)
But yes, I’m essentially the elder “pied-piper” of not having kids. I’m apparently a role model for the younger generation who are following in my footsteps.
I’m also a role model regarding not insisting that my own home town “build me a cheap house”, and making appropriate changes myself.
What do you think of that? ;-)
Technically no – I’m not a single person household
I should have said one less bedroom (or at least, a reduced-size bed).
Though based on your situation, it doesn’t seem likely that your kids will continue to live there, indefinitely. Maybe they’ll find their own “greener pastures”, as I did (more than once).
Truth be told, you won’t be around forever either (as our own parents aren’t). “Grandpa and Grandma” living near their grandkids is a temporary situation, as well.
(For that matter, proximity doesn’t necessarily equate with personal closeness/relationships. Some grandparents actually prefer to not live vicariously through their own grandkids.
I’ve never understood any of this, since we’re not even the same as our own parents. I find it rather selfish to think that “my” personal bloodline is so special that it has to continue on in an increasingly-diluted manner.
Davis is an anomaly because of Measure J. However DJUSD is a good example where the district is finding it easier to develop housing near Harper Jr High than at the District Office property downtown.
Of course you undermine your longtime support for Measure J with your argument that it makes the general path of least resistance infill because it isn’t that infill has become easier its that Measure J makes peripheral development harder.
There are a lot of variables, which was my point in my response to you
My ongoing support for measure J. will now depend on whether or not there is a modification to allow for more housing to be developed
Measure J is INTENDED to make peripheral development “harder” than it previously was – for good reasons.
It’s unfortunate that it doesn’t exist for EVERY community throughout the state (though some don’t need it, as they already sprawled as far as they could before running into another town or other boundary).
But if there was any change to Measure J – the only thing I’d suggest is that proposals be limited to once every 10 years, or so. That way, Davis can avoid being in constant campaign mode. Maybe put the whole lot of them on the ballot simultaneously.
Or you could simply run it concurrent with the RHNA cycle
They could do that as well. In which case, developers would (supposedly) have to show how their proposals meet unknown (future) expected RHNA targets – especially for Affordable housing.
As it is, none of the current proposals do so.
But yeah, I’d suggest putting them ALL on the ballot simultaneously – and let voters select the “best one” (or “none of the above”).
(I’m pretty sure I can operate in that environment to hopefully help derail ALL of them simultaneously.)
:-)
One of the proposals for reform would be include a list of potential developments that could meet state housing requirements and then engage in a preapproval.
There’s nothing preventing developers from submitting a proposal right now (under Measure J) for “pre-approval” by voters.
But I’m also pretty sure that providing a “list” for pre-approval will be even easier to defeat.
Face it – you’re going to have to eliminate Measure J, not “modify” it (as Alan M previously noted).
And that’s exactly how it would be presented in a “Save Measure J” campaign. Those who want to eliminate it are not going to be able to avoid that framing, no matter what they come up with. The problem they have is one of credibility, for starters. These are the folks who don’t like Measure J – they’re not the ones trying to save it from some fear-mongering threat that they themselves are putting forth.
Let me expand on this a little further:
Here’s what those who want to dismantle Measure J would have to (honestly) say (something like this):
Dear voters: “We (the city council, among others) aren’t happy with the rate of your approvals of sprawl on farmland. We understand that you weren’t, and still aren’t happy with folks like us in regard to such decisions – which is the reason you removed power from us in the first place. But given that folks just like us (whom we wholeheartedly support) are holding positions in state government as well, your obstinance in preserving farmland is increasingly “problematic”. As such, we are asking you to return power to us, so that we can make decisions that you would otherwise oppose. In doing so, we will also tell you that sprawl is (now) good for the environment – (somehow unlike) the sprawl that’s occurred in the past.”
(We’re still working on that last claim, so “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” for now.)
You’re not very good at this
Ha! Probably because I’m not dishonest-enough. (I probably could write a dishonest justification if I tried, however. Pretty sure I can lay it on pretty thick, at that. It would definitely include the word “equity” a couple of times, for example. Not to mention the existential threat to the entire DJUSD school system. Oh, and climate change, for sure. “Sprawl to save the planet” sprinkled in there a couple of times, as well – though I’d avoid use of the “S” word.)
Ron O
As a resident of Woodland with no connection with Davis, your opinion on Measure J is meaningless and should be ignored by everyone else here.
In any case, what I really don’t understand is the reason that your former colleague on the Natural Resources Commission (whom I worked with on the anti-DISC campaign) is supporting Covell Village, ACT II. Have you asked him about this? No one I know (who also knows Alan P) can figure out why he’s now supporting sprawl.
But if it makes you feel any better, I’m pretty sure that you and Alan P can both vote for Covell Village. So that’s two votes, at least.
The concern is that (as head of the local Sierra Club chapter), he’s trying to push that chapter into an endorsement of that sprawling proposal (that you yourself constantly criticize, in regard to its relatively low density).
I personally witnessed some heated arguments regarding the apparent vernal pool at the site. And the argument was NOT just between Alan P vs. those who would oppose the proposal, regardless.
Ron O
Alan P is thoughtful about each of his positions, not relying on knee jerk responses. Unlike you, he lives in Davis and actually cares about what happens here. I respect Alan’s opinions even if I don’t always agree. I understand where he’s coming from and he has evidence for what he says.
As for Village Farms, I have yet to decide how I’ll vote on it. The current configuration creates too much sprawl and is not properly aligned to facilitate more biking, walking and bus riding. There’s a much better way to make this work.
David
The better approach under Measure J is to prescribe a set of baseline features that a developer must adhere to if they want to gain approval just through the City Council. If the developer chooses not to accept these, then they can go through the standard Measure J process. I don’t believe that the voters will simply approve a preordained list of annexations without specific requirements ahead of time.
To enact our General Plan we will have to modify Measure J/R/D. If we don’t then we will just continue with piecemeal development with no coordinated planning. We will just continue down the same suburban sprawl path, which seems like what Ron O wants for a town that he moved away from. He just wants to spite us.
There are plenty of viable options, the status quo is not one of them.
Well, Richard – despite living in Davis, the developer doesn’t seem to be listening to you.
But again, what are Alan P’s reasons for supporting the proposal? You claim to have some understanding of that.
Again, I can personally tell you (since you weren’t there) that Alan P had some pretty heated arguments with those who actually have MORE knowledge than he does regarding vernal pools. One young person in particular (who didn’t “argue” with Alan P) was shocked at the way Alan P dismissed the concerns he brought up. He had education in that subject, himself. (In other words, it wasn’t “just” Glen Holstein, who has expertise himself – who brought up those concerns.)
And that’s only ONE issue where Alan P defended Covell Village.
Also, it seems strange to hate someone who doesn’t currently live in Davis, while simultaneously advocating for those who don’t live in Davis to move to Davis. Then again, I haven’t ever seen you put forth any point regarding most of your comments in the first place.