Thanks for the comparative info (to other countries). There is much too little of that around.
I see the solution proposed involves some amount of subsidized housing, sometimes using the European term "social housing", which subsidized (construction and/ or rent) housing I'm not against.
I point out that apparently, from your link, an issue in Canada, as it is here in the U.S., is how much the marked alone can be used to solve the housing problem for some people. (Not all people. Some people may really need a subsidy.)
Which brings me to a complaint about terminology in the U.S., that I've posted on before.
There is a special propagandistic definition of “affordable housing” that seems now to be the standard definition in newspapers and political discourse.
"From 2010 through 2024, construction of affordable — that is, income-restricted — housing grew by 73 percent, more than double the pace of market-rate apartments. In 2024, affordable units accounted for nearly 14 percent of newly completed rental stock, up from just 9 percent a decade earlier."
There it is defined. "Affordable housing" means "income-restricted housing".
(That's the housing that tends to be
a) expensive to build,
b) is highly subsidized by taxes, or hidden taxes taken as tax credits to corporations in exchange for paying for the housing, and/or market-rate renters,
c) is in shortage with waiting lists often of five or ten years, or sometimes lotteries to get in
and
d) that you can't get at all if your income is too high to qualify, but you still can't possibly afford the market rents or prices of purchasable houses in your area.)
So, we have one of those tricks played on many of the people without sufficient knowledge to be able to pick up on it.
On this issue, many Democratic politicians play along. "Oh, you say you can't afford housing? Well, then, what you want is affordable housing. O.K. We'll give it to you, in the NY Times sense."
And the public discourse turns to propagandistic mush.
--
(Undoubtedly, if JB were king, and also ran the entire press, this kind of nonsense wouldn't happen. And maybe even we'd all only have to work about 30% as many hours as we do.
It about time we allowed manufactured housing to be used more widely as long as there are quality standards in place — and those standards are enforced. Too many Americans think of prefab homes as mobile homes but there are some very impressive designs that have been built, mainly in other countries.
I was skeptical when I first read about this bill, but I’m heartened by the fact that the NLIHC has apparently endorsed it. It would be great to see more funding for HUD, whose programs have been cut to the bone over the years.
Here, let me express real skepticism, unless I've missed something.
I see the major obstacle to cheap-enough housing as local zoning, with home-voter incentives, and live-on-the-land-like-a-bunch-of-hippies self-delusional ideas that such living makes people "good people" as the major problem.
All I see (perhaps I missed it) is:
' The bill creates “a $200 million annual competitive grant program for local governments and tribes that demonstrate measurable increases in housing supply, incentivizing reforms such as streamlined permitting, density bonuses, and zoning changes.” '
So, I'm inclined to say the pols are doing something tiny and inadequate, in order to create a generally-false impression that they're fixing the problem!
(The measures taken will help, but I suspect much, much too little to really solve the problem.)
--
Otherwise, let me throw in a comparative government / policy point.
From a Youtube video that I watched some time ago, apparently Japan has zoning decisions being made at the national level, not locally. Which it is felt is a major reason NIMBY zoning restrictions are much less of a problem in Japan, and housing winds up being a good bit cheaper in Japan, compared to here, when adjusting for other things like the amount of buildable land.
Now, O.K., we can't blame JB for this, nor all of our politicians. But it makes me look at the problem as being one like healthcare and the health insurance system. Our politics, and our government structure, combine to make us unable to get a pretty good solution!
Here is Canada's plan for the same problem: https://cleantechnica.com/2025/09/15/affordable-homes-new-jobs-lower-carbon-inside-the-carney-housing-plan/
Thanks for the comparative info (to other countries). There is much too little of that around.
I see the solution proposed involves some amount of subsidized housing, sometimes using the European term "social housing", which subsidized (construction and/ or rent) housing I'm not against.
I point out that apparently, from your link, an issue in Canada, as it is here in the U.S., is how much the marked alone can be used to solve the housing problem for some people. (Not all people. Some people may really need a subsidy.)
Which brings me to a complaint about terminology in the U.S., that I've posted on before.
There is a special propagandistic definition of “affordable housing” that seems now to be the standard definition in newspapers and political discourse.
Referencing this article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/16/realestate/were-building-more-affordable-housing-these-days-its-still-not-enough.html ,
paragraph two contains:
"From 2010 through 2024, construction of affordable — that is, income-restricted — housing grew by 73 percent, more than double the pace of market-rate apartments. In 2024, affordable units accounted for nearly 14 percent of newly completed rental stock, up from just 9 percent a decade earlier."
There it is defined. "Affordable housing" means "income-restricted housing".
(That's the housing that tends to be
a) expensive to build,
b) is highly subsidized by taxes, or hidden taxes taken as tax credits to corporations in exchange for paying for the housing, and/or market-rate renters,
c) is in shortage with waiting lists often of five or ten years, or sometimes lotteries to get in
and
d) that you can't get at all if your income is too high to qualify, but you still can't possibly afford the market rents or prices of purchasable houses in your area.)
So, we have one of those tricks played on many of the people without sufficient knowledge to be able to pick up on it.
On this issue, many Democratic politicians play along. "Oh, you say you can't afford housing? Well, then, what you want is affordable housing. O.K. We'll give it to you, in the NY Times sense."
And the public discourse turns to propagandistic mush.
--
(Undoubtedly, if JB were king, and also ran the entire press, this kind of nonsense wouldn't happen. And maybe even we'd all only have to work about 30% as many hours as we do.
But he's not, and look at all that goes wrong!)
Trump has refused to sign it. 🤬
According to Trump, vote suppression is the higher priority.
It about time we allowed manufactured housing to be used more widely as long as there are quality standards in place — and those standards are enforced. Too many Americans think of prefab homes as mobile homes but there are some very impressive designs that have been built, mainly in other countries.
Good news not for very long, big T canceled the housed bill I hear from Reuters 😱😭
So good to hear good news for a change, thanks Jared! 💗🙏🏻
I was skeptical when I first read about this bill, but I’m heartened by the fact that the NLIHC has apparently endorsed it. It would be great to see more funding for HUD, whose programs have been cut to the bone over the years.
Maybe given the low investment and high popularity together with the rare bipartisan veto proof support the crypto clause was the main point.
A “Do Nothing” Congress finally did something.. maybe upcoming midterms, a first step, the bill needs to be backed by dollars.
What changed behind the scenes?
Here, let me express real skepticism, unless I've missed something.
I see the major obstacle to cheap-enough housing as local zoning, with home-voter incentives, and live-on-the-land-like-a-bunch-of-hippies self-delusional ideas that such living makes people "good people" as the major problem.
All I see (perhaps I missed it) is:
' The bill creates “a $200 million annual competitive grant program for local governments and tribes that demonstrate measurable increases in housing supply, incentivizing reforms such as streamlined permitting, density bonuses, and zoning changes.” '
So, I'm inclined to say the pols are doing something tiny and inadequate, in order to create a generally-false impression that they're fixing the problem!
(The measures taken will help, but I suspect much, much too little to really solve the problem.)
--
Otherwise, let me throw in a comparative government / policy point.
From a Youtube video that I watched some time ago, apparently Japan has zoning decisions being made at the national level, not locally. Which it is felt is a major reason NIMBY zoning restrictions are much less of a problem in Japan, and housing winds up being a good bit cheaper in Japan, compared to here, when adjusting for other things like the amount of buildable land.
Now, O.K., we can't blame JB for this, nor all of our politicians. But it makes me look at the problem as being one like healthcare and the health insurance system. Our politics, and our government structure, combine to make us unable to get a pretty good solution!