Cities can turn blue; homesteads will keep America red



Americans are now familiar with the iconic red-blue political map. In the 2024 election results, a bird’s-eye view shows much of the country’s landmass as blood red, while blue dominates the large urban centers. This city vs. country divide remains the most significant factor in America’s political polarization. Every policy we pursue should encourage rural growth, not urban expansion. Donald Trump’s supporters should be cautious about the direction some are taking his “freedom cities” idea.

The right broadly agrees that the federal government owns too much land in the West and should sell it to states or individuals. However, the goal should be to strengthen rural life in Western states, not urbanize the land with “15-minute city” concepts. These constructs would likely attract liberal voters who support that mindset, undermining the goal of fostering rural empowerment.

The issue isn’t a lack of new construction. It’s the soaring cost of building, driven by general, debt-fueled inflation.

Trump announced his plan in March as part of “Agenda 47” to build 10 “freedom cities” on 3.2 million acres of federal land. The cities would be selected through a contest, with the best development proposals winning. Trump has suggested that the housing crisis stems from a lack of supply rather than inflation or monetary policy and that building cities in rural, red America could help solve it.

However, with urbanist Doug Burgum likely leading this project and “tech bro” billionaires influencing its direction, the plan risks backfiring. It could introduce venture socialist ideas that act like a “nuclear bomb” on red America, turning red states into blue ones. Instead of fostering rural growth, it could advance the World Economic Forum’s dream of “15-minute cities” — but with a MAGA stamp of approval.

Bringing tech bro liberalism to red America

Wealthy tech entrepreneurs played a key role in funding Trump’s election victory, driven by their disenchantment with the radical direction of the Democratic Party. However, they are not full allies of the movement. Many remain socially liberal, support increased legal immigration, and prioritize high-tech public-private partnerships over cultural and political concerns.

“When new cities are built in the U.S., new industries can form, and a new middle class can emerge,” said Nick Allen, a tech entrepreneur close to Trump, in an interview with the Epoch Times. Allen, a member of the Frontier Foundation, a group pushing for these cities, added, “The outsized role that the tech community is probably going to play in this administration has generally made me more optimistic about the potential for doing some version of Freedom Cities.”

Well, that is exactly why I’m not optimistic. Incoming Interior Secretary Doug Burgum would likely oversee this plan. Burgum, a known urbanist and supporter of the “carbon neutral” agenda, has criticized America for being “built for automobiles and not designed for people.” He has lamented the lack of “investment into building the infrastructure for multimodal transportation” and blamed cars for rising housing prices.

As governor of North Dakota, Burgum established the North Dakota Housing Initiative Advisory Committee to focus on “improving housing availability, affordability, and stability” — phrases often used by planners pushing for 15-minute cities and car-free urban bubbles. Burgum also founded the Kilbourne Group, an organization dedicated to creating vibrant urban centers and revitalizing downtowns.

Do we really want this “yuppie” mindset shaping the development of states like Wyoming, Montana, Utah, and Idaho?

Economically, this plan echoes China’s “ghost cities” and could worsen the very factors driving housing scarcity and high prices. Pumping borrowed and printed cash into these projects would inflate the money supply, funneling loan guarantees and crony contracts to tech developers. The result? Attracting liberal yuppies to red states while enriching venture socialists.

Defenders of this idea argue they want to create autonomous, low-regulation economic opportunity zones. However, if these cities are not structured like rural homesteads, they will attract liberal voters who could eventually flip these red areas blue. Under their quasi-autonomous proposal, these cities would also remain somewhat immune to directives from Republican-controlled legislatures.

The truth about the housing crisis

The rush for new housing construction rests on a false premise. Supporters claim there is a massive housing shortage, while others argue that zoning laws are stifling the housing market.

In reality, even with the freest zoning laws imaginable, homes would remain unaffordable. General inflation and Federal Reserve interest rate policies have created a generational gap in mortgage rates, locking up the resale market and driving housing prices higher.

Housing construction remains strong, according to the National Association of Home Builders. Over the past 10 months, builders issued 846,446 single-family home permits nationwide — a 9.4% increase from 2023. The number of homes under construction or already completed has reached its highest level since the 2007 housing bubble. Overall, the supply of new homes has risen by 70% over the past three years.

The issue isn’t a lack of new construction. It’s the soaring cost of building, driven by general, debt-fueled inflation. The housing market also suffers from the Federal Reserve’s policies, which created an asset bubble by purchasing $2.5 trillion in mortgage-backed securities. By keeping interest rates artificially low for a generation, the Fed incentivized cheap borrowing.

When inflation spiked, the Fed rapidly raised rates, triggering a “death trap” for homeowners who now refuse to sell and face significantly higher mortgage payments.

Today, deficits and inflation remain so high that even recent Fed rate cuts have failed to lower mortgage rates. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note — which heavily influences mortgage rates — has climbed 85 basis points since the Fed cut rates by 50 basis points on September 19.

Simply put, the housing crisis stems from debt-driven inflation, not a lack of supply.

The cost of new homes is now nearly the same as existing homes for the first time in modern history. This isn’t a supply issue; it’s an unnatural housing bubble and an interest rate cliff that has frozen the existing inventory market. While other minor factors contribute, this remains the clear culprit.

Spending massive amounts to create red-state cities would ironically worsen inflation — the very factor driving the housing crisis. The solution isn’t building more homes. We need to tackle inflation. If federal land must be repurposed, it should prioritize quality of living over quantity. A better alternative to “freedom cities” is “freedom homesteads.”

A new Homestead Act

Rather than urbanizing red-state America, a better plan would encourage conservatives nationwide to move to red states organically by re-ruralizing the country. The federal government should sell parcels of land — between 10 and 50 acres — to individuals, allowing them to live and farm as they see fit. This would create the ultimate version of freedom: a rural-based economic freedom zone.

Promoting rural land use would counteract the harmful effects of farm bills, which distort markets in favor of specific crops. This approach would attract people aligned with rugged individualism, not urbanization, making red states even redder.

By incentivizing privacy and self-reliance, we would avoid high-tech surveillance schemes that threaten to transform America into a version of China. True freedom lies in wide-open spaces, not congested cities.

Homesteading ended in 1979 with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which created the Bureau of Land Management. The Bureau of Land Management leviathan has since restricted the rights of farmers and ranchers, including the Bundy family, by closing access to private lands or historically public-use lands.

Today, much of America’s land is being bought up by foreign actors, converted for green energy projects, or used for subsidized government crops. In some cases, landowners are paid not to farm, artificially supporting agricultural prices for Big Agriculture.

If Trump wants to usher in a new era of American prosperity, he should look to the past for inspiration — not into the technocratic abyss.

Blaze News investigates: Biden's plan to fix the housing crisis will only make homes more expensive and out of reach, say housing experts



The housing crisis continues to worsen in the U.S. and flatten young Americans' hopes of buying a home, but a new proposal being touted by President Joe Biden would actually make it worse, at least according to some experts.

Housing affordability in the U.S. is at its worst level in 40 years, according to a report from Redfin. Higher mortgage interest rates, low housing inventory, and skyrocketing housing prices have forced more and more Americans to give up their dream of owning a home.

A Redfin survey of homeowners and renters found that 64.2% of respondents said that the lack of housing affordability makes them feel negative about the economy. A majority, 53%, said that housing affordability will affect who they vote for in November, which likely hurts the incumbent president.

While Biden acknowledged the housing crisis in his State of the Union address in March and claimed that Democrats were working to "bring housing costs down for good," one of his policy prescriptions is likely to make the situation far worse.

'Housing prices will increase and mortgage payments will increase.'

Blaze Media spoke to real estate economist Ken Johnson, who explained why the president's plan would almost certainly lead to housing being less affordable, not more.

The plan as outlined by Biden is to give first-time and repeat homebuyers a tax credit that amounts to $400 per month for two years in order to help them pay the mortgage. The Biden administration estimates the program could help as many as 3.5 million families in the middle class.

"This is just providing money to a segment of the society that perhaps rightfully needs the extra funding, but it allows them to go out and bid more. That just means the government will be pumping money into the economy," said Johnson.

"So some buyers will able to go out and pay more, and as a consequence prices will rise very quickly. It's going to be inflationary, and it's going to be inflationary in the face of high interest rates," he added. "What is going to happen is housing prices will increase and mortgage payments will increase."

Johnson addressed the argument that the subsidy would target personal home buyers and give them an advantage over corporations and other companies that purchase single-family homes.

"The problem is that the vast majority of home buyers are already individuals; it's going to be families, it's going to be households," he explained. "If you give everyone $400 to buy automobiles, then the price of automobiles will rise by $400. It will all be inflationary."

Others agree with this assessment.

"In a best-case scenario, this tax credit gives builders enough confidence to keep building," said Realtor.com chief economist Danielle Hale, according to SFGate.

But, she adds, "without the supply boost, this tax credit could bring out more buyers, there aren’t more homes for sale, and home prices go up."

Ed Pinto, the co-director of the Housing Center at the American Enterprise Institute, added to the criticism.

"Over the years, the government has done a great job at juicing demand but has failed miserably at increasing supply. This is especially true when housing supply is as tight," Pinto said, according to SFGate.

Johnson also pointed out that the proposal runs counter to what the Federal Reserve Board is trying to do by forcing inflation higher when the Fed is actively trying to keep inflation from rising above a 2% rate while keeping unemployment steady.

"We'll get there eventually, but this would not help, and it would work against the Fed mandates, quite honestly," he added.

He went on to say that the Biden administration is banking on the proposal not passing and just wants to mollify the public into believing Democrats tried to do something to help the housing crisis.

"I don't think this will pass," said Johnson. "Both sides make these kinds of electioneering promises that never pass. It's really a coin toss between the two parties as to which side actually has the better housing record."

Is there any solution to the housing crisis?

Johnson says the key to easing the housing crisis is simply building more housing units.

"What would help more than anything else would be for the government to make it easier to build units that are for sale or for rent. We simply need to be able to build more units," he explained.

While there are many obstacles to increasing housing, Johnson said previously successful efforts in doing so could be a guide for today.

"We've solved these problems once before. In the decades after World War II, we came up with the Fair Housing Act and funded Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in order to fund mortgages on houses built to improved standards," he continued.

"You know how people say homes aren't built the way they used to be? Well, it's true, because the old ones all fell down!" Johnson joked.

He went on to explain that federal plans in the past had succeeded in increasing housing stock but that the current situation made it almost impossible to replicate.

"If I could wave a magic wand, I think I would increase the number of major developers. In the old days before the last housing crash, we had tens of thousands of builders around the country. Okay, they're not there today. They're just not there today. So we don't have the ability to gear up and produce massive numbers and to be competitive, quite honestly," he continued.

He said the federal government should focus on easing restrictions on developers and providing incentives for large-scale building.

"Now all of a sudden, we have tens of thousands more of small builders that are out there, that could be competitive, and they could be more responsive to market needs. It certainly would help to be able to bring a home to to actual construction in a shorter period of time," Johnson said.

"But, you know, that's a lot of wishful thinking right now," he added. "There's really nothing we can do in the short term right now, except for to encourage the construction of more properties, whether it be multi-family rentals or single-family residences. We just need more units."

Johnson has concluded that Biden's housing plan was unserious at best and counterproductive at worst.

"This is simply an inflationary proposal," he said. "This was just a political promise that both sides know they won't actually have to deliver on."

While many were hopeful that the Fed would lower rates in 2024 after inflation slowed, mortgage interest rates have remained stubbornly high. Without a magic bullet to ease the housing crisis immediately before the election, it is likely that housing will continue to be a thorn in Biden's presidential campaign.

Blaze Media reached out to Biden's top economic adviser for comment but did not receive a response.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Blaze News investigates: California Democrats propose new law that will push rents higher during painful housing crisis



Democrats in the California legislature are pushing a law that critics say will hurt renters with higher rents by imposing restrictions on landlords.

"This is really going to cause havoc to renters in California," said Daniel Yukelson of the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles to Blaze News about Assembly Bill 1266.

AB 1266 would restrict landlords from asking whether potential renters have pets and would ban them from requiring pet deposits in order to cover the potential cost of damage from pets. Coverage of the bill in the mainstream media has been mostly positive and ignored criticism from housing experts who say the bill would likely lead to higher rent prices and other damaging consequences.

The bill was authored by California Assembly Member Matt Haney, a Democrat, who says that it is unfair to pet owners that landlords can restrict pets in their units or charge them a deposit to cover possible damages.

“A two-tiered system that punishes people for having pets, or treats them differently, or has a greater burden on them just for that fact should not be allowed in the law,” said Haney to KQED-TV.

Opponents of the bill say that it will only worsen the housing crisis in California.

Yukelson outlined numerous ways that the bill could be detrimental to the availability of housing in California by adding another restriction on housing providers.

One of his major concerns is how the proposed legislation could make it harder for property owners to obtain affordable insurance. He pointed out that insurance companies are already raising their premiums or dropping coverage altogether in California. Forcing all landlords to accept pets would add another complication that will hurt tenants in the long run.

"You can't even get renewals in a lot of cases, and this is just gonna add insult to injury because the insurance companies are just going to exclude all liability coverage for pets if we're forced to accept these animals," Yukelson explained.

He went on to say that many rentals don't have lawns or other outside accommodations for pets, making them inappropriate for pet owners. With the new law, property owners would have to allow pets regardless of whether the property can accommodate them.

'Smell this photo'

Erin Stumpf, a Sacramento-based realtor, criticized the proposal by posting a photograph of excessive damage done to a rental unit by pets that she says added up to thousands.

"Don’t limit a housing provider’s ability to decline pets," Stumpf posted to X, formerly known as Twitter.

— (@)

"A pet can do TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS damage," she added. "If you could smell this photo maybe you’d get it."

Stumpf elaborated her point in a statement to Blaze News. She said the additional restrictions would just add more pressure to increase rental requirements.

"As a rental property owner myself, I will probably be inclined to impose much more stringent minimum credit score and income qualifications on potential renters if I must accept pets," she wrote. "Pets can be very destructive between digging, chewing, and urinating, etc., so as a rental housing provider, if I am forced to rent to a tenant with a pet, I will want to ensure that I only rent to absolutely the most responsible tenants who have sufficient income and assets, where I can hope to recover the cost of pet damage upon move-out."

Yukelson added that the bill could force people with allergic reactions to pets to be forced to live in units next to pet owners.

Other organizations voiced similar concerns, including the California Apartment Association and the Southern California Rental Housing Association, among many more.

'It's simple economics'

Haney has claimed the pet law is aimed at easing the housing crisis.

“We’re not going to solve our housing crisis if we continue to allow for no protections for pet owners who represent the majority of our tenants,” Haney has said. “This is simply about access to housing.”

Yukelson explains why the new proposal on top of decades of over-regulation will make the housing crisis far worse.

"It's just another straw that breaks the camel's back. These days people are getting out of the business. They can't afford to be in the business, they can't stomach it any more, there's so many layers of regulation," he continued.

"And then the legislators sit back and they wonder, 'Why do we have a housing shortage? Why do we have the worst homelessness situation in the country? Why do we have skyrocketing rents?'" Yukelson added.

"Well, it's simple economics," he concluded. "There's just not enough housing for people. And there's policies that we've had in place for more than four decades that are not working, and they need to be balanced so at least the property owners have a fighting chance to stay in the business! It's crazy!"

The law is considered to be the first of its kind in the U.S., but its detractors are afraid that it will spread to other states. The bill has passed the Judiciary Committee and is now on the Assembly floor.

Yukelson admits that Haney's office has been trying to come up with a compromise to answer some of the criticism, including the possibility of increasing limits on security deposits.

He did identify one benefit of the mismanagement of politics in California.

"The only thing we have going for us to help our housing is people are leaving California in droves, but those are all the taxpayers!" he joked.

Haney's office did not respond to requests for a comment from Blaze News.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!