Establishing a White House Council on Eliminating Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing

Overview

Executive Order 13878, "Establishing a White House Council on Eliminating Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing," was enacted by President Donald Trump on June 25, 2019. The order aims to create a council chaired by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to tackle regulatory impediments that elevate housing costs, thus hurting affordable housing availability. It emphasizes the role of restrictive zoning, building codes, and other regulations in driving costs upward. The order sets an agenda for comprehensive collaboration among federal, state, local, and tribal entities to dismantle these barriers in favor of enhanced economic opportunities for low- and middle-income Americans.

Regulatory barriers, as highlighted, involve diverse areas, including zoning laws, energy efficiency mandates, and environmental regulations. While meant to ensure urban planning and ecological protection, these regulations can inadvertently constrain housing supply by imposing additional development costs. The establishment of the Council under EO 13878 is central to evaluating these constraints and devising policy reforms that streamline or eliminate undue regulatory burdens.

The Executive Order argues that federal subsidies, while substantial, do not effectively address the foundational regulatory inhibitors of housing supply. Instead, it promotes innovative and market-oriented solutions to sustainably widen the housing market. By focusing on the reduction of these regulatory burdens, the order posits a dual benefit of cost reductions and economic growth stimulation—a combination that could open up housing opportunities.

This shift from subsidy-centric policies to regulatory reform signifies an administrative effort to infuse housing policy with structural change. The order questions the efficacy of existing assistance mechanisms, suggesting that without tending to the root issues—regulatory hindrances—the aid provided might fail to achieve substantial or lasting impacts on housing affordability.

Overall, the significance of Executive Order 13878 lies in its proposal to engage stakeholders across government levels and sectors in a concerted reform effort. This approach seeks to harmonize economic imperatives with regulatory frameworks, thus setting the stage for potentially transformative effects on national housing policy.

Legal and Policy Implications

Executive Order 13878 largely operates within the ambit of existing laws while seeking to instigate reassessment and modification of regulatory practices impinging on housing development. It does not directly mandate changes to laws but mobilizes federal agencies to scrutinize the laws and regulations impacting development costs. By fostering such a review, it seeks to incite voluntary reforms in states and municipalities that contribute to these barriers.

The legal implications are multifaceted, involving a recalibration of the federal-state dynamic in housing policy. By emphasizing federal leadership while respecting local jurisdiction, the order crafts a basis for potential partnership in reforming laws—particularly those at the state level—that contribute to inefficiencies and elevated development costs. This partnership approach pivots on collaboration rather than dictates from federal authority.

This initiative aligns with broader deregulatory ambitions embodied by the Trump Administration, advocating for reduced governmental intervention to spur economic development. The order implicitly promotes legislative initiatives that could recalibrate the balance between regulatory control and market freedoms, especially within the housing sector.

By proposing new policy directions based on data and feedback, the Executive Order could influence future legislative agendas. It signals a potential pivot in federal housing policy, shifting from direct financial assistance to enhancing regulatory environments as an economic catalyst.

Should the Council's recommendations result in comprehensive legislative proposals, this order could serve as a foundational document for further debates and policy development efforts—especially those seeking congressional backing to enact substantive legislative changes grounded in the Council's findings.

Who Benefits

Low- and middle-income families are poised as the primary beneficiaries of Executive Order 13878. By dismantling regulatory obstacles that elevate housing costs, it aims to close financial gaps that hinder access to affordable housing. Reducing these barriers could enhance access within pricing tiers that these families can afford, thus improving their economic mobility.

The construction and homebuilding sectors stand to benefit significantly. The reduction of cumbersome regulations—as targeted by the order—can streamline development processes, making new projects more financially feasible. This would not only enhance supply but potentially shift market dynamics to balance demand more effectively.

Real estate developers, particularly those involved in large, multi-unit developments, could see enhanced returns. With fewer regulatory hurdles, project timelines may be shortened, and costs reduced, potentially increasing attractiveness and initiation of new developments, even in high-demand markets where such projects were previously prohibitive.

Local economies burdened by stringent regulations and resultant housing shortages could experience revitalization. With barriers lowered, these areas might draw new residents, thereby boosting local spending and employment. This effect can cascade to improve tax revenues, enabling local governments to invest in infrastructure and services.

Technological and innovative sectors in housing development could also benefit. With a streamlined regulatory context, advanced construction methodologies—including modular homes—may gain traction, offering scalable solutions to housing shortages while promoting technological advance and efficacy.

Who Suffers

Environmental advocacy groups may find fault with Executive Order 13878's deregulatory thrust, which they might argue threatens ecological protections. By loosening restrictions that safeguard natural resources, there is concern that short-term economic gains may eclipse long-term environmental costs, potentially degrading ecosystems.

Local jurisdictions that wield regulatory frameworks to orchestrate urban development might face challenges reconciling accelerated growth with community character. In an environment emphasizing quick development, maintaining urban balance could become increasingly precarious.

Communities susceptible to rapid development pressures—such as those experiencing gentrification—may struggle with social and infrastructural ramifications if development proceeds unchecked. Growing pains could exacerbate demand on public services, compounded by insufficient scaling in healthcare, transportation, and education infrastructure.

Historic preservation efforts risk marginalization under development-friendly policies. Areas with cultural and historical significance might find architectural and historic assets vulnerable if protection priorities give way to development incentives.

The order's deregulatory ethos might also provoke apprehension from labor advocates concerned with implications for worker protections. Less regulatory oversight could lead to erosion in labor standards as developers seek to mitigate cost through cuts in wages and benefits, affecting worker welfare and job security in the sector.

Historical Context

Executive Order 13878 is emblematic of a broader deregulatory strategy characteristic of the Trump Administration's governance. With a priority on reducing perceived governmental impediments to economic growth, the administration has pursued broad regulatory rollbacks, with sectors ranging from financial to environmental regulations being affected. This order targets land-use regulations, extending this deregulatory approach into housing development.

This emphasis on reducing regulatory burdens is informed by longstanding conservative values that advocate for limited government and market-based solutions. The administration contends that achieving societal benefits generally associated with regulation can be more efficiently pursued through market innovations and minimal coercive oversight.

Historically, U.S. housing policy reflects a toggling between government intervention and market reliance. During crises like the Great Depression and postwar booms, federal involvement spurred housing construction and promotion of homeownership. However, subsequent decades witnessed a shift towards incentivizing private sector solutions and deregulation in parallel with administrative policy trends.

The current affordable housing crisis—which has grown increasingly more acute—has commanded significant political focus, partly due to escalating costs and barriers to homeownership many Americans face. This order implies that unwieldy regulatory intricacies have amplified these issues, necessitating intervention to encourage deregulatory reforms that empower market equilibria in housing.

Importantly, the foundations laid by EO 13878 allow for expansion under future administrations, particularly considering its recommendations and proposed actions. While the order delineates steps to reduce regulatory strains, its effective legacy will depend on subsequent political leadership's willingness to adopt its insights, shaping how America ultimately tackles housing affordability over the long term.

Potential Controversies or Challenges

Executive Order 13878 is likely to encounter legal challenges, particularly around initiatives to amend or retract existing regulations, which could contravene statutes mandating measures for environmental protection, labor conditions, and anti-discrimination, all of which enjoy robust legal underpinnings.

Congressional resistance might arise, especially from factions prioritizing environmental safeguards and social equity. Critics could argue that blanket deregulation without complementary compensatory measures risks exacerbating disparities and ecosystem harms, prompting legislative scrutiny and resistance.

Executing the order’s ambitions faces challenges due to the entrenched nature of regulatory systems across different governmental layers. Coordinating coherent deregulatory action demands congruence among diverse stakeholders with varying priorities, potentially creating friction.

Existing litigation trends, which witness administrative attempts at deregulation facing judicial review, offer a precedent that this order’s decisions could face legal contestation. Notably, when similar deregulatory measures have been pursued in the Trump era, courts have often been asked to adjudicate, with mixed outcomes.

Ultimately, successful navigation and realization of EO 13878's goals will depend on fostering collaborative dialogue rather than divisive opposition, cultivating partnership across jurisdictions to align goals alongside diverse sociopolitical priorities and interdependencies.