I’m staying up late to write a rare unvarnished and I suppose somewhat personal blog post tonight that I would like everyone in our weird little world who cares about the housing shortage to read. It won’t be that long, and if that describes you, you should read it.

I want all of us to stop sniping at each other. I think all of us do it. If you’re reading this, you do it. I’m writing this and I do it. And we all need to stop.

Here are two things I know to be true:

1. The people working to reform zoning, building, and permitting rules in cities and states across the country are some of the smartest and most motivated people working on housing affordability that I know. They want nothing more than to solve the housing shortage and bring about housing affordability for all.
   
2. The people working on housing investment policy, working in development and capital markets, and working with subsidy programs are some of the smartest and most motivated people working on housing affordability that I know. They want nothing more than to solve the housing shortage and bring about housing affordability for all.

Sometimes these are the same people, but most of the time they are not. To the few of you doing both, godspeed (Leila, Ben, Shaun, and RuthAnne come to mind). I find myself in a unique position: I have come to the conclusion that both of these issue categories are equally important. And no, I don’t mean like like 40-60 or 51-49—I actually mean equally, and I think we all do a disservice to the Americans we do this work for when we whisper to ourselves or yell to our timeline that our issue is a teensy bit more important.

I have come to know the people working on these issues quite well, and have worked hand in hand with many of you. But rarely do these groups mix and understand each other as people working toward the same goal. And that is a shame. I believe if many of you met each other, the sniping I see would cease almost instantly. And in fact, I feel some remorse for not having brought many of you together. Many people who I consider friends say things online about one another’s work that I don’t believe they would say in person.

Abundance has created a challenge for the political dynamics of housing policy coalitions because, as with every political frame known to man, some people see themselves in it and other people do not. The sniping, as I see it, is a response to that. There are a lot of people who have been working on housing policy for decades who have witnessed a rebirth of housing advocacy momentum over the past decade, and some have questioned what this means for housing advocacy. Is it a threat? A bastion of hope?

One must look no further than the Capitol to see the answer: it is an opportunity. For the first time in decades, the Senate and the House have passed a volley of major, bipartisan housing reform packages back and forth to one another. We are in the middle of another volley now as the House considers amendments to the Senate’s ROAD to Housing package, passed two weeks ago (on my birthday, no less). Housing has grown in importance for Americans over the past decade or so, spurring the creation of new civic and non-profit groups to address challenges they see. This is exactly what is supposed to happen—people identify problems and organize themselves to change the conditions. That momentum has bubbled up and motivated perhaps the least motivatable body on Earth to begin to act.

So why all the bad blood?

Some people make cookie dough, and some people make chocolate chips.

Our new report earlier this week includes a paragraph in its introduction that I have seen many people posting and re-posting. I’ll share it here:

Here’s one way to think about it: your zoning, permitting, and planning regime is the size of the container you hold out to collect rainwater. In an unpermissive zoning and permitting regime, you hold a tablespoon. Even when it pours, you can still only collect a tablespoon of investment. The right kinds of zoning and permitting reforms are an upgrade to a gallon jug that can collect plenty of water. But if there’s only a drizzle, it’s going to take a long time to fill your jug. This is where creating an investment environment comes in: with so many cities and states upgrading to gallon jugs, it’s time to make it rain the way Presidents Johnson, Nixon and Reagan did.

Not to toot my own horn but I think this is a nice analogy that communicates the dynamics in the housing market pretty well. And I think what it communicates most clearly is that if you neglect either of these topics you are going to face challenges getting out of the shortage and solving affordability. The recipe for chocolate chip cookies calls for two ingredients, batter and chips. Some people make cookie dough while others make chocolate chips. But work with me, people. We need both of you, and if we want to get this done we’ve got to get along.

What’s actually amusing about this is how similar a dynamic it is to industry coalitions. Sometimes you will see the Realtors on the other side of an issue from the Homebuilders. For example, in 2017, the Real Estate Roundtable opposed putting accelerated depreciation for housing into the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The reasoning was it would be so successful at building housing, that it would lower costs (values) and therefore have negative effects on some parts of the industry. The Homebuilders, as you might have guessed, have a somewhat different point of view.

Hark! An opportunity

In 1968, a coalition formed that was so astonishing some might not believe it today. The Homebuilders, the affordable housing activists, and President Lyndon B. Johnson joined forces to pass perhaps the biggest housing bill in US history. It might surprise you to learn that it was the Homebuilders who advocated for the creation of, and in fact helped design, Ginnie Mae, the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA), several FHA insured mortgage insurance programs, and new subsidy programs.

Those of us who believe we must end the housing shortage and bring about housing affordability for all should aspire to that. Passing those kinds of big bills today won’t happen without big coalitions—just look at what’s happening in Congress right now after the coalition splintered.

Building tents big enough to clear the filibuster means more honey and less vinegar from all of us. The more we say that our ingredient is the one that really matters, the further we stray from a future of abundant housing. And I know none of us wants that.

I’m sorry for mixing honey and vinegar, baking, and rainwater metaphors, but you all are smart people and can muddle through it.