Realtor’s Guide to 2024: Trump vs Kamala Housing Policies Explained

Michael
00:00:00

Won't work. Even if you put $1 trillion into a program like that, where what are they going to buy?

Like, Congratulations, you have $25,000, but there's no housing stock. What are you going to purchase with that money? Nothing.

And then they're going to say, well, oh my God, these homeowners and landlords, they are just, you know, shorted to market. You have these people who are ready to buy and there's nothing for them to buy. And say it with a straight face.

So it's that they won't see the irony in it whatsoever.

So even if you were able to do that program and then on top of that provide the supply side of the equation, they will never meet up because you will have the demand side money put out much quicker than you would the supply side money, you would have an imbalance there and there would be a tremendous amount of pressure put on the private sector, not just on the builders, but also for lenders. You're not going to be incentivized by $25,000 in down payment assistance to put somebody into a mortgage that you know that they can't afford.

Mike Mills
00:01:13

Howdy, howdy to all you ghost busting gurus of this real estate game. Scaring up poltergeist and navigating you through this crazy haunted housing market that we've all been dealing with for the last several years.

I've got quite a frightening topic for you today. You know how everyone says you should never discuss religion or politics in public?

Well, today we are going to risk it all and cross the streams to slay this Stay puft marshmallow man. That is the 2024 presidential election. Now I got a question for you.

Do you know which presidential candidate's housing policy will protect your business from turning into a real estate nightmare? Or which candidate could help us avoid a market that looks worse than the hotel ballroom after Slimer had his way with it? Well, don't be scared.

You have come to the right place to unravel these mysteries and get the insight that you need before election day.

Welcome to Texas Real Estate and Finance podcast where each week we break down the latest insights and strategies to help you navigate this ghost town of a market that we're dealing with right now.

My mission is to bring you experts in our business to help make sure that you are fully armed with the tips, tricks, and this week, unfortunately for everybody, Halloween references that you didn't even know you needed to keep your business moving. Like a Ghostbusters proton pack. I'm your host, Mike Mills, a North Texas mortgage banker with Geneva Financial. And no, this is not my Halloween mask.

This is my actual face.

But when I'm not comparing today's housing market to an 80s movie franchise about busting ghosts, which we all know the theme song, too, I am out there helping you and your clients snag the best home loans possible.

Whether you're looking for conventional FHA VA or something unique like rehab, construction, HELOCs, or even bridge loans, my team's got you covered from start to closing.

So if you're ready to exercise those demons of financing nightmares, give me a call and we will make sure that your mortgage experience is nothing but treats. Now, before we dive into today's episode, if you're finding these insights valuable, do this old bald headed podcast or a favor hit that like button.

Subscribe and share this episode with a friend. I appreciate each of you coming back for your weekly fix on what's happening in this market filled with more tricks than treats, unfortunately.

Because when you need answers, you know who you're going to call. So thank you for being here each week. Your engagement is what keeps this thing alive and kicking.

All right, let's wade into the waters of mass hysteria today and get 50% of you guys yelling at your phone or radio or however you listen to this.

So today's guest is a man that I saw speak a few weeks back at the national association of Mortgage Brokers conference in Las Vegas, and he's been in the politics game in Washington for almost 20 years. He served in multiple roles for presidential administrations and helped coordinate election campaigns at the federal, state, and local levels.

He has his political bias, just like most of us do, but he is honest about his opinions, and he's one who thinks that a presidential candidate can and will impact housing in this most crazy presidential election. So if you're ready for some real insights from a policy insider, then you're in for a treat. This guy knows Washington like Dracula knows the night.

He's a seasoned lobbyist and a policy strategist, and he's here to tell us how this game is played. So do me a favor and please welcome to the podcast, political powerhouse himself, Michael Williams. Michael, how you doing, sir?

Michael
00:04:15

Thank you, Mike. I was. That was awesome. I was here just cracking up with all of the Halloween references. Those are well done. Well done.

And, you know, I'm old enough, I recognize all of those references.

Mike Mills
00:04:27

Okay, good, good, good. I want to make sure.

Hey, listen, anybody that's listening to me talk anyway is not in their early or under 30 years old, usually, so all the Ghostbuster references they can grab onto, but, you know, hey, gotta. Gotta start it off one way or another. And that's just kind of how it goes.

Now, I want to tell you that the reason I had you on, I really appreciate you coming in because, you know, I'm like, I told you we talked a lot before we came on. I am a political dork. I. This kind of stuff is fascinating to me. I really get into it. I enjoy it. It's something that I pay a lot of attention to.

And when I saw you speak at the conference in Vegas, one of the things that stuck out to me was your honesty about where you're coming from as it relates to policies, especially related to housing, because you work for the banking industry essentially as a. As a lobbyist. And. But you are. You know, obviously you have your own bias on what direction that you hope this election goes.

But from my point of view, I always value when I hear people speak and I feel like they are speaking, you know, for lack of a better way to put it, their truth, meaning there's not a slant to it. They don't have an angle. This is what you believe. And I get that vibe.

Then I have nothing but respect for people that I hear speak that way, regardless of if I agree with everything they have to say or not. And that was the thing that really struck me in your speech and then when we spoke a little bit afterwards.

So I can't thank you enough for being here, but I want to start off with both of us. You first, kind of giving a little bit of your background, which will obviously, you know, indicate your political affiliation in this.

In this conversation. And then I'll share a little bit of my. Which I've never done before, kind of where I stand on a few things.

Obviously, you're going to be much more well versed in this than me. But.

But then that way, as we kind of work through this conversation, anybody listening to it will have a pretty good idea of what we think in our biases, and they can be able to kind of form their own opinion based off of that. So. So give a little bit of your background so everybody knows what you did.

Michael
00:06:20

Okay, so my. My formative years in politics were in New York, so I'm. I'm a New Yorker. Dang. Philly. Yeah, yeah, I know. I know. It's. It's crushing. It's crushing.

I am actually in Philly right now working on the Harris campaign, but I drove up to New York for that, you know, Maniacal game last night, which, you know, hurt my spirit and made me. Made me tired. Yes. But, yeah. So I'm in New York originally, and I started work in New York state politics.

So in Albany, I worked for Governor Mario Cuomo, not Andrew. So. And that was back in 1990, 1991. And I worked for the New York State Legislature as well.

So that came with its sort of own brand of politics, which is vastly different from the federal level. Much more knife fighting. Even nowadays, it's still much more knife fight in there. But what it taught me was how to be practical. Right.

And at the end of the day, you can argue with people, but when it really comes down to it, words are words, but what are you going to deliver for your constituents? And that's sort of the underlying theme for, I would say, 99% of the folks in state government in New York.

So after Cuomo lost in 94, I came down and worked for Bill Clinton again. He left the triangulation, right.

Let's figure out what it is that we can actually get done as opposed to, well, I'm going to die on this Hill because that's what my party believes or that's what I believe. And it was more about how am I useful and what is the legacy that I leave, not just for myself but for the party.

So I worked there for five years, so the last year of the first term and then the entirety of the second term, and we did things, you know, in the trade and tax and banking space that most Democrats didn't vote for. And so I remember the. My last bill there was on a. It was a trade bill, and it was whether or not we should let China into the wto.

And, you know, from a Democratic White House, we had to whip that bill on the floor in a Republican speaker's office because we were not allowed to go into the Democratic majority leader's office and whip members of the Democratic Party because labor said so.

Mike Mills
00:08:52

Of which you were party representative. Okay, yes, Washington.

Michael
00:08:57

So. Well, exactly. So, I mean, that sort of formed my view that, yeah, listen, politics are politics and everyone has them, right.

Regardless if people try to eschew it all they want to. But, you know, politics is not something that exists in government. It's just everywhere, right?

There's politics in families, there's politics in churches, but you can have your own brand of politics. But at the end of the day, the government's job is to get things done.

So I left the White House and I went into the private sector, went into the trade association World, representing all of the major financial services firms on the fixed income side. So we did a lot of work with Fannie and Freddie. We did a lot of work on the fixed income space. You know, we did predatory lending. Right.

Obviously during that period of time, this was, you know, 2000 to 2006, was deeply involved in that in terms of housing policy. And then sort of the aftermath of the market meltdown in 2008, 2010, leading up to Dodd Frank.

By that point I was at Credit Suisse working through those same issues.

Again, lot of housing policy work that was done at that point and a lot of housing policy mistakes that were made in response to, you know, the, the financial meltdown in 2008, 2009. Dodd Frank was a massive overcorrection and actually was fighting the last battle.

As opposed to trying to look forward and figure out what does house housing policy need to look like. We actually have the opportunity to rewrite it to make it more beneficial to people. And instead the cop out was, it's too hard.

We have an emergency right now. Let's fix this emergency and then let's make it as hard as possible and then we'll worry about tomorrow. Tomorrow.

And that actually was set to me in a meeting. And again, here's where we are now.

So where I know we're going to talk about some housing policy and where the respective parties are, but I think some context is helpful in that regard.

So I left Credit Suisse In 2012 after the presidential election that year and the following year started my own firm because I wanted to be able to pick my clients just as much as they pick me, so I can actually work with people who. And companies who actually want to get stuff done as opposed to, you know, just want it to be Right.

Mike Mills
00:11:29

Right.

Michael
00:11:29

As opposed to be effective. Right.

Mike Mills
00:11:32

Well, I, and that's. You said like, you know, what you just said there about, about making, you know, the CFPB obviously is, is a big, it's a big boogeyman in our world.

You know, I'm a mortgage banker, so, you know, we deal with that all the time. And obviously depending on administration, sometimes it's harder or worse, but.

But it certainly was a situation in which Washington did what it always does, which is, which is understandable because again, the system is set up the way it is, where they are reactive instead of proactive. And so we are trying to get reelected. We are trying to make everybody happy so they like us.

So we're going to react to this problem that's immediately in front of us and not get to the root of the issue and try to actually solve problems. But we're just going to create this entity and, you know, do all these things.

And it has created, I'm sure, a ton of extra, you know, hoops to jump through to get things done these days. But so real quick on my personal affiliation on this, my new favorite phrase these days is that I'm a political orphan.

If I'm, you know, being completely honest from.

And I told you this when we started, but between the ages of 18 to probably into my late to mid 20s, I would probably have considered myself a Republican only because I was born and raised in Texas. And, you know, you. You grow up what you grow up around. And, you know, I was socially liberal, but fiscally conservative.

You know, that's everybody's favorite tagline. So that's probably what it categorized me then.

Then into my 30s, I probably became much more on the Democratic side, primarily having to do with a lot that was going on with the war in Iraq, a lot with what was happening with, you know, I'm not a big fan of John McCain or, I'm. I'm sorry, not John McCain, Dick Cheney. Not a real big fan of that dude.

And what, what happened in as far as what the public was told and how that all went down. So, you know, kind of felt a little bit dis, you know, separated from those guys.

I really got on the Bernie Sanders bandwagon when he was running for office against Hillary Clinton for the primary. Not a big fan of Hillary at that time. Still am not. But I was on the Bernie bandwagon, not because I'm a socialist, but because, like I told you, I.

When I same reason I wanted to talk to you is that when I hear people speak and I get the impression from them on a regular basis that they're speaking their truth and what they really believe, regardless of if I agree with them on everything, I can at least take that person's opinion into consideration and realize that they're not trying to spend something. And so I appreciated Bernie's desire to help the average American make wages a little bit better, try to get health care problems solved.

His method of doing it, whether I agree or disagree, was not the point. It was that I felt like his ship was pointed in that direction. And I like that.

And then we get to this, this election, and I'm in a situation, oh, by the way, never like Donald Trump in my life. I don't particularly like him right now, and I'm sure that'll make A lot of my Texas fans here upset, but I have a shirt that says, be a good human.

And I do not think that Donald Trump's a great human, but in fairness, I think most politicians are bad human beings, so it doesn't necessarily apply just to him. I wasn't a fan of the Apprentice. I wasn't a fan of much of anything that that dude did.

Plus, he was from New York, you know, and I'm from Texas, like the New York guy. And so I am still not a huge fan. But I'm also not a fan of what the Democratic Party has become, in my opinion.

And when I see things, you know, when I see people talking about censoring speech and, you know, because of misinformation and limiting what you're allowed to say and, you know, truth or rhetoric or whatever, it's still there.

And then, you know, when I hear other things like, you know, what they want to do with, you know, unrealized gains on taxes, none of those things are going to happen. But the fact that you're willing to put that out there and really kind of affect how this structure's been in place for so long is concerning to me.

So. But there's plenty of sides, things on the Republican side that are the same.

The only thing I would say in this particular election is that I've listened to Robert Kennedy speak hours and hours about different topics, and I value his opinion. I don't agree with him on everything, but I do value his opinion on a lot of stuff.

Tulsi Gabbard, I'm a big fan of and what she's accomplished in her career as a politician. And then, you know, I like Elon, regardless of all his funky little quirks. He's got, like, 25 kids and, you know, has.

Has temper tantrums on Twitter all the time. But for what he's done with Space X and what he's doing with Tesla, I have a Tesla.

What he's doing with, you know, different innovations that took so long to break into big oil, and he's only the one that's been able to do that with the cars and stuff. That kind of stuff appeals to me. So when I. When I look at the camps, you know, I'm.

Again, I'm in the middle, but I'm leaning probably more towards the Republican side of things just because of the people that they put around them. So that is my bias. That's where I'm at. But, you know, we all have our opinions on things, but, you know, here's where we are.

So I really want to get right into some housing policies and then we'll cover a few other things because like I told you before we started, you know, I really want to pick your brain on how all this Washington really works. And you'll get into it a little bit when we discuss these policies because you did before.

And then I really want to talk about the lobbyist piece because like I told you, as far as I'm concerned, until today, until I met you, honestly, until I met you, if I was thinking of a lobbyist, I'm thinking of the guy with horns and a tail having money fly out the back of his behind. So that's why I'm thinking of lobbyists. But you know, we had a great conversation about it and I've definitely changed that.

So let's start with the policies. Now what I want to do is I want to kind of go down each one on a few things. I want you to touch on a few points to them.

I don't want to spend too, too long on it because we are limited on time. And there's a few things I want to get to, but just some basic stuff. So let's start with Kamala first.

So based on what I can find, she's got a few policies that she's put out there that she would like to push forward when she gets into office. So one of them relates to affordable housing and rent control.

So her plan accordingly, according to what I found on the Internet, so take that grain of salt, is approximately, she wants to have 3 million new affordable home units by 2029, aiming to alleviate the national shortage, which is very. I think that's the biggest issue that we have with housing right now.

She supports a national cap on rent increases, limiting them to 5% annually for larger landlords. And although this policy faces significant legislative challenges, it's mixed in the industry reception. So let's start with that one.

So let's start with.

Now, I will say when we met the first time, you know, there was more focus on the homebuyer credits, which we'll get to in a second, which is more of a demand side stimulation. And I don't think that's the issue in housing. I think it's supply side. But this is something that would address that supply side.

So what are your thoughts on it? How feasible is it, all those things?

Michael
00:18:05

It'll never work. And it's not because the concept is bad. It's with most of policy in D.C. at the Federal level, it's the implementation that would Be terrible, right?

Who is going to be in charge of that? It's great to say you want to do 3 million more units, but are you going to work with all of the states and locals on their laws, right.

To actually make something like that work? Let's take where she's from, right, In California, literally, to build an affordable housing project in California would likely take you three years.

Even if the need is there and is demonstrable and the funding is there, you still have so many hurdles that you have to deal with at the municipality level as well as the state level, even if the federal government is paying for it themselves.

Mike Mills
00:18:55

So.

Michael
00:18:55

So those things are nice on paper. It's a great talking point and it makes people feel good, like, oh my God, help is coming, but help will never come under a plan like that.

Right, but there are other alternatives. But those alternatives require you to work with the private sector in order to make that affordable. There are already home builders that have land.

Right. That have permitted, that are already in place. But how do you lock up with them to ensure that they are going to do that?

You can incentivize them the same way that you are going to incentivize whomever. Because the federal government can write a check tomorrow and send it out to the states and that money will never get to where it's supposed to be.

And it's not because the states are going to scand with it.

It's because the implementation timeline is such that by the time you get there, you're spending more money on red tape than you are on actually building affordable housing units. So the intentions are great, but that would never work from an implementation standpoint.

Mike Mills
00:19:59

What about the rent cap piece of that?

Michael
00:20:03

I don't know how you can do that because again, it's the federal government who is saying that they would like to do this. And rent caps, those are state and local regulations. So you can incentivize states and locals to do it by holding up funding.

But show me the member of Congress who's going to sign up for that.

They say, well, yeah, you know, my state was going to get transportation money or they were going to get housing money, but they can't do it unless they change their laws.

It doesn't, it doesn't line up because there are other policy areas where Democrats are just in consumer protection, for example, led by California, where they're saying, look, we need to be able to set our own state laws because we have a unique circumstance out here. We're our own country. And so therefore you Know, we don't want the federal government to supersede our regulatory authority.

So how do you square those two? Yeah, no one's been able to do that yet. And there's been a lot of debate.

Privacy as an example, that everyone thinks that there should be a privacy law, a national federal standard on privacy. Right. How does it control information, particularly as it pertains to kids online?

The reason why that's not been implemented is because of this issue with the states, where the states are saying, look, we don't want the federal government to have the ultimate cap because we would like to have the ability to go above and beyond that.

So if you take that debate that everyone agrees on and then you superimpose that over the housing debate relative to federal and states, how do you make that happen? So again, I think that it's a good campaign talking point, but it is not implementable policy in the current political environment.

Mike Mills
00:21:56

One question that I had from a listener that just came in is, and this I think is important because it does come up a lot is in Washington, generally speaking, what is defined as a affordable housing.

Because obviously, you know, we have 50 states that have, you know, there's hundreds of markets all over, you know, thousands of markets all over the country. And affordable in California is going to be vastly different than affordable in Mississippi.

So when, when the word affordable housing gets thrown out there, what generally price range do you think is. Is being referenced in that case? None on either side. So there is none.

Michael
00:22:28

It's just, it's just a buzz is the word, right? Affordable. Affordable for you.

Somebody else decides that we just, we just want the money and we want to come up with the policy and then the sort of parameters and then you guys fill in the blanks. The problem is you can't fill in the blanks because you never have ultimate authority to fill in the blanks. They come with strings.

And so, you know, you have a very small box in which to fill and it never works. I mean, there have been projects that have been pitched and I've been in these meetings where you have a bank.

They effectively bought up a garden style apartment complex, which huge, right? And this is in Charlotte, North Carolina. So they went and said, all right, we're going to do affordable housing this way.

We're going to go out and we're going to buy this up, we're going to pay to rehab it, and then we're going to apply for government subsidies, not federal government subsidies, but state level subsidies just to do the sort of basic blocking and Tackling and getting this thing up to spec. No unit in this is going to be priced over $60,000. We will finance these mortgages at $60,000.

Federal government is like, well, I don't know, maybe we need to look at this a little bit further. Like, what is there to look at? The city of Charlotte is fine with it. The county of Mecklenburg is fine with it.

They've actually put their money into it. That project still has not kicked off yet. There have been bills that have been proposed to do these sort of micro mortgages. Right.

40, 50, $60,000 to incentivize institutions to lend at that level.

Mike Mills
00:24:21

Yeah, because we don't want to do that.

Michael
00:24:22

Homes.

Mike Mills
00:24:23

Yeah, right. Under 55 grand, you got limits on fees and charges. It becomes very difficult.

Michael
00:24:28

Correct, correct. And there have been proposals. Maxine Waters is one of the main ones. She's like, you cut the red tape, incentivize them to make these loans.

And you know, you have consumer groups who say, well, no, you can't do that because then they're going to rob people. Going to rob people of you could buy a house for $60,000. Like it's okay. Right. We can handle that.

So the overall point is the implementation structure at the federal government is ridiculous. They don't do specifics. They know. So there is no one definable affordable housing standard. It's just we want more affordable housing.

We want more low income housing. There is no standard for low income either that anybody ever touts relative to this.

Because that's for some TBD federal agency working in conjunction with a state agency to make a determination on.

Mike Mills
00:25:26

Yes. This is why everybody loves politics. It's just so much fun. All right, let's talk about her down payment assistance proposal.

So she proposes a down payment assistance program offering $25,000 for first time home buyers specifically, which. That's another of my favorite buzz terms. First time homebuyer.

Well, if you look at grant programs and all kinds of things, most first time homebuyers is just defined as someone who hasn't owned a home in three years. And that's generally. And then depending on state law, if you didn't buy the home, but you're on title because it's a community property state.

Well, you're not a first time home buyer and you know, whatever that'll take me. Hold on. A little rabbit hole.

But 25,000 for first time home buyers, specifically targeting underserved communities to make home ownership more accessible. Again, what's an underserved community? Who defines that Et cetera. So that's a demand side stimulus policy. What are your thoughts on that?

Michael
00:26:19

Again, won't work. Even if you put a trillion dollars into a program like that where what are they going to buy?

Like, Congratulations, you have $25,000, but there's no housing stock, what are you going to purchase with that money? Nothing. And then they're going to say, well, oh my God, these homeowners and landlords, they are just short in the market.

You have these people who are ready to buy and there's nothing for them to buy and say it with a straight face. So it's that they won't see the irony in it whatsoever.

So even if you were able to do that program and then on top of that provide, you know, sort of the supply side of the equation, they will never meet up because you will have the demand side money put up much quicker than you would the supply side money. And so you, you would have an imbalance there and there would be a tremendous amount of pressure put on the private sector.

And again, not just on the builders, on home builders, but also for lenders.

Mike Mills
00:27:30

Yeah.

Michael
00:27:31

So, you know, you're not going to be incentivized by $25,000 in down payment assistance to put somebody into a mortgage that take, you know, that they can't afford.

Mike Mills
00:27:42

Yes. Well, on a house out of the equation, cash is one thing, but credit and income and debt and all the other things that go into it.

And that, you know, that is a piece that I think I deal with it all the time when I talk to buyers and just my customers is, you know, VA is a good example is they'll say, you know, I want to get a VA loan, like, fantastic. And they'll tell you, you know, they'll say things like, you know, well, the VA says I can do this and the VA says I can do that.

And I say, you're, you know, maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong on what you're saying. But the VA doesn't issue that loan. Okay. The bank issues that loan and the VA insures that loan.

So if you don't pay it, then the bank is at not as risky of a situation that they can offload that loan to the VA and then they'll sell the house. But I think general consumers will are under the impression that VA issues loans or the government issues an FHA loan.

And I have to constantly like, the government does not issue loans. The government creates the guidelines and the rules for banks to follow in order to have the loan insured but they're not giving you money.

And so there's this, there's this disconnect there.

And when you go to say, okay, well, we're going to implement this federal program, that's going to be this, that or the other thing that sounds good, but then you have to have the, like you said, you have to have the private sector implement it. And they're the ones that have to follow those rules. And if they don't want to for whatever reason, you know, it's like FHA credit scores.

There is nothing in the guideline that says you need a particular credit score to qualify for an FHA loan. And there are loans available. If you have no credit score at all, you can get an FHA loan.

But banks are not going to give somebody an FHA loan with a 460 credit score. They're just not going to do it. So you have all the information. Firms like this is definitely not going to work.

You know, so what the, what the government says and the policies that they implement or that they put into place aren't necessarily easily implement, implementable by the private sector, who ultimately are the ones that have to do that, Right?

Michael
00:29:33

No, that's right.

And I think it's a lot of the government's fault and a lot of the rhetoric, like you put out campaign promises or you put out a one pager, but with no specifics. Right.

If you just go back, we were talking earlier about Dodd Frank, if you recall the entirety of Dodd Frank, and for all of the hub up that it's caused, with the exception of the cfpb, by the way, which was not in the treasury white paper, but the treasury put together a white paper on how to make modifications to the financial system, particularly in the housing space. It was 10 pages long. 10.

And at the time when Obama was sworn in and after they did the stimulus bill, that was the first thing out of the gate, that $900 billion stimulus bill. And they said, okay, now we're going to turn to, we're going to do financial market regulation.

And everyone was waiting with bated breath for the White House and Treasury to come out with a massive plan. And effectively what they said was, yeah, you know what, this treasury report, that's good stuff. You should do it.

And then they sent that to the Hill. Yeah, 10 pages of ideas and concepts. And then they sent that off to the Hill and then that became the monstrosity which was Dodd Frank.

Mike Mills
00:30:59

So again, giving you their Christmas list and giving it to Santa Claus. And this magical thing is Going to create it off of, like, an idea. That's hilarious.

All right, so the next one here, speaking of government, is expansion of HUD funding and grants. So said, under Harris, there'll be an increased funding for HUD programs with 5.5 billion earmarked for affordable housing grants.

Again, there's that favorite word to improve housing supply, provide rental assistance, and address homelessness.

Now, I have one thought on this one, and I want to hear yours on this as well, is anytime I hear about a government agency earmarking funds or giving specific amount of money to who this is going to, my first question always becomes, this sounds like a money grab for whoever's running that program's friends.

Because when you're saying we're going to give this much money to incentivize this and you don't give details, obviously if they put the plan through, there have to be more.

But when there's no real direction on it, it sounds great, but then it ends up being a money grab for companies in their relationships with these, you know, institutions, politicians, agencies, whatever you want to call it. At least that's what I see in a lot of ways. That kind of stuff always raises my eyebrow a little bit. And I'm like, okay.

I mean, I like the idea, I guess, but what does that mean? I mean, we subs. Look, brought it up earlier. We subsidize the farming industry. We subsidize the oil and gas industry.

We have subsidies out the wazoo for all kinds of industry in the United States, which I think in some places are good and some places maybe need to be looked at again. But we don't subsidize housing for the most part, or builders to create more housing.

So if there's a plan out there where we can go to builders and private builders and give them incentives and subsidies to help build more affordable homes, whatever that's defined as. I'm all for that, but how is it managed? Who's responsible for making sure?

I mean, when you hear things like the Defense Department lose, fails their audit, you know, every single time they go up for one because they can't account for things.

And I know why, but, you know, they don't know where stuff is that just leads you to go, well, why would I put this in the hands of the government to be able to do that, too? You know what I mean?

Michael
00:33:06

Yeah, but it also doesn't work because, I mean, the worst example, there was a report out of D.C. the DCC, the council did a report. So D.C. took a lot of the COVID money that it received and did just this. Right.

They wanted to subsidize affordable housing, not just for, obviously, people who are impacted by the pandemic, but they also wanted to incentivize builders to build more of them. What happened was they got X, they needed Y, and they had no way to bridge the delta.

So if you are a certified affordable housing provider in the District of Columbia, you were promised you were going to get this and there were going to be rules. So you could not have your tenants, for example, just not pay rent for no reason. Right.

They had to have demonstrated proof that they could not go back to work. And they couldn't, you know, sort of make the money in order to do this.

And then you would get that supplemental rental income in order for you to go out and purchase a building, make the investment of purchasing a building, rehabbing it, and then selling. And then it was mixed use. So it was, you could sell units and then you could rent units.

Then you would have to be able to go out there and demonstrate in order to attract those customers. You took a little bit less than you probably would have been able to get.

But the motivation was if you try to do private finance, it's going to be more expensive for you anyway. So the little bit of money that you're losing on this, you'll make it back up over the long term.

Well, the problem is the District ran out of that money. And once that, once that fountain was turned off, there was no way to do it.

So now you have landlords who were stuck with properties that they bought with the notion that they were going to refurbish it and provide affordable housing to people, and they're now selling it, pennies on the dollar, because to private investors who could now, or not beholden to any of those things, they could just rip them down and make, you know, new units. It's.

Yeah, you provide that money to hud, and HUD effectively just turns around and provides it via, you know, community development block grants to states. And then states effectively come up and they decide what it is affordable is, you know, what the rules are associated with it.

And see the first conversation how we started off this discussion, which is it's never going to work because you actually need more intentionality in housing to effectuate change.

Mike Mills
00:36:00

Right. And. And probably a little bit more efficiency and specific specificity on where it goes.

The, the last one for Harris here is, and I'm curious to get your take on this too, because so it's any discrimination in housing, so Harris emphasizes eliminating discriminatory practices and housing, especially around biased appraisals and lending practices.

Her administration would aim to protect vulnerable communities by enforcing fair housing laws and expanding resources to combat racial disparities in homeownership. Now, as anybody watching this can see, I'm a white guy, you're a black guy, right? This is what we are.

Now, I will say I've been in lending for 15 years. I've been, I've done thousands of loans over the years.

I personally have never seen a situation in which a buyer or seller that I'm aware of, whether it be appraisals, title lending or whatever, had any type of, let's say, negative discrimination against them based on their ethnicity. Okay, I have not personally experienced it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It just means that I have not personally experienced it.

Now, a point could be argued that some of the rules that are set up on how credit's evaluated, you know, certain areas and pricing maybe, you know, I could, I could certainly see that. I don't, I'm not well versed enough to know what that would be.

But, but I could see how the, the system maybe to some extent has some biases that they put in, but I haven't come across individuals. Now, are there, are there people that are racist out there? Absolutely. Like they exist and they do bad things.

But I'm curious, from your point of view as a black man, what, what do you see on that side of thing? And do you think that is a real problem and is a big problem, or is it a small thing?

Or, you know, is that something that does need to be addressed from your point of view?

Michael
00:37:48

Well, I mean, there are different components of it. And yes, some of them are problems, but these are not, These are, none of these are new. Right.

Like, these issues have been around for a long time and people have been trying to figure out how you get at the root cause of it. It is not in the purview of the federal government to solve this issue because the federal government doesn't do real estate. It just doesn't. Right.

It can do guarantees, it can provide block grants via hud, you can provide subsidies via hud, but they don't make policy. And when they try to do that, what you get is a CFPB coming in.

And they say, well, here's what's going to happen as it relates to TILA and respa, right? And then they make it worse because they actually make the paperwork worse and they provide less certainty.

HMDA data, you know, just section 1077, small business lending. People are like, what are you doing?

Like, so you're trying to root out discrimination, but you're rooting out discrimination by telling everybody that in order to do that you have to report more of your discrimination.

You're actually getting at the wrong part of the problem because the people who are not discriminated, they're just going to say, you know what, I'm going to like left handed discriminate because I'm not going to lend to those people who I otherwise would have lent to before because it's going to cost me more money on the compliance side.

Mike Mills
00:39:15

Gotcha.

Michael
00:39:15

I had no problem doing that before. But yeah, so in order to, you know, you're using, it's the old proverbial, you're using a nuke, you know, when a fly swatter would have done better.

And this issue came up as part of the 2020 campaign and they did do appraisal reforms.

And what they just, what they determined was, and they did this over at the fhfa and what they determined was it wasn't that people were biased, they were just dumb and people were getting appraisals.

Mike Mills
00:39:47

Yeah.

Michael
00:39:48

And you had these appraisers. There was no uniformity.

Mike Mills
00:39:51

Right.

Michael
00:39:52

In terms of what you can just, you just go pay money and become an appraiser and you're just like, hey, listen, you're going to give me the same 150, 200 for this report. I'm just going to just do the thing. Right. And you know, I don't really care. So there are already policies in place to try to address that.

But you can only do so much in that space and you can only do it where the federal government can sort of twist, tweak the levers. The FHFA is one of them. Hud, obviously, va, fha, you could make those requirements. But for the vast majority of the private sector.

Yes, but it's the kind of discrimination that exists not just in real estate. Right. But you know, some people get upset about it, but systemic racism is a thing.

Mike Mills
00:40:38

Sure.

Michael
00:40:38

Right. I mean, it just is just like, you know, you know, systemic misogyny. That's a thing.

Mike Mills
00:40:44

Yeah.

Michael
00:40:45

And it's, it is funny because, you know, I've heard here in Philly there are black men who are like, yeah.

Mike Mills
00:40:51

I don't want to vote for her.

Michael
00:40:52

I don't want a black woman to be president. And I'm like. And they just say it out loud. Yeah, it's just like, you know, but you can't Say that that doesn't exist.

Is that the sort of pervasive standard? No, it's not. But it does exist there. And when it. And when it does, it gets amplified. And you are running for president and you need certain votes.

You're going to say things like, yes, we need to fix this. But again, this is not new.

This has been going on, at least that I've been aware of at the federal level, this specific debate for the better part of 17 years.

Mike Mills
00:41:27

Yeah, well, it gets to. I think this. What you just said gets to the.

One of the biggest issues, in my opinion, with politics in general, is that we spend so much time focusing on the social issues to push us on one side or the other, when often, you know, the social issues, whether it be racism or it be, you know, the most local flavor, the transgender thing and, you know, or religion or whatever abortion or whatever the case may be, is that we want to put everybody in a bucket. You're either every. Either everybody on this side is racist or they're not. And it's like, there's. There's a spectrum here, right?

There's always a spectrum to everything, and there is no. Is there systemic racism? Yes, it exists. Is it. Like you said, is it prevalent across all things these days? You know, it's probably not like it's.

Michael
00:42:13

We.

Mike Mills
00:42:13

I don't know, because I don't live everybody's life. I don't look through your eyes. I don't look through. I just look through these eyes as a bald white dude. So I don't know.

But what I do know is what I exist in, what I. It's there, but it's. It's not, you know, crushingly happening or. Same thing with the transgender argument is like, okay, these.

These humans exist and they're.

They're living their lives or whatever, but we're talking about a very, very small portion of the population on the aggregate and how everything else affects everybody else. So when politicians and parties focus on these issues in order to.

This person good, this person bad, whatever the issue is, it takes away from what we're talking about, which is, okay, you have a policy that you're trying to implement that will impact my life, whether my real estate or my financial wellbeing or my retirement or whatever, I need to know what your plan is and how you're going to do it. And because especially with the advent of the Internet, you know, we want to make everybody mad and get everybody to click on stuff.

It's all of these social issues that, like, you perfectly Put is not something that Washington can solve it. The policies and what we're trying to accomplish can move us in directions, but that's the stuff that we need to focus on.

And it gets so infuriating when you look at these things. And that's all you see. Like, I'm so sick and tired of seeing about all of that stuff.

And all that does, whether you're on this side or the other is just keep pushing people further to the extremes not because they felt that way, but because they're just so sick of hearing about it, whatever it is, you know what I mean? And that's where I think a lot of people end up.

Michael
00:43:40

Yeah, I mean, it's a weird thing because I remember this debate on appraisals and I'm like, well, wouldn't it be easier if we just told people that they don't actually have to go with that appraisal? I mean, you know, it's not just one, you could just request other, but people have no information.

So you have these first time home buyers going in and they're buying these homes and they're like, oh my God, they didn't show me this property or they didn't tell me this and I was disqualified because I am black or because I'm Latino or I'm whatever. And you're like, yeah, you know what, that's probably right. And they didn't do it.

But it's never really like in your face, like no one's ever going to tell you, oh yeah, but you have that, but you have that feeling. But then you say, well, did you do the next thing? And it's like, well, what's the next thing?

Did you actually go out and talk to another lender or did you actually go out and try, you know, sort of the house down the street?

But again, people are not informed about the process themselves, but they're not incentivized to be informed because effectively what they get is, yeah, that's terrible, we're going to pass a law to make it better. And then that law never happens.

Mike Mills
00:44:55

Well, and that's the industry's fault, honestly, because like we talked about before we got on, you know, about, you were telling me about the conversation with your friend about, you know, her complaining about people not understanding politics and knowing all this stuff and just voting without having being informed. It's like, listen, everybody only has so much time in the day to focus on everything.

So the first time that they pay attention to being able to buy a house in the process is when they decide they're ready to buy a house, and that's when it happens. And they have no, the vast majority of people, very intelligent people, by the way, education level is not, you know, doesn't matter.

But most people that get into it have a very limited knowledge of the process and how it works and what you have to go through and your options and all the things that you can do.

And unless they have someone to explain that to them, whether it be their realtor or their lender and really go through it and be clear with them, then they just kind of walk through a fog and come out the other side saying, okay, I got my house. So I guess it's all fine. And, and that's, again, that's an industry problem that we have to address.

Okay, let's move on to the most polarizing human being on the planet, Mr. Donald J. Trump. So his housing policies revolve around what you would think most Republican housing policies revolve around.

So first off, we start with deregulation.

So Trump's previous administration promoted deregulation as a method to increase housing supply, reducing federal oversight on zoning and development.

Trump is expected to continue advocating for similar policies to streamline housing development and reduce costs associated with regulatory compliance. So what are your thoughts on that?

I love, by the way, with all of these, Kamala and Trump, they say, you know, Harris, you know Harris, Kamala Harris is going to do this, Trump's going to do this. I'm like, neither one of them are going to do any of that stuff.

Their people that work for them might be incentivized to do it, but they're not thinking about that. So anyway, that's my two cents on that. So what do you think? Regulation one?

Michael
00:46:42

Yeah, that was just a, that was just a really long policy statement that meant nothing. What is the total impact a federal zoning regulation?

Mike Mills
00:46:55

Right.

Michael
00:46:56

Like, if you put that in real.

Mike Mills
00:46:58

Estate.

Michael
00:47:01

You put that in a context of like, housing supply, that absolutely means nothing. And sort of where it is that they need to be able to do it, because we're talking about local ordinances, right?

You're talking about putting new stock on.

Unless, of course, you know, you're dealing with, you know, HUD or you're dealing with the sort of largest landlord in the country, which is the usda, but, you know, they're not going to do rural development projects. That's not where your housing supply stock is low. Right? So, yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, that sort of fits.

That's a good talking point because it sort of strike all the right notes, like, you know, deregulation and privatization. And.

Mike Mills
00:47:47

No, that's, that's a, like I said when I, when I was reading, I was like, this is a very Republican stance. And again, like, just to be clear, I in many ways believe in a lot of things related to deregulation.

And you, we spoke earlier about cutting through red tape and bureaucracy and all of that stuff. But, and that's important and I like that idea. But it's, again, how are you, what specifically are you going to do?

What policy is this going to implement?

And how are you going to take deregulation that belongs to, mostly to states and municipalities and get them to play along and make these rule changes? You know, on a federal level, it just seems like a very, very difficult thing to do.

But checks all the right boxes if you're Libertarian or Republican in the words that you want to hear. Next one again, same thing. Support for private sector investment.

So Trump typically favors policies that encourage private investment in housing, aiming to let market forces drive housing affordability. This stance contrasts with more direct federal funding approaches and aligns with his general push for less federal involvement in economic sectors.

How about that?

Michael
00:48:49

That one, that one is practical. Right, because that means you're going to provide tax incentives.

Mike Mills
00:48:55

Yep.

Michael
00:48:55

Right. And so therefore, it still costs money. It's just not, you know, and it still gets added to the national debt, still gets added to the deficit.

Because if you provide tax incentives for builders to do this, it is different than just cutting a check. Right. Because that check comes with strings.

However, it also, if you could provide a federal incentive for a builder to do more affordable housing projects, that's awesome.

But that builder first would also have to get permission from the state and municipality to build said project, because what you are going to need to incentivize that state with something else to allow that project to go forward. It is not going to be, you know, inherent to them that.

Oh, yeah, well, you know, builder X has this tax incentive and they're proposing to build 200 homes. Okay, that's great. Good for you. And I'm glad that you're ready.

But let's start the, you know, the proctology exam and let's figure out whether or not you qualify. And it's going to take you two years, but you don't get any money if you're the builder unless you actually spend money to build that project.

So what does that tax incentive mean to you?

Mike Mills
00:50:25

Well, and that's the next part is same thing. You know, they kind of break these Up. But tax incentives for developers and home buyers. Trump has expressed support for tax incentives.

I love express support. That's my favorite. For tax incentives aimed at developers and investors to increase housing affordability.

Although specific proposals are not yet public, which is another funny thing, this approach would likely involve incentivizing housing projects through the tax code rather than direct subsidies or grants. So it's just basically what you were saying about subsidizing through the tax code.

But like you said, and I think is important for everybody to understand, that is a very effective technique to incentivize the pub, the private sector to do things.

But the implementation and the application for doing that, it's kind of like, you know, you go back to the, it's a whole other discussion for another day. But like the PPP loans that were given out during COVID and the businesses that had to apply for them, how you had to go through that.

Now, that process actually was not layered with all kinds of restrictions, which it probably should have been, but it was actually. It's probably the argument for the opposite direction, but anybody could get that thing.

And then you had to prove things on the other side, you know, that once you got the money that you used it appropriately. And there were some, there were some hoops there. But that's the kind of thing that goes in.

You don't just get a blanket tax incentive, your company or what you're doing. There are, there are steps that you have to go through to approve it, to get it, apply for it and then get the money.

And then also, you know, kind of give the report card on how you use it, I would imagine. And that isn't a quick fit facts, you know, fast, easy process.

Michael
00:51:57

It takes time, correct? And then, and these incentives have expiration dates, right? So, you know, you do a tax bill, it's going to be five years, right?

In a current environment. And then so you have that motivation for five years.

You're going to either have to sweeten the pot by having them roll over based on how long it takes them to do permitting and zoning.

So, you know, you could roll that tax incentive over if it's not completed in year one or year two or year three, and now you get a big fat tax incentive in year five, right before the incentive, you know, goes away. That could work, but you know, there's still a lot of hurdles. And I just think that there is. And I get it.

You know, you're trying in a campaign to convey a message effectively and you're not trying to talk a lot of work. Yeah, you're just trying to. You're just trying to make it work.

But, you know, the reality on the ground is a lot of these things are much more complex. And we talked about this a little earlier.

I think it's incumbent on the government, not just the politicians, but, you know, the folks who work for the government to really explain this. Right. And have a conversation with California, with New York, you know, with Pennsylvania. But guys, you have a crisis, okay?

We collectively in the country don't have a crisis. You have one. What are you going to do? What do you need in order for us to be able to help you solve that crisis?

Now, that will put pressure on the states and the municipalities to actually work with lenders and to work with the builders and say, okay, look, here's what we think we can do. Here's how we can speed this up. D.C. had the right idea, but it's D.C. and you know, they don't really do implementation.

Mike Mills
00:53:44

Yeah.

Michael
00:53:46

Follow up.

Mike Mills
00:53:47

Well, everything is. Nothing ever happens. Lots of ideas, but nothing ever actually gets implemented.

You know, and it's funny too, and you know, I want to get to at the end here, but it's funny to me because growing up as a kid in the 80s and 90s, the government, it seemed at least, and I know it was tied to other things, actually did a really good job of educating thing, educating people on something that they wanted to deem important. So, like the war on drugs, for example. Right.

Obviously, a lot of things have changed between now and then and, you know, with the legalization of marijuana and half the states in the country and where things are headed with psychedelics and all that. But back then, as a kid growing up in the United States, you did not.

If you watch tv, which we all did, then, you weren't doing drugs, generally speaking, because they built an entire campaign around say no to drugs. Here's, you know, here's your brain, here's your brain on drugs. Got any questions? You know, all.

So when they want to and when they have the incentive, they can actually mobilize and do a good job. Same thing with smoking. There was a period of time where the, the.

And whether it was, you know, the health administration, whatever they was called, whether or not they were involved or if it was something on a different level. But, you know, smoking, you don't have to stop selling cigarettes to inform the public that smoking's bad for you. You can do these type of things.

You know, they used to have.

You watch cartoons, they'd have the little thing at the end is like the more, you know, and it would be like some little lesson that they were teaching. And I think much of that was done through public broadcasting and whatnot.

But those were, to me, as a kid that grew up during that time, those were very effective. I remember those things. It was. It was implanted in my brain. And to not be able.

Or to sit there as the administration now and not say, hey, there are things that we could do if we have a particular thing that we want to push through, if we want to educate people, not get them mad and not get them fired up and want to hate somebody on either side of the aisle, but to say, hey, look, here's something we should do and here's why. Let's create an educational campaign around it and get the people behind it. I think that is an incredibly effective technique.

And I wonder why they don't do that stuff anymore, because I don't seem to see that other than this person's bad. You don't want to know what they did.

And that's every political ad these days, is how awful the other person is compared to me or, you know, whoever's running.

Michael
00:55:59

Yeah. Because it's a. It's the Balkanization of information flow.

Mike Mills
00:56:04

Yeah.

Michael
00:56:04

Right. People are not reliant anymore on, you know, PSAs because everyone had to watch TV.

Mike Mills
00:56:11

Yeah.

Michael
00:56:11

Right. That's how you got your entertainment. That's how you got your news. Now you can create your own. Right.

You can create your own channel, and you can create your own networks. And so trying to reach that many people. Right. Just sort of via the traditional means. I give you an example.

And not casting aspersions, but with the student loan deal. Right.

That the Biden administration did, how is it possible, it has been asked a million times that you could provide that incentive to people and they have no idea that they received them. That should not be possible.

Mike Mills
00:56:53

Right.

Michael
00:56:53

But yet it did.

Mike Mills
00:56:55

Yeah.

Michael
00:56:55

Right. And the only time that they found out that they potentially had this incentive was when they read that the Supreme Court struck it down.

They're like, wait, did I qualify for that? Oh, yeah. But you would say, why wouldn't you take that opportunity to tell people.

Mike Mills
00:57:12

Yeah.

Michael
00:57:12

That this is a thing. Well, they were particularly bad at understanding that you need to reach people where they are and everybody is not at the same place anymore.

Mike Mills
00:57:24

Yes.

Michael
00:57:25

And so you have to tell them and then tell them again. And then you need to incorporate the industry.

Mike Mills
00:57:31

Yes.

Michael
00:57:31

Which we talked about this earlier. That's a bad thing for this administration. We don't want To. We don't want a business community talking about these things. But you do.

Mike Mills
00:57:40

Yes.

Michael
00:57:41

You need lenders out there talking about this.

You need realtors out there telling people what it is, and you need to give them good information so that now they can go and provide that sort of grassroots motivation for their states and localities to do the right things. Get on board with the zoning, get on board with the permitting, get on board with all of the information dispersal. But it's not hard to do.

But it's easier to demagogue, quite frankly, than it is to actually put into work. Imagine if you, instead of providing a subsidy to a state, you actually provided $500 million or $1 billion to an education campaign.

And you brought everybody in and said, okay, here, here's what we're doing. You bring in a nam, you bring in other national organizations and you say, okay, look, here is what we would like to do. Tell us where we're wrong.

Tell us where we can get better.

Mike Mills
00:58:36

Yeah.

Michael
00:58:36

And then you put together the states and the actual implementers and come up with a strategy, and you put a billion dollars behind that strategy. You can't tell me that that won't solve a lot of the issues that we talked about here today.

Mike Mills
00:58:52

100%.

Michael
00:58:53

But no one wants to do that because it's so much easier to be like, those guys are just robber barons. Like who? Mortgage brokers. Mortgage brokers become robber baron. Yeah. Like, what are the. When, when they, when are they the same as Rockefellers?

It's, it's weird.

Mike Mills
00:59:12

You're. You're speaking too much logic, Michael. You are speaking too much reasonability and logic.

And, you know, that just doesn't have any place in politics. And unfortunately, you know, they frown upon that. But. And I knew all you lobbyists were smart. See, there was, There's a place right there.

Okay, so the crux of all this, all right, one, most people, and I think you would agree with this, but tell me if I'm wrong, seem to be, because we don't pay attention to politics every day. We seem to be individual issue voters, Right. Most people are what they call single issue voters.

I'm passionate about this, and this president feels this way and this president feels that way. So let's just take that scope and let's push all the other stuff aside, right?

All the other policies and people and personalities and all that stuff, push it aside and let's look just at housing. So we are in what I would consider to be one of the biggest affordability crisis that we've Ever seen.

And I don't see a way out of it right now because house prices are not coming down because we don't have enough homes.

And the reason, even though we're at record low transactions for the last year or 30 year lows on turnover in single family homes until we get more properties and until we get more homes for people to buy and until, even if rates, rates can stay high. But if prices come down because you have so many more homes that makes affordable housing. So even the rate issue isn't that big of a deal.

It's it to me it's purely a supply issue. So.

So from your point of view, if we look just at housing and you had to go to the ballot and pull, pull the trigger for somebody because we only get two choices. It's the illusion of choice. My favorite word, who are you? If you're a housing single issue voter, who are you pulling the lever for?

Michael
01:00:55

I'm pulling the lever for Harris only because I think both, if I read the policy, I would just be like, well, you know what, one seems kind of light and the other one, at least there's some intentionality.

Mike Mills
01:01:14

Okay, okay, right.

Michael
01:01:15

I don't necessarily. Now I'm cynical. It's all get out.

But if I'm just a single issue voter and I read those, I'm saying to myself, yeah, at least one of them has some intentionality and they have some substance to what it is they're saying. Whether or not it'll happen, I don't know. But I understand it. Like I understand I'm going to give you 20. Yes, I'm going to give you $25,000.

I understand that you are going to provide money to states and localities to build more homes. It just says it.

Mike Mills
01:01:48

Yeah.

Michael
01:01:49

As a cynical person, I would say that if I'm a single issue voter, I'm not voting for either candidate because I really don't believe that either of their plans are practical in the sense that they would actually come to fruition. And it's going to solve my problem in the short, medium or long term. And that time frame to me, short is the next time my lease is up.

So that could be six months, it could be nine months. Medium term is like two years from now because I'm looking at, you know, at that point like two renewals and then long term is five years.

So between the six months and five year period of time, nothing that any of these candidates are saying is going to materially change because they can't tell you how it is that they're going to increase housing stock. They can't tell you how they're going to decrease prices. And they keep talking about prices, both of them, by the way, they talk about prices.

Trump doesn't talk about prices. He just blames the Biden administration. Yes, right. And the Biden administration and now Harris.

They talk about prices in the context of there are people who are doing things to you. That is true. That is called you that you are doing things to us by not providing incentives. And it's the same that holds true for both parties.

So Republicans spend all of their time in Congress blaming Democrats for stuff and demagogue and rather than saying, hey guys, listen, we have a supply side mentality. You guys have a government provides mentality. There has to be a way for us to come together, provide an incentive to get more housing stock.

Yeah, is this affects Republicans and Democrats. But there's no motivation for them to do that. But then everybody else suffers. That's what the cynic would say.

If I was a single issue cynical person like myself.

Mike Mills
01:03:48

Yes, I actually would agree with that second framing a little bit. Just because my opinion on it personally is that it?

And I've read this and you might know better than me, but it seems to be especially when it comes to affordable housing and you could, you could put it under the umbrella of the economy, I think you can kind of put it in there.

But it seems to be one of the most significant and important issues to the average American voter on how much it costs to own a home, how much interest rates have gone up, all of those things. It is one of, from my point of view, it is one of the most single important issues that most Americans are dealing with these days.

And I also feel like at the same time it is one of the least addressed issues when it comes to Senate campaigns, Congress campaigns, presidential campaigns, they don't talk about it again because we're talking about good, bad, they bad, we good, you know, in this simple, simple terms. And so it's not addressed. And if it's not addressed, then that means that you haven't really put any good thought into it.

And you know, I've always been when it comes to politics and people running for president or any governor, anybody that's managing a group of people, right. If I'm going to go talk at Nam, right, and I'm going to run for governor of whatever state, I'm bringing my housing guy with me.

And I'm like, look, I'm the CEO here, okay. I don't get in the Weeds and all this stuff. Here's what I believe. Here's where I'm trying to go on a high level.

My guy here is going to explain to you how we're going to implement that. Because I hire excellent people to help me with these jobs because I can't do everything and I can't know everything. So.

And I think if you're honest with people and you're real with them and you're like, hey, here's how this stuff works. People appreciate that. They're like, okay, good.

You're not going to stand up here and pretend like you're going to accomplish all these things that I know and this guy knows and everybody knows it's not going to happen, or at least the vast majority of it's not going to happen. But if you bring up the people that you say, hey, this guy's doing this and this gal's doing this, and they're my. My team. You know, we're. We're.

We're an all star team and we're going to rock this thing. I think people can appreciate that at a greater level, but that's not what the world we live in. It's a vote for me because I'm the best. Vote for.

Don't vote for them because they're the worst. And that's it. And it's depressing. And that's why when I look at politics on the whole, I'm just like, you know, again, illusion of choice.

This is the best we could do. This is the best we could do of the 300 million people in the United States with all the intelligence levels that we have. This is our choice. Okay.

All right. I guess it is.

Michael
01:06:12

Yeah. But, Mike, I told you, I'm super cynical. And I would go even further than that. I would tell you that this is as it relates to housing policy. Right.

For most politicians at the federal level, it's thoughts and prayers. Right. They just kind of hope it gets better.

And they kind of hope that they, you know, that this thing sort of works itself out partially for what you talked about, which is, yes, it's hyper partisan, and it's easier and quicker to just blame than to sit down and have the conversation.

Mike Mills
01:06:46

Yeah.

Michael
01:06:47

But there is a level of disingenuousness that exists, and you just end with this story. Right? So when Covid started, you know, you had the CARES act, right. And you had like, four versions of those things, Right.

Maxine Waters, lover or hater, God bless her soul, her singular issue in all of this was housing. People can't work. So we need to provide money to them. Okay, great. You're going to give them a check. That's nice.

But what about the sort of getting past this deal, Right.

Because some people, if you don't work for six months, three months, you lose your job and there's no guarantee you're going to get that same job back or a similar job. So let's provide some housing. Money very minimal was provided. She's been pushing for, you know, upwards of $50 billion comprehensive plan.

Didn't get included in any of them. The comprehensive plan when, when Democrats took control off the Congress after the 20. 2018 election, right? No, in. Yes, after 20, after that.

And right before Biden came into office, she pushed her plan again. When they did the ira, which was the Build Back Better program, she pushed her plan.

And remember, this was a bill that only passed with Democratic votes. No Republicans voted for this. And even in that context, same people who were pushing these housing policies.

And I would like to note that the vice president was then Senator Harris from California.

Mike Mills
01:08:36

She was.

Michael
01:08:38

And she didn't vote for their state. Okay. And then when she became vice president and it was being pushed in terms of the IRA bill, there was no massive push for housing.

And so this has been proposed and this debate has been had over the course of the past five years. And again, I would probably say, you know, maybe, maybe $500 million has gone into this on absolute terms. That's a lot of money.

But it's not relative to where we are right now. And this is during low rates, rising rates and now drop in rates.

So I'm a lot more cynical on this in the sense that no one is really motivated to solve the problem because it's really hard and it's going to take a long time and it's structural. So thoughts and prayers. We're going to say all the right things.

We're going to do a little bit on the margins and then just hope it shakes out and then we don't have to worry about it anymore.

Mike Mills
01:09:49

Okay, well, we're over an hour. I don't, I want to be respectful of your time. I do have, I do have a couple other little things, but do you got to.

Do you got to get to a thing or do you have a few minutes still?

Michael
01:10:00

Yeah, no, I could, I could, I could stay on.

Mike Mills
01:10:02

Okay. All right. So if you can, I know it's just a big question, but if you could get succeed, what.

What do you think from your point of view, what do you think could be done in a short time horizon that could actually help with affordability.

Is there, is there something that could be done that is either relatively simple or at least the starting, you know, can't eat the whale, but one bite at a time. So, so what, what do you think should be part of this plan if it was there?

Michael
01:10:33

Well, I mean, first of all, come up with a real plan, right? And so that would require actually bringing people to the table to figure out what are those things. Right?

Right now it's more theoretical, it's more think tanky and it's more, this is what my gut tells me should be done. As opposed to let's get the builders at the table, let's get the lenders at the table, all of the lenders, right. Not just the jpms and the Wells.

Mike Mills
01:11:03

Fargo and they only have that much of the market.

Michael
01:11:06

Correct. Let's get all of the lenders at the table, let's get the real estate guys at the table, let's get HUD and FHA and va.

Let's all talk about this and let's just say, hey, look, what can we do in the shortest period of time and identify where the needs are. Right.

The most severe and let's start addressing those things and see whether or not it actually can translate into the sort of medium risk, low risk territories. Just ask. All you have to do is ask and people will tell you.

We can bring together unified team for a mission to Mars, but we can't build a unified team to address a housing crisis.

It's, it seems a little ridiculous to me because right now, as far as I could tell, the only people who are talking about this are think tankers and government officials, both of whom know nothing about, in that order know the least.

Mike Mills
01:12:05

Yeah, the think tank generation thing is hilarious to me because it's just, it's funny. But okay, well that's, that's completely reasonable.

The, the best way to solve the problem is get all the people that are involved in the problem and deal with it on a day to day basis and see it on the ground level and are fighting in the trenches and get them to say, hey, look, here's, here's the problems that we're running into. Here's some thoughts we think could help fix the issue and then just go around that table and hash it out.

You know, you'd be amazed at the way that you can solve problems that way. I mean, it's a simple, simple thing, but it's amazing that it's not done more often.

Michael
01:12:41

And Olive walks Yeah, because here's the thing. Once you have that solution, the government could move pretty quickly. Yeah, right. Because now you're not doing it.

It's not just one administration versus the other that's doing it. Now you are incentivized in this conversation. And now it becomes harder for Republican X or Democrat Y to say, well, no, I disagree.

You could disagree with it fundamentally, but there are more people who, who want to be reasonable who would then say, okay, fine, you could just get off the train and we will just move on without you.

Because it doesn't have this ridiculous, you know, sort of socialist thing or this ultra MAGA provision, then we're, that's not the party we want to have right now. We want to have the party where folks are actually going to get service. And we're not talking about a short turnaround here either. Right.

We're talking about maybe, you know, like a couple of years. But that solution is going to be permanent.

Mike Mills
01:13:41

Right.

Michael
01:13:42

Because now you can replicate it the next time or improve upon it or.

Mike Mills
01:13:47

Subtract from it or whatever.

Michael
01:13:49

Exactly. It's not a band aid. You're not throwing out 500 million or a billion dollars to a specific area and saying, here's some money, you know, fix it.

And then you're surprised when it's not fixed. And then that 1 billion begets 5 billion begets 100 billion.

Mike Mills
01:14:06

Yeah, it's engineering. How do you build a bridge? Well, there's certain fundamentals to building a bridge that takes to do it. Can you change it?

Can you adjust it according to how big the bridge? Yeah, absolutely. But that's what you're talking about. It's just an engineering problem. How do we solve the engineering problem?

So it can be a long term solution, which is why you need those smart engineering guys in the room to look at it from that perspective.

So then my other question is, if there was one thing, okay, from being in Washington all the years that you've been there, if there was one thing that you could add to or subtract from that you feel like would help move policy along better, what would that thing. What is, what is in your head? What's the, what's the biggest roadblock or biggest missing piece?

You know, you can't solve all the problems, but you know that, that could get things done a little bit better.

Because I think that's most people's frustration with Washington isn't, when you get down to it isn't so much Democrat, Republican, it is nothing ever gets accomplished. Nothing. You know, and we've been like that for a very, very long time.

We hear all kinds of rhetoric, but then when it comes to actually doing something, it doesn't happen. So. So would you have something that just sticks in your craw that you think would be a benefit?

Michael
01:15:16

Yeah. No. And again, I. This, it's, it's. You asked that question and the answer I'm going to give you is going to sound like it's a.

Like it's a pitch, but it really isn't. And it's what I see and what motivates politicians.

The problem that people have right with politicians and the perception is actually what leads to the lack of action.

Mike Mills
01:15:46

Okay.

Michael
01:15:46

So people are frustrated because they don't see things happening and they don't participate in the electoral process, they don't participate in the civic process, and they get what they get. And then politicians see that and they see where the incentives are.

They're not incentivized to do town hall meetings and talk to people and explain stuff to them. They're incentivized to talk to the people who are still voting for them. And they're incentivized to go out and get other people like those people.

And then if the other people don't vote, great, I'm going to keep my job.

Mike Mills
01:16:23

Yeah.

Michael
01:16:24

And then they go a step further and they say I'm. Not only do.

I'm going to get reelected, but I'm going to reapportion and draw my district in a way where I get as many of those people who regularly vote for me and who agree with me in my district and less of the people who are in the middle or who actually dissent from my opinion, I'm going to squeeze those out to somebody else.

And so now we have sort of balkanized ourselves, not just in individual states, but across the country into these areas where everybody is the same kind of voter. And a lot of that is predicated on the fact that people just like, yeah, you know what?

It's not going to make any difference to me, you know, either way, this whole process is fugazi. So I'm not going to participate.

But by not participating, the thing that politicians are afraid of the most, I could tell you, running local, even federal elections, the thing that they're afraid of the most are not the one. So they categorize voters in five categories, right? One through five. One is I vote every year. Nothing will stop me. Two, I vote 98% of the time.

Some stuff will stop me, but I'm pretty reliable. Then you got your Threes. Yeah, I waffle 80% of the time. Most of the time I'm there.

Sometimes stuff gets busy and I don't really care that much, you know, Then you got your fours. Those are 50% voters. Maybe just depends on how I'm feeling. If the weather's nice, if not too much rain, I'll go out. Then you have your fives.

I voted just one time because I got motivated, but I never came back and I never engaged. The things that politicians fear the most is the fours and the fives.

Like, if those people get involved, said, oh, my God, they would know what to do. Yeah, they wouldn't know what to do. They wouldn't be able to talk crazy because now they can lose.

And so they learned the wrong lessons over and over and over and over again. And that's reflected in these policies that are being put forth.

Because on the Democratic side, they think only progressives elect them, which is unbelievable, which is why you have these kind of government can fix it all policies. And on Republican side, you have members who think only cowboys, literal cowboys, elect them. And we're in Homestead territory.

And I'm like, you know, those are not real people, right? I mean, those are cartoon characters, but they are not.

They're not incentivized to do what we talked about, which was, let's sit everybody at the table and come up with a proper solution and figure out those people exist, but they are not in the majority because they've been squeezed out.

Mike Mills
01:19:16

You know, you are right again, man.

It's hearing it that way, too, is so, you know, basically what you're saying is, you're saying, you know, it's a cliche thing, but if you want Washington to do it different or you want politicians to do it different, then you have to be involved and you have to be engaged. And if you're not, then they're going to do whatever they want to do.

And, you know, the fact that forever we had, you know, incredibly low turnout rates when it comes to voting and all that kind of stuff is. Is one of those things that you're saying, you get what you get, like what you put into it is what you're going to get out of it.

And if you expect them to change because these politicians are just creatures of attention, right? And if attention gives me this or attention or if this gets me attention or that gets me attention, then I'm going to go that route.

So if the understanding is that if I'm going to run for city council, I have to stand up in front of a room of 200 of my cons constituents across from my, across from my opponent and discuss our opinions on things and take questions for four hours, then that's what I have to do. And I will do that if I want to run for that office.

But if I'm not forced to do that and nobody makes me do that and I don't have to do that and I can spend money on Facebook ads talking about this person, you know, ruining your neighborhood, then I'm going to do that because I'm going to do whatever the incentive gives me to do. And, and, and you're, you're absolutely right. And it's just, it's just about how you frame it in your mind and what you look at it.

So I can't argue at all.

Michael
01:20:43

I will, I'll end with this. I, and I told this.

So I'm up here in Philly again campaigning and I told this to a gentleman, older gentleman today, and we were having this similar conversation. He votes regularly, but he's just trying to figure out like, what is, like from the campaign's perspective. What are you guys doing?

I said, I don't know. The campaign is, they're just trying to piece it together. Together. I said, from my perspective.

I said, what I will tell you is the reason why they only work 35 hours a week in France and get to retire at 57 is because they have a, over time, a 96% voter participation.

Mike Mills
01:21:27

Wow.

Michael
01:21:28

And they don't have elections on Tuesday during the work week. Okay. They have them on Saturday and on Sundays when people are free and they are clear.

And so their politicians are not taking them for granted because they know if you call an election, the French people are going to show up.

Mike Mills
01:21:50

Yeah.

Michael
01:21:50

And I said, you can't have better than that because the 4% of the people who don't bother to vote, vote. They probably just died since the voting rolls. But people make it appointment viewing to participate in the election and they get results from it.

Now they exacerbate their own problem. But that's a completely different philosophy. You give the people what they want if they ask for it.

Mike Mills
01:22:17

Yeah. Well, man, I can't thank you enough, especially for going over a little bit.

I, like I said before, this is something I could nerd out on for hours and discuss because, you know, and I, I wanted to get into the debt crisis and I wanted to get into lobbying and all that other stuff. But we'll, if you'll do me a favor, I would love to have just got me on. Yeah, love to have you back on another time.

And we'll, you know, we'll make this a regular thing because I. I need somebody that I can, you know, I can nerd out on this stuff with because not everybody's into it.

But I think it's so critical for everybody to at least have a cursory understanding of how this stuff works. Works and how important it is. And, and just the way you put it there at the end about the importance of participation, you know, I can't.

I can't tell you enough how much that I think can truly impact. And if, if anybody takes anything away from all this, it is. It should be that. Make your voice heard by getting out and participating.

And if you're not, then, you know, you don't really have a reason or a way to complain because, you know, that's just what you get. So thank you so much. I appreciate everybody. So the takeaway. This. Go home, go out and vote. Go vote. Whatever it is, Go vote.

Michael
01:23:18

Vote for somebody. Vote for somebody.

Mike Mills
01:23:19

Vote for your mayor, vote for city council, vote for the proposition in your area, but go vote. If you don't want to vote for president, fine, but vote for somebody. Vote for something. So thank you very much. We'll be back next week.

Election is Tuesday, November 5th, so get out and vote. And make sure if you can get in early, go ahead and do that. But we had a lot of early voting this year, so that was a good.

I think you're gonna have quite a big turnout. It's going to be nothing if not entertaining come Tuesday, so it'll be. Can't miss tv, so make sure you tune in and get your info.

But again, Michael, thank you very much. I appreciate your time and I look forward to doing this again sometime. So everybody have a great weekend and stay.