Young people care about housing. The housing crisis, which has become a worldwide phenomenon, has consistently been one of the top issues that matter for young voters, and unsurprisingly, we’ve witnessed politicians pander to millennials and Gen Zs alike, with new housing policies aimed at attracting this youth vote.

For instance, in the last general election, Labour pledged to build 1.5 million homes over the next five years while abolishing Section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions; equally, the Conservatives campaigned on building 300,000 homes-a-year and passing a renting reform bill. Whether or not these promises ultimately persuaded young voters are now being assessed, but the challenge of attaining stable, affordable long-term housing remains for the youth.

While housing has been a hot political topic for some time now in the UK and across Europe, in the United States, this subject has become increasingly relevant in the 2024 presidential campaign. Traditionally, American presidential candidates included housing policy as an aside in their stump speeches as their federal system of government places housing issues in the realm of local and state politics. But if you review speech transcripts from the Harris campaign, you will regularly find reference to her housing policy platform―a decidedly front and central element for her national campaigning strategy.

Kamala Harris has proposed building three million new homes in the next four years, offering first-time homebuyers up to $25,000 (over £19,000) to help cover the costs of the down payment and giving tax breaks to developers that cater new supply to first-time homeowners or renters. There is also a proposal to open up some federal land for new affordable housing developments through a federal fund that local governments can access. While the campaign hasn’t drilled down exactly what it considers to be ‘affordable’ housing, it does demonstrate a commitment to reducing housing costs at the federal level; something Harris hopes will persuade young voters to vote for her come the November presidential election.

But will this plan actually make housing more affordable? Seemingly not. While building new supply will help alleviate housing demand, it is unlikely to actually bring down housing prices. Harris seeks to incentivise house builders into constructing specific housing types like multifamily dwellings or affordable single-units through her tax credits, but ultimately, her housing plan neglects to answer the structural problems inherent to America’s housing market.

For instance, while her $25,000 down-payment subsidy to first-time buyers will help young professionals access homeownership, this will also incentivise demand for housing, something that can push prices higher. On the other hand, her innovation fund on housing has promise to make a meaningful impact as local governments can use this  funding as they see fit for converting local vacant federal land into either more rental or affordable housing. This policy approach respects the local expertise required for building higher density, multifamily housing by empowering local governments to initiate building affordable new supply on land that remains in public hands.   

Overall, Kamala’s plan for housing is a mixed platform that ranges from just appeasing voters through allocating blanket subsidies for homeownership to empowering local government to deliver more affordable housing. Overall, it is not an actual strategy for reducing the housing burden that confronts young people in the United States. While a certain cohort (mostly white, college-educated young professionals) could benefit from federal support on down-payment costs, most young people will still be residing in increasingly unaffordable and unstable rental properties.

If Kamala really wanted to win over the youth vote through a targeted housing policy, she would implement structural reforms to America’s rental sector that would give more rights to the renter, such as supporting longer-term rental contracts, capping rental increases to the inflation rate and helping young people leave the family home through a deposit scheme. Kamala could reach out to more of the youth demographic in this regard.

But Kamala hasn’t done this. Instead, she has sought to reinforce homeownership as a measure for consolidating middle class wealth through helping more people access the property ladder. Her housing plan doesn’t really challenge the notion of reducing housing prices as we know that about 60% of Americans own their own homes, and of course, this cohort makes up even more of a percentage of those who actually vote in the US. As a consequence, there is a disconnect between real policy solutions that can deliver results and political platitudes intended to motivate a certain group of people to vote.

Throughout the course of this American presidential campaign, we have witnessed Kamala Harris extend an open arm to America’s youth in an attempt to motivate this pivotal new electorate to the polls. Her housing plan is clearly a part of this strategy to activate youth enthusiasm, but when you drill into its specifics, young people may come away lacking. As we round the corner to the last few weeks and days before the election, it will be interesting to watch if her bet on the youth vote will ultimately pay off.