President Joe Biden explaining his plans. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The perennial issue of affordable housing has become especially critical of late with rents and housing prices on the rise and higher interest rates making it more difficult to support a mortgage. The Biden administration has responded with a five-point program. Some of its elements have merit, but from a practical standpoint, it will do little to make housing more affordable.

Affordability certainly deserves attention. The whole housing market is going in the other direction. Realtor.com reports that rents on average nationally have risen some 17% over the past 12 months. The Case-Shiller home price index reports nearly a 20% rise over this time. Prices of construction materials have risen some 19.2%, and the cost of construction services has jumped some 18.1%. Mortgage rates were less than 3% a year ago. Presently they stand at about 5.5%. The National Association of Realtors’ measure of home ownership affordability tracks a 9.3% drop over the past 12 months.

Here are the five points of the White House’s program and the limitations of each:

First on Biden’s list are zoning and land use. This is a good place to start. Zoning – such as strictures on multifamily units — often keep housing prices high. Such impediments to construction have received much of the blame for astronomical home prices in places like San Francisco and Berkely, California. Rent control in New York City and other cities across the country gets the blame for why landlords resist refurbishing and expanding availability in existing structures and why residents continue to keep huge apartments off the market when they might otherwise downsize. Strictures against multi-use arrangements in existing buildings have also held back what might otherwise provide and inexpensive supply of housing.

But as significant as zoning and land use are, there is little the federal government can do in these areas. Most such rules are made at the local level. Washington cannot simply order states and cities to change their laws, much less enforce them in different ways. Meanwhile local politicians always face considerable resistance to change. Zoning changes frequently face pushback from existing residents and business interests. They reject high-rise building because it will change the nature of the neighborhood and hurt property values for those already in place. Low-cost housing often faces resistance on a not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) basis. Those resisting are also often big doners to local politicians. It is simply unrealistic to expect a mayor or city councilors to cross their big doners simply because Washington thinks it is a good idea.

It is also far from clear how the White House would implement the second and third points of its program: increasing financing options for non-traditional construction, such as manufactured housing, and improving coordination on programs to finance multi-family housing. Much of this is outside Washington’s power to influence, especially in the absence of major legislation. Though there are federal multi-family finance programs, and better coordination would no doubt help stimulate building, such efforts would have to be robust enough to overcome the notorious tendency for Washington bureaucracies to move slowly and guard their prerogatives jealously.

The fifth part of the White House plan aims to remedy labor shortages and high materials costs. The plan’s language here is vague at best. It is, for instance, unclear how the White House plans to find more construction workers. There is no talk in the plan about subsidies and training. It does mention the promotion of modular and manufactured housing, as well as sponsoring research on labor-saving construction technologies. But even if such an effort could come up with a good idea, it is not clear how Washington could get the nation’s highly fragmented construction industry to adopt it. On materials costs, one clear area where Washington could help is by allowing low-cost Canadian soft wood into the country, but the plan is silent on this matter.

Affordable housing remains an urgent issue for millions of Americans, especially since housing seems to be less and less affordable every day. If any of what the White House proposes does help, it would make only little difference and certainly will take longer to have effect than most would like.