We keep hearing about making housing more affordable. But if the real goal is affordable homeownership, the conversation becomes much more complex. Recently, RISMedia covered a Congressional hearing titled “Priced Out of the American Dream.” It was not a consumer article. It was an industry breakdown of testimony from economists, financial executives, and policy voices discussing why homeownership feels increasingly out of reach. If you would like to read the full article, you can find it here. As I read through the hearing highlights, what struck me most was this: it is essentially a four-way tug-of-war.
-Build more homes, faster.
-Avoid increasing demand in ways that push prices higher.
-Reduce the soft costs and regulatory friction that inflate prices before construction even begins.
-Decide what role banks, government entities, and large investors should play in the system.
Everyone agrees affordability is a problem. They disagree on which of those levers matters most. This first post in a four-part series focuses on the experts who testified and the lens each one brought to the discussion. Because before we evaluate which ideas work, we need to understand how each person defines the problem.
Brian Brooks: Chairman and CEO, Meridian Capital Group
Lens: Mortgage finance and who holds the loan
Brooks suggested strengthening the role of community banks as long-term holders of mortgages instead of relying so heavily on Fannie and Freddie.
Brian Brooks focused on something most homebuyers never think about: what happens to your mortgage after closing. In today’s system, most mortgages are originated by a bank or lender and then sold into government-backed entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These entities purchase loans, bundle them, and provide liquidity to the national housing market. That liquidity helps keep mortgage rates stable and widely available. Brooks suggested strengthening the role of community banks as long-term holders of mortgages instead of relying so heavily on Fannie and Freddie.
Why does this matter?
When a community bank keeps a mortgage on its own books:
• It maintains a long-term relationship with the borrower.
• It understands local property values and market conditions.
• It may have more flexibility in underwriting decisions.
• Capital circulates within the local economy.
The argument is that local lending institutions may be better positioned to support small builders, first-time buyers, and neighborhood-level development.
The counterpoint is equally important. Fannie and Freddie provide scale. They allow lenders to sell loans, replenish capital, and make more loans nationwide. Without that national secondary market, mortgage credit could tighten and rates could rise.
Brooks is essentially asking: would strengthening community banks make homeownership more attainable, or would it reduce liquidity and raise borrowing costs?
Kevin O’Leary: Chairman, O’Leary Ventures
Lens: Capital flow and permitting speed
“I think every consumer should be protected, but not if it takes two years.”
Kevin O’Leary approached affordability from a development standpoint. His focus was not mortgage rates. It was time. His core concern: permitting friction. For most people who have never built a home or navigated approvals, “permitting” sounds administrative. In reality, it can involve environmental studies, traffic reports, public hearings, design revisions, impact fees, appeals, and sometimes litigation. Each step adds months or years.
O’Leary’s quote captured the tension clearly:
“I think every consumer should be protected, but not if it takes two years.”
His argument is that capital requires certainty. Investors and builders can work within rules. What destabilizes projects is unpredictable timelines and layered approvals. Time increases carrying costs. Carrying costs increase final prices. He pointed to Utah’s Military Installation Development Authority, or MIDA, as an example of streamlined development zones where approvals are centralized and timelines are clearer. The concept is not the absence of regulation. It is predictable regulation.
The broader question becomes: how do you protect safety and community standards without making the approval process so slow that projects become financially unviable?
Stephen Moore: Economist and Co-founder, Unleash Prosperity
Lens: Supply expansion and regulatory reduction
“Supply, supply, supply. That’s how you lower prices.”
Stephen Moore took a more direct economic approach. “Supply, supply, supply. That’s how you lower prices.” His argument is rooted in basic economics. When demand exceeds supply, prices rise. The solution, in his view, is to reduce regulatory barriers and allow more housing to be built. He has pointed to places like Houston, often cited for minimal zoning constraints, as examples of markets where flexibility allows supply to respond more quickly to demand. Eliminating zoning entirely is a dramatic proposition. Zoning dictates what can be built and where. Removing it would dramatically expand development flexibility.
However, eliminating zoning does not automatically eliminate permitting delays, environmental review requirements, infrastructure limitations, or local opposition. Zoning controls land use. Permitting controls execution.
Moore’s perspective focuses on increasing the number of units available. The open question is whether regulatory reduction alone solves affordability, or whether other constraints remain.
Dr. Darrick Hamilton: University Professor and Chief Economist, AFL-CIO
Lens: Household economic security
Homeownership is not only about units built or loans issued. It is about wealth accumulation and economic resilience.
Dr. Hamilton shifted the discussion toward economic stability for working families. His perspective centers on wage growth, wealth inequality, and the long-term security of households. Housing costs do not exist in isolation. They interact with retirement savings, income growth, and generational wealth building. If wages stagnate while housing prices rise, increasing supply may not fully close the affordability gap for working families. If buyers tap retirement savings to secure a down payment, they may gain access to a home while weakening long-term financial security.
Hamilton’s lens reminds us that homeownership is not only about units built or loans issued. It is about wealth accumulation and economic resilience.
Four Lenses. One Question. After reviewing these expert perspectives, one thing becomes clear: they are not arguing about whether affordability matters. They are arguing about where the bottleneck truly sits.
Is it financing?
Is it permitting?
Is it zoning and supply?
Is it wage growth and household security?
Each lens isolates a different constraint. In Part 2 of this series, we will examine the lawmakers’ problem statements themselves. What did members of Congress identify as the real barrier? And where do those perspectives align or conflict with the experts? Because before deciding which opinions work, we need to understand how policymakers define the problem.
For those of us working in communities like La Crescenta, Montrose, Glendale, La Cañada Flintridge, Pasadena and throughout the Foothill corridor, these debates are not theoretical. We see the impact of mortgage availability, permitting timelines, zoning limits and wage pressure play out in real transactions every day. First time buyers trying to compete, longtime homeowners weighing whether to sell, small builders navigating approvals, families deciding whether homeownership is even realistic. National policy discussions shape local outcomes. The question is not whether opinions exist. It is which of these approaches will actually make homeownership more attainable in the neighborhoods we live and work in.
Would love to hear your thoughts on affordable homeownership. Stay tuned for the next post in this series of four. SOmething may make you have a new perspective.
It starts with an email or a phone call.
Written by Robbyn Battles, sharing real estate insight shaped by decades of local experience and weekly market observation across La Crescenta, Montrose, Glendale, La Cañada Flintridge, Sunland Tujunga, Shadow Hills, and nearby Foothill communities.