No one disputes that the housing market has real problems. Affordability is strained, supply is tight, and policymakers understandably want to help more Americans achieve homeownership.
But that doesn’t mean every proposed solution will improve the situation. In fact, recent developments suggest we may be moving in the opposite direction.
First, the administration has proposed restricting large investors in single-family homes—effectively pushing them out of the market—a proposal supported by our own NAR. Yet institutional investors own less than 1% of the nation’s housing stock, making it difficult to see how targeting them will meaningfully improve housing affordability.
Second, with the encouragement—or at least the acquiescence—of several major brokerage firms, some states are now considering regulations to restrict or outlaw private market listing activity. Apparently it was not enough that MLS organizations were already moving to limit these practices.
Both developments raise a broader question: Why are we inviting more government into the housing business?
As the old adage reminds us, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
History should give us pause. Over the past fifty years, nearly every housing downturn has been influenced by monetary policy mistakes—periods of overly loose credit followed by rapid interest rate increases meant to correct those conditions. These cycles have repeatedly destabilized housing markets.
During the pandemic in 2020, the federal government effectively imposed a nationwide rental housing policy by restricting landlords’ ability to enforce lease agreements. The disruption that followed fell hardest on small, independent property owners—the very “mom-and-pop” landlords policymakers often claim to support.
At the local level, government policies have also played a major role in today’s affordability challenges. Restrictive zoning, development barriers, and regulatory costs have constrained housing supply for decades, pushing home prices further out of reach for many households.
Against that backdrop, it is difficult to understand why our industry would support policies that invite even greater government involvement in housing markets.
Policies that may increase transaction volume—but do nothing to expand the housing supply—are little more than a sleight of hand. And inviting state and local governments to regulate private listing activity risks opening the door to broader interventions in how housing markets function.
Housing markets need more supply, more flexibility, and fewer barriers—not more regulation.
