

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"We are so glad to have a partner in Mayor Mamdani who heeded our communities’ years of calls for a rent freeze and understands the needs of working families," said one organizer.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and tenant organizers celebrated a "historic victory" on Thursday after the city's Rent Guidelines Board approved a two-year rent freeze affecting roughly a million apartments—around 40% of NYC's rental housing.
The freeze, approved in a 7-1 vote, applies to tenants in rent-stabilized apartments on new one- and two-year leases beginning on or after October 1, 2026. Mamdani, whose mayoral campaign platform vowed to "immediately freeze the rent for all stabilized tenants," said in a statement that the vote provides "the relief that working people across our city deserve."
The mayor, who named six of the rent board's nine members, pledged to "continue working to deliver a more affordable city by building and preserving affordable housing, lowering building operating costs like insurance, and ensuring tenants know their rights."
"I'm grateful for the board members’ thoughtful consideration of the data, including tenants’ ability to pay, cost of living, and building operating costs," said Mamdani.
It might be hot outside but the rent is freezing. pic.twitter.com/EXPaI8emyv
— Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@NYCMayor) June 26, 2026
Celebrations broke out in response to the vote, with Gothamist reporting that jubilant tenants erupted in applause and "spilled into the street" to cheer the rent freeze, which marked the first time the city board has paused rent for both one- and two-year leases.
"Hundreds of tenants packed the theater at El Museo del Barrio, singing and chanting about tenant power ahead of the board’s decision," Gothamist noted. "Many in attendance, who had helped propel Mamdani’s successful campaign for mayor, which featured a viral vow to 'freeze the rent,' held signs demanding a rent freeze. At least one attendee blew a whistle to punctuate the slogans resonating through the auditorium."
Motion passes, after a lengthy speech acknowledging landlord struggles, Wynn acknowledges a rent freeze is in landlords best interest. A zero percent increase on 1 and 2 year leases beginning Oct. 1 passes unanimously. pic.twitter.com/NwwYUlERKg
— Hannah Fierick (@HannahFNYP) June 25, 2026
Fernanda P., a Brooklyn resident and member of the advocacy group Make the Road New York, said in a statement late Thursday that "our communities have spent years organizing and advocating for a rent freeze, and today our efforts have finally paid off."
"This rent freeze is a relief for the thousands of New Yorkers, like myself, who are struggling every day to pay for increasingly unaffordable housing," said Fernanda. "We are so glad to have a partner in Mayor Mamdani who heeded our communities’ years of calls for a rent freeze and understands the needs of working families. We will continue our fight for a New York that is affordable for everybody.”
The US military presence in Hawai’i’s housing market puts an upward pressure on rental prices that freezes out locals.
On the surface, the affordability crisis that afflicts both tenants and prospective homebuyers in Hawai’i appears to resemble those of other housing-stressed states across the country. With a shortage of housing units accessible to working-class households, a high concentration of short-term rentals, and a strong demand from wealthy and out-of-state buyers, an increasing number of Hawai’i’s residents are priced out of paradise and forced to migrate outwards in search of cheaper housing.
But there is one element that makes Hawai’i’s housing market unique: the role of the US military. Our chapter in a new report finds that military presence in Hawai’i’s housing market puts an upward pressure on rental prices that freezes out locals. We estimate that troops in the private market raised housing prices by 7.1% in 2024.
Hawai’i is the most militarized state per capita in our nation. Not only does it have a high concentration of service members, but more than 230,000 acres of land out of the 4.1 million in the island chain are currently under military control.
A dense network of military bases is conspicuously scattered across the eight islands. And almost a quarter of the state’s most populous island, O’ahu—home to Honolulu and Kailua—is currently under what local activists and groups call a military occupation, contributing to land shortages and higher land prices that make real estate development even more expensive.
To help alleviate the inflationary impacts of military rental demand on the Hawai’i’s housing market, our report recommends that all active-duty service members be housed on base.
More than 98% of the 42,503 active-duty service members in Hawai’i were stationed in O’ahu in the summer of 2024. But not all of them lived on base. According to the Department of Defense, there were 14,700 active-duty service members who entered the private rental market. We estimate that they resided in 10.3% of the 142,130 renter-occupied units in Honolulu County.
Not only does the military have a significant presence in O’ahu’s rental market, but it also contributes to upward pressures on Hawai’i’s housing prices because of the tax-free stipends—known as Basic Allowance for Housing or BAH—that active-duty service members receive on a monthly basis.
Local residents have difficulty competing with compensation packages bolstered by BAH payments, making military renters more attractive to landlords.
An E5 Sergeant, a rank of enlisted personnel who have been promoted to lead a small team or section, with dependents and four years experience, had a base pay of $40,388 and a BAH of $39,852 in 2024 for a total of $80,240. This is $10,000 more than the average annual salary of an urban Honolulu worker, who earned $70,179 (a mean wage of $33.74) in the same year. This difference does not include food allowances and bonuses that military personnel also receive.
The graph below demonstrates that E5 non-commissioned officers with and without dependents can comfortably afford a one- or two-bedroom apartment while more than half of Hawai’i’s working-class residents are cost-burdened, i.e. they spend more than 30% of their income on rent and utilities. Other households struggle to afford to rent and are forced to leave Hawai’i altogether, particularly to Nevada, which is often jokingly referred to as Ninth Island.

It is clear that the BAH contributes to rental market tightness, and thereby higher prices. However, further analysis is stymied by a lack of data transparency from the Department of Defense. We know the DOD spent $27.9 billion to endow the BAH program in 2024, but we have no information on how those resources are distributed state-by-state nor how much BAH money enters the rental market.
Our report estimates that the DOD spent $1.1 billion on BAH just in O’ahu with more than half of that money—$648.9 million—entering the private rental market. The average BAH monthly payment per service member is $3,679, and we estimate this dynamic caused rents to increase by 7.1% in 2024. As a result, non-military tenants in O’ahu spent an estimated $234.8 million more in rent that year.
To help alleviate the inflationary impacts of military rental demand on the Hawai’i’s housing market, our report recommends that all active-duty service members be housed on base.
Vacancy rates at military installations should be 0%, and the number of service members in the private market should also be zero. The US military should disclose how many on-base housing units they own, operate, and monitor. And new, dense military housing should be built if necessary.
Critical tenant protections like rent control need to be implemented in order to provide immediate relief for renters. And the development of permanently affordable social housing is necessary to deliver high-quality and inexpensive housing. Sixty-five percent of all new units need to be set at 80% of area median income, and market-based solutions have proven incapable of delivering affordability to lower-income households.
Our findings demonstrate that the military plays a significant role in Hawai’i’s affordability crisis, but there are steps that can be taken to make Hawai’i affordable to the people of Hawai’i.
Taking care of each other is a part of the American way. Politicians doing the right thing on the behalf of vulnerable tenants is also a part of the American way.
The real estate industry doesn’t want you to know an important fact about rent control: Since World War I, rent regulations have protected poor and middle- and working-class tenants against skyrocketing rents and predatory landlords. Rent control, in other words, has long been a part of the American way.
Soon after World War I, elected officials understood that they needed to protect tenants against sky-high rents due to a worsening housing shortage. Fair rent committees, with an emphasis on “fair,” were set up in 153 cities in the United States, and those committees routinely reached out to landlords to stop unreasonable rent hikes. In Washington D.C. and Denver, rent commissions determined fair rents, and, in New York, state legislators passed emergency laws to control sky-high rising rents.
Politicians knew that they couldn’t allow the status quo of unfair rents to continue, and they knew that they had the power to do something about it. So they stepped in to help hard-working Americans.
During World War II, politicians again did the right thing and expanded rent control. The federal government established rent control for around 80 percent of rental housing in the U.S. in response to housing shortages and rent gouging. When that federal program was phased out, some states, such as New York and New Jersey, established their own rent control policies in the early 1950s.
If there was ever time for politicians to protect tenants, now is that time, and the situation is dire.
Throughout this period, elected officials understood that tenants needed stable, affordable housing that would not force renters to choose between eating or paying the rent or paying medical bills or paying the rent. Americans’ well-being was at stake.
Fast forward to the early 1970s. With worsening inflation, rents spiked. President Richard Nixon pushed for temporary rent controls, and that was followed by American cities passing rent regulations, including Berkeley, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.
Unfortunately, in the 1980s and 1990s, the deep-pocketed real estate industry pushed back, aggressively lobbying state legislatures across the country to pass rent control bans or restrictions. Landlords and lobbyists went against the American way of looking out for people.
Today, more than 35 states have laws that stop the expansion of rent control while the real estate industry’s profits, through unfair, excessive rents, go through the roof. Between 2010 and 2019, renters paid a staggering $4.5 trillion to landlords in the U.S, according to Zillow.
Recently, Big Tech and Big Real Estate teamed up to charge wildly inflated rents through a rent-fixing software program by RealPage, which brought about numerous lawsuits and investigations. The software allowed corporate landlords to collude and charge outrageous rents that harmed Americans throughout the nation.
If there was ever time for politicians to protect tenants, now is that time, and the situation is dire. Eviction Lab, the prestigious research institute at Princeton University, found that increasingly unaffordable rents are linked to higher mortality rates. And a wide-ranging study on homelessness by the University of California San Francisco revealed that people ended up living on the streets because of sky-high rents. An urgent way to address these life-threatening problems is to utilize rent control—an American tradition since World War I.
But activists believe that rent control isn’t the only tool to fix the housing affordability and homelessness crises. There needs to be a multi-pronged approach called the “3 Ps”: protect tenants through rent control and other renter protections; preserve existing affordable housing, not demolish it to make way for unaffordable luxury housing; and produce new affordable and homeless housing.
Taking care of each other is a part of the American way. Politicians doing the right thing on the behalf of vulnerable tenants is also a part of the American way. Today’s elected officials must continue that work, especially since tenants throughout the country are facing serious risks of death and homelessness. They must immediately utilize rent regulations and the 3 Ps.
Mamdani is the antidote to the corporate landlord dominance we see in cities across the US. He doesn’t just speak on behalf of rent-stabilized tenants; he is one.
Zohran Mamdani, a tenant who lives in a rent-stabilized apartment and made affordable rent the primary issue in his campaign, has been elected mayor of New York City.
To be clear, a win for Mamdani is a huge win for renters—not just in New York, but across the country. Mayor-elect Mamdani has shown that a populist mayoral candidate with a bullhorn can ground a winning campaign in issues that impact constituents just trying to get by and have a decent place to live.
During the campaign, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo repeatedly attacked Mamdani for living in a rent-stabilized apartment and supporting a rent freeze. It was a display of character and courage that Mamdani never backed down. Instead, he doubled down. And the attacks against him continued through the last mayoral debate, where Mamdani stated emphatically, “You’ve heard it from Andrew Cuomo that the number one crisis in this city, the housing crisis, the answer is to evict my wife and I. He thinks you address this crisis by unleashing my landlord’s ability to raise my rent. If you think that the problem in this city is that my rent is too low, vote for him. If you know the problem in this city is that your rent is too high, vote for me.”
Mamdani understands the debate comes down to a very basic question: With rents so high, where are people supposed to live? The Starbucks barista, McDonald's worker, and Lyft driver are experiencing what most candidates are afraid to talk about—that they are one rent increase away from losing their apartment.
With over 2.3 million renters in New York City, it’s about time they elected a mayor who would put affordable rents front and center.
Too often, the dialogue around rent has been dominated by investors and corporate landlords. They seemingly have a bottomless pit of money to get their message out and line the campaign coffers of candidates who offer them carte blanche to raise rents and undermine tenants. As Mamdani stated during the race, “The same landlords who said they didn’t have enough money to freeze the rent, gave Cuomo $2.5 million dollars, the single largest check in this entire race.”
Mamdani is the antidote to the corporate landlord dominance we see in cities across the US. He doesn’t just speak on behalf of rent-stabilized tenants; he is one. And that makes all the difference.
Rent control is not new. It has been around since 1919. As real estate became more corporatized, multi-family buildings became a commodity—a line on a balance sheet. It’s less about the people and more about the building as an asset whose value is based on rents. In the 1990s, Apartment Associations led a nationwide campaign to curtail or ban altogether rent control. Currently, 37 states have banned it and states like California only allow rent control in buildings built in 1996.
Cash-strapped tenant organizations have done their best to move the needle on rent stabilization efforts, but they often face a deluge of money from the real estate industry, expensive lawsuits, and elected officials willing to reverse their progress.
Mamdani’s win as mayor signals new hope for campaigns that address the need to control skyrocketing rents. It sets in motion a new model nationwide centered on the needs of constituents, rather than corporate-dominated policies that have no tangible benefit to constituents and fail to improve the quality of life for low-income people.
With over 2.3 million renters in New York City, it’s about time they elected a mayor who would put affordable rents front and center.
Leaders across the country are watching what is happening in New York. The rents are so high that even someone working two full-time jobs can still be rent-burdened, paying over 30% of their income in rent. That is not sustainable.
New Yorkers reached a tipping point and found in Mamdani a leader who provided a platform of solutions, not more excuses for why they cannot get the relief they need. And hopefully, other cities will follow suit, attracting candidates that want to solve problems rather than kowtow to rich donors.
Let’s face it: Stabilizing housing costs is a reasonable practice, which is why most homeowners pay the same amount every month in mortgage payments. Mortgages don’t go up 17% every year to line the pockets of lenders. That would be ridiculous, and it is for renters too. Giving renters stability is not just a reasonable ask; it is a necessity.
As a lifelong renter, I believe we are on the precipice of policy change in the US. Renters and low-income communities are rising up to demand that the government acts in their interest.
Mamdani serving as mayor of America’s largest city, while living in a rent-stabilized apartment, is a game changer. More of this in other cities is desperately needed.
We’ve seen that corporate landlords—and the economists who do their bidding—will do anything to generate billions and billions in profits by charging excessive rents year after year to vulnerable tenants with no ability to fight back.
If you tune into CNBC on any given morning, you will hear various economists proclaim with confidence wildly different interpretations of economic events. The same goes for what market indicators will mean for the 2024 election.
Many an investor has lost a fortune following the advice of "expert" economists. Despite its lofty claims, economics is not a “science”; it is a social science which relies on interpretations of human behavior with a subjective component. It is about as reliable as seismology: Have you noticed that most earthquakes occur on faults previously unknown?
Economists have a lousy track record at predicting recessions, which should be a source of humility. How many economists warned us of the Great Recession? Almost none.
Sure, economists are smart people, and their academic work can help to steer the ship of state and industry. However, they have no business wading into the political realm to influence voters based on their "expert" opinions.
If a lack of precision wasn't enough to expect economists to act with caution, there is the matter of corruption. Economists are paid by corporate interests to bless their profit motives. There is an inherent conflict of interest in being paid by an industry to provide the best opinion and supposed objectivity that only big money can buy. Economists are routinely paid vast sums by the highest bidder to render opinions in anti-trust lawsuits.
When the pre-purchased masters of dismal science tell you that helping renters put food on the table will destroy affordable housing, look closely at who is footing the bill for the "scientific" research.
Unlike writing for a major medical journal that rigorously investigates potential conflicts of interest, economics is an accountability-free zone. You seldom hear disclaimers that a particular economist is paid to have an opinion that supports a selfish motive. The public is rightly cynical or just flat-out ignores economists. Case in point: Tens of millions of people didn't get the memo that the U.S. economy is thriving because it isn't thriving for them. Economic terms like "pricing power" mask that the true meaning is price gouging.
A basic flaw in most economic thinking is that it begins with this premise: Maximizing profits benefits everyone. This is glaringly false when it comes to housing. In recent years, a massive wealth transfer has taken place, squeezing money from the poor and the working class and transferring it to billionaires. Some of these very same well-heeled economists are telling us that rent control is inherently disastrous economically. Yet some of the greatest cities in the world, such as New York, regulate rents.
In reality, there are many economists who believe that rent control helps keep people in their homes. Rent control is much like the minimum wage—the sky doesn't fall when the minimum wage goes up. And the real estate market won't tank because of rent control. When workers or tenants have more money in their pockets, it keeps them afloat and generates more economic activity.
In fact, a group of 32 top economists wrote a letter to the Biden administration last year, supporting rent control. They wrote that rent control will “protect tenants, stabilize neighborhoods, promote income diversity in regional economies, and improve the long-term outlook for housing affordability.” They also added, referring to predatory landlords, that “we have seen the devastating impact of a poorly regulated housing market on people’s livelihoods, as already unaffordable rental prices outpace wage growth.” They understand that only rent control will rein in the greed of corporate landlords.
That’s important. We’ve seen that corporate landlords will do anything to generate more billions by charging excessive rents year after year, and the RealPage scandal is the perfect example. Using a RealPage software program, a cartel of corporate landlords—many of whom are the largest landlords in the country—wildly inflated rents in cities across America. Now, the Department of Justice—along with numerous state attorneys general—has sued RealPage, while dozens of tenants have filed anti-trust lawsuits against RealPage and corporate landlords. It’s yet another reminder that rent regulations are glaringly needed.
So, when the pre-purchased masters of dismal science tell you that helping renters put food on the table will destroy affordable housing, look closely at who is footing the bill for the "scientific" research. Use your horse sense to determine what you know to be best for helping people in need: Rent control.
"With the Supreme Court decision to criminalize people who are unhoused, we need you to stand up and create more humane housing policies today."
In the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that is devastating for homeless people, over 50 organizations on Tuesday urged President Joe Biden to take immediate action to address the nation's housing emergency before his first term ends next January.
"We appreciate the steps your administration has taken to address America's affordable housing crisis," the coalition wrote, applauding his proposed 5% cap on rent hikes for tenants of corporate landlords and "regulatory actions to use public land for affordable housing, provide grants for deeply affordable homes, and require 30-day notice for rent increases and lease expirations."
Noting that Biden is not seeking a second term—Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris is set to face former Republican President Donald Trump in the November election—and the urgency of the housing crisis, the groups argued that "taking stronger action will resonate deeply with working and low-income people and people of color nationwide."
"Now is a critical moment for aggressive action to help end the worst housing and homelessness crisis our country has ever seen, help renters and houseless folks struggling with the cost of rent now, and set the country on a long-term path of providing safe, stable, and permanently affordable rental housing for decades to come," the letter states. "We, the undersigned, are calling on you to show leadership by using your executive authority immediately, to effect change now—during the worst housing and homelessness crisis of a generation."
"We must urgently create a more just and sustainable housing system."
Specifically, the coalition is calling for Biden to issue one executive order to establish an Office of Social Housing at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and another for rent regulations and good cause eviction protections in federally insured properties.
Additionally, the groups want Biden to demand federal legislation supporting the right of all renters to organize and bargain collectively as tenant unions with landlords over rents and living conditions, along with appropriating $1 trillion over a decade to create 12 million permanently affordable homes, as well as $230 billion to fully repair and green existing public housing.
The letter—part of the House Every One! campaign—is led by the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) Action and backed by groups including Stand Up Alaska, Make the Road Connecticut, Delaware Alliance for Community Advancement, Florida Rising, New Georgia Project, Step Up Louisiana, Maryland Communities United, Maine People's Alliance, Detroit Action, TakeAction Minnesota, New York Communities for Change, One Pennsylvania, Texas Organizing Project, and Our Future West Virginia.
As part of the campaign, "during the month of August, thousands of renters and community groups across the country will host local town hall meetings to call on their local and national representatives to crack down on corporate landlords, cap rents, and invest in tenant-owned, permanently affordable green social housing," CPD said in an email Monday.
The coalition wrote to Biden Tuesday that "we must protect families from the looming threat of unprecedented homelessness and displacement; halt Wall Street speculation and corporate landlords' growing influence over the housing market; create truly affordable green social housing; and redress our federal government's history of institutionalized bias, putting us on a path towards greater racial, economic, and gender equity."
"We all deserve a safe, stable, and affordable place to call home," the letter says. "We must urgently create a more just and sustainable housing system."
The letter also stresses that "with the Supreme Court decision to criminalize people who are unhoused, we need you to stand up and create more humane housing policies today, nodding to the City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson ruling. The right-wing justices ruled that local governments can enforce bans on sleeping outdoors, regardless of whether they are able to offer shelter space.
Some Democrats are under fire for welcoming the June ruling—including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is widely believed to have presidential ambitions. Since the decision, Newsom has issued an executive order directing officials to clear out homeless encampments, participated in clearing of a Los Angeles encampment, and threatened to withhold funding from counties that don't crack down on unhoused people.
"The rent is too damn high—and rent control is a real fix," one group said, praising the proposal.
As former U.S. President Donald Trump secured the Republican nomination and announced his running mate on Monday, Democratic President Joe Biden prepared to unveil a proposal that would cap annual rent increases at 5% for tenants of major landlords.
After Biden briefly previewed the proposal during a press conference last week, The Washington Post reported on the planned announcement Monday, citing three people familiar with the matter. The Associated Press separately confirmed the plan.
Biden is set to formally introduce the proposal on Tuesday in Nevada, which "has seen among the biggest explosions of housing costs in the country," the Post noted. "Democrats have grown increasingly concerned that Trump could win the state in November."
The president, who is seeking reelection, will propose taking a tax benefit away from landlords who hike rents by more than 5% annually, according to the reporting. The plan would only apply to the existing housing stock of landlords who own more than 50 units and would require congressional approval—so it is not expected to go anywhere unless Biden wins in November and Democrats secure majorities in both chambers of Congress.
As the newspaper detailed:
The Biden administration is also pushing numerous policies to increase housing construction, through incentives to local governments to change their zoning codes and new federal financial incentives for builders. If implemented, they could bring 2 million new units to the market in addition to the 1.6 million already in the pipeline.
"It would make little sense to make this move by itself. But you have to look at it in the context of the moves they propose to make to expand supply," said Jim Parrott, nonresident fellow at the Urban Institute and co-owner of Parrott Ryan Advisors. "The question is: Even if we get all these new units built, what do we do about rising rents in the meantime? Coming up with a relatively targeted bridge to help renters while new supply is coming online makes a fair amount of sense."
While housing industry representatives criticized the reported proposal, Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, told The Associated Press that having it in effect in recent years could have helped renters.
"The recent unprecedented increases in homelessness in communities across the country are the result of those equally unprecedented—and unjustified—rent hikes of a couple years ago," she said. "Had such protections against rent gouging been in place then, many families could have avoided homelessness and stayed stably housed."
Other rent control advocates and progressive officials also welcomed the plan, with Kendra Brooks—the first Working Families Party member ever elected to Philadelphia City Council—declaring that "this is exactly the kind of leadership that working families need!"
Jacobin's Branko Marcetic said that "this is huge," particularly considering that "housing has rapidly climbed as a cost-of-living concern (and is also under 30s' most important issue)."
Multiple campaigners and organizations credited housing advocates for pushing rent control at the national level.
"It's amazing how rapidly the conversation around rent caps has changed," noted Shamus Roller, executive director of the National Housing Law Project. "Tenant organizing has created this change. It's a proposal for Congress which will face serious headwinds but the president just called for rent caps (even if only temporarily)."
The Debt Collective said, "We will say it over and over again: The rent is too damn high—and rent control is a real fix."
"Rent caps wouldn't be a national policy proposal without tenants unions across the country making it possible through organizing," the group added. "On our way to land without landlords, remember that rent control works. The 99%'s need for a roof over our head should not be 1% profits."
The housing affordability crisis is a moral outrage of the highest order. So why does Los Angeles leave kids and adults to suffer?
For California’s homeless population, it is a multi-generational affair. After decades of inaction and utter indifference, there are now hundreds of homeless children on the streets of Los Angeles.
Dozens of children on Skid Row make the trek to school, making their way past tents, tarp shelters, discarded needles, and human waste. Some are lucky, finding a school bus to avoid the chaos. Others, not so much.
Once again, I ask, when is enough, enough? In a city with a school district that has 1,300 buses, there are homeless kids trekking past needles and feces to reach their classroom. In one of the world’s richest cities, there is poverty unseen anywhere else.
One of America's most famous short stories is “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson. It is the story of a fictional small town in which the whole community prepares for the annual harvest ritual by holding a random lottery to choose a special person. That one "lucky" person—it later is revealed—is to be stoned to death. When this story was first published in The New Yorker, it was met with outrage.
What is the point of such a barbaric story? It forces us to contemplate why we follow meaningless traditions.
Instead of stoning a single person, we subject tens of thousands of people—children included—to the savagery of homelessness.
California has adopted such a barbaric tradition. Instead of stoning a single person, we subject tens of thousands of people—children included—to the savagery of homelessness, knowing full well it will lead them to addiction, mental illness, and death. We may not literally be throwing the stones, but we nevertheless are exacting the punishment. We tolerate the status quo which perpetuates the tragedy.
The idea of a life-and-death lottery is more than a metaphor. Federal housing vouchers actually are distributed through a lottery system that amounts to a game of musical chairs. Not only are few eligible for these vouchers, but very often, they cannot find a landlord who will take them. The music stops, and they are homeless.
Bad things happen to good people, and good people allow bad things to happen to others. We didn't invent the lottery. Therefore, it isn't our responsibility to fix it—because it isn't happening to us, until it is. When we look back in history and wonder how people could have tolerated terrible things that were done in their name, remember we are witnesses in real time to the mass tragedy of a crippling affordable housing crisis. Mostly, we throw up our hands and think that we are powerless to change it. We are not.
Collectively, we are that quaint town that allows the tradition of stoning to continue.
The housing affordability crisis is a moral outrage of the highest order. None of our leaders who preside over it without fundamentally addressing it deserve to be re-elected. Collectively, we are that quaint town that allows the tradition of stoning to continue.
But there is a difference here. We are not equally culpable. There is a tiny group of multi-billionaires who actually profit spectacularly off the lottery. Stephen Schwarzman—the king of the real estate oligarchs—is worth nearly $40 billion, made from milking tenants. The California Apartment Association amounts to a corporate real estate cartel dedicated to squeezing the last drop of blood from the stone that is the tenant community. Then there are their handmaidens in Sacramento who enable them.
We need an entirely new vision for California that not only restores the California dream, but transforms it for future generations. It is easy to get spoiled when you live in such a land of milk and honey. LA’s physical splendor and gorgeous weather can lull us into a false sense of privilege.
We need an entirely new vision for California that not only restores the California dream, but transforms it for future generations.
A state that boasts 179 billionaires, California is the cultural capital of the world and the birthplace of many of the largest technology companies on the planet. We have no excuse for being so dysfunctional. However, when you have so much, you feel like you can afford to waste—or you just don’t pay attention.
People are fleeing California in droves because they can’t afford to live here. Even if they can afford their rent, the prospect of never owning a home or saving meaningfully is so discouraging that it is easier to flee.
That’s how the doom loop begins to accelerate out of control. Californians are crying for help, and some are barely toddlers.
We don't have to cede our state to a greedy landlord cartel. The time for rent control, tenant protections, and dignified public housing is now—if the people answer the cries for a new California.
The new rent cap heralds a shift in tenant organizing in the U.S. from building power in local struggles to influencing federal policy.
For the past several years, tenant unions from disparate locations like Kansas City, Missouri; Bozeman, Montana; and Louisville, Kentucky have been canvassing door-to-door, lobbying at the White House and Congress, and convening loud, passionate demonstrations in their home communities and at the national headquarters of corporate landlords. They have earned admiring profiles in The New York Times and Time Magazine and have been featured on National Public Radio. What they have not done is win a tangible federal victory for renters.
After tenants demanded cancellation of rent and mortgage obligations in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, the government instead issued $46 billion in Emergency Rental Assistance to landlords with no strings attached, filling the coffers of serial evictors and institutional slumlords with notorious health and safety records. After tenants called for renter rights to be enshrined in federal law, the Biden administration’s early 2023 Blueprint for a Renters Bill of Rights was so lacking in actual policy to accompany its lofty language that the nation’s landlord lobbyists gleefully claimed victory.
“Over the past several decades, the federal government has not only abdicated its responsibility tenants, it has actually become the financial enabler of some of the worst landlord business practices,” says Tara Raghuveer of the National Tenant Union Federation.
But, as of last month, that may be changing.
That is when the Biden administration announced it would impose a cap on rent increases on Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) housing. The 10% annual increase limit is far higher than the 3% cap that tenant unions have been pushing for, and the limitation to the LIHTC program leaves out a great deal of other federally financed and subsidized housing. But the new rule could apply to over a million households. And perhaps more importantly, it shows for the first time that the tenant union movement can make its power felt on the national stage.
“For many of these landlords, rent-gouging, evictions, and poor conditions are part of the business model, and what makes their business model work is the favorable terms they receive from our federal government.”
“It’s a huge win, and it wouldn’t have happened if not for tenant unions beating the drum for the past several years demanding that every dollar of federal financing and subsidies be conditioned on tenant protections,” Raghuveer says. “The federal government is finally recognizing its responsibility to protect tenants from price-gouging.”
It seems the landlord lobby agrees. The same organizations that cheered the words-only Biden Blueprint a year ago have joined together to bitterly criticize the new rent cap.
“You’re discouraging the creation of supply,” the CEO of the National Housing Conference complained to The Washington Post.
Landlords were particularly disturbed by the Biden administration explicitly dismissing their increasingly discredited argument that rent limits decrease the supply of affordable housing.
“We’ve seen no evidence that this limitation—even those much lower than 10%—have limited the supply of new affordable housing nationally,” said Department of Housing and Urban Development spokesman Zachary Nosanchuk.
The new rent cap also heralds a shift in tenant organizing in the U.S. Although tenant unions have traditionally built their power through local struggles, laws passed by state legislatures in places like Missouri and Kentucky put ceilings on local housing reforms. At the same time, federal financing plays an enormous role in the housing industry. In 2022, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, or FHFA, which manages both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, purchased $142 billion in mortgages issued by banks to multifamily landlords, thus assuming the risk of nonpayment. So tenant unions argue that this federal government largesse should come with conditions, specifically limits on rent hikes, obligations to keep the housing clean and safe, and promises not to evict tenants or not renew leases except for good cause. These types of tenant protections on federally backed housing could apply to over 12 million rental units, nearly one in three renting households in the country.
Winning these conditions and ensuring that the new rent cap is fully enforced are the next steps for the tenant union movement looking to build on the momentum of this win.
“For many of these landlords, rent-gouging, evictions, and poor conditions are part of the business model, and what makes their business model work is the favorable terms they receive from our federal government,” Raghuveer says.
“The rent is too damn high, and the government is in business with our landlords.”
"We can't address the housing crisis by chopping the weed off at the top. We have to pull it out by the roots," said one panelist at the intimate event in Los Angeles that looked at the issue from the local, state, and federal level.
We want to educate the public. We want to shift the narrative. We want to organize for transformational and lasting change.
Those were the stated goals and repeated themes at the heart of a three-day event in Los Angeles over recent days, a gathering focused on the national housing crisis organized by the Sanders Institute, spearheaded by co-founder Dr. Jane O'Meara Sanders and executive director Dave Driscoll.
While the policy discussion around housing has a reputation for being dynamic and complex—especially as an issue that straddles municipal, state, and federal governance—the human story at the center of what it means to have a home or be housed is simple and universal, a thread woven into over a dozen panels, presentations, and keynote speeches by progressive lawmakers, top experts, frontline advocates, academics, and community organizers.
In a conversation with Common Dreams, Sanders and Driscoll explained that everyone who attended the event—kept intentionally small and low-profile—was told that the focus would be on "concrete remedies" and "replicable policies" with the ultimate purpose of informing a national audience about not only how severe the housing crisis has become, but also the concrete ways to address it.
"We believe democracy requires an informed electorate and civil discourse and bold ideas. That's part of our mission," Sanders said. "And the purpose was to come at the housing crisis from many aspects—not all of the aspects, but many of them—with the goal of actionable solutions."
"None of us are very interested in making small incremental change, which might mean building some more affordable housing or supporting this or that initiative. That's not what this is about." —Dr. Jane O'Meara Sanders, The Sanders Institute
But why housing? Why now? According to Sanders, the issue is potent politically because it's an issue that is not just about the poor and unhoused, but also central to the working class.
"Everybody knows somebody that has a problem getting affordable housing or just affording their life and having to make different choices," she told Common Dreams. "It's middle-income people, it's everybody having a problem with the housing crisis, and elected officials are getting pressure. Those lawmakers and politicians are hearing it more and more. And we said, okay, now's the time to bring people together around this."
Driscoll targeted private equity, Wall Street investors, and real estate developers that have used their outsized economic and political power to further skew the nation's housing market in search of ever-larger profits, squeezing out low- or middle-income individuals and families in the process.
"It's just another way in which the gap is growing between the rich and the poor and increasing inequality," said Driscoll. "And that needs to stop."
It is powerful interests most of all, says Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), who must be named, shamed, and overcome if any of the progressive solutions championed at the gathering—including rent control, social housing models, community land trusts, more climate-resilient communities, and proven efforts to curb homelessness—are to have any hope of being implemented at the necessary scale.
Weinstein—a driving force behind the event, a supporter of the Sanders Institute, and a major player in California's healthcare and housing political landscape—agrees fully with Sanders and Driscoll that the moment, both in California and nationally, is ripe for an invigorating politics focused on housing.

Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, presenting at the Sanders Institute event in Los Angeles on Thursday, April 4, 2024. (Photo: © Bryan Giardinelli / The Sanders Institute)
During opening remarks focused on "perpetually affordable housing" and a 2024 ballot initiative in California that would end the state's existing ban on local rent control ordinances, Weinstein said that he has argued for years that "the housing issue was not high enough on the progressive agenda."
"This is a battle for the poor and working-class people in California," Weinstein said of the Justice for Renters campaign, an effort funded by AHF, local unions, and others to see the Justice for Renters Act become law via a ballot measure this year.
"There are 17 million renters in California—that's 45% of the population," he explained. "There are tens of millions more renters across the country. Our primary job as progressives is to improve the lives of people and housing is their greatest need."
If enacted, the law would remove the existing ban on rent control laws in California, encourage expanded rent control at the local level, and curb the power of "predatory landlords" who charge "unfair and unaffordable" rent.
While everyone at the gathering agreed more housing stock is a key part of the solution, Weinstein was among those who emphasized that the biggest obstacle is unaffordability of homes and rental units—a problem attributable to the greed of landlords and the investor class within an economy designed to siphon the wealth of workers into the coffers of the already rich.
"We can't address the housing crisis by chopping the weed off at the top. We have to pull it out by the roots," Weinstein explained. "And high rents are the root cause of the housing affordability crisis. It's that transfer of wealth that's causing the problem. And if we do nothing about rising rents, then nothing else we do in terms of producing housing or other changes will make a difference. If we continue to treat housing as a commodity, we'll never be able to house everyone. It's very similar to healthcare. If we leave it up to the marketplace, we're lost."
With the homeless population in Los Angeles estimated to be over 70,000—in a city of approximately 3.9 million—Weinstein said that L.A. is "not just the homeless capital of this country" but the "homeless capital of the world." This, he lamented, is "truly shameful," but also the reason why California has a vital role to play in showing people that the crisis can be confronted.
As a veteran healthcare advocate and the head of a nonprofit organization focused on AIDS, Weinstein rejected the accusation he sometimes receives from political opponents that he is somehow "out of his lane" by pushing so loudly and aggressively for rent control reforms. One reason that assessment is wrong, Weinstein explained, is that housing is the largest predeterminant of health, which is also why so many at the gathering rallied around the demand that housing be treated like the human right it is.
"But the main reason I'm involved in housing," Weinstein told the audience at the gathering, "is that I feel the same outrage about the housing situation and homelessness today as I did in the 1980s about AIDS, where the benign neglect saw tens of thousands of people die needlessly."
In his remarks, Weinstein stressed the crisis is a result of the most powerful in society refusing to meet the needs of its most vulnerable. But he said the galvanizing potential of housing—and the political potency and opportunities of social uplift embedded in the solutions presented at the conference—must be recognized.
"This is a cry for unity," he said. "Unity behind rent control and unity behind opposing corporate real estate and unity behind housing justice. There's no better time than now."

Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) said during the event that Democrats are ready to put housing back at the top of the party's national agenda. (Photo: © Bryan Giardinelli / The Sanders Institute)
The sense of urgency felt by attendees of the event was unmistakable.
Speaking at the opening night dinner for the conference, Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.), who represents parts of Los Angeles County, said the creation of the Renters Caucus in Congress last year is a sign that lawmakers are beginning to take housing more seriously at the federal level.
The goal of the new caucus, Gomez said, "is to make sure that the renters agenda is at the top of the Democratic Party agenda." This was a focus of all the members of Congress who attended the gathering in some capacity, including Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) as well as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), also notable as Jane's husband. Driscoll is their son.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass speaking with attendees at the event focused on the housing crisis, where she delivered an opening speech on the issue that focused on both the local battles for housing and, as a former member of Congress, the need for federal action. (Photo: © Bryan Giardinelli / The Sanders Institute)
Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, who left Congress to provide more local leadership, said she did so because she saw that the rightward political shift at the local government level was set to take the city backward on a numerous fronts, including on the issues of affordable housing, education, and homelessness.
Calling housing "one of the most important issues of our lifetime right now," Bass praised the Sanders Institute's focus on the crisis and for bringing the event to California. "I know that you are going to be the brains behind what we need, which is a national movement," said Bass. "That's the only thing that is going to bring about the type of fundamental change that we need."
"What we need... is a national movement." —Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass
Speaking after Jayapal—who had told the audience the battle for better housing policy in the United States should be viewed much like the battle for universal healthcare—Bass acknowledged there are things on the housing agenda that will require action by leaders at every level of government.
"But nothing takes the place of the grassroots day-to-day organizing that is needed," she said, "so that we can win what Pramila said: Housing should be a human right in the richest country in the history of the world, just like healthcare should be a human right."
According to Sen. Sanders, who delivered the keynote address and was an active participant throughout, the purpose of the gathering was to get beyond talk in order to get down to the real work of making change.
"Our task is to organize and to educate," Sanders said. "It's easy to come up with rhetoric—which I have done once or twice in my life—but when you're the mayor of a city, you're going to need some concrete plans. How do you do it? You're going to have to bring a lot of smart people together to figure out the best way forward."

California Assemblyman Alex Lee (D-25), center, and South San Francisco Mayor James Coleman, right, present on social housing models during the event in Los Angeles on Thursday, April 4, 2024. (Photo: © Bryan Giardinelli / The Sanders Institute)
A constant theme at the event was that not only does the housing crisis demand progressive solutions, but the implementation of those solutions are themselves opportunities to revive democracy, increase social cohesion, and expand the public imagination.
In their joint presentation on social housing, California Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-25) and South San Francisco Mayor James Coleman, also a Democrat, detailed a vision for "social housing" which aims to demolish preconceived notions that tend to dominate understandings of "public housing" throughout the United States.
When it comes to defining the term "social housing," Lee explained that he likes to "keep it simple." Social housing, he said, "is beautiful, sustainable, and publicly led developed housing that is available to everyone and for everyone."
The idea of universality, he emphasized, is critical in the U.S. context where public housing is typically subsidized housing only for low-income individuals or families. Social housing models across the world provide housing across economic classes, which creates more buy-in from communities and residents.
"There's a very deliberate reason of why we stick to the term social housing," Lee said, "even though it is three letters away from a scary thing that Americans fear." But it is the term used around the world, he explained—both in highly capitalistic economies like Singapore's as well as in the various social democracies of Europe and beyond.
Because it's housing for everyone—the poor, the middle class, and even the upper-middle class—Lee and Coleman explained that "universality" and the lack of means-testing are core components of a model they believe can transform people's understanding of what's possible in this country.
"With social housing," argued Coleman, "you'll see broad spots of the public be able to look at it and say: 'That is quality housing. I want to live there. I want my children to live there and I know I'm going to be paying lower rents than market rate.' And when people start seeing that, then they're going to want to continue to invest in social housing and we won't see the decades of disinvestment that we have seen here in the United States for our public housing program."
In an interview with Common Dreams, Lee offered a parallel example.
"In America," he said, "there is no constitutional guarantee of education, yet every parent will wake up tomorrow not having a single doubt in their mind that their child will go to school." Lee acknowledged not all children go to the same kinds of school, but said that people never doubt that education will be there for their families.
"But there is not the similar sense of options in housing—people don't have that." But they should, he said, and there are models out there—not just abroad but also examples in the U.S.—that show how it could work.
Citing housing construction in the post-war years, Lee said the country has shown it's capable of amazing things when it comes to housing.
"We could end the housing crisis in four years, at true scale," said Lee. "That's why it's really important to prove that this can work at the state level, especially in a state as populous as California. If we prove the concept here, we can show nationally how it can be done."
Actor and activist Jane Fonda and community organizer Nalleli Cobo speak to the audience at The Gathering. (Photo: © Bryan Giardinelli / The Sanders Institute)During another session, actor and activist Jane Fonda presented alongside local activist Nalleli Cobo, a cancer survivor who has been fighting the oil industry that operates drilling wells in her urban neighborhood since she was a child.
Cobo, co-founder of the South Central Youth Leadership Coalition and a 2022 Goldman Environmental Prize winner for the activism that she initiated while still a teenager living in South Los Angeles, told the audience that the hard-fought victories she and her allies were able to win against the fossil fuel industry "were made possible because of a frontline community that was historically viewed as silenced, invisible, and disposable finally said: 'Enough is enough. We deserve to open our windows and our home and we deserve to breathe clean air.'"
"This is the largest crisis humanity has ever faced. We're running out of time and we have to fight back." —Jane Fonda
Living her whole life in a home neighboring a fossil fuel operation beset Cobo with health challenges throughout her childhood and ultimately led to a cancer diagnosis. Now three years in remission, she said affordable and healthy housing is something that every single member of society is entitled to.
"They may not be drilling in your community right now, but they can be unless we stand up and fight back," she said.
With nearly 3 million Californians living within a mile or less from oil and gas drilling wells, Fonda championed the courage and determination of Cobo to end this toxic practice, including with a ballot fight in California this year to ban such operations permanently.
"What Nalleli didn't tell you," Fonda told the audience when she took the podium, "is that at age 10 and 11, she and her mother had to be put into a witness protection program because of her organizing in the community to shut the oil well down; that at 19 she had to have a total hysterectomy; that her dream was to be a dancer and now that is no longer possible for her."
People must understand, Fonda said, that "the climate crisis is actually a massive health crisis" for people living in communities made toxic by fossil fuels all over the country and around the world. A cancer survivor in her own life, Fonda said she was told by someone when she threatened to tattoo the phrase "climate emergency" on her bald head if the chemotherapy took her hair that "the cancer community doesn't like to be looped in with other causes."
"Causes?!" she recalled exclaiming in response. "Honey, the climate crisis is not a cause. This is the largest crisis humanity has ever faced. We're running out of time and we have to fight back."

(From left): Author and labor organizer Saket Soni, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and Consumer Watchdog's Jamie Court. (Photo: © Bryan Giardinelli / The Sanders Institute)
Also on the climate front—which highlighted the intersectional style of the Sanders Institute's gathering—Congresswoman Jayapal joined with author and labor organizer Saket Soni as well as Jamie Court of the California-based Consumer Watchdog, an advocacy group, to discuss the linked issues of community resilience amid extreme weather disasters and soaring insurance costs that have arrived hand-in-hand with rising global temperatures.
While Soni in his work has been at the forefront of building up climate resilience in communities for decades—both by helping to mitigate the impact of extreme weather and also working on disaster relief and rebuilding—Jayapal explained that she has a bill in the U.S. House—called the Climate Resilience Workforce Act—that would formalize processes and establish funding to make such work a more integral part of federal, state, and local planning.
Among others, one component of the legislation would be to make sure that people in communities "disproportionately affected by climate change are actually at the table" when federal funds are dispersed.
According to the panel, the increasing impacts of climate change are a key driver of housing costs but nothing will get better without a justice lens through which to see the crisis of housing in an increasingly hotter world that is resulting in more floods, larger fires, and too little accountability for the corporate interests profiting from those extremes.
"In the context of our climate crisis," Soni explained during the panel discussion, "there is an opening for justice that Jayapal's bill is trying to take and that we're all trying to take. There is an opening where resilience is a framework that can accelerate housing justice, justice for the incarcerated, and justice for immigrants. And that's what we should all be trying to do, is look at how resilience is a real majoritarian framework—maybe one of the last ones left in our country—and inside of that there is so much consensus that we can push justice forward in many, many ways."

California's Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom talks with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) during the event in Los Angeles on Thursday, April 4, 2024. (Photo: © Bryan Giardinelli / The Sanders Institute)
On the state level, California's Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom arrived at the event to champion the recently approved measure known as Proposition 1, which will, among other things, provide state revenue from a nearly $6.4 billion bond to build and service more treatment beds for those experiencing severe mental health and addiction disorders as a way to curb homelessness across California.
During a panel discussion with Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg and California Secretary of Health & Human Services Dr. Mark Ghaly, both Democrats, Newsom said that Prop. 1 would allow for a "strike force" that could better confront the overlapping issues of housing, homelessness, mental health, and substance addiction disorders.
Acknowledging the potential for hyperbole, Newsom said he believes what's contained in the new law "are the most significant" and far-reaching "behavioral health reforms happening anywhere in the United States of America."
While the debate over Proposition 1 was heated in the state, including among progressives who landed on various sides of the initiative, a subsequent panel focused on the implementation mostly landed on the side of cautious optimism for what it could be and what kind of model it might represent.
"There is a lot of potential for Prop 1," said Dr. Margot Kushel, professor of medicine at University of California San Francisco and director of the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative.
"No matter where you stood on it before it passed," Kushel added, "there is a lot of potential now that it's here and we need to exercise that in the right way, which is that we need to be sure that it is used to enable these living-in-the-community, choice-driven, client-driven, but very supportive programs for people who are suffering terribly."
The evidence for what it will take to solve the mental health crisis as it pertains to homelessness, said Kushel, is overwhelming. "You don't need me to do more studies on it," she said, "we actually just need to bring to bear that funding [supplied by Prop 1] to solve some of these really sticky funding issues so that we can create the workforce, sustain the workforce, and create the programming" that will really serve the unhoused population "with dignity" in the communities they live in.
Several researchers presented on the severe impacts that homelessness and housing insecurity have on students and young people, including those in the foster care system. Other presenters described how community land trusts and other innovative housing collaborations, including faith-based initiatives, are providing models that could be replicated nationwide. Separately, a panel focused on the struggle of homeless veterans told the harrowing tale of former U.S. soldiers denied access to housing and care in Los Angeles who remain in a protracted legal fight with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs over land set aside for exactly that purpose.
"We don't suffer from scarcity in this country, we suffer from greed. We have enough money to house people and to create situations where people aren't going to fear for what tomorrow's going to look like." —Rep. Pramila Jayapal
In her reflections as a presenter and participant of the gathering, Congresswoman Jayapal explained to Common Dreams that the event was significant because "it lifted up an issue that" has been central for progressives but too often ignored and neglected by those in the media and within both major political parties.
"We don't suffer from scarcity in this country. We suffer from greed," Jayapal said. "We have enough money to house people, and to create situations where people aren't going to fear for what tomorrow's going to look like."

Sanders Institute co-founder Dr. Jane O'Meara Sanders in Los Angeles on Friday, April 5. "We're talking about transformational change," she said about the event. (Photo: J. Queally / Common Dreams)
The germination of the gathering, Jane Sanders explained to Common Dreams in the wake of the three days, was like "peeling back the onion" as one area of focus led to another, and a discussion with one invited expert resulted in the introduction to another.
As she realized the issue of housing was such a "hornet's nest" of intersecting issues, overlapping viewpoints, and innovative thinking, Sanders said it became increasingly clear that was exactly the reason to go forward with the event.
"We're talking about transformational change," she said of the work that she, Driscoll, and their colleagues are doing at the Sanders Institute. "None of us are very interested in making small incremental change, which might mean building some more affordable housing or supporting this or that initiative. That's not what this is about."
The Sanders Institute was initially in founded in 2018 with the goal of extending the energy, ideas, and political movement sparked during Bernie's presidential run in 2016. When the senator decided to run again in 2020, Jane and Dave decided to pause operations and then went into full hiatus when the coronavirus pandemic hit. In this context, holding an intimate housing conference in Los Angeles was conceived as a reawakening for the organization and a chance to let people know the time has now arrived to continue their original mission.
Reflecting on his experience after the gathering had concluded, Driscoll said it had been great to see so many people—whether in government or through an organization or at the grassroots level—having the chance to connect, learn from one another, and hopefully collaborate in the future.
"Sometimes this can be a lonely fight, whether or not you're fighting for housing or you're fighting for healthcare, sometimes you feel like you're not getting anywhere," he said. "But when you bring all these people together like we did over the last couple days, I felt at times a real energy in the room. People felt good about a really tough fight. So I think it inspired and fired people up, and also gave people hope for the future."
While they don't have it pinned down yet—that was the admission of the gathering—the point going forward is to clarify what the progressive agenda on housing should be and help push out to others how that fits into the broader movement for bold and lasting change.
When it comes to the opponents of such transformational proposals—national rent control, expansion of social housing, ending homelessness, or forging the Green New Deal for public housing—Driscoll said it's important that people understand powerful financial interests will fight such ideas with everything they have.
"We need to start calling people out like we did with tobacco money or with oil money," Driscoll said. "We need to start calling people out and saying, you're taking money from big real estate and developers that are causing this harm and stopping this progress." As is true in so many other areas of policy and politics, he said, following the money will be key in the battles to come.
"I don't like to call out individuals," Sanders said, "but we need to call out the system."
"It's a systematic problem that we don't say 'housing is a human right.' That's not shared in a capitalist society," she continued. "Not everybody would agree with that statement. We agree with that statement, but it's not one of those accepted truisms in this country. So what's our goal? That it become one."