Restoring sanity to federal policy

Our lake Robust research shows that socioeconomic status (SES) or class factors, such as income, education level, marriage rates, and wealth, can explain virtually all of these differences. Even in all-white neighborhoods, where racial bias may not be a factor, large appreciation gaps persist when sorted by factors such as education level, single-parent households, household rates, food stamp use, median income, or credit scores. While SES disparities between the average white and black household reflect the legacy of past discrimination, they are not exclusively racial, as evidenced by white communities facing similar challenges. Vice President J.D. Vance, whose modest upbringing he vividly details in his book Hillbilly Elegy, embodies the struggles low-income households face across racial lines.

The Brookings study did not explicitly assign blame for the valuation disparities it highlighted, but quickly turned its focus to appraisers — a group that is overwhelmingly white, male and older — casting them as a central source of systemic bias. Despite multiple efforts by us and others to present research that challenged Brooking’s and similar findings, PAVE rejected these contributions and instead chose to reinforce the bias.

While the appraisal industry has belatedly recognized the need to diversify its workforce, Pave’s approach has inadvertently eroded confidence in both the housing market and the appraisal process. At one point, Democratic lawmakers even entertained the idea of ​​creating a federal entity to set house prices by Fiat – a proposal fraught with the potential for catastrophic consequences. Adding to the turmoil, some evaluators have faced lawsuits based on flimsy evidence, further undermining the credibility of an already fragile system. Meanwhile, government executives have increasingly favored questionable automated valuation models developed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – models that not only lack transparency but are also vulnerable to manipulation, posing significant risks to the integrity of the housing market.

Pave’s policy recommendations, rooted in faulty analysis that ignored critical SES factors, were misleading from the start. By drawing the wrong conclusions, Pave’s solutions were doomed to be at best ineffective and at worst detrimental to the equity goals it set out to achieve.

President Trump is right to reverse the Biden administration’s misguided policies. In his second inaugural address, he spoke of restoring sanity to federal governance and achieving Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. . Repealing these divisive policies is a necessary and crucial first step, but there is much more work ahead of us.

To limit income and asset locations, the Trump administration must implement tax, immigration, and legal reforms to promote a thriving economy that benefits lower-skilled workers, as was accomplished during Trump’s first term. It should also encourage, rather than punish, two-part households, and recognize the stabilizing and economic benefits they bring to children and communities. It must also champion school choice at the state and local levels and hold teachers unions accountable for their role in perpetuating systemic failures that disproportionately harm children from lower-income and minority families.

To expand homeownership opportunities for more Americans, the President should build on his executive order to direct federal agencies to reduce construction costs and regulatory barriers. Specifically, he should direct the Secretary of the Interior to auction Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land for private market development.

This initiative has the potential to add 5-8 million new homes over the next decade, easing much of the housing crisis, while generating an estimated $100 billion in land sales revenues to the federal treasury. These funds can be strategically reinvested in tax cuts, further fueling economic growth and financial opportunity for American families.

Voters, especially minorities, intuitively understand the importance of opportunities for divisive rhetoric preached by cultural elites. They are looking for an even shot at the American dream, not an equal outcome. By rejecting the failed approaches of the past and implementing practical, market-driven reforms, the Trump administration can address the real drivers of inequality and pave the way for lasting economic and social progress.

Tobias Peter and Edward Pinto are co-directors of the AEI Housing Center.

This column does not necessarily reflect the views of HousingWire’s editorial department and its owners.

To contact the editor responsible for this piece: [email protected].