My daughter Rachel and her fiancé live in Boston, where housing costs have effectively priced them out of the market. As a result, they’ve considered returning to Michigan, particularly the west side of the state near Grand Rapids. So far, they haven’t had much luck. Housing stock remains low, listings move quickly and competition continues driving prices upward. The pickings are slim.
One issue affecting communities across Michigan, perhaps rural communities most of all, is the lack of housing.
Talia Champlin, a real estate broker for ReMax in the Battle Creek area with decades of experience, deals with the issue on a daily basis. In her view, the crux of the challenge is straightforward: demand far exceeds supply.
“Lending standards are not unreasonable,” she said. “If a consumer has not yet learned how to manage their debt, they may need a little more time and practice before they should buy a home. But when the hard-working buyer finds that home, six to 10 other buyers have found it, too. I believe the shortage is the bigger issue.”
The causes of that shortage are numerous and complicated, but many experts trace the current crisis back to the 2008 subprime mortgage collapse, which caused home construction to slow dramatically while population shifts and household growth continued increasing demand. By some estimates, the United States now faces a housing deficit of several million units. In Michigan that number is closing in on 200,000.
Michigan lawmakers have taken notice. Earlier this year, a bipartisan group of legislators introduced a package of bills known as the Housing Readiness Plan. The proposals are designed largely to increase housing stock by easing some local zoning and development restrictions.
Supporters argue that local regulations often make it unnecessarily difficult and expensive to build new housing. An unusual coalition of business interests and environmental groups has emerged in support of the effort. Developers see opportunity for growth, while many environmental advocates support greater density as an alternative to continued suburban sprawl.
Municipal officials, however, have pushed back strongly. They argue that local governments are best positioned to preserve the character and quality of their own communities.
Muskegon Charter Township Supervisor Jennifer Hodges captured that concern in comments published by the Michigan Townships Association: “Many factors driving housing shortages and affordability challenges are far bigger than local zoning. Overriding local zoning does not build new homes or improve affordability — it undermines local governance without a guarantee of success.”
So which side is right? Well … both.
That may sound unsatisfying in an era when people increasingly demand absolute certainty and ideological clarity. But history suggests that housing policy rarely produces simple outcomes.
In the years following World War II, America faced another housing challenge. Millions of returning veterans needed homes for themselves and their growing families. Federal and state policies encouraged large-scale suburban development, highway construction, and homeownership on an unprecedented scale.
The results transformed the country.
The postwar expansion of suburban housing reshaped transportation patterns, land use, and energy consumption in ways we are still debating today. Entire communities flourished. Millions of families achieved levels of economic stability that had previously been out of reach.
At the same time, critics warned about the long-term consequences of rapid suburban expansion. Early conservationists raised concerns about environmental degradation. Some urban planners questioned the financial sustainability of sprawl. Even in the 1950s, social critics warned that the emerging suburban model carried social and cultural costs alongside its obvious benefits.
The point is not that those postwar housing policies were entirely right or entirely wrong. They were both transformative and complicated, much like the housing debates unfolding today.
That is worth remembering as Michigan wrestles with its current housing shortage.
There is no shortage of policy prescriptions. Build more aggressively. Protect local control. Increase density. Preserve community character. Reduce regulations. Expand infrastructure.
Each proposal carries potential benefits along with consequences that may not become fully apparent for years or even decades.
And while it’s true no one can predict exactly how today’s decisions will shape Michigan’s future communities, experts warn the issue has reached a crisis level. Ready or not, we have to do something.
What we can say with certainty is that housing policy matters far beyond housing itself. The choices governments make today will influence not only where people live, but how communities develop, how economies function, and what kind of state future generations inherit.
They may even determine how often I’ll get to see my future grandkids.
Keith Kindred is a retired Michigan teacher who taught at the high school and college levels for over 33 years. He is also the author of several self-published books and regularly writes about education policy.
This article originally appeared on The Holland Sentinel: Fixing Michigan’s housing shortage involves no easy answers | Opinion
Reporting by Keith Kindred, Holland Sentinel / The Holland Sentinel
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
