The American Dream Isn’t Dead, But It’s Buried Alive Under Permits

 What is the American Dream? Is it opportunity? Is it the freedom to speak one’s mind and worship as one pleases? Is it the Detroit Tigers winning the World Series? To be fair, the last of these is mine, and probably not yours. The first two, though, are at the heart of the American promise. They are joined by something else, something increasingly out of reach: buying a home. The dream of owning, and not merely renting, is slipping further away for millions of young Americans. As I see it, that dream is getting crushed by many factors, chief among them the pernicious influence of Big Green.

Sixty-two percent of Americans now believe buying a home is “unrealistic.” A recent Siena/New York Times poll found that for voters under thirty, half say housing affordability is their top concern—more pressing than retirement, healthcare, education, food, or transportation combined. We are watching the primary vehicle by which ordinary Americans build wealth simply evaporate. We are watching a dream die. And it is dying for a reason.

For decades, I’ve watched the progressive Political Vise operate against American families. I’ve documented how media, influencers, and politicians squeeze ordinary people. But I’ve rarely seen it work with such elegant and comprehensive brutality as it does in the housing crisis.

Dreams Don’t Die of Natural Causes

According to the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), government regulations now add $131,734 to the cost of a newly built home. That’s 26.4 percent of the entire purchase price. These costs have nothing to do with the price of lumber or labor. They are the result of regulation piled on regulation: environmental impact assessments, stormwater permits, pollution control measures, sustainable building codes, energy efficiency standards, permitting delays, and inspection fees. The regulations themselves seem well-intentioned. Clean water and lower energy bills are worthy goals, but the mechanism used to pursue them is destructive.

The left frames environmental regulations as moral imperatives. They immediately reframe as sheer greed any suggestion that we might balance environmental protection with the basic human need for affordable shelter. A homebuilder who argues that stormwater regulations are adding thousands to the cost of a new home isn’t asking for a reasonable conversation. The media will shriek that “Greedy developers are willing to sacrifice public health for profit!”

Homebuilders have no choice but to comply with these burdensome codes or leave the industry altogether. One way or another, the cost gets passed on. Those who can afford a home pay more. Those who can’t remain renters, shut out from the American dream.

Sainthood’s Hidden Sin Tax

In the Political Vise, I devote an entire chapter to “Big Green.” Many Americans still think of environmentalists as earnest do-gooders reminding everyone to recycle. That may describe your aging Berkeley-educated neighbor in the Grateful Dead t-shirt, but the reality is that the nation’s major environmental organizations are master political operators. Non-profits like the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Environmental Working Group don’t build homes. They will never have to comply with the regulations for which they lobby, but they profit handsomely from the regulatory thicket they create. They pressure politicians and homebuilders through lobbying and litigation, raise millions on their ability to stop building projects, and wrangle huge consulting contracts for those projects that do win approval. Stricter environmental regulation is their business model, and it is a highly effective one.

A young family priced out of the housing market doesn’t have a lobbying budget, nor can a couple in their twenties match the organizational resources of the green lobby. Politicians respond to organized power, not to individual stories of disappointment and frustration. Big Green’s well-heeled lobbyists (wearing fancy suits, not tie-dye) show up where young Americans cannot. The result is that wealth-building through homeownership— the traditional path to prosperity – slips further from the grasp of working and middle-class Americans.

Progressivism Protects Organized, Not Powerless

As the founders designed what I call the traditional Political Vise, the people have leverage. You can vote out the politician who ignores you. The media responds to public pressure, and ordinary people have the capacity to organize. The system was designed so that the people, ultimately, turn the levers. In the progressive Vise, the people are squeezed. The levers are turned by politicians responding to influencers responding to media narratives. Homebuyers can’t vote their way out of $131,000 in regulatory costs. They can’t organize faster than the Sierra Club or match the funding of environmental nonprofits with a combined annual budget in the hundreds of millions.

I like to emphasize the distinction between extraction economics and creation economics. Creation is when a builder constructs a home, a family builds equity, a young couple transforms into homeowners, and a community flourishes. Extraction is when regulatory costs transfer wealth from homebuyers to consultants, lawyers, environmental organizations, and subsidy-rich green-tech companies. The NAHB notes that the median home price has risen 28 percent since the pandemic began in 2020—from $317,000 to $405,000. Regulatory costs during the construction phase alone have risen from 13.3 percent to 17 percent of total price in just five years.

The Rich Ruse

Millennials and Gen Z are angry, the surveys say. They can see that the path to wealth – the one their parents and grandparents took -- is closed to them. The media tries to direct that righteous anger towards the successful, declaring that greedy billionaires are the source of all the suffering. As my Southern friends say, I’m not sure that dog will hunt anymore. Young people are waking up to the reality that environmental regulations, not wealth-creators, are strangling the opportunity to pursue the American Dream.

This is less a debate about the environment versus the economy than it is a simple story about raw power. The housing crisis will end when enough voters understand that it’s not the free market pricing young Americans out of homeownership, but rather regulatory extraction orchestrated by influential environmental elites.

The solution to our housing crisis is in sight. A new generation can claim the American Dream. We need to free home builders from stifling regulations – and we need to pry Big Green’s hands off the Vise.

John Tillman is a Political strategist, CEO of the Hall of Giants, and author of The Political Vise (March 2026). He writes about the forces that influence political power and shape American life.

https://www.thepoliticalvise.com/p/the-american-dream-isnt-dead-but

NY’s pied-à-terre tax could leave entire co-ops on hook for massive bills: ‘Whole building suffers’

 New York’s newly enacted pied-à-terre tax could leave entire co-op buildings on the hook for hefty tax bills if a wealthy second-home owner refuses to pay — sparking alarm among real estate brokers and co-op advocates who warn the measure was drafted without accounting for how co-ops actually operate.

“It’s not the shareholder that suffers the consequences, it’s the entire building that suffers the consequences,” Jason Haber, co-founder of the American Real Estate Association and a Compass broker, told The Post.

The tax spearheaded by Gov. Kathy Hochul and touted by Mayor Zohran Mamdani was signed into law as part of the state budget last month.

It targets luxury non-primary residences and is expected to raise hundreds of millions of dollars annually from wealthy second-home owners.

But experts say the mechanics of collecting the surcharge could create major headaches for co-op boards, particularly in smaller buildings.

Unlike condominiums, co-ops do not have separate tax lots for individual apartments.

Instead, the entire building is assessed as a single property, with real estate taxes paid by the co-op and passed through to shareholders via monthly maintenance charges.

“As regards to the pied-à-terre tax, the legislation requires the co-op to pay the surcharge in the same way that they pay their real estate taxes, and the co-op must then charge the impacted shareholder back and hope to collect the surcharge from them,” Rebecca Poole, director of membership and communication for the Council of New York Cooperatives and Condominiums, told The Post.

That arrangement could leave co-op boards temporarily fronting large sums of money while they attempt to recover the surcharge from absentee owners.

“It’s possible that co-ops could be out the funds while waiting for the shareholder who is subject to the surcharge to pay the charge back,” Poole said.

4

Co-op advocates say boards may be forced to front surcharge payments before collecting from wealthy pied-à-terre owners.James – stock.adobe.com

The problem becomes especially acute in smaller buildings, where a single large apartment could trigger a significant tax bill.

“For example, if you have a five-unit co-op and the pied-à-terre tax applies to the largest unit — which may be comprised of a couple of combined units — the other four shareholders might be forced to quickly come up with a large sum of money that they don’t have to pay, the surcharge, while they try to collect the funds from an out-of-town pied-à-terre owner,” Poole said.

Haber warned that enforcement could create even bigger problems because co-ops lack individual tax parcels.

“You cannot put a tax lien on an individual unit in a cooperative because there is no tax lot for that unit,” Haber said.

“Instead, what do you do? You put a lien on the entire building.”

That means a dispute involving a single shareholder could potentially affect every resident in the building, according to Haber.

“If someone’s trying to sell their apartment and the buyer is getting financing, that buyer may not be able to get financing because of the tax lien,” he said.

“It creates a cloud on the building.”

Haber argued that lawmakers failed to fully consider the unique structure of co-op ownership when drafting the legislation.

“There’s only one tax lot for the entire building, so how do you assess a tax on an individual shareholder? This is the problem,” he said.

Poole said many boards are still trying to determine whether the tax will apply to their buildings and which shareholders could be affected.

“The two problems we potentially see happening are lack of clarity among co-ops in general as to whether or not this will apply to them, because in the press it’s been about the $5 million figure and the market value doesn’t line up with that exactly,” she said.

She added that boards should begin preparing now.

“The first step we’re encouraging is for co-op and condo boards to look and see if this will apply to any of their apartments and then start to prepare,” Poole said.

Some boards are already discussing whether to restrict future pied-à-terre ownership altogether in order to avoid potential liability, according to Haber.

“The whole building is impacted if one shareholder doesn’t pay the tax,” he said.

Gov. Kathy Hochul’s office told The Post that “the city will identify who is covered by the law, communicate that to the boards, who are then required to pass that information on to the owner.”

4

Unlike condos, co-ops are taxed as one property — raising fears that one unpaid bill could cloud an entire building.Michael Moloney – stock.adobe.com

“The boards don’t have to tally their own bill and aren’t penalized for anything to do with reporting info,” Hochul’s office told The Post.

“Co-ops are already responsible for collecting property taxes, so it makes sense that they would also collect a surcharge.”

The governor’s office also said that the new law “includes tools for the city to directly enforce against the unit owner, in addition to the co-op’s own right to collect from the shareholder.”

“In a co-op setting the building’s property taxes already are determined at the building level and then apportioned based on stockholders’ ownership shares,” the governor’s office told The Post.

“That is sensible in the context of a coop, where a unit owner actually has a percentage of shares in the corporation that owns the underlying property.”

When asked about co-ops possibly moving to ban pied-à-terre arrangements to avoid liability, the governor’s office said: “This tax applies to a narrow class of high value, secondary residence that by definition are not primary residences for New Yorkers.”

“Nothing in this policy would diminish housing options made available to New Yorkers.”

The Post has sought comment from Mamdani.

https://nypost.com/2026/06/16/business/nys-pied-a-terre-tax-could-leave-entire-co-ops-on-hook-for-massive-bills/

NYC's Rent-Stabilized Subsidy Goes Untapped By Nonprofit Buyers

New York City is relying on nonprofits to save its distressed rent-stabilized housing stock, according to Bisnow. But they have yet to become the white knight that renters need. In April 2025, the Department of Housing Preservation and Development relaunched its Neighborhood Pillars program, which aims to provide financing to nonprofits seeking to acquire and rehabilitate multifamily properties. More than a year later, the city has yet to close on a project, HPD Commissioner Dina Levy said this week. Nonprofits, mission-driven organizations, and minority and women-owned business enterprises can tap the Pillars program to fund transactions. HPD provides a subsidy of up to $380,000 per dwelling unit, along with full or partial property tax exemptions. To be eligible, a building must exhibit signs of financial or physical distress, such as having high levels of housing code violations. In exchange, the new ownership must rehabilitate the property, abide by affordability limits and set aside at least 20% of units for formerly homeless individuals. An HPD spokesperson declined to provide specifics on the project but said in a statement the program is “an important tool in the city’s toolbox” to stabilize and preserve the city’s affordable housing stock. Tenant advocates have pushed for nonprofit and community ownership models as a way to preserve affordable housing. Efforts to maximize returns may pressure private owners to raise rents or minimize maintenance costs. Still, nonprofits have said they are facing the same strains as their for-profit counterparts. In addition to having to make mortgage payments based on valuations made prior to HSTPA, inflation has ballooned. Since 2017, the cost of insurance has surged by 110%, administration costs have risen by 51%, and repair and maintenance needs have increased by 35%, according to a report by low-income housing tax credit syndicators Enterprise and National Equity Fund.

https://go.arielpa.nyc/e/710183/ped-by-nonprofit-buyers-134896/2cn137/1895222121/h/ulBntBLykXL3TLAfblFUiKDJQCjIAIJ9YChL-FFAPhI

New York City Is Leading The U.S. In Apartment Construction. Yes, Really.

 

While New York City’s apartment vacancy rate is still below 2%, according to an April report from brokerage Corcoran, and the metropolis remains a notoriously expensive place to build, there has been quite a bit of progress lately in increasing the housing supply, Commercial Observer reported. That’s largely thanks to city and state efforts, including residential-friendly rezonings and tax incentives such as the 2-year-old 467-m tax break for conversions to residential. There were 38,682 housing units completed within new buildings in New York City in 2025, according to the Department of City Planning, a year-over-year rise from the 33,859 units completed in 2024. This represented the most units completed in a single year since 1965 — yes, since 1965 — and the second consecutive year that over 30,000 units were completed. A CoStar report from May showed that New York City led the nation in terms of multifamily construction, with 43,000 units under construction in the first quarter of 2026. This came at the same time construction starts were down nationally to their lowest quarterly level since 2011. Some of the neighborhood-specific rezonings were in Gowanus, Brooklyn; Jamaica, Queens; Long Island City, Queens; and Prospect Heights, Brooklyn. The rezonings are expected to clear a path for around 50,000 new units in the coming years, with about 10,000 already being delivered in Gowanus alone. Still, to defeat the city’s housing shortage, there needs to be 50,000 to 60,000 units produced per year, otherwise there will be a continued shortage of about half a million units by 2034, according to Shimon Shkury, founder and president of Ariel Property Advisors. Many in the commercial real estate industry consider the sunsetting beginning in 2022 of the 421-a multifamily development incentive, which rewarded the inclusion of affordable housing in a project with significant tax abatements, as a setback for fresh construction. Its replacement, 485-x, has led to a wave of smaller projects due to construction wage requirements that state lawmakers baked into the incentive. Replacing 485-x would spur even more construction over the long term, these critics say. https://go.arielpa.nyc/e/710183/ousing-taxes-inflation-report-/2cn12x/1895222121/h/ulBntBLykXL3TLAfblFUiKDJQCjIAIJ9YChL-FFAPhI