
Opportunity Zones have quietly become America's most effective housing program
America is facing a major housing shortage. Experts say we're short about 7 million homes. While many government programs try to help by offering rent subsidies or putting limits on rent increases, the real problem is that we aren't building enough housing to meet demand.
Opportunity Zones weren't originally designed to solve this specific problem. They were created in 2017 as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to encourage broad private investment in struggling communities. But over time, they've become one of the most effective ways to add new housing across the country.
Here's how the program works: If investors put money from capital gains into projects in low-income areas and keep their investment for ten years, they receive a major tax advantage in return. Now, as Congress decides whether to renew or expand the program, we should look at the results.
So far, the results are promising. Opportunity Zones have helped create new housing in places that don't usually get much attention or funding — and they've done it at a much lower cost to taxpayers. Today, 23 percent of all new housing under development is in an Opportunity Zone.
These investments are happening in all kinds of places. In fast-growing cities like Austin, Texas, new housing is helping relieve pressure on sky-high rents. In Rust Belt communities like Erie, Pa., more than $100 million in Opportunity Zones investment has helped revive the downtown.
In mountain ski towns in Colorado, where workers struggle to afford to live, Opportunity Zone projects have brought enough workforce residents into the area that formerly budget-strapped schools can now afford to keep open for five-day weeks.
Of course, not everyone supports the program. In a recent op-ed for The New York Times, Kevin Corinth and Naomi Feldman argued that the money is going to neighborhoods that were already improving. But even they admit that Opportunity Zones have helped speed up housing construction — it just was, in their words, 'the wrong neighborhoods,' or places that 'didn't really need it.'
And yes, many Opportunity Zone investments were made in low-income neighborhoods showing signs of growth or revitalization. But it is not a failure to catalyze investment in those places — rather, it is a sign the program is working. It is smart to invest in neighborhoods just as they start to improve, so they don't slip backward.
Also, the criticism that this housing 'would have been built anyway' usually isn't true. A 2024 report by the Economic Innovation Group found that Opportunity Zone designations led to 313,000 new homes between 2019 and 2024 — almost half of all new homes built in those neighborhoods during that time.
Opportunity Zones also save money. Unlike other government programs that require big subsidies and long approval processes, Opportunity Zones rely on private capital. That makes them a faster and cheaper tool to build housing.
One study found that Opportunity Zone housing costs taxpayers about $26,000 per unit, compared to up to $1 million per unit government-subsidized affordable housing. A recent Washington Post article highlighted a government-funded housing development that cost $1.2 million per unit and didn't even include in-room washer-dryers.
For every dollar the government gives up in tax revenue, nearly $9 of private money is invested in these communities. That's a much better return than other major housing programs, which usually achieve one private dollar for each government dollar at best.
Finally, the idea that Opportunity Zone investors is a 'tax giveaway' is not financially true. Investors only get a tax advantage if their project succeeds.
Unlike major government programs that spend significant taxpayer money regardless of success or failure, if an Opportunity Zone project fails, taxpayers don't lose money — the investors do. For example, a Ritz-Carlton hotel project in Portland, Ore., was criticized for being too upscale for the Opportunity Zone program's intent. But when the project ran into trouble, the investors lost everything. That's how the system is supposed to work.
There's still room to make the program better. Stronger reporting rules and an updated map of eligible areas are two areas of bipartisan consensus, and Congress has been working for years on improvements. The House included an extension in its recent budget bill, and Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) is leading efforts in the Senate to make the program stronger and more transparent. An updated and improved Opportunity Zone program must pass as a part of the final reconciliation bill if we have a shot at addressing America's housing crisis.
Leaders from government, business, philanthropy and universities all agree: Poor communities almost never turn around on their own without investment. Opportunity Zones aren't perfect, and they're not the only answer — but they're one of the few tools that are getting real results. As Congress works on the next budget, it should keep what's working — and make it even better.
Ross Baird is the CEO of Blueprint Local, a real estate investment firm which has invested over $200 million in distressed communities in the U.S. through the Opportunity Zone program.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Zohran Mamdani Defends Agenda Amid Democrat Pushback
Ever since New York Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani's sweeping victory in the Democratic mayoral primary, it became clear that New York was only the first part of his political battle. Mamdani has faced criticism—not just from Republicans, but from within his own party. More centrist Democrats in both New York politics and in Congress have labeled him 'too extreme.' The 33-year-old ran on a platform focused on affordability issues for New Yorkers: freezing rent, making buses fare-free, creating a network of city-owned grocery stores, and offering free childcare for any resident with children between 6 weeks to 5 years old. These proposals resonated strongly with younger voters considering their future in an increasingly unaffordable city. More than half of New York families with children age 4 or under cannot afford child care, and grocery prices have soared 50 percent in recent years. Among Democrats and moderates however, his policies have made raised concerns over economic viability. Representative Laura Gillen, a centrist Democrat in Congress representing part of Long Island, told TIME that Mamdani's proposals are not fiscally sound. 'Saying things like 'we're going to give away free everything' is not realistic, and it's not the direction the Democratic Party should go in,' she said. 'They should find ways to make people's lives affordable in tangible ways, and say we will reach across the aisle to do that.' In response, Mamdani has emphasized how he intends to fund his policy agenda—a tax on New York's top 2% of earners, and raising the corporate tax to match New Jersey's 11.5%. 'It's not fiscal policy, it's quality of life [that forces top 1% New Yorkers to move away],' Zohran told Kristen Welker on Meet the Press, citing a 2023 Fiscal Policy Institute study showing that the top 1% of New Yorkers leave at a quarter of the rate of other income groups. When they do leave, he added, it is often to other states with high tax rates, such as New Jersey and California. 'And ultimately, the reason I want to increase these taxes on the top 1% the most profitable corporations, is to increase quality of life for everyone, including those who are going to be taxed.' Democratic strategists in Washington are closely monitoring Mamdani's rise. While some warn that his brand of progressive populism could alienate moderate voters, others argue that his appeal to working-class and immigrant communities—especially in a high-turnout primary—offers a glimpse of how Democrats might reenergize a disillusioned base. Read more: What Will Really Happen if New York City Goes Socialist Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York also weighed in last week, criticizing Mamdani during an appearance on The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Asked about 'the threats facing the Jewish community from Zohran Mamdani,' she cited his refusal to denounce the phrase 'globalize the intifada,' and erroneously claimed that Mamdani referenced the word 'jihad'. Her communications director later clarified on X that Gillibrand had misspoken. Mamdani has been sharply critical of the Israeli government throughout his campaign and vocal in his support for Palestinians in Gaza amid the Israel-Gaza War. His refusal to denounce the phrase 'globalize the intifada'—a slogan historically associated with Palestinian uprisings—has drawn intense scrutiny. Critics argue that the phrase may incite antisemitic violence; Mamdani has countered that such interpretations are misguided. In his interview with Welker, Mamdani reiterated that the phrase is 'not the language that I use,' while adding that 'we have to root out that bigotry' from politics. 'I've heard those fears [of antisemitism], and I've had those conversations, and ultimately, they are part and parcel of why in my campaign,' he said. 'I've put forward a commitment to increase funding for anti-hate-crime programming by 800 percent.' Mamdani has not received endorsement from prominent establishment Democrats such as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Minority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives Hakeem Jeffries. He has however garnered support from more progressive Congresspeople, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders, representing a schism in the Democratic party. 'I think the cost-of-living message that national Democrats maybe have gotten away from too much, that [Mamdani] really foregrounded in his campaign, is the best way to reach into these pockets,' political strategist and researcher Michael Lange said of Mamdani's success in an interview with the New York Magazine. Mamdani continued his media push over the weekend, defending his platform and tone across multiple outlets with a message that emphasized optimism and inclusion. On MSNBC, Mamdani was asked whether he had spoken to Sen. Gillibrand after his win, and how he had dealt with Islamophobic attacks from all sides in the aftermath of his win. 'I spoke to Senator Gillibrand soon after the victory on Tuesday evening and the comments that I've heard, especially from Republicans across the country and even the comments prior, during the primary, were comments that were both unsurprising and yet still quite sad, because they showcase what politics has become for so many,' he said. 'It's a language of darkness and a language of exclusion, and what has kept me hopeful through this is that our vision is one where every New Yorker belongs.' Read more: Meet Rama Duwaji, the Illustrator Who Met Zohran Mamdani on Hinge—and May Become NYC's First Lady He noted a significant increase in turnout compared to the 2021 primary, with notably higher participation among young people, immigrant voters, and voters of color. Mamdani ultimately defeated former Governor Andrew Cuomo, a fixture of New York's political establishment. He pointed specifically to previously disengaged Asian and Hispanic voter communities and many New Yorkers who he says 'saw themselves' in his politics. 'He was capturing younger voter energy across all races and classes, native New Yorkers, non-native New Yorkers, in a way that the candidates in 2021 just were not doing,' Lange explained. 'And that also extended to rent-stabilized tenants and to South Asian and Muslim voters.' On Meet the Press, Mamdani was asked whether the Democratic establishment fears him. Mamdani said that by bringing his policies back to 'working Americans' and an economics-based policies, this is how he was able to win over New Yorkers. Contact us at letters@


The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
NJ attorney general: Universal injunctions still possible after Supreme Court ruling
New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin (D) argued Monday that sweeping injunctions blocking the Trump administration's policies could still be achieved, despite a Supreme Court ruling against them last week. '[The Supreme Court] said very clearly: States still may need nationwide relief if, in fact, the harms that we experience as states … the consequences to states are enormous; so, they asked lower courts to consider that question,' Platkin, one of the state attorneys general who has advocated on behalf of the injunctions, told CNN's Kate Bolduan in an interview. 'I think we will very clearly be able to meet the standard that even this Supreme Court set out for states to meet should we need nationwide relief.' The high court issued a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines Friday that pushed back on judicial holds that have been used to stymie the president's agenda since his return to the White House in January. 'These injunctions — known as 'universal injunctions' — likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court's six Republican-appointed justices, after the Trump administration argued that judicial overreach was entrenching on the president's powers. The justices ordered the lower courts to move 'expeditiously' to reconsider their injunctions and comply with the Friday ruling. Platkin told Bolduan he thinks that leaves room for universal injunctions in some cases. 'Notably, it was a rhetorically very strong opinion, but it actually was quite a middle of the road opinion for what the administration wanted,' he said. The case that prompted the court's decision centered on an executive order Trump signed earlier this year to restrict birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to immigrants. The court didn't weigh in on the merits of birthright citizenship. 'Look, I think it's important to remember what the Supreme Court did not do on Friday,' Platkin said. 'They didn't opine on the merits of birthright citizenship because everyone, for the last 157 years, has understood that babies born on U.S. soil since the Civil War have been treated as citizens.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Sen. Thom Tillis in stepping aside goes the way of other Republicans who have challenged Trump
WASHINGTON (AP) — Flake. Corker. Romney. And now, Sen. Thom Tillis. The roll call of Republican senators in the U.S. Congress who have called it quits, rather than endure a political career sideways with President Donald Trump, is long, notable -- and apparently, still growing. Tillis, the GOP senator from North Carolina, announced his decision not to seek reelection Sunday, a stunning moment, given its timing. It arrived a day after Donald Trump trashed Tillis online, threatening to campaign against him, after the senator revealed he would oppose Trump's big tax breaks bill because of its deep cuts to Medicaid that he warned would devastate his state. 'My goal is not to undermine the president,' Tillis told the Associated Press and others late Sunday night at the U.S. Capitol. 'But why not do it right? And why not take the time to make sure that we're not going to have unintended consequences, which will also have, I think, substantial political consequences next year if we're not careful." The senator, like others before him, has run up against the limits of his own perceived truth-telling, particularly when it goes against the views of the president or threatens the White House agenda. A tough reelection became tougher Tillis' reelection in the Tar Heel State was already expected to be difficult, a $600 million campaign, he said he was told. Democrats see the state as a prime pick-up opportunity in next year's elections as they try to flip the seat and retake majority control of the Senate from Republicans. Turning 65 later this year, Tillis said he had been weighing his decision, and having put a cancer diagnosis behind him was charting the next phase of his life. A former House speaker in North Carolina, he noted he has been in office for some 20 years. But Trump's unchallenged grip on the party, and his singular ability to not only tank political careers but also deeply influence the views of Republican voters, leaves little room for dissent. Most GOP senators who confronted Trump during his first term – Arizona's Jeff Flake, Tennessee's Bob Corker and Utah's Mitt Romney, who was the only Republican to vote to convict Trump in both of his Senate impeachment trials – have long since stepped aside. Tillis bristled at those comparisons. "No, no, no. Look, I am an unlikely senator,' Tillis said. He insisted, 'I don't like any of the trappings that many senators like up here. I like doing work. I like going home, and I like being with my family. That's me.' Tillis wants Trump to succeed Tillis, as he walked back to his Senate office, told the story of living in a trailer park in Nashville as a teen with his family, before branching out on his own. At about 16, he had been a cook at a roadside diner, 'like a Denny's,' he said, but found that the waiters made more money with tips, so he switched. He was grossing about $10,000 a year. Then he moved on to a warehouse job, earning about the same pay, and was able to move into the trailer of his own. That's one reason why he opposes Trump's tax bill: he says it's not the kind of relief the president is promising for working Americans. Take the president's no tax on tips plan, he said. 'Thom Tillis the waiter gets a tax break. Thom Tills the warehouse worker doesn't,' he said. 'Why can't we figure out a way to give it to both of them versus something that catches an applause line in Las Vegas?' Tillis went on, 'I would love to have told the president this story. Instead of people getting gimmicky and targeting things — and not looking at the inherent unfairness of that policy and the additional billions of dollars we have to spend on that — which is forcing the Medicaid debate.' He said, exasperated, 'Folks, pull back.' Trump and Tillis talk Tillis did talk with Trump over the past several days. On Friday night he said he had a good call with the president and shared his concerns with the bill. But once the president lashed out against him Saturday night, that was about it. "I told the president after that post that it'd probably be a good time for him to start looking for replacements,' Tillis said In a speech later Sunday, Tillis appeared somewhat liberated, free to publicly call the bill as he saw it, a betrayal of Trump's promises. 'I'm telling the president that you have been misled: You're supporting the Senate mark will hurt people who are eligible and qualified for Medicaid,' he thundered from the chamber floor. Colleagues have been taking notice. Democrats in particular can't help but remember another pivotal moment when Republicans were trying to cut health care and a single GOP senator stood up and said no. Tillis, McCain and health care Sen. John McCain famously voted thumbs down against the Republican plan to 'repeal and replace' the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, in a stunning setback during Trump's first term in the summer of 2017. Tillis brushed off that comparison, too. 'We're gonna get the tax bill done,' he said. But he said, the president has advisers that are 'politically too cute by half, and they're having fun while we're having to implement suboptimal policy that will degrade the enormous impact and the legacy that this president could otherwise have.' And as he heads for the exits next year, Tillis said 'if they continue to do this, I'll start spending some time focusing on just who those people are.'