
Why the housing boom in Texas and Florida is coming to a grinding halt
Businesses sprang up to help — Conservative Move specializes in relocating families 'right' so they can live in a community that's safer, more affordable and more aligned with their values. But here's the twist: the red-state dream is running out of steam. Booming demand in such places as Dallas, Miami and Phoenix has begun to push housing prices higher, and red tape is starting to look suspiciously blue, new research shows.
In fact, experts say the once-unstoppable red-state migration may be hitting a wall. A bombshell study from Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania found that home building in Sun Belt cities has dramatically slowed, leading to skyrocketing prices. Atlanta, Dallas, Miami and Phoenix 'were once building superstars,' write the economists Edward Glaeser and Joseph Gyourko in their 45-page report, which was released in May.
The reason? Red states are running out of sprawl. For decades, cheap land and suburban expansion kept housing affordable. But now, says Daryl Fairweather of real estate firm Redfin: 'The good places are already taken.' Builders can't simply pave over farmland anymore, because Sun Belt cities have spread out so far that there's no available land left within a reasonable commute time from city centers.
At the same time, building up is proving just as difficult. Zoning laws in 'freedom-loving' red states are more restrictive than many realize. Research by Alex Armlovich, a housing expert at the Niskanen Centre think tank, found that Atlanta's zoning rules are nearly as strict as those in LA, with both cities banning apartment buildings on vast swaths of land. And it's not just the laws — it's the delays. Developers say getting approvals in cities like Atlanta now takes twice as long as it did a decade ago. Red tape is strangling red-state growth.
The revelations come as developers nationwide say they're struggling amid a brutal summer. Rising material costs, high mortgage rates, and President Donald Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration pile pressure on an industry already teetering. A shocking one-third of America's construction workers are undocumented, and tougher enforcement has builders warning of potential massive delays in homes, schools, hospitals, and even data centers.
A new survey from Evercore ISI paints a bleak picture: 71 percent of builders say this spring's selling season was 'slow,' with the rest calling it just 'a little slow.' Not a single respondent described the market as solid — a stinging sign of just how dire things have become. Developers have even started offering mortgage rate buy downs and downsized 'starter' homes as budget options for wary buyers. But even these incentives have failed to jolt the market back to life.
Ironically, it's blue states like California that are finally waking up and fighting back. In a rare bipartisan moment, Newsom signed a major housing reform bill in June that strips away a law long used by environmentalists, unions, and NIMBYs to block housing projects. Senator Scott Wiener said the move gave California a chance to 'build again' and cut housing costs for cash-strapped residents who might otherwise be looking for the exit. If the plan works, it could reverse the tide of the blue-to-red exodus.
That would have enormous political consequences. Every migrant out of California chips away at its representation in Congress and the Electoral College. The state is already projected to lose up to five seats after the 2030 Census. But if the outflow slows, that shrinkage may stall — or stop entirely. And with it, a favorite Republican talking point might disappear too. So while the narrative has long been that Americans are voting with their feet — fleeing liberal chaos for conservative order — the truth may be more complicated.
As Sun Belt cities start to look a lot more like their coastal counterparts, and blue states learn to build, the lines between red and blue may blur — at least when it comes to bricks and mortar. According to Gyourko, the end of affordable options in America's red-state boomtowns will have consequences far beyond partisan point-scoring. 'If this goes away, it will be the first time in American history where we don't have affordable housing markets with high job growth,' Gyourko told Brookings , a think tank.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
8 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Government warns asylum seekers they may be made homeless if they refuse to move out of migrant hotels into alternative accommodation - as current bill costs taxpayers £5.7million per day
Asylum seekers could be made homeless if they refuse Home Office demands to move accommodation, the Government has warned. In a bid to stop migrants rejecting alternative housing without a valid reason, ministers will bring in new rules to tackle non-compliance. A 'Failure to Travel' policy will ensure illegal migrants who are moved from hotels to other 'suitable' accommodation must take it. If they refuse they could lose their housing and support, the Home Office said. Around 100 asylum seekers refuse to move accommodation each week, the Mail understands, and ministers currently have no powers to force them. Under the Conservatives, the Government threatened to remove housing and support from those who refused to move to the Bibby Stockholm barge, which is no longer in use. Labour's new plan will mirror the Tory rules, but will be applied more widely to other forms of accommodation. The 'firm but fair' policy is part of the Government's drive to end the use of expensive hotels to house asylum seekers. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has vowed to put a stop to the practice by 2029 - in a move she says will save £1billion a year. Currently, taxpayers are forking out £5.7million per day to house asylum seekers in hotels - at an average cost of £118.87 per person per night. Other accommodation, such as shared houses, is estimated to cost just £15 per night. Ministers are looking to buy tower blocks and former student accommodation to house migrants in a bid to reduce the hotel bill. More than 106,000 asylum seekers were in receipt of taxpayer-funded support as of March this year, including 32,000 in hotels. Asylum seekers are given free accommodation and a weekly allowance if the Home Office believes they would otherwise be destitute. The majority of those arriving on small boats qualify. Minister for Border Security and Asylum, Dame Angela Eagle, said: 'We inherited an asylum system on the brink of collapse - mismanaged, under strain, and costing the public a fortune. We are getting a grip. 'We are working to close hotels, restore order, and put fairness and value for money at the heart of our asylum system. This government is making those necessary decisions to protect the taxpayer and uphold the integrity of our borders. 'These reforms to the Failure to Travel policy are another example of this government's action to transform the asylum accommodation system and crack down on those who abuse our system, so it operates fairly and saves the taxpayer money.' The Mail this week reported how asylum seekers are using taxpayer handouts to fund their gambling habits. Home Office data, released to the PoliticsHome website, showed pre-paid cards given out to pay for basics including food and clothing are being used in gambling venues such as bookmakers, amusement arcades and even casinos.


Reuters
8 minutes ago
- Reuters
US agencies pause effort to block immigrant social services in states that sued
NEW YORK, July 25 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration agreed on Friday to pause efforts to block immigrants who are living in the U.S. illegally from accessing certain federally funded social services in 20 Democratic-led states that sued over the policy changes. The U.S. Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, Education, and Labor agreed to wait until at least September 3 to enforce the changes that affect programs providing early childhood education, food and healthcare. The agencies also agreed not to enforce the changes retroactively in New York, California, Illinois, or the other states that sued, according to an agreement filed in Rhode Island federal court, where the states had filed their lawsuit. New York Attorney General Letitia James said the agreement preserves social services "that millions of New Yorkers rely on to survive." "These policy changes threaten essential lifelines like health care, education, and nutrition assistance programs for hardworking families in New York and nationwide," James said in a statement. "My office will continue to fight for these programs and services on behalf of all who need them." The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. More than 20 Democratic attorneys general had sued on Monday arguing that the policies, which implement an immigration-focused executive order from Trump, are unconstitutional and that the Republican president issued them without following the required federal rulemaking process. The policy changes require programs to check participants' immigration status before giving access to essential public services like Head Start, Meals on Wheels, child welfare programs, domestic violence shelters, housing assistance, mental health treatment, food banks, and community health centers. The states said the directives threatened to pull federal funding from states and could force some programs to shutter altogether. The requirements went into effect almost immediately after the directives were issued, leaving the programs scrambling to find ways to comply so they can stay open, the states said. States have always needed to verify a person's lawful immigration status before allowing them to access certain federal programs, like Medicaid. But federal agencies have previously taken the position that states did not have to verify immigration status for some programs, like soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and crisis counseling centers, that received federal funding but were intended to be "open to all," according to the lawsuit.


Reuters
8 minutes ago
- Reuters
Kennedy to oust care task force, WSJ reports; HHS says no decision yet
WASHINGTON, July 25 (Reuters) - U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is planning to remove all the members of an advisory panel that determines what cancer screenings and other preventive health measures insurers must cover, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday, citing people familiar with the matter. A Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson said on Friday that Kennedy had not yet made a decision regarding the 16-member U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. "No final decision has been made on how the USPSTF can better support HHS' mandate to Make America Healthy Again," the HHS spokesperson said. The Journal said Kennedy planned to dismiss all 16 panel members in what would be the latest in a series of far-reaching actions by Kennedy, a long-time vaccine skeptic, to reshape U.S. regulation of vaccines, food and medicine. In June he fired all 17 members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a panel of vaccine experts, replacing them with seven handpicked members, including known vaccine skeptics. The USPSTF includes medical experts serving staggered four-year terms on a volunteer basis. Its role in choosing what services will be covered by insurers was established under the 2010 Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. The 40-year-old group, whose recommendations provide guidance to doctors, looks at everything from routine breast cancer screening to drugs to prevent HIV infection. The U.S. Supreme Court in June upheld the constitution of the task force and ruled in favor of its recommendation to cover preventive care. Though made up of an independent group of volunteer experts, members are selected by the health secretary without Senate confirmation and it relies on support from the department's Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. A group of 104 health organizations, opens new tab, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, in early July sent a letter to Congressional health committees, urging them "to protect the integrity" of the task force. The task force has been criticized by some conservatives, opens new tab as too left-leaning.