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
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Slapped With ‘Impeachment' Threats After Bombing Iran
Top Democrats are calling for the impeachment of President Donald Trump following the shocking military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites on Saturday evening. 'This is an unambiguous impeachable offense,' Congressman Sean Casten (D-IL) tweeted in response to the news. 'No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the U.S. without the approval of Congress." Trump announced news of the attacks on Truth Social, describing the bombing of the three nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan as 'very successful.' '[Trump] has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations,' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) tweeted. 'It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.' The raid on Iran comes after weeks of speculation over whether or not America would get involved in the conflict with Israel. Israel had called on the U.S. to use its bunker-busting aircraft to destroy underground sites it claimed were being used for uranium enrichment in pursuit of a nuclear weapon. The U.S. had initially rejected the request. 'I'm not saying we have the votes to impeach,' Casten continued. 'I'm saying that you DO NOT do this without Congressional approval and if Johnson doesn't grow a spine and learn to be a real boy tomorrow we have a BFing problem that puts our very Republic at risk.' 'To be clear, I do not dispute that Iran is a nuclear threat,' Casten wrote. 'That's why Obama negotiated the JCPOA. But whether that is better resolved through diplomatic or military measures is not a decision that the executive branch has unilaterally'. Technically, the executive branch does not have the legal authority to engage in foreign military attacks without the approval of Congress. That said, Congress has not actually declared a war since WWII and lawmakers and legal scholars are divided on whether the president has the authority to do so. Similar actions, like the killing of Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani in 2020, were justified on the grounds of 'national interest.' But, as Casten points out, these legal semantics are dicey. 'It's worth noting that 'imminent threat' is a gray area,' Casten wrote. 'Trump did attack Soleimani without Congressional approval. Black ops do happen. Leaving details aside, there is a case that Presidents need to move to protect the homeland quickly in some cases. This was not that". It's not just Democrats who are up in arms about the recent action. Republican Rep. Thomas Massie also tweeted that he though the action was 'unconstitutional,' but stopped short of calling for consequences. 'I am open to the idea that the U.S. should attack Iran,' Casten concluded. 'But I am not open to the idea that Congress cedes all authority to the executive branch. No matter how many lickspittle sycophants in the GOP argue to the contrary.'
Boston Globe
25 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump ignites debate on presidential authority with Iran strikes and wins praise from Republicans
The instant divisions in the U.S. Congress reflected an already swirling debate over the president's ability to conduct such a consequential action without authorization from the House and Senate on the use of military force. While Trump is hardly the first U.S. president to go it alone, his expansive use of presidential power raised immediate questions about what comes next, and whether he is exceeding the limits of his authority. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'This was a massive gamble by President Trump, and nobody knows yet whether it will pay off,' said Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Advertisement Democrats, and a few Republicans, said the strikes were unconstitutional, and demanded more information in a classified setting. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said that he received only a 'perfunctory notification' without any details, according to a spokesperson. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in a statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity.' Advertisement House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that Trump 'misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' The quick GOP endorsements of stepped up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Trump publicly considered the strikes for days and many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. The party's schism over Iran could complicate the GOP's efforts to boost Pentagon spending as part of a $350 billion national security package in Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax breaks bill, which is speeding toward votes next week. 'We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies,' Wicker posted on X. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune both were briefed ahead of the strikes on Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Thune said Saturday evening that 'as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Johnson said in a statement that the military operations 'should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.' House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he had also been in touch with the White House and 'I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes.' Advertisement Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, an outspoken supporter of Israel, also praised the attacks on Iran. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' he posted. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.' Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran, including some of Trump's most ardent supporters who share his criticism of America's 'forever wars.' Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio posted that 'while President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, also posted on X that 'This is not Constitutional.' 'This is not our fight,' said Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Most Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say, even as presidents in both parties have ignored the legislative branch's constitutional authority. The Senate was scheduled to vote soon on a resolution from Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine that would require congressional approval before the U.S. declares war on Iran or takes specific military action. Kaine said the bombings were 'horrible judgment.' 'I will push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war,' Kaine said. Democratic Rep. Greg Casar, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also called on Congress to immediately pass a war powers resolution. He said politicians had always promised that 'new wars in the Middle East would be quick and easy.' 'Then they sent other people's children to fight and die endlessly,' Casar said. 'Enough.'
Fox News
40 minutes ago
- Fox News
AOC, other angry Democrats, call for Trump impeachment over attack on Iran
Progressive champion Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and a handful of other Democrats quickly floated the prospect of impeaching President Donald Trump for launching a military strike on Iran without Congressional authorization. "The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers," the four-term congresswoman from New York wrote on social media Saturday night, soon after the president announced the attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Ocasio-Cortez charged that Trump "has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment." Democrat Rep. Sean Casten of Illinois also argued that the president's order to bomb Iran's nuclear sites without seeking Congressional approval could be considered an "unambiguous impeachable offense." Casten, a four-term representative whose district covers southwestern Chicago and surrounding suburbs, wrote Saturday night on social media that "this is not about the merits of Iran's nuclear program….to be clear, I do not dispute that Iran is a nuclear threat." But he highlighted that "no president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense." "I'm not saying we have the votes to impeach," Casten added. "I'm saying that you DO NOT do this without Congressional approval." The calls for impeachment are the most visible, and furthest reaching, representation of the party's anger with Trump for taking unilateral action against Iran. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the top Democrat in the chamber, wrote that the president had "failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East." "Donald Trump shoulders complete and total responsibility for any adverse consequences that flow from his unilateral military action," Jeffries added in a statement. While the executive branch technically doesn't have the legal authority to order a foreign military attack without the approval of Congress, previous presidents, including Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Trump during his first term, launched comparable military actions in Libya, Sudan, Afghanistan and Iran. Congress has not actually declared war since 1941, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II, and legal scholars have long been divided on whether the president has the authority to unilaterally launch a military strike.
