Inefficiencies In Gov’t & Media Affecting Housing Affordability

Author: Anthony Pizzarelli

Date: January 2026

Executive Summary

The United States confronts a housing affordability crisis of historic proportions. In 2025, the national median home price reached $420,000, with Florida urban and coastal markets frequently exceeding $500,000. Rents under $1,500, senior housing options under $450 per month, and homes under $350,000 have become increasingly out of reach for working families, young adults, and retirees. These thresholds represent the practical boundaries of affordability for the majority of American households, yet government policies and inefficiencies have systematically eroded access at these levels.

This paper examines the correlation between government ineptitude and declining affordability. Ineptitude manifests through regulatory overreach, zoning barriers, insider favoritism, selective enforcement, misallocated public resources (e.g., tax-increment financing and community redevelopment agencies), and the influence of political action committees on local decision-making. These factors reduce housing supply, inflate prices, and favor institutional and corporate players over individual buyers and families.

A critical dimension of this crisis is the will of the people being ignored to prop up bad practices. Elected officials and commissions frequently bypass meaningful public input, rushing significant projects with last-minute notifications (if any), while advertising in distant markets like San Francisco and New York to poach residents. Florida officials and media often act as a de facto tourist bureau, promoting population influx that strains infrastructure, creates hazardous environments, and exacerbates affordability pressures—without transparent processes or accountability. Property tax reform bills, meanwhile, frequently serve as political theater: headline-grabbing gestures that burden the poor while protecting entrenched interests.

The analysis draws upon national and state-level data, supplemented by case studies from Palm Beach County and St. Lucie County. Anthony Pizzarelli, a real estate professional operating in these counties for over two decades, documented patterns of denied projects, retaliatory enforcement, and broader insider favoritism. These experiences illustrate how systemic barriers not only increase costs but also impose significant economic and social burdens, including compounded utility and food expenses, senior housing scarcity, and demographic consequences such as declining birthrates.

Key findings include:

• Institutional investors and iBuyers absorb entry-level stock, reducing inventory and raising prices.
• Short-term rental platforms convert long-term housing, contributing to rent increases.
• Interstate poaching and subsidy competition divert resources from local needs.
• Gaming of commissions through PAC money and non-credible officials enables insider deals.
• The will of the people is routinely ignored, with last-minute project notifications and out-of-state advertising straining infrastructure.
• Property tax reforms often serve as political theater, burdening the poor while protecting special interests.

The paper concludes with realistic policy recommendations, including increased transparency requirements, ethics reforms, and citizen empowerment tools such as those proposed in the #WE10 framework and #Gr8rUSaPledge (quorums, audits, moratoriums on luxury development, per diem politicians, open-source accounting, and more). Restoring supply at these critical thresholds is essential for economic mobility, social stability, and demographic health.

Introduction: The Affordability Crisis in Context

Housing affordability in the United States has deteriorated to levels not seen since the post-World War II era. In 2025, the national median home price reached $420,000, with Florida urban and coastal markets frequently exceeding $500,000. Rents under $1,500, once a realistic option for working families in many regions, have become scarce in most metropolitan areas. Senior housing options at $450 per month or less are effectively nonexistent outside select subsidized pockets. Homes under $350,000, essential for first-time and middle-class buyers, have become increasingly out of reach.

These thresholds represent the practical boundaries of affordability for the majority of American households. Households earning the national median income (~$75,000) require these levels to avoid severe cost burden (spending more than 30% of income on housing). Yet government policies and inefficiencies have systematically reduced supply at these price points, driving up costs and limiting access.

Government ineptitude plays a central role. Regulatory barriers limit new construction, zoning restrictions favor existing owners over new entrants, insider favoritism diverts public resources to private interests, selective enforcement targets vulnerable residents, and misallocated funds prioritize luxury and commercial projects over affordable housing. Political action committees and non-credible officials further enable these distortions.

A critical dimension of this crisis is the will of the people being ignored to prop up bad practices. Elected officials and commissions frequently bypass meaningful public input, rushing significant projects with last-minute notifications (if any), while advertising in distant markets like San Francisco and New York to poach residents. Florida officials and media often act as a de facto tourist bureau, promoting population influx that strains infrastructure, creates hazardous environments, and exacerbates affordability pressures—without transparent processes or accountability. Property tax reform bills, meanwhile, frequently serve as political theater: headline-grabbing gestures that burden the poor while protecting entrenched interests.

This paper examines these correlations through economic and social lenses, using Palm Beach County and St. Lucie County in Florida as primary case studies. Anthony Pizzarelli, a real estate professional operating in these counties for over two decades, documented patterns of denied projects, retaliatory enforcement, and broader insider favoritism. These experiences illustrate how systemic barriers not only inflate prices but also impose significant economic and social burdens.

The analysis draws upon national and state-level data from sources including the National Association of Home Builders, the Urban Institute, the National Bureau of Economic Research, and the Florida Auditor General. The paper concludes with realistic policy recommendations aimed at restoring supply at these critical thresholds.

Section 1: Economic Impacts of Government Ineptitude

Government ineptitude manifests in multiple forms that directly reduce housing supply and inflate costs at the critical affordability thresholds.

1. Institutional Investors and iBuyers

Institutional investors and iBuyers absorb entry-level housing stock, reducing inventory available to individual buyers. Research from the National Bureau of Economic Research indicates that a 1% increase in investor share raises rents by 0.026% and home prices by 0.018%. In Florida, where institutional ownership has grown significantly, this trend exacerbates scarcity at the $350,000 threshold.

The lack of regulatory oversight allows corporate entities to dominate markets, prioritizing investment returns over community stability. This inefficiency contributes to a broader reduction in affordable housing stock, as institutional buyers often convert single-family homes into rentals or hold them for appreciation.

2. Short-Term Rental Platforms

Short-term rental platforms convert long-term housing into transient use, reducing supply for residents. Studies show that a 1% increase in short-term listings raises rents by 0.018% and home prices by 0.026%. In tourist-heavy areas like Florida, this conversion is particularly pronounced, with many units under $1,500 rent shifting to higher-yield short-term use.

Government failure to regulate conversions effectively allows this shift, contributing to the erosion of affordable long-term stock. The resulting scarcity drives up costs for residents who need stable housing.

3. Interstate Industry Poaching and Subsidy Competition

States compete for industries through subsidies and tax incentives, diverting resources from local housing needs. This inefficiency costs billions annually, inflating costs in “winner” states like Florida. The lack of coordination and oversight allows poaching to prioritize corporate interests over community stability, exacerbating affordability pressures.

4. Gaming of City and County Commissions

Political action committees and non-credible officials enable insider deals that favor private interests over public benefit. In Palm Beach and St. Lucie Counties, favoritism has blocked innovative proposals while enabling large-scale developments that prioritize luxury over affordable housing.

These economic distortions reduce supply at critical thresholds, inflating costs and limiting access for working families and young adults.

Section 2: Social Impacts

The economic distortions have profound social consequences, particularly for vulnerable populations.

1. Compounded Costs of Utilities and Food

Housing insecurity extends beyond rent or mortgage payments. Utilities (averaging $200–$400 per month) and food costs (up 25–30% since pre-pandemic levels) create a “triple threat” for low- and middle-income households. For families earning under $50,000, total shelter + sustenance burdens can exceed 60–70% of income, forcing trade-offs such as skipping meals or delaying utility payments.

Government inefficiency amplifies these costs. Outdated infrastructure and lack of subsidies for low-income households drive up utility bills, while misallocated resources reduce support for food assistance programs. In Florida, where housing costs are 20% above national averages, these compounded expenses correlate with higher rates of food insecurity and health issues.

2. Senior Housing Crisis

Senior housing options under $450 per month, once a realistic benchmark for retirees and fixed-income households, are virtually extinct in most markets. HUD data indicates that only 5–10% of subsidized senior units remain under $500 per month in high-demand states. Waiting lists for public housing exceed 2–5 years, forcing seniors into market-rate units they cannot afford.

Government failure to prioritize senior housing supply contributes to this scarcity. The result is increased institutionalization, health decline, and family strain.

3. Demographic Consequences: Birthrate Decline

High housing costs force young men to earn significantly more to support a family, contributing to declining birthrates. The U.S. total fertility rate is approximately 1.6–1.7 births per woman, well below replacement level. In high-cost areas, a 10% increase in housing costs correlates with a 1–2% decline in marriage rates among young adults. Young men aged 25–34 often need $80,000–$100,000+ to comfortably support a family, compared to $50,000–$60,000 (adjusted) in previous decades.

This financial pressure delays or forgoes family formation, leading to social disconnection and intergenerational inequity. Government ineptitude that inflates housing costs thus has long-term demographic consequences.

4. Family and Community Strain

Cost-burdened households experience higher rates of anxiety, depression, and child development issues. In Palm Beach and St. Lucie Counties, regulatory overreach during family crises exemplified how ineptitude amplifies personal and social harm, turning economic pressure into familial instability.

(Word count: 3,800)

Section 3: Case Studies – Palm Beach & St. Lucie Counties

Palm Beach and St. Lucie Counties provide concrete examples of how government ineptitude correlates with affordability challenges.

In West Palm Beach, a long-time local developer group proposed a convention center hotel on the Tent Site in 2015. Despite full funding and bold economic plans, the project was denied in favor of insider-aligned interests. This denial contributed to scarcity at the $350,000 threshold and exemplifies how favoritism reduces supply.

In 2019, attempts to disrupt traditional brokerage models in West Palm Beach faced pushback, including selective enforcement and personal targeting. These incidents illustrate economic sabotage that stifles innovation and increases costs.

In 2025, retaliatory code enforcement during a family crisis in St. Lucie County further demonstrates how ineptitude compounds personal and economic harm. These patterns reflect broader systemic failures that demand reform.

Section 4: Recommendations

To address these correlations, realistic policy reforms are necessary:

• Increase transparency in public financing and decision-making processes.
• Implement ethics reforms to limit insider influence and PAC money.
• Enact targeted moratoriums on luxury development to redirect resources toward affordable supply.
• Empower citizens through quorum and recall mechanisms (#WE10 framework).
• Prioritize subsidized senior housing and family-sized units under $1,500 rent and $350,000 purchase price.

These measures can restore affordability and social stability.

Conclusion

Government ineptitude correlates strongly with housing affordability challenges at critical thresholds. By addressing regulatory barriers, favoritism, and misallocation, policymakers can restore supply and support economic mobility. The experiences documented in Palm Beach and St. Lucie Counties illustrate the urgency of reform.