Speaker 1in Wisconsin next door to where I am right now, there's really one desk you need to go to to get a stormwater permit. In Minnesota, you've got to get the watershed districts, you've got to get environmental agencies on board, and you've got to get the Army Corps of Engineers. And by the time you get all these groups happy, none of them are happy because all their changes cancel each other out. Hey, what's going on, everybody? Welcome back to the Land Development Podcast.
Speaker 2I am your host, Ryan Glick. I'm excited today to be joined by Nick Erickson. Nick is the Executive Director at the Housing Affordability Institute and Senior Director of Housing Policy at Housing First Minnesota. Nick, thanks for joining me.
Speaker 1Thanks for having me on. Happy to be here.
Speaker 2Well, from when this is going to be released, we're going to be, I think, just a couple weeks away or so from the midterms. So there's a lot of talk, it feels like, around housing policy and what different politicians are talking about or what are some things that the advocates out there for housing are looking for politicians to be talking about. So I know we've got some good stuff we're going to get into here today. But before we do that, I want to start out this episode like I did in the beginning. I want to start out this episode like I did in the beginning. every other episode and digging into some of your background. And I think where I'd like to start there is, how did you get into kind of this political landscape?
Speaker 1Yeah, that's a great question. So I've been working in public affairs for really the last two decades. And as I was looking about 10 years ago to transition to something new, I was really, you know, taken by the what was then kind of the nascent housing reform movement. I'm really trying to look at something that is a mission driven job, something I can really devote my time and attention to in a way that really betters my community. And this opportunity to housing first Minnesota opened up, they were expanding their public affairs team and jumped into it at that point in time and have spent the last year or last decade now, you know, fighting for increased access to homeownership. First in Minnesota now with Housing Affordability Institute really across the country.
Speaker 2So do you think that your experience that you had early on in your career on the political side of things has helped you now that you're into the housing side? Oh, 100%. I was a
Speaker 1political strategist early in my career. And then from there, I transitioned to healthcare and working for United Health Group, the nation's largest healthcare company, following the implementation of healthcare reform. And I see, you know, the lot of parallels between my job there and what I do now. I think first, it's how do you explain complex policy in a way that is, you know, simplified so that, you know, the average person at the time of United Health Group, it was the employees of the company and the executive, how do you understand, you know, kind of the, you know, the moving pieces there, but then, you know, also, you know, how do you take complex change that's going on in the policy space and kind of navigate those challenges and, you know, coming to housing, really be able to rely on those political and, you know, corporate skills and experiences that I had as we're, looking at how to increase homeownership opportunities here in Minnesota.
Speaker 2So before we get into, I've got several things I want to dig into today, but before we get into those, I do want to give you a chance to talk a little bit about the Housing Affordability Institute. What does the organization do and kind of what does your day-to-day look like within the organization?
Speaker 1Yeah. So Housing Affordability Institute was founded in 2018 by Housing First Minnesota. It's probably best described as a trade association for the housing industry here in Minnesota. And we founded the Institute because we didn't have the data, the analysis and kind of the policy needs that we as an organization needed at the point in time. So we decided to go out and, you know, since it wasn't available, let's build it. We're very entrepreneurial here at Housing First. And so we built out a policy development program around Housing Affordability Institute and really started to explain why homes cost more in Minnesota than they do anywhere in the upper Midwest. In fact, it's more expensive to build a new home in Minneapolis-St. Paul than it is in the Chicago region. And so we're trying to highlight why that is. And as the housing discussion has grown around the country, what we found is that there's really not an industry-centric voice, kind of the view of the home builders, their trade partners, the land developers, that's explaining why we need, you know, to break down barriers to housing and why that state intervention or local intervention and even federal action is necessary. So we built a built out that organization and really part of my job now the last eight, nine years has been to grow the institute. We've really taken it from something that was focused initially here in Minnesota and have taken that discussion broadly across the country, working with different reform advocates across the United States to really see how do we move the needle on housing access and affordability in America.
Speaker 2So as we head into the midterms, I feel like I've been hearing a lot more about housing as a topic from various politicians. And I feel like it's from politicians on both sides of the aisle that they're talking about housing a little bit more than they used to in the past. Do you see housing as a big topic for politicians heading into the midterms? Is that what you're seeing as well, or is it not as big of a topic as it should be?
Speaker 1I think it is a major topic that folks are hearing, but I also think that that does need to grow. I don't think it's quite enough. But then I think it's a big topic that folks are hearing about, but I also think I'm biased. Housing is my life. But really, this does go back to 2024. We first saw in the presidential election last year, polling starting to indicate that housing, if you strip away the more partisan issues that campaigns are pushing, once you strip those away, housing was a top issue for voters in the 2024 election. And someone who spent, at that point in time, eight years working to get housing to be a top political issue, it was surprising and, you know, frankly, overdue to see the housing shortage in America really elevate to a need, especially in the presidential year. And as amazing as that was, even this year, to see that go above and beyond, to see, you know, poll after poll, talk to candidates, elected officials across the country, talk to political organizations that are all saying the same thing. Housing is a top issue with voters this year. And, you know, we saw it recently with the poll. It's the number one issue for voters under 34. And it's the number two issue when you include voters under the age of 50. So you think about that younger cohort, 18 to 34, 18 to 35. These are individuals who've known nothing but the housing shortage and the housing crisis in America as they're coming into being an owner, prospective owner, a renter. You know, the older group had seen those momentous rise in rents and the existence of the housing crisis in America. Home prices just keep climbing, climbing and climbing because of the housing shortage. So the older group who may have gotten into homeownership early or got into, you know, rental early in their 20s, for them, they've seen that affordability erode. The younger cohort has had even a more grim view of the housing market, one where they're just, they're shut out of ownership. They're finding it increasingly more shut out of rental opportunities. And so it really makes sense when you look at the underlying, you know, issues in housing is to see why it's become a pain point. And with numbers, you know, we're seeing in polls of support for housing reform, it's no surprise that we see this bipartisan support for action because the voters of all stripes are demanding action, you know, state
Speaker 2and federal level. So my unofficial polling that I do online with the with the end consumer is that we will put clips of this show on different social media platforms. Different platforms are more outspoken than others. And sometimes you get the loudest people, the people who are most upset on one side or the other are going to be the ones who comment and the others don't necessarily comment on things. But we have definitely seen a lot of people out there, the consumer specifically, who want to buy homes, that this is an issue that they're very passionate about. I mean, there's a lot of yelling happening in the comments on some posts and everything. And I know you have to be careful on social media because you never know if it's even real people that are doing the yelling in the comments. But, you know, it does seem to be pretty consistent with certain topics that we put out there that people want to buy homes, they feel like they can't buy a home right now, and they're being told that they can't buy a home. And then at the same time, it does feel like a lot of the politicians somewhat gaslight, you know, everybody and say, like, you know, this is a. This is a great economy, everything's great, and you should be able to buy a house right now. And I wonder, what are the things that the candidates, that you're seeing candidates actually talk about? I know they're not talking about maybe enough, but are there certain topics or certain reforms that they're actually bringing up and considering, you know, putting in place when they, you know, after the midterms?
Speaker 1Yeah, you know, it's a great question. So you see candidates, they're always talking about issues. I think, obviously, that the safest way to talk about it is a general way of working. We're going to take action on housing, especially when you're seeing poll numbers in the, you know, 80, 90% for some of these policy proposals. But what we're seeing out there, and I've checked in with friends across the country, is we're seeing candidates talk about it in a way that is reflective. of their political beliefs. And so oftentimes you're going to hear Republican candidates talking about breaking down barriers, removing red tape, regulatory reform. And then on the flip side, on the left, you'll hear some Democrat candidates talking about making it easier to build homes. We have to make it easier to build apartments. We have to do something about the permitting timelines. In reality, we're talking about the same thing. And I think it's funny because I was just reading a story about the Michigan governor's race last week, and it was a very similar story of one Republican says X, Democrat says Y, they disagree on housing. Well, they disagree on the messaging, I think. And we're seeing that here in Minnesota in our governor's race as well, where we've had Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat candidate for governor, talk about some very more specific ways to address the housing shortage in Minnesota, expressing support for the proposed zoning reform bill that's been floating around the Capitol for several years. At the same time, we've seen Republican Speaker of the House, the Republican candidate, Lisa Damuth, express concerns over how long it takes to build homes, the cost disparities between Minnesota and other markets. And so what we do see is candidates talk about it in a way that I think resonates with them, resonates with their constituencies, but it's still about action. The Mountain West is ground zero for this discussion. And you have Governor Gianforte in Montana, Governor Polis in Colorado, who have been working hard in their states, pressing forward for reforms. And we saw that then both governors were supportive of relatively the same policies. They just talked about it in a way that really resonated more with their constituency. Do you think that, and you mentioned
Speaker 2a lot of times the Republicans and Democrats have, they want to get to the same place. Their messaging may be differently in some cases around when it comes to housing. Do you think that that ultimately is going to lead to a stalemate and basically not, you know, get us to a point where nothing gets passed because the, you know, the Democrats want to do it this way. The Republicans want to do it this way. They can't come to an agreement. So things get stripped out of the bill. And then you end up with a bill that basically it doesn't really do anything. It has a fancy name and everything, but a lot of the, the meat of the bill gets stripped out and then everybody celebrates like it did something big for, for the people. We haven't seen that yet,
Speaker 1in a lot of these, these bipartisan reforms across the country. And, and, you know, well, we haven't had comprehensive reform passed yet in Minnesota. I can tell you sitting with a lot of lawmakers with yours. So we have the closest, closely divided legislature in the nation right now in Minnesota. Our state Senate has 67 members and it's a 34, 33 split. And our house of representatives is a even 67, 67. You can't get more divided than that than the, closely divided than the, than those numbers. And we, you know, I'll talk with lawmakers who will be, you know, sharing jabs with each other on social media about non-housing issues. And, you know, 10 minutes later, head to a committee hearing and partner with one another. And I think what we're seeing in the housing discussion across the country, and I've spoke with my friends in Arizona, we're seeing it in, in Texas, Florida, other States, they're coming together around housing because one, the barriers are so immense. Two, I think the landed land development discussion is zoning reform. You know, what we build, where that part of the discussion is so integral to moving forward on housing that you don't see the division that you do with other issues. This is not housing 20 years ago where housing probably meant subsidies. Frankly, that's what housing policy was 20 years ago at the state and federal levels. And it's whether it's light tech or just straight donations to organizations to build housing. So you have different approaches, again, two sides of the same coin, but with policy reforms, we do see at least on the major barriers, both parties uniting around moving forward. And, and yes, they'll, they'll finesse the messaging in their, in their terms. But at the end of the day, it's about allowing more housing options and more place spaces and, and breaking down the local government barriers to building more homes.
Speaker 2This episode of the land development podcast is brought to you by groove. Groove takes your developments, phases, lots, and sales, and puts them in one place instead of scattered across a dozen different spreadsheets. Here's one example. If you sell lots to a builder on a takedown schedule, that whole deal usually lives in a contract and a few spreadsheets that never quite line up. In groove, it's one record, the schedule, price stepping up at each takedown, the lots. And when one comes due, you close it right into a sale. Same goes for the rest of it. Your inventory, your pricing, even a live map of your lots on your own website. One system, always current. If you develop land and sell lots, head to let's groove.com slash demo and watch the quick video there. It's under two minutes. And if you like what you see, there's a button right there to book a demo. All right, let's get back to the show. I want to dig in a little bit to the different levels of government because we obviously have federal races. We have state races. We have local, you know, races that happen or local elected officials. And, you know, when we talk about housing, I hear a lot of people talk about things that should be done at different levels. And I'm curious from your perspective, you know, what can actually be done at each level? Like what's, what should be the goal at the federal level versus the state versus local?
Speaker 1You know, from levels of government, I always try to explain housing as our regulatory pyramid is inverted from pretty much every other major part of the, of the economy. If you look at most industries, the greatest impact is the federal government. In the middle, you'll have states and really that last mile of regulatory barriers or regulatory involvement is local government. But with housing and any, in all land development, you have to flip that on its head. It's a barrier for anyone involved in the land development space, housing, construction, whether it's rental ownership, multifamily, mixed use, it is local government. They're the primary permitting regulator for both land use permits and building permits. So by nature, they are going to have the greatest regulatory impact. In the states, I say states are secondary because you have state environmental laws, you have, you know, state land use laws is what authorizes, you know, local governments to plan a zone. You'll have building codes are either going to be local or state depending on, you know, what part of the country you're talking about, you know, environmental reviews and all the other labor tax taxes that go into housing. And then the federal government does have its federal environmental regulations and, you know, review suggestions, financing, you know, fiscal policy, particularly on the lending side. But we're just a different industry. And so as we're talking about the barriers to planning, we're talking about the barriers to planning. And so we're talking about the barriers to planning. And so it's constantly coming back to the discussion about that tension between the role of the state versus the role of local government. But I think that the 21st Century Road to Housing Act is a prime example. It is a bill that's trying to break down barriers where they exist without being a fix everything in one package type bill, at least on the federal side. But the environmental review relief, you know, the model, you know, changes to the to the modular and mobile home construction language, but then in trying to incentivize state and local governments to do the right thing. That is, I think, what we're seeing is, you know, kind of the federal government taking its first step into this discussion. But the battleground really does remain state capitals across the country. And this is where a lot of the discussion is coming from, because we're not getting the the critical mass at the local level that's needed to really break down barriers. And it's not just land use and zoning. That is definitely the largest barrier. And I think that's the largest and most critical barrier to break down. But there's others that that need to need to get discussed. And we're seeing states move into those discussions, cities moving into those discussions as we're, you know, seeing more and more states take action on land use and zoning.
Speaker 2So something I find interesting on that topic is that the voters, one of the top issues, as you mentioned, for voters is housing. And they want housing. There's a lot of people in that Gen Z, you know, Gen Z demographic that they don't feel like they have housing available to them. And I'm talking about owning a home, not necessarily renting. And yet, when, you know, they may vote for it at the federal level, but you're talking about how a lot of this happens at the local level, you still see a lot of people complain about the projects that are being done to bring in some of that additional housing, additional, you know, options for them. And I wonder if that's just like, is that a messaging issue? Is it, is it literally not as big of a deal as maybe it's made to seem because those those people who oppose projects are just the loudest? And so you hear them, but there's few of them. And but they do have the ability to kill projects, if they can get to, you know, some of the local leaders who are deciding and voting on some of these things, if they're like, Hey, I want to get reelected. And these people are screaming loud, you know, at me, I'm, I'm gonna go ahead and kill this project, because I don't want to hear, you know, hear from these people. Do you think it's a messaging thing? Or do you think it's maybe not as big of a deal? Or not as many people are opposing these projects as it possibly seems? I think it's, it's a combination of the
Speaker 1two, I do think the the resistance that we see, you know, see at the local level, yet the high polling we see on on housing reform, it's kind of like Congress. Congress itself has a very low approval rating, yet everyone loves a member of Congress and we see high reelection rates. I think it's a little bit of that going on, but I think more specifically at the local level, it truly is the minority of people coming to speak out against a project. Part of my job is, you know, with Housing First is to attend, you know, when needed local government meetings, whether it's planning commission, city council. It might seem like there's a lot of folks in these meetings speaking against a project, but more often than not, it is, you know, five, 10 people in a community of 20,000, 50,000, 70,000. Well, you can probably find five people anywhere upset about something. And I do think, part of it needs to be that there has to be a recognition that, at least from the people who are opposing these projects, oftentimes that your property rights end at your property line, because that's where the next person's property rights begin. And I have a hard time believing that if the shoe were on the other foot, that the same people opposing all these projects wouldn't also be annoyed if their names were on the other foot. And I think that's a big part of it. We're telling them what they could do with their land.
Speaker 2Where are you seeing both parties actually agree? Is it on most things when it comes to housing, or are there only certain things that both parties are agreeing on? On the agreement for kind of the bipartisanship
Speaker 1and housing reform, I'd say definitely the federal level is a great example. Now, there's some of the funding details duty to be worked out yet. On the land use and zoning front, again, it is very much a discussion about, you know, whether or not we're going to take action on this or not. Do you, is local control, you know, kind of the prime directive for state government, or is it to address the needs of the people? That really is where we're seeing, you know, that discussion going. And by and large, that is a bipartisan, you know, conversation. I'd say that the partisanship on land use is generational, probably not as much partisan. If you, if you've owned your home for a while, maybe it's paid off. Maybe, you know, you're nearing that point. You haven't experienced the housing problem. You haven't experienced the shortage. You probably don't feel it and experience it in the same way that somebody who is, you know, 25 years old, fresh out of college, can barely afford to rent, not looking to ever own a home is going to, it's going to think about it. But there are issues out there where we are seeing, you know, definitely much more alignment over party lines. I think we're seeing a discussion on energy, energy codes in both Minnesota and Washington that is taking a very partisan, you know, view. We're seeing this in, you know, Colorado, with the Colorado River in the Mountain West area, Southwest, particularly Arizona, where recent water cuts to the state are going to really, you know, hamper development and how that process has previously allocated water, how we're going to do it going forward does get partisan. And, you know, sometimes on, you know, just the general role of government, you know, do we want inclusionary zones, do we want zoning or not? Do we want rent control or not? Those are generally going to be more partisan level discussions. But on the land use side, again, there is broad-based support from the voters. There's broad-based support politically across all parties. You know, I always joke that you have Governor Newsom in California and, you know, the Texas governor signed this pretty much the same housing policy into law. You had Governor Gianforte in Montana, one of the most conservative governors in the country, signed the same housing policy into law. You had Governor Gianforte in the same legislation, similar legislation as Governor Polis did in Colorado. And these are abutting states with, you know, red state, blue state type political systems, yet they're all supporting the same notion that the state has to pick up the mantle and run with housing if local
Speaker 2government won't. Do you think, you know, based on that, do you think there's anything major that could come out of the midterms then for developers as far as like any of the elections that are anything that could go one way or the other based on results of the midterm elections?
Speaker 1Well, the good news is in California is they're going to have a pro-development, pro-housing governor regardless. You know, I think my friends at California YIMBY put the headline up back in May that regardless of the electoral outcome, and this is before the primary had even settled anything, we're going to have a pro-housing governor. So I think you get pockets like that in states where you see, you know, much more of a discussion taking place. We've had, I mentioned Michigan, you know, the headline is they have different housing policies, but to someone who sits in rooms with Republicans and Democrats a lot and hear them talk about housing, I get very similar. Now the nuances of their plan may be different, but the top line of, you know, breaking down barriers, streamlining, permitting, cutting red tape, it's all sounds like, you know, similar items to me. I think the differences are going to break down on maybe some of these, you know, secondary and tertiary issues related to housing. I think that's going to be the housing and, you know, I think we'll see. I think it depends on what the voters are going to do in those states, but regardless of the outcome, you know, our challenges in housing and development in general will continue to persist until state lawmakers, you know, continue to break down those
Speaker 2barriers. Are there certain policies related to housing that you're watching most closely?
Speaker 1Yeah, I think number one, you know, the continued proliferation of land use, you know, zoning reform and how that works, but kind of those next run issues in California and New York, but then also now federally with the 21st Road to Housing Act, we have seen much more attention get played to the role of environmental reviews and how once land use reforms happen, those individuals who oppose housing are looking for a new lever to pull to stop projects. And more often than not, they're relying on environmental reviews. I think interesting stat out of California is most of these groups filing these lawsuits didn't exist until they were ready to file the lawsuit. So these groups are formed just to file lawsuits to stop needed housing. So that is one where, you know, we're really seeing that pick up. I know in both Minnesota and Washington, there's been increased conversations about how far and how fast is too fast and too far when it comes to the energy code discussion. Mentioned the Colorado River water cuts out in Arizona, but there's been an increased conversation around just general building code reforms. There's been increased conversations around, you know, how can we incent development? Is there a way that we can utilize new creative methods for funding infrastructure? Arizona just did a bill that creates what some folks call community improvement districts. I think Texas, they love to call them municipal utility districts or MUDs, kind of taking concept to Arizona. So we are seeing, you know, other items, you know, pop up. And I think, you know, condo defect reform, California didn't get that one done. I know we're hearing about that more and more in Minnesota. So I think that's one to be watching as well in the coming years.
Speaker 2So at each of the levels, you talked about this a little bit earlier. So we have the local, we have the local cities, I guess, and we have the state and then we have the federal. For each of those different levels, what's something that each of those levels could do, you know, maybe in this next cycle, the next couple of years that could be done at each of those levels to improve or help bring more housing to these different communities? I think federal level,
Speaker 1the best thing that the federal government could do is to really keep pressing on with what these incentives are going to look like under the 21st Century Road to Housing Act. But also, let's really get serious about expanding the federal regulatory discussion outside of incentives and what can, what guidance or what specific actions maybe on stormwater, environmental, continued environmental review reform, can the state, or sorry, can the federal government take to dive into housing? I think on the local government side, the biggest things that local governments could do is to stop fighting reforms after they happen. You know, it's one thing to fight about, but it's another thing to fight about, you know, fighting reforms after they happen. It's one thing to fight about the state level reforms when they happen, but we're seeing continued and ongoing issues in states where reforms have happened where instead of, you know, embracing the new state laws that are passed, as local governments are having to be, you know, drug into the courts to comply. I think California has sued five cities for lack of compliance with the state's housing law. I know Massachusetts, they've threatened lawsuits as well. And Texas, after their reforms, particularly on the multifamily side, we're seeing communities that will create new zoning standards to block housing. So you, you have to build a super tall apartment that probably is, you know, going to be, you're no longer to do timber construction. It's not going to pencil out. So you don't do the project requiring pools or other luxury amenities where you don't actually have the land available on site to then bring that project to completion. So I think local could really see that reforms are long overdue They might not like that, but they have to, you know, at least comply with the law. And then at the state level, I would say continue to break down barriers. It's not just land use and zoning. Again, that is the number one barrier at the moment. But there's other ones that need to be dealt with. California is taking the environmental review discussion to its voters this fall. New York's been working on that type of reform for quite some time. Building and energy code reforms. There's, you know, issues with, you know, maybe how you have too many jurisdictions within the government having access to any one policy. In Wisconsin, next door to where I am right now, there's really one desk you need to go to to get a stormwater permit. In Minnesota, you've got to get the watershed districts. You've got to get, you know, all the different environmental agencies on board. And, you know, you've got to get the Army Corps of Engineers. And by the time you get all these groups happy, none of them are happy. Because all their changes cancel each other out. So I think continued streamlining of any review, permit, policy, make sure it's just good government. And you only have to go to one entity for one regulation.
Speaker 2Well, before we shift into the last segment, which is the lightning round, where I have five questions for you that are going to be on similar topics, just maybe some quick hitters. Is there anything else that you think developers need to understand about the upcoming midterms or just anything related to housing policy?
Speaker 1I would say on the 11th. Okay. Okay. So I think on the 11th, I think the elections, you know, the development community should be following closely what the candidates are talking about. Try to engage with the candidates. If you are in a state where a governor is on the ballot this year, it's a great idea to contact all the candidates and explain to them, you know, what your challenges are and why reforms need to happen. And I would say the same thing on the state legislative side. Talk to your folks. See what they're, you know, have the development community engage with conversations and try to explain. It doesn't need to be a. You know, an over the top political cell, just bring them to a job site, walk them through the challenges that you face on any type of project so they can see kind of the different barriers that are up there. And I think, you know, going forward, you know, on a policy standpoint, don't miss the boat when these reforms are up there. I know, you know, it might seem that maybe just one or two issues are on the menu in your state or your city for reform. But that doesn't mean you should be engaging in the conversation. If land use reform is on the docket in your state next next year, lend your voice. If you have public hearings where they're debating, you know, how to reform some of the city policies in the wake of the 21st century road to housing, engage, lend your expertise. You know, this is an opportunity for you to really in an unprecedented way that we haven't had in this industry in a century to really guide the future of what. Land use looks like at the city, state and federal level.
Speaker 2All right, well, let's go ahead and shift into the last segment, which is a lightning round. So some of these will be a little bit of overlap of what we've covered. But first one for you. What do people misunderstand the most about housing policy? Supply. It's supply
Speaker 1over everything else. We don't have enough housing in this country and many in particularly in our in-demand communities that we have to build more. And just because you see some housing being built. Does it mean you're seeing enough of it? I mean, we frankly haven't built enough housing in this country since the Great Recession.
Speaker 2All right. Second one. What's the biggest thing stopping us from building more housing? Fear of change. Is that fear from the politicians or fear from the citizens, the voters? I would say fear, definitely fear
Speaker 1from the citizens. But it's also fear of politicians over what change looks like when we. What does that change my electorate? You know, if my community is not growing, it's a baked in electorate and I don't have to worry about things changing.
Speaker 2All right. Third one. What housing issue needs the most attention?
Speaker 1Land use and zoning. But after that, I would definitely say there's a much needed and overdue conversation about energy efficiency versus housing access and affordability.
Speaker 2All right. Fourth one. What should every voter understand about housing?
Speaker 1You have a voice. And this election is a great opportunity for you to tell your elected officials, whether it's federal officials, state officials, or if you've got local government races on the ballot, you have a voice and you should let your voice be heard.
Speaker 2All right. Last one. With your background being in politics, you know, for a while, what do you think every developer should understand about how politics actually works?
Speaker 1That's a tough one. I would say there's two things when it comes to politics. In politics and policy, there's two realities. There's the theatrics you see on TV and, you know, the jabs, the one-liners that really make for good television and good social media clips. But behind the scenes, these people really are trying to work together. And this is, we have an unprecedented opportunity to take these issues and really kind of get politics in our country back to how it used to be. Where we work across party lines for the betterment of our city, state, and country.
Speaker 2All right. Well, that brings us to a close here. Nick, what's the best way for people listening in to connect with you and to learn more about your companies?
Speaker 1Yeah, I would say to connect with Housing Affordability Institute, you can find us at housingaffordabilityinstitute.org, all one word. And Housing First Minnesota is housingfirstmn.org. And then I am on LinkedIn, Twitter. And Blue Sky at NS Erickson.
Speaker 2All right, perfect. So if you guys look down in the description for this episode, you'll see a link there to the show notes page. And on the show notes page, you will see all of those links there. Nick, thanks again for hopping on here and talking through some of these important, you know, conversations that are going on right now around the country. And we obviously have some big midterms coming up, so we'll be keeping an eye on that. And yeah, thanks again for hopping on here. Thanks for having me. Absolutely. All right, guys, that's all for this episode. If you're not already subscribed, please click that button. We'd love to have you back for the next one. Otherwise, we will talk to you all next week. We'll see you then.
PodcastTranscript AI