Nevada’s housing crisis isn’t complicated. Painful, yes. Frustrating, absolutely. But complicated? Not really.
More people. Not enough homes. Prices go up.
That’s it. That’s the whole math problem.
So naturally, Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford’s big idea is… to ban corporations from buying homes, blame Gov. Joe Lombardo for things Lombardo doesn’t control, and post California-style outrage bait on social media.
If Aaron Ford is the answer, it must be a really stupid question. For example:
“Who thinks the same policies Californians are fleeing will work better once they cross the state line into Nevada?”
Answer: Aaron Ford.
Ford wants voters to believe housing prices are high because of “corporate greed.”
That’s a great villain. Easy to boo. Easy to tweet about. Makes people feel good.
But it doesn’t build a single house. Not one. Not a studio. Not a starter home. Not even a shed.
It’s performance art masquerading as policy.
Supply and Demand
Nevada’s real problem is supply. Always has been.
The federal government owns roughly 85 percent of Nevada’s land. That means state and local governments have limited room to grow.
At the same time, thousands of people are fleeing California’s disastrous housing policies and prices and moving here. Demand is exploding. Supply isn’t.
That’s Econ 101. Even Berkeley teaches that. Or at least it used to.
But instead of taking on Washington to free up land, cut red tape, and speed up permits, Ford wants to tell Nevadans who they’re allowed to sell a house to.
That’s not a housing plan. That’s central planning with better branding.
Banning corporations from buying homes won’t lower prices. It won’t increase supply. It won’t help first-time buyers qualify for a mortgage.
What it will do is scare off investment, slow construction, reduce rental options, and drive prices even higher.
When you chase capital away, you don’t get affordability. You get shortages.
And let’s be honest: this isn’t about solutions.
It’s about symbolism. It’s about serving up red meat to voters who are angry – and understandably so – without doing the hard work of fixing what government broke in the first place.
All sizzle. No steak.
All hat. No cattle.
All tweets. No solutions.
Here’s what an actual starter home looks like for young Nevadans today:
About 1,200 to 1,500 square feet. Two or three bedrooms. Maybe a small yard. Nothing fancy.
In Las Vegas or Reno, that modest home now runs $400,000 to $550,000. In rural Nevada, you might find something similar for $200,000 to $300,000.
But good luck finding a job nearby.
Young families aren’t priced out because they’re lazy or irresponsible. They’re priced out because housing costs exploded while wages didn’t keep up.
And while they struggle, Aaron Ford offers them a scapegoat instead of a solution.
Let’s Talk About a Real Solution
Former conservative Assemblywoman Annie Black is also a real estate agent. And she sent me an idea for how to actually do something real about the affordability problem without interfering in the free market . . .
Cutting mortgage interest rates to 3 percent for first-time homebuyers.
Run the numbers. A young couple looking at a $450,000 starter home in Las Vegas with a 20 percent down payment ($90,000) needs to finance $360,000.
At today’s rates of around 7 percent, their monthly payment is roughly $2,400 – just for principal and interest. Add insurance, taxes, and HOA fees, and you’re easily over $3,200 a month.
That’s $38,400 a year just to keep a roof over their heads.
Now cut that mortgage rate to 3 percent. Same house. Same down payment.
Monthly payment drops to about $1,520 for principal and interest. Total monthly cost with insurance and taxes? Around $2,300.
That’s a savings of nearly $11,000 per year. Every single year. For the life of the loan.
More importantly, it means qualification.
Banks typically want your housing costs at or below 28 percent of gross income. At current rates, that couple needs to earn about $137,000 a year to qualify. At 3 percent? They qualify with household income around $99,000.
That’s the difference between homeownership and watching from the sidelines.
A 3 percent first-time buyer rate turns rent checks into equity. It helps Nevada kids compete against cash buyers moving in from California with pockets full of proceeds from selling their overpriced homes.
And it puts the American Dream back within reach for families working hard and playing by the rules.
And here’s the beautiful part: it doesn’t require banning anyone. It doesn’t pick winners and losers. It doesn’t chase investment out of the state. It just helps people.
Compare that to Aaron Ford’s plan.
His corporate ban doesn’t cut anyone’s monthly payment by a single dollar. It doesn’t help a young family qualify for a loan. It doesn’t make homes more affordable.
It just makes Aaron Ford look like he’s doing something.
Ford’s approach does the opposite of what Nevada needs.
He attacks demand instead of fixing supply. He blames Lombardo for federal land policy Lombardo doesn’t control. And he posts feel-good propaganda while young families keep getting priced out.
It’s easier to virtue signal than to actually govern.
Real Problems, Real Solutions
Hashtags don’t lower rent. Lawsuits don’t free up land. Press conferences don’t issue building permits. And banning corporations doesn’t build homes or cut mortgage payments.
But they do generate headlines. And for Aaron Ford, that’s all he cares about.
Meanwhile, Gov. Joe Lombardo has been doing the boring, unsexy work of governing. Focusing on jobs. Public safety. Economic growth.
Pushing back against California-style policies Nevadans are fleeing. Supporting solutions that put money back in families’ pockets – not just talking points in front of cameras.
Is everything fixed? No. But Lombardo’s working in the real world – not the Twitterverse.
He’s building solutions. Ford’s just building his campaign bank account.
The choice in November couldn’t be clearer.
One candidate offers applause lines, scapegoats, and symbolic bans that don’t save young families a single penny on their mortgage.
The other understands that housing affordability comes from policies that actually show up in a family’s monthly budget – like lower mortgage rates that can save them $11,000 a year.
One offers anger. The other offers answers.
One wants to tell you who you can’t sell your home to. The other wants to help your kids afford to buy one.
Nevadans don’t need another California experiment. They already know how that movie ends. Spoiler alert: it doesn’t end well.
If voters want solutions instead of slogans, math instead of messaging, and results instead of rhetoric, they should reject Aaron Ford’s all-talk housing plan and the man who’s spent more time in front of cameras than actually helping young families afford a home.
The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Nevada News & Views. Digital technology was used in the research, writing, and production of this article. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
