On Affordable Housing: Less Regulation, More Community

{Note: I use the term “affordable” as a general term below. I’m not referring specifically to “A” affordable, subsidized by tax credits or even housing under a rent/income restriction. I’m using the term interchangeably with attainable, workforce, etc, as a simple descriptor of a home that’s priced affordably to someone who simply needs a place to live.}

Throughout the neighborhoods of Manatee County—and across Florida—you can see the story of American housing playing out in real time. Rows of single-family homes stretch toward the horizon, each with its own patch of grass and driveway. It’s a familiar sight, rooted in decades of tradition. But beneath this exterior, a quiet crisis has been growing: a shortage of housing that’s unaffordable to a large percentage of our community, pushing families to the edge and reshaping the future of our county and state.

If you name a problem in our community, I can point to safe, affordable housing as a cure. When families have access to stable, reasonably priced homes, the effects ripple outward. Children thrive, staying in the same schools and building lasting friendships. Parents can focus on work and wellness instead of worrying about where they’ll sleep next month. Local businesses grow, supported by a reliable workforce that spends more money close to home. Neighborhoods become more active, with people from different backgrounds, ages, and incomes coming together to create richer community life.

Affordable housing isn’t just a buzzword tossed around in land use meetings. It isn’t the creation of “projects” or “future slums,” and it’s rarely “Section 8” housing. It’s an affordable home for a single mom, a senior on a fixed income, a young professional, or a first responder. It’s the foundation of a healthy, vibrant community.

Yet, for many in Florida and beyond, the dream of homeownership, or even stable rental housing, is slipping out of reach. The reasons are found in the history of zoning, outdated regulations, and a stubborn reliance on single-family homes. We can fix it, but we need meaningful changes to our over-regulated system.

The roots of this problem run deep. For years, zoning laws have favored larger lots and single-family homes, (un)intentionally making it harder for many people to find a place they can afford. These rules weren’t just about keeping neighborhoods tidy; they often kept certain people out. The result has been sprawling high-priced developments, longer commutes, and a growing disconnect between where people live and where they work.

New housing gets pushed farther and farther out, driving up costs and stretching infrastructure thin. These roads become further strained as families need to move farther from employment and services in search of housing they can afford. That affordability is then diluted with the cost of commuting, both in terms of funds and family time. This failed focus on building more unaffordable single-family, large-lot homes hasn’t kept up with demand, and prices keep climbing.

Today we are discussing what should have been obvious all along. We have a housing problem because we’ve spent decades banning and discouraging the very housing types that were once affordable for first-time homebuyers, empty nesters, and those with lower incomes. We have created an artificial housing shortage, led by government regulations, that has pushed so many residents into a perpetual cycle of unaffordability and instability.

Most of the time when someone tries to “fix” this problem, they end up focusing more on subsidizing the DEMAND through vouchers, down payment assistance, and the concept of 50-year mortgages (?), rather than subsidizing the SUPPLY. There are exceptions, such as the Federal LIHTC expansion and parts of Florida’s Live Local Act, but they are not nearly as prevalent as they should be. These misguided demand-focused efforts only make affordability issues worse, as they’re widening the already unsustainable supply/demand imbalance.

And regardless of the arguments made, the housing affordability crisis is almost entirely the result of a supply/demand imbalance caused by governments, inflation, and financial institutions restricting supply. It’s not caused by housing converting to short-term rentals. It’s not caused by private equity buying up homes, as most investors are mom-and-pop buyers with 2–10 units. Institutional buyers own less than 2% of the homes nationwide. It’s not caused by “developer and landlord greed” as they will always charge exactly what the market will allow. If we increase the competitive supply of homes and rentals in the market, these “greedy” owners will be forced to lower their prices to compete, thus providing even more attainable housing options.

The “other” is what most people want to blame for higher prices.

We all know we have an affordability problem. Whenever affordable housing is proposed, however, the debate heats up. Some worry that the new supply will lower property values. One homeowner messaged me a video stating that all this new housing supply was going to lower the value of their home. The reality is that post-COVID, home values organically skyrocketed due to a lack of supply to meet the new demand. Those in current homes didn’t create that inflated value or spend money to improve their homes. It was entirely due to a supply/demand imbalance. Now, those owners want to maintain that paper profit by stifling the very supply that was lacking to meet the demand needs. This is a manipulation of basic economics for personal gain at the expense of the overall community.

Others fear that the character of their neighborhood will change, or that crime will rise. But time and again, these concerns statistically don’t hold up. Well-designed, diverse housing options actually help stabilize and even boost property values, making neighborhoods more vibrant and attractive. Modern multi-family homes can blend seamlessly with existing single-family architecture and build stronger communities. The truth is, communities are always evolving, and smart growth benefits everyone, especially when everyone can participate in the housing market.

Let’s look at some facts. In Manatee County, according to the 2025 ALICE (Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed) Report, 42% of households are below the ALICE Threshold. They are deemed “cost-burdened,” meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on housing. This number is 2.4 million people throughout the State of Florida (Home Matters Report from Florida Housing Coalition). Most of these households (31% of the 42% in Manatee) earn above the federal poverty line but struggle to afford basic necessities such as housing, childcare, food, and transportation. The median household income is $79,524, but a family of four requires between $95,004 and $99,730 annually to meet basic needs, highlighting a substantial affordability gap. Housing costs, significantly influenced by rising rents and home prices, are a primary factor impacting these struggles.

The shortage causing this struggle is real. Manatee and Sarasota counties are short by approximately 20,000 affordable rental units for residents earning less than 80% of AMI (UF’s Shimberg Center puts the shortfall at 552,000 homes statewide). Since 2019, rentals under $1,500 a month have plummeted, while those between $2,000 and $2,500 have skyrocketed by 369%. Home prices have followed suit, with the median sale price jumping from $300,000 to over $500,000 in just a few years.

So what’s the way forward?

We can encourage infill development near existing infrastructure, transit, and employment with increased density and height incentives. Counties can remove “cosmetic” regulations such as unnecessary setbacks and minimum unit sizes. The state can remove antiquated regulations and allow single-stair buildings and single-room occupancy (SRO) without the burdensome additional hurdles. We can remove the cost of uncertainty with as-of-right zoning that lowers the risk of arbitrary zoning decisions assisted by selective form-based code.

We can make some easy tweaks to our codes and focus future supply where housing and concentrated development should be located to make it economically enticing to build what the community needs, rather than encouraging lazy, single-family home developments on agriculturally-zoned land.

This would all work, and I’d encourage it.

With today’s current regulations and codes, the primary focus of affordable development is to utilize density bonuses to build large multifamily complexes. These developments do create more housing units for those in need, but by putting hundreds of units in one concentrated area, we risk overcrowding nearby infrastructure and schools while creating large areas of impervious surface.

Alternatively, if we were to allow for smaller, scattered development throughout the community, we would also scatter the impact in a more manageable and sustainable way.

It starts with rethinking the rules that shape our neighborhoods. Imagine a community eliminating minimum lot sizes. Instead of forcing builders to use large parcels for each home, we allow for smaller, more affordable houses—cottages, townhouses, even tiny homes—right where people want to live. This simple change opens up more options for families, singles, and seniors, without expanding the city’s footprint. The units become more affordable due to size, put fewer cars on the roads, and have less impervious footprints.

Lot splits are a simple but powerful tool in this toolkit. By allowing property owners to divide a single lot into two or more smaller lots, we open the door for additional homes to be built in established neighborhoods. This means lower land costs per home, more housing options, and efficient use of existing infrastructure. Small-scale development can be less disruptive and more responsive to local needs than large, new subdivisions, helping neighborhoods evolve naturally and adding diversity and vitality.

Parking is another hurdle. Mandating two or more spaces per home, even in walkable areas, adds cost and eats up valuable land. By lowering or ideally eliminating parking minimums, we free up space for more green areas and community amenities, while making the cost of developing these homes more economical. Eliminating parking requirements also encourages walkability and public transit use, making neighborhoods more connected and lively.

Finally, we can collectively stop pretending that residential of one type does not have compatibility with residential of another type.

ALL residential types are inherently compatible with other residential types.

The reason you get sprawling single-family homes is that someone in a single-family development, at some point, made an argument that we could only build other single-family developments next to it, and that trend stuck with the destructive, and unnecessary, outcomes we see today.

Multi-family units and accessory dwelling units—think duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, backyard cottages, or garage apartments—can fit right into existing neighborhoods, even single-family neighborhoods. These options increase density without changing the character of the area, providing affordable choices for young families, seniors, and workers who want to live close to jobs and amenities. And when we make it easier to build on vacant lots or redevelop underused properties, we add housing where roads, schools, and utilities already exist. This is more efficient and cost-effective than building new subdivisions miles away from town.

Affordable, attainable, workforce housing, whatever you want to call it - housing in general - is the number one issue facing Manatee County and Florida. The strain on families, businesses, and local infrastructure is real. But the solution isn’t more regulation, declining new housing approvals, or simply throwing money at the problem - it’s smarter, market-driven policies that encourage innovation, reduce barriers, and let our low supply catch up with our high demand.

By rethinking zoning, cutting unnecessary regulations, and supporting smart growth, we can create communities that are inclusive, resilient, and ready for the future. Affordable housing isn’t just a policy issue—it’s a cornerstone of prosperity and progress. Diverse neighborhoods are vibrant neighborhoods. When you have a mix of housing types and price points, you get a community where everyone—from baristas and teachers to CEOs and retirees—can find a place to call home.

The path forward is clear. By focusing on smart, free market policies - eliminating minimum lot sizes, reducing parking requirements, encouraging multiple-unit buildings and in-fill development, allowing lot splits, and maybe even considering a land value tax to discourage speculation and encourage near-term development of needed supply - we can create more affordable housing without sacrificing quality or character.

We can build a future where everyone has a fair shot at a stable, affordable home. It’s not just about fixing a broken system—it’s about unleashing the creativity, the innovation, and the collaboration of our community to solve one of its biggest challenges. By incentivizing redevelopment and infill housing, we can curb urban sprawl, revitalize neighborhoods, and begin to balance our housing market, not with “projects” and “slums”, but with safe, affordable, well-located housing for those in our community who need it most.

With open minds and practical solutions, we can keep the market open and the regulations light, and we can let the fundamentals of supply and demand do their work to keep the opportunities abundant - for everyone.

George Kruse is Chair of the Manatee County Commission and its District 7 commissioner. This article originally appeared on his Substack blog. Click here to subscribe.