The common thread from stories to political campaigns to proposed legislation is the claim that institutional investors buy up homes to rent them out for profit, and in doing so, crowd out families who want to buy homes to live in. At the same time, these investors also drive up rents and tend to be absentee landlords who don’t take care of properties. But a closer look at what’s actually happening in the market shows that almost the opposite of all that is happening: Institutional investors are actually helping renters.

The first clue that institutional investors are not likely to be the driver of housing costs or rents is that they only own about two percent of the total single-family housing stock in the United States, though they own almost 40% of apartment buildings. There are good reasons for both numbers.

When the housing market crash triggered the Great Recession in 2008, millions of mortgages went into default, and many of those homes wound up owned by banks and by federal lending institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. At that time, only institutional investors were in a position to buy those homes from the lenders and get them back on the market. In fact, before 2011, no investors owned more than 1,000 units.

A similar shift occurred during the pandemic, as thousands of landlords saw their rental income plummet, leading many to sell out or walk away. Again, institutional investors had the capital to get those homes back into the rental market. Without institutional investment in stores, millions of homes likely would have sat vacant for years.

Neither of those crisis opportunities for institutional investors is happening today. Housing analyst Kevin Erdmann has pointed out that almost all purchases of homes by institutional investors happened at the time of crisis, and their growth has been minimal since then. A shift in ownership years ago is not what is driving housing prices and availability today. Erdmann notes that in 2004, there were 33 million rental households, which grew to 44 million by 2016. But during that same time, only three million single-family homes were built, so about eight million single-family homes shifted from being owned to being rented. Despite that shift, census data shows that the homeownership rate in the U.S. increased by over two percent since 2015, even as investor ownership grew.

In fact, in the subsequent years, while the rate of homeownership was growing, the rate of building permits was half the rate at the peak of U.S. homeownership, and the rate of construction of new homes was flat. So, homeownership was growing as homes shifted back from being rented to being owned.. Institutional investor-owned rentals have not been crowding out homeowners; instead, rising numbers of homeowners combined with slow growth in housing stock mean homeowners have been crowding our rental housing!

Meanwhile, there’s no evidence that institutional investors are letting the housing they own fall apart. The Urban Institute argues that institutional investors tend to purchase homes in need of repair and “can repair these properties more quickly and efficiently than an owner-occupant generally can.” It makes sense: Fixer-uppers cost less, and with economies of scale, it will cost less per unit to remodel and repair a large number of homes in an area than just a single home alone.

Banning investor-owned housing doesn’t work—Dutch city Rotterdam tried it in 2021 and promptly saw rents increase and displace low-income families. In truth, fears surrounding investor-owned housing are just red herrings in trying to understand the housing crisis.

The real culprit is local government restrictions on housing supply. Homeownership growth since 2016, not investor-owned housing, has crowded out rental housing. If rental housing permits and construction had kept up, increased home ownership would not be a problem, but permitting of new rental housing has not kept pace with demand.

Persistent regulatory barriers, including zoning restrictions, minimum lot sizes, limits on multifamily housing, and long and costly permitting processes, have made it difficult, if not impossible, to adjust to the rise in demand in a cost-effective way. According to a recent paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, barriers to building have led to fewer homes being built: “If the U.S. housing stock had expanded at the same rate from 2000-2020 as it did from 1980-2000, there would be 15 million more housing units.”

This is why states as politically diverse as California, Texas, Vermont, and Montana have passed laws in the past few years that require local governments to allow more housing to be built and reduce restrictions, costs, and delays on new housing.

It really works. Austin, Texas, pursued one of the most aggressive efforts to change policies to allow more housing construction, allow more density in parts of the city, and allow a wider range of housing types. The result is that average rents dropped by 22 percent, about $400/month.

It is not the infusion of capital from investors that disrupts housing markets; rather, it is local government policies that fail to allow supply to keep up with demand. Banning institutional investors will not help, but allowing housing supply to fulfill the needs of both renters and owners will.

The post Investor-owned housing helps renters appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Florida has a housing shortage of over 120,000 units. A household must make at least twice the median income in Florida to afford the median home in Florida. Increasingly, homeownership in Florida is leaving lower and middle-income families behind. The reason for this is that Florida cities and counties have failed to issue new housing permits at a rate that keeps up with new population and housing demand.

This happens in many ways:

• Permitting delays can prolong projects for months or even years, which, unfortunately, drives up housing costs.
• Restrictive zoning locks in low-density, single-family development and often ignores the demand for smaller homes, townhomes, and apartments.
• Limited adoption of flexible solutions such as accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and residential duplex units (RDUs), which could be blended gradually into neighborhoods while aiming to preserve local charm and character.
• Local politics that turn housing developments into battlegrounds. Add layers of complexity, uncertainty, and costs that restrict developers, entrepreneurs, and locals from adding housing supply in a timely and sustainable manner.

The consequences ripple through the state’s economy and quality of life. Businesses cite housing costs as a barrier to attracting and retaining workers. Families can be pushed farther from jobs, stuck with long commutes, and are often forced into trade-offs between housing, childcare, and health care.

With straightforward housing supply numbers tailored for local use, citizens and policymakers alike can see how deeply the housing shortage cuts into their communities—and why fixing Florida’s broken housing system is no longer optional.

Visit the Florida Housing Data Project to learn more.

The post New data model addresses Florida’s statewide housing supply shortages appeared first on Reason Foundation.

This rush to ban certain entities from owning homes flows from a misunderstanding of their effect on the housing market and their small presence in the single-family housing market. Evidence shows institutional investors in housing rarely displace individuals from the housing market or increase prices, but local government restrictions certainly do reduce housing supply and drive up prices.

Professional housing providers first significantly appeared in the aftermath of the 2008 housing and financial crisis. Before 2011, no investors owned more than 1,000 units. After the housing crash, investors purchased foreclosed homes, anticipating a rebound. This helped to balance the mass exit of individual homebuyers and prop up housing prices that were in freefall, which meant significantly fewer abandoned homes and dilapidated neighborhoods.

Today, institutional investors only own about 2% of single-family housing in the United States, which is far from a crisis. They did not displace individuals or families—census data show that the homeownership rate in the US increased by over 2% since 2015, even as investor ownership grew.

Professionally managed housing provided a much-needed increase in the supply of single-family rental housing. The Government Accountability Office found that, over time, institutional investors are increasingly paying for the construction of new rental houses rather than buying existing homes. The Urban Institute has pointed out that institutional  investors tend to purchase homes in need of repair and “can repair these properties more quickly and efficiently than an owner-occupant generally can.” Fixer-uppers cost less, and with economies of scale, institutional investors can repair a large number of homes at lower cost.

And banning investors has failed. Rotterdam in the Netherlands banned them in 2021, which promptly triggered a 4% increase in rents, displaced lower-income families, and led to homes being purchased more often by richer and older buyers. Hardly a victory for affordability or equity.

Blaming institutional investors distracts focus from addressing real housing problems. The market is not acting as the critics of institutional investors say. If investors are driving up prices, the natural market response would be to increase supply so that homebuilders could sell to both investors and families. If supply keeps up with demand, prices won’t fluctuate much. But while prices did increase, housing supply hasn’t kept up. Persistent regulatory barriers, including zoning restrictions, minimum lot sizes, limits on multifamily housing, and long and costly permitting processes have made it difficult, if not impossible, to meet the rise in demand in a cost-effective way. According to a recent paper in the National Bureau of Economic Research, barriers to building have led to fewer homes being built. In fact, the paper finds that “If the U.S. housing stock had expanded at the same rate from 2000-2020 as it did from 1980-2000, there would be 15 million more housing units.”

Investors see that and are likely to continue to invest in single-family homes. When Jeff Bezos launched a new company to invest in buying rental properties, he pointed out that after years of housing supply not keeping up with demand, it was a sure investment. Rather than being a cause of persistent high prices in the housing market, investors are aware of the major shortage. Should barriers be reduced, not only would prices fall, but it might also spark a reduction in the presence of institutional investors. This is why states as politically diverse as California, Texas, Vermont, and Montana have passed laws in the last few years that require local governments to allow more housing to be built and reduce restrictions, costs, and delays on new housing.

It really works. Austin, Texas, pursued one of the most aggressive efforts to change policies to allow more housing to be built, more density in parts of the city, and a wider range of housing types. The result is that average rents dropped by 22%, about $400/month.

It is not the infusion of capital from investors that disrupts housing markets; it is local government policies that do not let supply keep up with demand, creating a shortage that attracts investors. The increased involvement of investors in the housing market should be a wake-up call to policymakers. Housing supply should be able to fulfill the needs of both the single-family rental and the for-ownership sectors of the broader housing market.

A version of this column first appeared at RealClearMarkets.

The post Institutional investors are not making housing more expensive appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The barriers to building housing are best addressed at the state and local levels, so it was a good outcome for the provision focused on selling land to build housing to die in the federal bill. However, the intense emotions surrounding the divestment of even one of those 640 million acres illustrate how challenging it has become to confront the government’s poor asset management and spending.

It’s understandable to get passionate about protecting the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Yellowstone and the other crown jewels of our national parklands. But the National Park System only accounts for approximately 13% of all federal land, though.

Most calls for land divestment focus on the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, the agencies that hold nearly 70% of all federal lands. These two agencies collectively control almost 50% of the total land west of the Mississippi River, making them major players in the economies of Western states.

Outside of a federally landlocked city like Las Vegas, these vast Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service land holdings are often in remote areas far from job centers and existing infrastructure. While there are inherent development challenges (e.g., steep terrain, water supply) that make residential housing construction prohibitive, the land could be sold to eliminate taxpayers’ costs of managing it.

The Government Accountability Office has flagged federal property management as “high risk” since 2003. Maintenance backlogs for federal land have gone from $170 billion to $370 billion in just seven years. Federal facilities are crumbling, underutilized and poorly configured for modern needs. Therefore, it should not be heresy to suggest that targeted, data-driven divestment could save taxpayers money, prioritize lands with genuine development potential near existing communities, while preserving crown jewel parks, wilderness areas and wetlands that provide clear public and ecosystemic value.

The federal government owning nearly 50% of the area west of the Mississippi suggests a massive misallocation of resources and missed economic opportunities. While there are pockets of parks, and recreational and industrial revenue generation from public lands, many federal land holdings offer minimal public benefit while imposing substantial carrying costs.

Rural communities across the West have long chafed under federal land rules that limit local economic development and constrain local tax bases. A smart approach to federal land sales could strengthen rural economies, increase local property tax revenue, and bring environmental protection and land management under local oversight.

It’s not about selling Yosemite or the Grand Canyon; it’s about unloading underutilized properties that drain federal resources without delivering commensurate benefits.

The best path forward requires Congress to launch a comprehensive inventory of federal holdings, identifying properties ripe for divestment while safeguarding truly national assets. It could even create a bipartisan federal lands committee modeled after the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, which successfully navigated the closure of hundreds of the country’s military bases through a fair process with minimal politics and maximum pragmatism.

When it comes to California’s and America’s housing crisis, selling federal land isn’t the answer. Local land-use regulations, zoning laws, subdivision ordinances, delays in permitting, poor regional planning and governance, and other regulatory barriers are to blame for the lack of housing and high prices. These regulations, red tape and long delays prevent builders from meeting the demand for housing.

Rather than relying on Congress to provide a solution, leaders in California should follow the lead of major cities in Texas, such as Austin and Houston, by focusing on legalizing accessory dwelling units, streamlining permitting processes, and loosening or eliminating restrictive zoning regulations. These types of reforms can help increase housing supply quickly and at scale, and are far more impactful than what could be expected from distant federal land sales. California’s recent housing reforms demonstrate what’s possible when state governments are motivated to finally address long-standing problems.

States and localities must continue to build momentum in implementing the zoning and permitting reforms that actually increase housing supply and drive down costs.

Congress can’t solve the housing crisis by selling federal land, but that doesn’t mean we should cling to an outdated land ownership model that serves nobody well. It’s time to right-size the federal government’s real estate empire — not because it will make housing more affordable, but because responsible stewardship demands it.

The federal government should focus on safety, security and truly national priorities, not on being America’s largest and worst landlord. And state and local governments should remove the barriers they’ve created to building more housing. That’s the path to more affordable housing and a little less government.

A version of this column first appeared in The San Diego Union-Tribune.

The post We should sell some federal land, but housing crisis requires local solutions appeared first on Reason Foundation.

On the news, social media, and even in legislatures, housing market speculators have been taking the blame for high home prices.

CBS Miami said earlier this year, “Finding an affordable home in Florida is becoming increasingly difficult for families as corporate investors buy up properties, driving prices up and limiting options for local buyers.”

Even in Congress, several bills have been introduced to restrict investors from buying houses, and at least half a dozen states have seen similar legislation. Despite calls for such restrictions in Florida, the legislature has instead focused on passing several bills like the Live Local Act that make it easier to increase housing supply statewide.

There has been growth in the role of institutional investment in the housing market throughout the last 20 years, but speculation by major financial players is far from the primary culprit behind current sky-high home prices. Lagging supply remains the largest driver of high housing costs. Rather than being a cause, persistent high prices in the housing market have attracted these investors who are aware of the major shortage.

When Amazon’s Jeff Bezos launched a new company to invest in buying rental properties, he pointed out that after years of housing supply not keeping up with demand, it was a sure investment. Stagnating supply and existing barriers to additional construction are what make entry into the housing market lucrative for investors. Should barriers be reduced, not only would prices fall, but it might spark a reduction in the presence of institutional investors. So, Florida’s legislators are on the right path on housing.

Indeed, there is good reason not to be distracted by the issue of institutional investors. Researchers at the Urban Institute categorize investors in the single-family home market as “mega investors” with over 1,000 units in diverse locations, “small investors” with between 100 and 1,000 units in diverse locations, and “local investors” with over 100 units concentrated in one geographic area. The most common umbrella criterion that characterizes “institutional” is holding over 1,000 units.

These large investors first made a substantial appearance in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. In fact, before 2011, there were no investors who owned more than 1,000 units. After the housing market crash, investors anticipated a rebound and purchased thousands of foreclosed homes. This counterbalanced the mass exit of individual homebuyers and propped up a cascading housing market. Without that infusion of capital, many of those homes would have been abandoned and whole neighborhoods gutted. Today, major investors only own about 2% of the total single-family housing stock in the United States, hardly the seeds of a crisis (see figure). Those numbers are higher in some locations where the supply problem is most severe and investors see that local policies have created a market imbalance: Investors own 5% of single-family homes in the Miami area, 13% in the Orlando area, and 15% in the Tampa area.

In those areas, some are worried that investment firms with massive amounts of capital are outbidding individuals in the market and therefore driving up prices. Further, they worry that through buying properties and renting them, institutional investors are detracting from the for-ownership supply and limiting homeownership opportunities for families.

The current stagnant housing market in Florida shows how oversimplified those arguments are. A lot of things in the market have not worked consistently with that story. If investors buying up homes drives up prices, the natural market response would be to increase supply so that homebuilders could sell to both investors and families. If supply keeps up with demand, prices won’t fluctuate much. But while prices did increase, the expected subsequent supply expansion has had a more difficult time manifesting. Persistent regulatory barriers, including zoning restrictions, have made adjusting to the rise in demand in a cost-effective way difficult or even impossible in many places. Investors see that and are likely to continue to invest in single-family homes.

So, it is not the infusion of capital from investors that disrupts housing markets; it is local government policies that do not let supply keep up with demand. The increased involvement of investors in the housing market should be a wake-up call to policymakers. Housing supply should be able to adjust to the needs of the entire single-family rental and for-ownership sectors of the broader housing market.

A version of this column first appeared in the Sarasota Observer

The post Institutional investors are not to blame for U.S. housing prices appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Sarasota’s fundamental problem is that the city simply will not issue permits for affordable housing built by developers. They won’t let the private sector build affordable housing commensurate with demand, so the city feels compelled to subsidize the affordable housing it won’t otherwise allow the market to build. It’s bizarre, to say the least. 

As Ed Pinto, a Sarasota resident and co-director of the American Enterprise Institute’s Housing Center, has documented, only 4% of the housing for which the city issued permits over the last five years was single-family attached—not a single-family home, but duplexes, quadplexes, or apartments. 

Instead, 96% of permits were for single-family detached homes. 

Even worse, the handful of single-family attached homes permitted had median values of $425,000, hardly affordable. 

Unfortunately, many other cities commit similar folly, hence nearly 42 million American households in the U.S., including renters and owners, are “cost-burdened,” spending more than 30% of their income on housing. 

One result of these decisions is sprawl. Workers seeking affordable housing must live where local governments allow housing supply to keep up with demand and, in turn, face long commutes. 

In Sarasota County, the jobs are concentrated in Sarasota, but many reports have documented that almost all affordable housing is in North Port or the Ellenton area of Manatee County. By not allowing affordable housing in Sarasota, the city is massively increasing sprawl, conversion of undeveloped land, and emissions of greenhouse gases from those long commutes. 

Some easy fixes

Sarasota is a clear case of what is often called a “missing middle” housing problem. The “missing” component of the name refers to the severe housing shortage of homes affordable to middle-income earners and the rapid decline of medium-density development. 

“Middle” refers both to the modest density of units added and the middle-income earners who are the target residents of these homes. The answer is missing middle housing policies that incrementally increase residential density in neighborhoods near commercial land uses while accounting for homeowners’ interests. Florida’s Live Local Act of 2023 (LLA) was aimed exactly at addressing missing middle housing, aggressively incentivizing additions to supply via additions to workforce housing. 

Live Local allows developers to override local use restrictions if they are building affordable housing. Specifically, it allows for residential development on plots zoned for commercial, mixed-use, or industrial use as long as 40% of units are rental units that will be affordable for 30 years. One of the primary intentions of this bill is to allow working individuals to live closer to their place of employment.

The city of Sarasota should work with developers to identify parcels that meet these criteria and speed them through the approval process to develop duplexes, quadplexes, and apartment buildings. This would do far more for housing affordability than city funds subsidizing a handful of units. 

At the same time, the most common type of zoning reform to help with missing middle housing is loosening regulations around accessory dwelling units (ADUs). ADUs are smaller residential buildings constructed on the same plot of land as a larger single-family home, typically housing one or two people. The popularity of ADUs is mainly “infill.” This means they do not require denser housing development but rather provide property owners with the opportunity to build another unit on their land. 

Instead of radical changes to the zoning landscape and massive, intrusive construction projects, accessory dwelling unit reform allows additional housing to be added to existing and fully developed neighborhoods. ADUs are also a popular option for non-rental housing for extended family members, so much so that they are often colloquially referred to as “granny flats” or “in-law units.”

Accessory dwelling unit reform is an affordable housing policy tool that promotes mutual gain and voluntary additions to the housing supply. When policy allows ADUs to be rented out, their smaller size and building costs mean lower rents for tenants when compared to traditional single-family homes. 

This feature makes them especially suitable for lower-income individuals, should they be rented out. The income generated from collected rents is also a clear benefit to the primary homeowner — now functioning as a landlord with one property.

Austin, Texas, as an example of increasing supply

Austin has made leaps in multifamily permitting. In doing so, the city has seen an explosion of multifamily housing in response to the recent influx of young adults aged 20-34 who prefer renting over single-family homeownership. This increase in apartment construction and other rental unit construction, driven by relaxed zoning regulations and a pro-housing policy shift, has led to a notable decline in rents across the region. 

Between 2021 and 2023, the Austin metro area permitted approximately 957 apartments per 100,000 residents, far outpacing other major U.S. metropolitan regions. This boom resulted in tens of thousands of new units, with around 32,000 apartments delivered in 2024 alone, boosting the housing stock by about 5%.

As a result, average rents have fallen significantly. Data from Zillow and other real estate firms indicate that Austin rents dropped by approximately 4% to 7% year over year, with some reports noting a decline of up to 15% from their peak in August 2022. 

The increased supply stems from policy changes, including streamlined permitting, reduced parking mandates and upzoning measures such as allowing up to three units on lots previously restricted to one and reducing minimum lot sizes. The accompanying figure from AEI’s Housing Center shows how much better housing affordability fared in Austin compared to many other growing cities.

How multifamily developments effect property values

Despite common perceptions, research has consistently shown that multifamily developments do not necessarily decrease property values and can even increase them, according to a review of all research by the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard. While there are anecdotal cases where property values have declined upon entry of a multifamily residence, “in general, neither multifamily rental housing, nor low-income housing, causes neighboring property values to decline.” 

Also, Sarasota is rich with examples of other ways to offer people an option to choose single-family housing neighborhoods or protect property values: homeowners associations, condo associations, and deed restrictions. These all allow the property owners in a neighborhood to agree to restrictions on density, and anyone buying in those areas must abide by those restrictions on their property rights. 

This is a much better way to offer people that option than broad-based restrictions across broad swaths of the city under zoning and development rules. The latter allows a small group of vocal activists to persuade the City Commission to limit their neighbors’ options, whether they want them or not. This is always and everywhere the cause of housing affordability problems. 

With the simple changes in attitudes and actions discussed above, much more affordable housing could be unleashed without even changing the city code. 

It’s time for the Sarasota City Commission to stop focusing on penny-ante solutions like subsidizing a trivial number of affordable housing units and start allowing the missing middle workforce housing to be built. 

A version of this column first appeared in the Sarasota Observer.

The post How to boost housing affordability in Sarasota, Florida appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Reason Foundation is a national 501(c)(3) public policy research and education organization with expertise across a range of policy areas, including technology and communications policy.

Our comments argue that government interference in online speech is a bigger concern than technology platform censorship alone, as illustrated by censoring policies during the COVID-19 pandemic and the Hunter Biden laptop controversy, and this has important implications for how Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is enforced.

Full comment: Comments to the Federal Trade Commisssion on digital censorship

The post Comments to the Federal Trade Commission on digital censorship appeared first on Reason Foundation.

We share the same goal as Senator Brian Hughes (R-Mineola) and Senator Royce West (D-Dallas): strengthening property rights and improving housing affordability in Texas. Senate Bill 673 would do both.  

Accessory dwelling units (ADUs), often called casitas or granny flats, are small apartments typically added to an existing home on a residential lot. It should be a fundamental part of a landowner’s property rights to add such a unit to their property if they so desire, given that it does not harm neighboring property owners. However, many local governments in Texas have trampled on individual property rights and have outlawed ADUs. 

This doesn’t just rip away property rights. It worsens housing affordability by restricting supply and hampering workforce mobility. Making it harder for people to relocate for better jobs and better housing stifles innovation and adaptability. It even affects environmental sustainability by pushing housing further from city centers, leading to more sprawl, car dependence, and pollution. 

If we want a thriving economy that truly supports people from all walks of life, we need to constrain local government’s ability to prevent harmless and very small increases in the density of residential areas through voluntary addition of ADUs.  

SB 673 takes important steps in that direction, re-establishing clearer property rights and limiting the scope of local government intervention in routine housing decisions. The bill would prevent local governments from banning or overly restricting ADUs while still allowing sensible health and safety regulations and the protection of neighboring properties from harm. Just as important, SB 673 does not restrict homeowner associations (HOAs) and other forms of covenants and restrictions on deeds that limit ADUs. Those are baked into the property rights they govern and are the appropriate way to provide people the choice of neighborhoods without ADUs if they want that option, rather than local government regulations affecting all property owners.  

Senate Bill 673 would improve property rights in Texas and allow for greater housing supply and affordability with ADUs without taking away the power of local governments to prevent harm to neighboring properties or of HOAs or contractual means of limiting ADUs where property owners choose to.  

The post Texas Senate Bill 673 would strengthen property rights, improve housing affordability appeared first on Reason Foundation.

This report is the second of three from a research initiative addressing the role of urban travel currently and going forward in meeting urban mobility needs and in efforts to reduce the impacts of transportation on climate change.

The first report, “Transportation’s Role in Climate Change,” established the context by focusing on the contributions of different types of transportation on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

This report, “Public Transit and Climate Change,” focuses more specifically on the influence of public transportation.

The final report in the series, “The Path Forward: Urban Mobility in a Climate Change Sensitive Post-COVID World,” explores the challenges and opportunities for urban travel going forward as demographic, economic, technological, and cultural/political conditions evolve.

There are two dominant goals for public transportation.

First, it serves to provide mobility for individuals who are unable to secure or do not choose alternative means of travel. The provision of public transportation is intended to enable economic and social opportunities for individuals who otherwise might be severely impeded.

The motivation is that this is both humane treatment and provides economic participation in society by facilitating self-sufficiency and potential for constructive contributions to society.

The second fundamental goal is to capture the economies of scale of “mass” transportation. The use of large vehicles accommodating group travel can provide resource efficiencies, including savings in energy use, space use, and physical infrastructure, resulting in reduced resource use and reduced transportation impacts, including GHG reduction goals.

This report explores that issue and, by documenting current conditions, provides guidance for the path forward addressed in the subsequent report.

Many media and literary references to public transportation are prefaced with words like “sustainable,” “green,” “environmentally friendly,” “energy efficient,” or other adjectives indicating to the reader that public transportation is a more environmentally benign means of travel. In prior decades, this translated into reduced energy use and reduced emissions contributing to ozone and smog.

More recently, sensitivity centers on the production of GHG emissions that contribute to climate change. Support for public transportation among the public and policymakers is influenced by this perception of transit being a more environmentally sustainable travel mode, and it is among the virtues cited as public subsidies are solicited.

This report looks more closely at that perception, exploring historical, current, and anticipated future conditions that influence GHG emissions as they are, in turn, influenced by public transportation.

Figure 1 characterizes ways to evaluate the energy intensiveness of various means of travel. For this graphic, energy intensiveness is a surrogate measure of GHG emissions. There are a multitude of ways to measure and define the energy consequences of various means of travel. Understanding the interrelationships between the mode and energy use, as well as data availability, are prerequisites to using each possible measure.

This report focuses primarily on operating energy intensiveness and transportation energy impacts as affected by public transportation’s influence on land use.

Full Policy Brief: Transportation and Climate Change: Public Transit

The post Transportation and climate change: Public transit appeared first on Reason Foundation.

On behalf of Reason Foundation, we respectfully submit these comments in response to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) request for comment in the proceeding, In Re: Delete, Delete, Delete, published March 12, 2025.

Our comments address the following topics:

• Universal Service Fund inefficiencies and reform;
• The application of Title II to net neutrality and Section 230; and
• Digital discrimination provisions of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

Universal Service Fund inefficiencies and reform

The Universal Service Fund (USF) was created to subsidize voice services for rural, low-income, and underserved areas, funded by a tax on voice services. However, in 2011, the FCC expanded the scope of “universal service” to include broadband data and created programs such as the Connect America Fund and Mobility Fund to help expand broadband access. The Commission declared broadband data as an essential utility for communication, education, healthcare, and economic participation. The FCC redefined “voice telephony services” to include Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and required providers offering broadband to meet specific criteria to qualify for USF support. But all of this was still funded only by taxing voice services, as originally authorized by Congress.

These changes introduced several inefficiencies that have made the program less effective. First, adding broadband services significantly increased the program’s costs. The USF’s annual budget now exceeds $8 billion, with much of this allocated to broadband deployment subsidies under the High-Cost Program and E-Rate for schools and libraries. The “contribution fee” rate paid by telecom companies has risen dramatically, from 3% in 1998 to 36.6% in the second quarter of 2025. This dramatic increase has placed an undue financial burden on both providers and consumers, particularly those with lower incomes. Moreover, recent proposals to expand the USF revenue base to include revenue from broadband providers would increase household broadband bills by $5.25 to $17.96 per month, creating further financial strain for lower-income consumers who can ill afford it.

At the same time, telecommunications companies that provide voice services internationally are unfairly required to pay USF contributions for revenue earned outside the United States. Under the Limited International Revenue Exemption (LIRE) formula, companies with domestic interstate revenues of 12% or less of their total revenues pay the USF tax only on their domestic interstate revenue. But any company who puts serving America first with more than 12% of its total revenue from domestic interstate services must pay the current 36.6% fee on its total revenue—a huge tax cliff from 4.4% of total revenue to 36.6% of total revenue.

Administrative cost overruns have also become a significant problem within the USF, with administrative expenses ballooning significantly over time. In 2000, administrative costs were $43 million, but by 2022, they had surged to nearly $330 million—almost as much as the entire Rural Health Care Program budget ($500 million) and more than half of the Lifeline Program budget ($610 million). The Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), which manages the fund, has faced criticism for failing to economize on overhead costs. The FCC mandates a budget floor of $4.5 billion annually for high-cost areas, requiring collection even if actual needs are lower. This rigid structure discourages cost optimization and diverts funds from more pressing priorities. The growing number of contractors receiving substantial fees from USAC further highlights the lack of cost discipline. These unchecked administrative expenses divert resources away from the program’s intended beneficiaries.

While the E-Rate program is meant to connect schools and libraries, it is riddled with inefficiency, fraud, and wasteful spending, including cases of unused equipment and inflated costs due to non-competitive bidding. Ambiguous rules and delays in funding approvals exacerbate these issues, while “gold plating” leads to unnecessary spending on underutilized technology. Additionally, the lack of performance metrics makes it difficult to assess whether funds are achieving their intended goals.

Similarly, lower-income households spend a larger share of their income on telecommunications services compared to wealthier households, making the fee disproportionately burdensome for them. Higher service costs caused by USF fees can also deter consumers from subscribing to telecommunications services or push them toward non-taxable alternatives such as FaceTime or Zoom. This shift has naturally reduced the taxable base for USF contributions, creating a cycle of rising fees as the FCC struggles to maintain funding levels. Additionally, companies that absorb USF costs instead of passing them onto consumers may scale back investments in network enhancements and new technologies, potentially limiting improvements in consumer access and satisfaction over time.

We suggest the following USF reforms:

• Reverse the 2011 decision that expanded the scope of “universal service,” thereby reverting to the original program Congress had enacted and intended.
• Eliminate the USF LIRE tax cliff that penalizes American companies that compete internationally by generalizing the waiver granted to Tata in 2021 to all companies subject to USF obligations. This would ensure that domestic interstate universal services are funded fairly by USF fees on companies’ domestic interstate revenues.
• Budget discipline must be imposed by introducing a cap for USF programs while eliminating counterproductive budget floors. This would encourage efficient spending and align funding with actual needs rather than arbitrary thresholds.
• Independent audits of USAC operations should be conducted to implement stricter cost controls and reduce administrative overhead.
• Embrace improved technologies that now make it possible to serve high-cost areas at lower costs, challenging the need for such subsidies. Today, wireless solutions such as low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite constellations can achieve similar results at lower costs.

Some have proposed expanding the USF tax base by making search engines and social media companies contribute to the fund. Proponents claim that because these companies benefit from publicly funded broadband, they ought to contribute to the fund. However, doing so would harm consumers, business owners, and innovation. It also ignores the reality that the vast majority of broadband infrastructure is entirely privately funded. As noted previously, the high contribution fees imposed on telecom providers divert funds that could have otherwise been invested in innovative technologies to improve service. Casting a wider net would simply distort and depress investment by a larger number of companies. Similarly, imposing new fees on services such as FaceTime or Zoom, if not borne by the companies themselves, would be passed down to consumers, and low-income consumers would disproportionately bear the burden.

Full Comments: Comments to the Federal Communications Commission on deregulatory priorities

The post Comments to the Federal Communications Commission on deregulatory priorities appeared first on Reason Foundation.

This report is the first of three from a research initiative addressing how urban transportation can reduce climate change. This report provides a baseline on how transportation impacts greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The second report, “Public Transit and Climate Change,” focuses specifically on the extent to which urban public transportation can help reduce GHG emissions.

The final report in the series, “The Path Forward: Urban Mobility in a Climate-Sensitive Post-COVID World,” explores the challenges and opportunities going forward as demographic, economic, technological, cultural, and political conditions evolve to influence urban transportation. It lays out the role transportation can play in meeting mobility needs and reducing GHG emissions.

Thus, this report lays out foundational information that helps guide the observations and findings in the referenced subsequent reports. It also informs the broader understanding of the role of transportation in addressing climate challenges.

Policymakers are increasingly concerned about climate change. Increased scientific evidence, accumulating observations of weather and climate changes over time, changes in political leadership, and ever-increasing media attention to weather and climate phenomenon have engaged the public. Pew Research reports that the share of Americans believing climate change is a major threat increased from 44% in 2009 to 54% in 2022.

As the single largest domestic greenhouse gas emissions-producing sector, transportation is inevitably a focus of climate change mitigation initiatives. This attention is further enabled by the prospect of a path forward via focusing on a strategy based on the electrification of vehicles, a transition to sustainable electricity production, and reliance on alternatives to personal vehicles for travel.

As climate impact moves up the ranks of evaluation criteria for virtually every transportation investment and policy decision, it is important to base these discussions on transportation’s specific contribution to GHG emissions and the respective roles of person travel and freight across urban and rural geographies.

It is also important to realize that transportation trends are evolving at a rate far greater than in the past several decades as changes in technology, demographics, and public priorities influence the amount, type and means of travel.

Yet, today’s transportation decisions and their impact on tomorrow’s GHG emissions may not be well grounded in a rich understanding of travel behavior and transportation markets. Much uncertainty remains regarding the phenomena of climate change, technology’s effectiveness in mitigation, behavioral reactions to technology and policy initiatives, and unintended side effects. Both the magnitude of climate-protecting actions and the timeframe for their impacts to play out are critically relevant issues as transportation planners and policymakers weigh various policies and investment decisions going forward.

Most data in this report references pre-COVID-19 pandemic conditions as a baseline for the discussion and analysis. These data are available and are most representative of the respective historic roles of passenger and freight transportation modes. Many analysts anticipate that there may be changes in the magnitude and shares of both passenger and freight mode use in a post-COVID-19 era and that trends such as differential rates of electrification of vehicles are likely to alter the relative GHG intensiveness of transportation market segments going forward.

Read the full report here:

The post Transportation and climate change: Travel trends and GHG emissions appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Texas House Bill 24 would strengthen property rights and improve housing affordability.

Exclusionary zoning partitions land by use to avoid incompatible uses next to each other. Some of that is certainly necessary to prevent all manner of clashes and harmful spillovers between neighboring properties. However, zoning also does far more than that. It often serves as the primary tool of local planners who want to substitute their vision of how land should be used for the vision of the property owners and suborn individual property rights to achieve their own plans. 

This doesn’t just rip away property rights. It worsens housing affordability by restricting supply and hampering workforce mobility, making it harder for people to relocate for better jobs and better housing, which stifles innovation and adaptability. It even affects environmental sustainability by pushing housing further from city centers, leading to more sprawl, car dependence, and pollution. If we want a thriving economy that truly supports people from all walks of life, we need to rethink zoning policies that limit new business growth and affordable housing options and restrict who gets access to opportunity.

A better approach would be to establish clearer property rights and limit the scope of local government intervention in routine housing decisions. HB 24 takes important steps in that direction.

The bill would limit the ability of neighbors and NIMBY (not in my backyard) activist groups to file protests against zoning changes initiated by a property owner or when local governments choose to make zoning rules less restrictive. It would not prevent protests, still allowing them when a proposed change creates major opposition. However, it would prevent small but active groups from stopping changes. This would allow property owners to exercise their property rights without arbitrary protest from a handful of people. It would also do the same for local governments who want to deregulate land use a bit to encourage housing growth and affordability.

The bill would also allow individuals or organizations to take civil action against local governments that do not enact requested less restrictive zoning changes and are not effectively protested. This would avoid the all-too-common “death by inaction” for zoning reforms that strengthen property rights. 

At the same time, HB 24 would not affect deed-restricted or homeowner association restrictions on land use. Those restrictions are agreed upon in the contract when buying properties and are effectively part of the property rights arrangements owners choose to buy. They provide an option for those who want to avoid neighbors changing how they use their property rather than calling for local governments to use zoning to do so. 

HB 24 would improve property rights in Texas and allow for greater housing supply and affordability without taking away any power of local governments to prevent incompatible uses or of homeowners to choose restricted communities if they want those types of restrictions. 

The post Texas House Bill 24 would strengthen property rights, improve housing affordability appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Introduction

We applaud President Trump’s Executive Order (E.O.) 14179, Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence, signed on January 23, 2025. We shared President Trump’s concern regarding former President Biden’s E.O. 14110, and we support the decision to revoke it in E.O. 14148. President Trump’s E.O. 14179 properly focuses on innovation and global competitiveness to keep the United States at the cutting edge of this critical new technology.

Because of its dynamic market economy, the United States is the world’s leader in innovation and the deployment of new technologies. Artificial intelligence (AI) promises to be among the most important technological revolutions in recent history, and the importance of President Trump renewing the nation’s commitment to free markets and bold innovation in E.O. 14179 cannot be overstated.

AI is the type of foundational technology where new ideas build on each other, opening innovative paths that are difficult to foresee in advance and counterproductive to regulate using knowledge that will quickly become obsolete. We agree with Vice President Vance that “AI will have countless revolutionary applications in economic innovation, job creation, national security, healthcare, free expression, and beyond.” Free markets are not just the best way to realize this future; they are the only way to realize it.

To assist in the administration’s development of an AI Action Plan, we submit comments on several key policy areas important to continued AI growth: avoiding overregulation, data access,  security, and free speech.

Avoiding overregulation and encouraging innovation

President Trump’s E.O. 14179 reflects a decisive shift toward a light-touch regulatory approach to AI development and deployment in the United States. This policy direction prioritizes innovation and global competitiveness while reversing regulations that could be burdensome to AI development. We see the development of the AI Action Plan as a key opportunity for the Trump administration to work alongside AI developers and deployers to create a clear and concise framework to best encourage innovation.

Among the most important steps the AI Action Plan can take is discouraging the overregulation of AI. As Vice President J.D. Vance noted in his February 11, 2025, remarks at the Artificial Intelligence Action Summit in Paris, governments frequently respond to new technologies by being “too self-conscious, too risk-averse.” When governments regulate new technology too early, they often completely cut off whole directions for development without knowing it. Innovation is a costly and uncertain process for which people and firms freely competing in the private sector is essential.

Revoking former President Biden’s E.O. 14110 was an important step in this direction. In that case, fears about outcomes like discrimination motivated premature and burdensome regulation. Importantly, the United States already has numerous laws and regulations prohibiting discriminatory conduct. We will not know if or how these laws should be modified until the technology develops further. 

The Action Plan should adopt a similar recommendation that would be applied across federal departments and use cases for AI. Federal agencies should clarify how existing laws apply to AI technology rather than introducing duplicative or overly burdensome new regulations. Many existing legal frameworks can be adapted to address emerging AI challenges, reducing the need for entirely new regulations. This approach not only minimizes compliance burdens for businesses but also ensures that regulations remain flexible enough to accommodate the rapid evolution of AI technologies.

The Action Plan should also seek to make recommendations that are responsive to the many diverse use cases and industries that AI promises to impact. Different industries use AI in unique ways, and a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach may fail to address sector-specific risks and opportunities. For instance, health care applications of AI require stringent privacy protections due to sensitive patient data, while financial services, fairness, and anti-discrimination concerns could come to the forefront in credit scoring algorithms. The Action Plan should encourage agencies to make use of technical expertise in the private sector for knowledge and tools needed to craft effective policies tailored to their domains.

By assessing the laws and regulations that already apply to AI, determining general and industry-specific legal issues that may arise, and learning from ongoing innovation in the private sector, federal agencies can move toward consistent, clear, and flexible AI policy that will encourage rather than stifle innovation.

Promoting secure access to data for AI models

Former President Biden’s E.O. 14110 sought to scrutinize how personal data might be used in training datasets, no matter if it was private or publicly available. In keeping with President Trump’s goal of promoting AI innovation, the Action Plan should encourage the removal of barriers to accessing and utilizing public data for the training of AI models. Unrestricted access to public information is crucial for maintaining the United States’ global leadership in AI technology. This approach aligns with the Administration’s goal of maintaining American AI leadership worldwide.

Both publicly available data and private data are necessary for AI models’ continued improvement. Any standard on data collected for AI models should clearly distinguish between publicly available and private personal data. Publicly available data includes information that is accessible to the general public, often through government records, public websites, or other open sources. In contrast, private personal data is information that is not intended for public access and is typically collected directly from individuals with an expectation of confidentiality. 

Access to publicly available data directly impacts AI systems’ quality, functionality, and overall performance. It also enables substantial cost and time efficiencies for researchers, entrepreneurs, and government agencies. By eliminating the need to collect, aggregate, and store data from scratch, these stakeholders can focus their resources on problem-solving and innovation. This accelerates the development of new AI models and enables the creation of diverse applications across multiple sectors, from health care and housing to economic development and national security.

Open data fosters innovation by promoting higher-quality decision-making, increasing data-driven accountability, and supporting global advancements in AI. Government agencies can use these AI tools, leveraging open data, to enhance the efficiency, accessibility, and effectiveness of services. For instance, machine learning algorithms can process weather information to provide timely insights to farmers, or AI can simplify tax filing processes for citizens. The combination of open data and AI holds great promise for improving government efficiency, reducing fraud risks, and enhancing security in key economic sectors.

The research community benefits immensely from public datasets, as these enable the training of predictive models that create value for both public and private sectors. Government healthcare data, for example, can contribute to improving existing treatment options and even aid in the development of novel cures. By making information freely available for people and entities to use, reuse, and consume open data, more people can contribute to the United States’ AI development and keep the country at the top of such development.

While access to personal data is also important to AI development, this can raise serious privacy concerns. The AI Action Plan should encourage agencies to work together and with the private sector to keep data secure as technology continues to evolve. Maintaining data security both reduces the risk of personal information being leaked and helps create avenues for more secure AI development in the future. The federal government can collaborate with industry to enhance data security. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) enhances data security by providing structured guidelines in its Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) and AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF) for managing risks across traditional information technology infrastructure and AI systems, respectively. The CSF focuses on foundational protections like encryption and access controls, while the AI RMF addresses unique AI risks such as data privacy. These two frameworks help ensure comprehensive security through proactive risk management and regulatory alignment. 

Free speech

President Trump’s E.O. 14179 emphasizes the need for AI systems to be “free from ideological bias or engineered social agendas.” With this in mind, the AI Action Plan should emphasize First Amendment protections for free expression online and in the development of AI systems. Doing so will encourage innovation and maintain the vitality and free flow of information essential to our democracy.  

The “right to compute” is a legislative concept that protects individuals’ ability to privately own and use computational technologies, such as AI and data centers, as a fundamental exercise of free speech and property rights. Currently, bills have been proposed in states such as Montana and New Hampshire that would protect this right to compute. This principle is inherently pro-free speech because computational tools are essential for modern communication, creativity, and information-sharing. By safeguarding access to these technologies, the right to compute ensures that individuals can fully exercise their First Amendment rights in a digital age. It also intersects with property rights, emphasizing autonomy over privately owned computational resources, which supports innovation and economic growth.

To advance the right to compute, the AI Action Plan should encourage federal protections for computational technologies as essential tools for free expression and innovation. The Action Plan should also encourage streamlined regulatory processes for infrastructure development, ensuring timely construction of critical infrastructure while maintaining necessary safeguards. Integrating digital rights into broader policy discussions will bolster public trust in emerging technologies while safeguarding individual freedoms. By taking these steps, the U.S. can maintain its leadership in AI innovation while protecting constitutional freedoms in an increasingly digital world.

Another recent development in AI and First Amendment rights is the creation and sharing of political deepfakes. Deepfakes are AI-generated videos or sounds that convincingly depict real people or events. Using advanced generative AI techniques, they analyze and synthesize vast amounts of visual and audio data to create highly realistic replicas. There is concern that the potential misuse of deepfakes poses significant risks, such as undermining trust in media, spreading misinformation, and influencing public opinion—especially during politically charged events like elections. As policymakers grapple with the implications of deepfake technology, particularly in politics, they face a delicate balance between protecting against malicious uses and safeguarding free speech rights. Political deepfakes are simply a new form of expressing one’s opinions, parody, or satire. Rather than rushing to implement broad regulatory frameworks that could inadvertently stifle free expression or innovation in AI technology, lawmakers should focus on leveraging existing laws—such as those addressing campaign impersonation, slander, and libel—to address these issues.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has played a crucial role in safeguarding free speech online since the early days of the internet, and it should be left untouched in order to protect online expression as AI continues to develop. Section 230 provides immunity to interactive computer services, like social media sites, for content posted by their users. This protection allows platforms to host diverse user-generated content without fear of legal repercussions, fostering a vibrant ecosystem of online expression. By shielding platforms from liability for both hosting and moderating third-party content, Section 230 enables the flourishing of social media, discussion forums, and other online spaces where users can freely exchange ideas, criticize policies, and share information. If Section 230 were weakened or repealed entirely, many platforms might severely restrict user content or stop hosting it altogether, significantly limiting the internet’s role as a forum for free expression and diverse viewpoints. If this were to happen, the United States risks losing a prominent avenue for free expression. 

Conclusion

We are only at the beginning of the AI revolution, and the many possibilities it suggests spark excitement and ingenuity, as well as understandable concerns. America’s free markets and free society enable those exciting possibilities to be realized, but many incorrectly assume that these freedoms lead to greater dangers. In reality, these same freedoms protect us against the risks of new technology as we learn more about risks and adjust along with what we learn.

Former President Biden’s E.O. 14148 projected today’s knowledge onto tomorrow’s highly uncertain AI landscape, attempting to reduce or eliminate risks. Had we continued on this path, we would have given up many of AI’s benefits and still been unprepared to address the real risks as they became clear. By shifting the focus from “AI safety” to “AI opportunity,” in the words of Vice President Vance, this administration makes it possible to achieve both goals.

The post Best practices for development of a federal artificial intelligence action plan appeared first on Reason Foundation.

And if you remember, in Florida, Bondi was trumpeted during her terms from 2011 to 2019 for cracking down on “pill mills,” putting in place restrictions on prescription pain killers, and suing the CVS chain for allegedly causing the opioid epidemic with loose prescription practices. 

Unfortunately, according to Florida Department of Health data, drug overdose deaths in the state nearly doubled from 13.7 per 100,000 residents in 2011, when Bondi took over as the state’s attorney general, to 25.1 deaths per 100,000 residents in 2019 when she left office. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, overdose deaths increased dramatically nationwide and in Florida. 

While overdose deaths have since gradually decreased, they are still well above pre-pandemic levels at 30.8 per 100,000 residents in 2023.

Several events are taking place here that provide important lessons and tell us what to expect in the next four years.

Bondi is a national champion of what is called the “overprescription” hypothesis, which blames rising rates of opioid overdoses starting in the early 2000s on increasing prescribing of opioids starting in the 1990s. There is some truth in that. 

As opioid prescribing increased in the two decades before 2010, prescription opioids became the leading cause of drug overdoses. 

The response that Bondi helped to champion, which was followed in most states and funded with federal grants, was prescription drug monitoring programs, which are state laws limiting the number of pills a patient can receive. 

The Drug Enforcement Administration also ordered prescription opioid manufacturers to reduce opioid production. 

These approaches made perfect sense to policymakers at the time. Bondi made her implementation of the E-FORCE PDMP a centerpiece of her accomplishments as state attorney general, and it probably makes sense to you reading this.

The problem is that everyone involved in drug policy, including Bondi, had a steady drumbeat of evidence that the prescription drug monitoring program approach caused a rapid increase in opioid overdose deaths. This was true in states nationwide, including Florida, where the rate of opioid overdose deaths remains far more than double where it was in 2010. 

Look at the accompanying graph showing what happened in five states and Washington, D.C., when prescription monitoring was put into place between 2000 and 2020. As prescription rates declined, opioid overdose deaths rose.

At first thought, this seems counterintuitive. However, these results should have been easy to expect and easy to see in the annual data on opioid prescriptions and overdose deaths. 

Our history of drug prohibition consistently shows that when the government restricts access to something people want, it drives demand to the illicit market.  In this case, abuse of prescription opioids was a growing problem, but it was a fairly safe way to consume opioids. Once PDMP cut off that supply, just as alcohol prohibition in the 1920s pushed bootleggers to switch from beer to potent bathtub gin, opioid traffickers switched to fentanyl and its ilk. 

Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health show that pain reliever abuse rates have flattened out since 2002, while heroin and fentanyl abuse rates increased only after opioid prescription rates started to decline.

You can see this clearly in the accompanying graph on opioid mortality in Florida. When PDMPs were enacted in 2011 and prescription opioid prescribing declined, deaths from fentanyl and heroin began to skyrocket.

You would think policymakers in Florida and nationwide would look at these data and suspect that prescription drug monitoring programs and similar policies are not working. But you would be wrong.

Instead, they have clung to a simple narrative, often used by Bondi in her press releases, that PDMPs reduced deaths from prescription opioids, ignoring data showing vastly more deaths from other opioids. 

It is particularly tragic that we are seeing rising overdose deaths at a time when the United States is enjoying an appreciable drop in drug addiction rates. 

Opioid addiction, in particular, has been dropping for years. In 2002, 9.4% of Americans were addicted to a drug, including 0.7% of Americans addicted to opioids. In 2019, the last year measured with a comparable standard (DSM-IV), 7.4% of Americans were addicted to substances, with 0.6% of those being addicted to opioids.

Additionally, record levels of naloxone and addiction treatment medications are being distributed, which means more people received addiction treatment in 2021 than any other year in American history.

Fewer Americans are addicted to drugs, and more of those who are addicted are receiving medication-assisted treatment for addiction, yet more people are dying from drug use. 

The reality is that drug addiction and drug-related deaths don’t have much of a relationship. Drug-related deaths are almost solely caused by the safety of the drug supply, which is made more dangerous by drug enforcement like PDMPs.

The shift from prescription opioids to fentanyl and heroin meant those with substance use disorder began dying at such a high rate that overdoses are spiking despite a shrinking population of regular drug users. 

This raises the question of why we still have too many people with a substance use problem. 

Researchers point to a plethora of causes, including poverty and financial distress, severe fears and anxieties, and difficulty getting mental health treatment and addiction treatment. The summary, as best we can tell, is that many people have something in their heads or their lives that they are so desperate to escape that they will use even a very dangerous drug like fentanyl to get that escape.

Making a drug illegal has done little to reduce the number of people wanting it. But the false narrative of the drug war is easy to explain and easy to pursue. 

Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to figure out why people are hurting so badly and, even more difficult, how to help them deal with it in a healthy fashion. 

It’s no surprise that policymakers tend to choose the easy route, regardless of whether it works. Bondi was no different. Nevertheless, there are other ways that can work. 

In France, policymakers addressed the state’s overdose epidemic by relaxing regulations on medication-assisted treatment, which combines addiction therapy with less dangerous prescription opioids.  The result was a 79% drop in overdose deaths in four years.

We don’t expect Attorney General Bondi to have learned from what her drug policies wrought in Florida or to change her approach when applying it nationwide. So, unfortunately, we can likely look forward to at least another four years of troubling numbers of opioid deaths that could be prevented.

A version of this commentary originally appeared in the Sarasota Observer.

The post In Florida, drug deaths rose under former Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Florida law defines price gouging as an “unconscionable” price hike during a declared state of emergency and for what it deems essential goods, including food, water, gasoline and transportation. 

Florida Attorney General Ashely Moody’s office says it investigates every price gouging claim, most of which come through a dedicated hotline “activated” in the run-up to each storm where consumers provide tips. Businesses can be slapped with a misdemeanor and fines of up to $1,000 per act and $25,000 daily.

The idea of charging high prices to desperate consumers evokes anger in many, but most economists warn against price controls even in the face of potentially large hikes after a disaster. While not unanimous, economists’ prevailing view is that government price controls create new problems while trying to solve what is really no problem at all. Shortages of essential items, such as gasoline, are made worse, not to mention longer, by reducing sellers’ incentives to rush the product to affected areas.

In an October National Public Radio report, NPR chief economics correspondent Scott Horsley noted, “Both Florida and North Carolina have laws on the books that prohibit price gouging during times of emergency. But, you know, it can be tricky to draw the line between illegal price gouging and just the normal forces of supply and demand.” 

Most economists would respond that they are one and the same. The supply and demand curves indelibly associated with economics explain this intuition quite elegantly, making the example of price gouging after a hurricane a mainstay of economics textbooks. Higher prices increase incentives to supply goods and end the shortage faster.

However, economists remain frustrated that their broad agreement often fails to impact politics or popular opinion. Florida and more than 30 other states have laws against price gouging. And, the recent hurricanes made the term a useful attack for any price increases politicians want to position themselves against.

We often spend so much time debating the idea of price gouging that we forget to ask what the fuss is about. States no doubt receive tips revealing some amount of consumer exploitation and other unsavory business practices. Considering how much we hear from politicians and media about the practice during emergencies and their recoveries, we hear little about the hundreds of misdemeanor investigations after storms have passed. The few specifics on consumer complaints we hear don’t look like the textbook case we debate.  

In the wake of Helene, media outlets reviewed limited samples of the complaints from Floridians, most from the areas hardest hit by storm-surge flooding. It turns out most of the gouging complaints related to fuel and occurred before the disaster rather than after. Maybe there were complaints of gas stations selling at high prices, but the state has reported none. Instead, complaints focused on gas stations being out of fuel — up to 75% of gas stations in these areas were sold out of gasoline before Milton hit.

Examples of actual allegations included a seller only leaving his premium pump on before storms and another of a 10-cent price increase. As a whole, consumer complaints appear more the product of chaos, frustration and, most importantly, many gas stations in storm areas being sold out of fuel.

In early October, Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody reported a “rapid response team” investigating 160 consumer complaints. In late October, the office’s website remained emblazoned with a red banner reading, “STATE OF EMERGENCY IN EFFECT. REPORT POSSIBLE PRICE GOUGING.” 

There is no evidence that the resources put into hotlines and investigations during the most serious of emergencies ensnare anything more than angry consumers looking for sellers with any stock. In effect, the current system is taking in mostly reports of too little price gouging, leading to shortages, than too much of it. 

So, while politicians love to talk about price gouging to rile up voters, there is scant evidence of anything like price gouging, even in Florida after severe hurricanes. One of us was here in Sarasota through both Helene and Milton and did not witness any gouging — places that ran out of things charged normal prices once they got resupplied. 

The government waste and media overhype might be cause for amusement were they not occupying significant resources and far more than their share of public attention when everything and everyone is stretched to the limit. One struggles to find benefits from state anti-price gouging laws like Florida’s other than false badges of honor sought by those enforcing the law.

A version of this column first appeared in the Sarasota Observer.

The post Florida attorney general looks for, but doesn’t find, price gouging appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Here, you will find voter guides on every statewide initiative on the ballot in the following states: 

California

Colorado

Florida

Nevada

In addition, we have done relevant policy research on some topics being voted on in multiple states. As such, we have analyzed several of the ballot measures on policy issues, including:

Crime and Criminal Justice

Drug Legalization and Regulation

Education

Housing

Abortion

Gay Marriage

Minimum Wage

Rank Choice Voting

Additional voters’ guides for other states and issues are here.

The post Voters’ guide to 2024 statewide ballot initiatives appeared first on Reason Foundation.

California Proposition 2: Public Education Facilities Bond Measure

California Proposition 3: Right to Marry and Repeal Proposition 8 Amendment

California Proposition 4: Parks, Environment, Energy, and Water Bond Measure

California Proposition 5: Lower Supermajority Requirement to 55% for Local Bond Measures to Fund Housing and Public Infrastructure Amendment

California Proposition 6: Remove Involuntary Servitude as Punishment for Crime Amendment

California Proposition 32: $18 Minimum Wage Initiative

California Proposition 33: Prohibit State Limitations on Local Rent Control

California Proposition 34: Require Certain Participants in Medi-Cal Rx Program to Spend 98% of Revenues on Patient Care Initiative

California Proposition 35: Managed Care Organization Tax Authorization Initiative

California Proposition 36: Drug and Theft Crime Penalties and Treatment-Mandated Felonies Initiative

The post Voters’ guide to California’s statewide ballot questions (2024) appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Florida Amendment 1: Partisan Elections for Members of District School Boards

Florida Amendment 2: Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment

Florida Amendment 3: Marijuana Legalization Initiative

Florida Amendment 4: Right to Abortion Initiative

Florida Amendment 5: Annual Inflation Adjustment for Homestead Property Tax Exemption Value

Florida Amendment 6: Repeal of Public Financing for Statewide Campaigns

The post Voters’ guide to Florida’s statewide ballot questions (2024) appeared first on Reason Foundation.