HOUSING
|
If you’re looking for an affordable place in Assembly District 39 to rent or buy, I wouldn’t blame you if you thought the whole world was against you. Want to rent in Lyon or Douglas County? Be ready to pay at least $1,400 a month for a one-bedroom apartment. Two-bedrooms or more will cost from $1,700 up to $2,200. In Douglas County that goes up to $2,800. And this doesn’t include first and last month’s rent, security and cleaning deposits, and those other fees buried in the fine print of your contract.
Looking to buy? Hold on to your hat. According to Sierra Nevada Realtors the median home price in Lyon County in November, 2025, was $384,900. In Douglas County it was an astronomical $722,500. Your typical mortgage payment, if you can manage a ten percent down payment, is going to be anywhere from $2,500 to $4,000 a month or more. The high cost of housing is one of the key drivers behind the affordability crisis impacting Nevada households. Economists would describe you as “excessively cost-burdened” if you’re spending more than 35 percent of your gross monthly income on housing. That means, of course, less money for other expenses, stress on the household budget, and hard choices about what bills not to pay, what to cut back on, and what things to simply do without. A study by the Guinn Center showed Nevada ranks sixth in the nation in terms of cost-burdened home owners, and almost half of Nevada renters are excessively cost-burdened. We are second only to Florida in that category. More to the point, a recent survey found that only 16% of residents believe housing is affordable in Nevada. The median household income is $74,831 in Lyon County and $89,661 in Douglas County. A monthly mortgage payment in the typical $2,500 to $4,000 range means housing costs for the median household are, by definition, an excessive burden. The situation for renters making the median income and spending between $1,400 to $2,800 a month is a little less critical. However, if you are among the 50 percent of households whose income falls below the median—and this includes restaurant work, office and clerical, transportation, and sales—you risk being completely priced out of the housing market. This situation is especially acute in the Lake Tahoe region, where a 2021 report by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency found that only 28 percent of Tahoe residents could afford the median priced home. The same report determined just 35 percent of Lake Tahoe residents earn enough to cover housing and common living expenses for a family of four. Housing costs are all about supply and demand, and there is general agreement that the key driver of housing unaffordability in Nevada is a shortage of supply. In the normal course of events, a growing population increases the need for housing which puts upward pressure on prices. Builders respond by producing more housing and prices begin to moderate as supply catches up with demand. Supply has not kept pace with Nevada’s rising population over the last several decades, leaving us with chronic shortfalls and consequent affordability issues. There is a long list of factors hampering the ability of housing supply to keep pace with demand in our state. For example, the vast areas of federally administered land in Nevada are unavailable for development. Restrictive zoning constrains denser forms of housing which might make for putting more units on a given property. In the state’s largest urban areas, Las Vegas and Reno-Sparks, land zoned for single family residences far exceeds multi-family zoned property. Excessive or overly burdening permitting, high fees, and bureaucratic delays can have a decisive, negative effect on decision makers. And finally, high construction costs can sink even the best projects. The State Legislature has a mixed bag of possible action when it comes to addressing these influences. Transferring federally administered land is a long, complicated political process ultimately dependent on Congressional action. While federal land comprises a huge percentage of Nevada’s land area, only a small portion is actually buildable and located near the population centers. Imposing zoning restrictions or requirements at the state level often prompts resistance from local governments, who also defend their own permitting processes and fee structures. Construction costs can go up or down in response to national or international factors, like interest rates, commodity and material prices, and even tariff and immigration policy. Nevertheless, the 2025 Legislature did take action in the regular and special sessions on a number of bills dealing with the housing situation. This included AB540, described as the Governor’s “signature housing bill.” It created a $133 million fund to support development of “attainable” housing by providing loans for builders, rebates, buying land, and helping essential workers buy homes. It also exempted projects from prevailing wage requirements, loosened rules for contractors, and provided down payment assistance for essential workers in rural counties, including Douglas and Lyon Counties. The Assembly unanimously passed AB540. It passed Senate by a vote of 15 to 6, with a cadre of ultra-conservative Republicans opposed. The bill was not perfect by any means, and we need to monitor its implementation to make sure it lives up to expectations. But it is an example of the bipartisan collaboration we need to solve our housing problems, not to mention the many other issues facing us. I would have voted for it. Another bill, AB241, mandated a change in zoning regulations giving property owners the right to build multi-family housing on land zoned for commercial use without having to obtain a special use permit. This made more areas available for duplexes, triplexes, or other configurations aimed at the “missing middle” between single-family homes and large apartment buildings—a type of housing rarely built, often because of zoning restrictions. AB241passed and was signed by the Governor, despite opposition from Assembly and Senate Republicans, including the District 39 Assemblyman. It is an example of the small steps we can take to improve the housing situation, and I would have supported it. One of the most important housing bills the Legislature considered this year was SB10, not only because of the positive impact it could have had, but because it presented Legislators with the chance to show their constituents just which side they were on when it came to housing. SB10, introduced during the Special Session, would have placed a 1,000 unit limit on the number of houses private equity funds could purchase per year in Nevada. New construction, apartments, or townhouses would not have been included. The bill failed by one vote, with District 39’s Republican Assemblyman providing that deciding “no.” Private equity funds are driving ordinary Nevada families and buyers out of the housing market. These funds have but one purpose: to make money for themselves. They have no interest in community well-being, sustainability, or its members quality of life. Private equity funds use their hoards of investment capital to distort the relationship between housing supply and demand—to their benefit and at the expense of individual Nevadans trying to buy a home. They target areas and buy up properties one after another, making cash offers to outbid normal buyers—not only pricing them out but pushing overall prices up throughout the area. When the time is right, they either release a calculated selection of properties at a profit into the overinflated market, which they themselves helped create, or they convert properties to rentals, further reducing supply. In Nevada, private equity funds took advantage of the economic downturn in the 2008 Recession to buy up distressed properties. During the Covid epidemic, they capitalized on the growing demand for suburban housing by using cash offers to instigate and win bidding wars. Stateline, a nonprofit news organization, reported investor ownership of homes in Nevada went from 18 percent in 2020 to 30 percent in 2021. The Lied Center for Real Estate at the University of Nevada Las Vegas estimated investors owned roughly 15% of homes in the City of Las Vegas. The Nevada Democratic Party has pointed out that two multi-billion dollar Wall Street funds, Premium Partners and Invitation Homes, are the largest homeowners in Las Vegas Valley. They together control around 8,000 homes. SB10 would have been a big step toward leveling the housing market playing field, that is if one more Legislator had stood with Nevadans instead of Wall Street. The bill would have put some constraints on wealth and privilege, but instead private equity funds will continue manipulating the housing market simply because they have the money to do it. SB10 would have been an easy “yes” for me, and I look forward to supporting more bills like this in the future. |
Paying for a place to live is eating up household budgets in District 39 and throughout the state. Housing costs are all about supply and demand, and Legislators have a key role in bringing the currently out of whack relationship back into balance.
If I’m elected to represent Assembly District 39, I will:
|