>> there are questions you can ask, and hopefully i'll integrate them. please feel free to do that at any time. don't wait until the end. i want to start by talking about why it is that republican-led states have been so much better on the issue of housing production and supply in recent years. there's been a lot of conversation, we're hearing california, where the housing crisis has been astronomical for my entire lifetime. while there have been a lot of bills passed, there's nowhere near the flurry of activity in terms of impact on the size of the bills that places like montana and texas have been able to produce. governor, i'd like to start with you and ask you, why do you think that is? >> thank you for having us, and it's great to be here at the reagan library. i think it became clear to me that homeownership is a key component of the american dream. when we want our teachers, our

policemen, our nurses to live in the communities where they serve, and if they can't afford a home, they can't do that. also, when people own homes, they build wealth for their family. it roots them in the community, makes them more a part of the community. it's really why is housing important? it's because our job is to help get out of the way so people can prosper and homeownership is such an important part of the american dream. >> why do you think it's something -- i feel like other governors know this. i don't think it's confusing to governors in california or in new york. they talk about homeownership all the time, but they haven't been able to get the kind of progress you've seen in montana. why do you think that is? >> well, we recognize it's a big problem. mayors, county commissioners, i asked them to produce a series

of policy recommendations, and i wanted the results quickly, because we have the great blessing that our legislature only meets for 90 days every two years, so i had a short window to get stuff done. woe citied in august. i had the recommendations by the end of the year. we promoted them and ran the table. in fact, the atlantic called it the montana miracle. we've seen remarkable results from the reforms that we've done. in fact, we've seen vacancy rates for apartments go from 1%, which makes it hard to find an apartment, to north of 6%. we've seen rents come down in price double digits. we recognize through the process that we had a supply problem. we were going to use free market principles. there wasn't enough money in the bank to buy our way out of the problem. so we had to release the private sector. so all of our reforms fell into

three categories. one was permitting reform to make sure that builders could get permits quicker. workforce, if you want more homes, you need more carpenters, plumbers and electricians. we had a bunch of reforms in that area. and the third area was every one of our infrastructure funds was designed for urban renewal. they would pay for water and sewer to replace aging systems. but we needed new subdivisions. so after we paid off all our state debt, we took another couple hundred million dollars and put it into a low interest revolving loan fund for developers and municipalities, but they could only use it for water and sewer if they did at least 10 units per acre. so it was workforce-oriented. that removed the bottle neck on the infrastructure. >> nicole, i'd love to bring you in here, because in texas i think there's a similar story, where you all passed, especially this session, just a flurry of

housing bills. can you tell me about the politics of how that's worked out? why has there been such a small amount of success in a small amount of time? >> yeah, similarly in texas, we've got about six months to get bills passed. they're not quite as fast as the 90 dice in montana. but once every two years, six months, and i'm really grateful for our coalition partners. we had americans for prosperity, texas public policy foundation, which i have no doubt that were they not there by our side, we would have been 50% behind of where we were now. on the left, we had austin habitat for humanity, apple seed. so really, what i've learned in politics is it's not so much the message, it's the messenger. so when nicole, who they've never met, shows up from a nonprofit and says here's the data, here's how your constituents will benefit, here's the polling your

constituents clearly want. if i'm nicole from a new nonprofit they've never met, that's much different that be when americans for prosperity says do you believe in property rights? do you believe in the free market to solve problems? so we put together quite a formidable coalition so swiftly address concerns and make sure that those organizations that have already had the established relationships with legislators were communicating. we spent about two years building this coalition, doing multiple meetings, going to dallas, taking our partners at americans for prosperity and doing meetings with seven or eight of the republicans in the dallas area. meeting with austin habitat for humanity and going to the same meetings with austin democrats. what's fascinating is that everywhere you go, university of houston showed that 90% of texans were struggling with affordability. so even if legislators were

purely trying to get re-elected, going back home and telling your constituents, i voted no on that issue that you're struggling the most with is just clearly out of touch. >> richard, i wanted to ask you, you're at home depot, so you're seeing a lot of what the home builders are requiring as they're dealing with the interest rates increasing right now, and the decline in purchasing at home depot. can you tell us about what you're actually seeing from your consumers and events that come to home depot for home building? >> well, again, thank you for having me. you can look at our business through the less of two different customer groups. we're split about 50-50 consumer and what we call pro contractor, right? our revenues are split roughly 50-50. from a consumer perspective, what's interesting is our

consumer largely a homeowner, right? they're employed. they've had strong income growth over the last few years. they've seen a 50% increase in home prices as a nation broadly since 2019. they're sitting on more dry powder now than they ever have. we think it's somewhere around $11 trillion in tappable equity. however, the interest rate environment made them take a pause in 2023 and 2024 as they looked at larger projects, the ability to withdraw that equity. you saw eloc rates spiking up to 9%. it wasn't that our customer didn't have the means to spend, it's just they felt it wasn't the right time. and when you think about home building, the interest rate environment has constrained that as well. it's more a mover issue where i'm locked in with golden

handcuffs in my low-rate, fixed rate mortgage. i think it's more interesting when you look at the pro side of the business. so consumer, homeowner, very healthy. on the pro side, you see the impact of the skills labor gap on their business. what's so interesting, you would think with all of this wealth that's been created in housing, there should be no way that as a nation we have a housing deficit of three to four million units. that just shouldn't hold. the folks who are demanding the homes have the means to buy them. we literally cannot as a nation build them fast enough. what our pros tell us, there are things we hear about more indirectly, the cost of permitting, the difficulty of permitting, zoning regulations, and becoming more onerous. but the direct line we hear from

them, and by the way, we think we have about nine million pro customers in the united states. these are small businesses. they tell us 95% of them say they can't find the labor they need to be able to get the job done, to build the homes. and so that's a situation that, if they don't fix in the united states, i don't know we can build our way out of this deficit. we're leaning in as a company. we have a program called path to pro. it's a digital platform, but it's designed to bring people into the industry, to learn the basic skills, in many cases, to certify them, and then to allow them to network with construction firms. we've placed over 300,000 people in the skilled trades. but that's a small thing we can do. i think we as a nation have to help our folks understand, these

jobs are incredible jobs. they're lucrative jobs. and we need that labor. so that's what we've seen, prosperity and strength in the homeowner. inability to tap that strength in home building, because of restrictions and the lack of skilled labor. >> i'm glad you brought up labor, and i definitely want to get back to that. i want to ask you if you all have looked into the manufactured housing space as a place where you might be able to reduce the labor requirements for building new housing. it's not something the u.s. has done a lot of, largely because of the regulatory environment. but is that something home depot feels it could have a role in bringing to the united states? >> it's a little early for that for home depot. we're going to go where our pro customer takes us. we're there to provide them with the product that they find that gets the job done most efficiently. it's certainly a space we watch. we speak to the vendor base all the time about this modular

concept of building. i don't think there's any doubt we're going to see that, right? home building is one of those sectors that has been right for innovation and will continue to be. there will be ways to bring down the cost of housing. that will be one of them. >> i will just add? our most recent legislative session, we changed our building codes to make sure that manufactured homes get treated the same way as stick built, so they're not disadvantaged in the process. every time i go into a shop class, i always tell the shop teacher stop with the bird houses. build tiny homes. we have a bunch of them that are doing it now. we have some school districts that have put tiny homes on school property, and job offers to new teachers includes a couple of years in the tiny home. >> wow. we thought you were making a joke. >> no. stop with the bird houses. >> rick, i want to bring you in

here. we're near your home right now, los angeles in southern california, at the very heart of the producing crisis in california, and the nation as well. you ran for mayor. what was the biggest hurdle for you? what did you see in los angeles to getting to fix the supply problem here? >> well, the issues that you have in los angeles and you have in california along the way, california is actually passed some interesting laws in order to expedite and incentivize home building, especially in the area of workforce housing, which i'm a big fan of, which the governor was talking about. low-income workforce housing. the real issues is the state, at least in california conscious do a lot. it needs to do a lot more. they can do a lot. but in order to get it complemented, it has to be implemented at the local level. and at the local level is so

overregular guide, money is fungible and starts going in another direction. so you look at los angeles alone, last year in 2024, all of 7,000 permits were pulled for homes. that doesn't mean they were even built. if you take 80 out of there, i think it was about 5,000. the goal is to build 60,000. we're not even close. but the problem is in los angeles, and we've built a lot in los angeles, in los angeles city, the amount of regulations, red tape, jurisdictions, levels of approvals that you have to go through, the consequences that you have on being challenged, so we just got permitted a low-income workforce housing development next to our resort up in montecito. you would think that if someone is going to build low-income workforce housing for their

employees with not a dime of money from any city government, state government or federal government, you would get rapidly approved, fully compliant with state laws that were to expedite it. it took us two years. so you have to say to yourself, why the hell are you going to do that? now, we're committed to california, we're committed in los angeles. so i think you have to break this down. i think it's incredible what montana has done, incredible what texas has done. but i think you've got to break it down and ask yourself, how are you really going to incentivize building in the united states and building in some of these states that are so overburdened by population that needs housing? housing costs have risen so high, they're not attainable for people in california. and that's why so many people are moving out, because the high cost of living and the high cost of housing. we've got officers at lapd that are driving two hours to get to

work every day two hours to get home. it's unsustainable. it's absolutely unsustainable. so i go back to the old days when i practiced law, a long time ago, back in the 1980's, and the tax code was the most efficient way to incentivize. and there was tax credits for building. and i think we've got to look at doing those kind of things at a state and federal level that give financial incentives, along with opportunity zones that give incentives for people to build, and somehow there's got to be a state mandate on these cities in california that forces them to cut the red tape or there's consequences in funding from the state to the cities. because it's just a constant battle, and it's not working in the state right now. >> i mean, one thing i wanted to ask you about, the reforms that all four of these panelists have brought up with regards to zoning regulations and permitting. a lot of them have to do require

up zoning in neighborhoods that are single family, that often do not want to see new development. when you're running for mayor, you said we have to leave single family residences alone, single family neighborhoods alone when we're pursuing development and that we could do it in other places, industrial, etc. can los angeles actually meet its housing goals if it doesn't up zone 75% of its land? >> absolutely. there's so much vacant land that's underdeveloped. what i said was focus density around transit corridors. focus density around where you're building the subway. get people out of cars. put more housing in commercial districts. look at the projects that we built, where we've got housing and retail and office all together. incredibly successful, the housing component of that, whether they're the condominiums or apartments, all go for premiums because of the convenience, the lifestyle, and the experience people have. none of this is rocket science.

go with what's working and follow what people want and how they want to live in their lifestyle. and i think going in and changing the nature of single family neighborhoods, there's no need for it, and i think it's the wrong thing to do. let me give you an example. in los angeles county, we have 700,000 acres, 700,000 acres that was burned. close to 15,000 structures. about behalf of that in l.a. county, which is an independent county, and half in l.a. city. in l.a. county, there's 88 cities within the county, but the cities have their own local government. now, you would think, when there's 7,000 homes in the palisades that are burned down to the ground, that there would be an expedited process to get building permits redone. we're four months into this now. 58 permits have been processed.

at this pace it's going to be 400 years by the time -- isn't that crazy? and you literally want to go in there and just grab these elected officials and appointed officials and say, you can't be that inept, but actually they are. and that's why i formed steadfast to have a public-private partnership to expedite. and we're just taking things over, rebuilding parks, rebuilding schools, rebuilding the churches, rebuilding the common areas. we announced we're reopening our property next year that didn't burn, because we were able to protect it. so i think what has to happen, at least in the region that i understand, is you've got to cut through the red tape. you have to provide incentives. but you also have to provide disincentives for elected officials that aren't encouraging the building of homes and apartments, not only at low income, moderate income, but also at market rate.

you need all of that in order to have a vibrant society that allows businesses to thrive and allows your society to work. >> i want to turn to tariffs. because both the biden administration and the trump administration enacted tariffs and raised tariffs on materials that are integral to the home building process. soft wood lumber in particular, we get, i think, roughly 80% of our soft wood lumber from canada. i think the national association of home builders has estimated that $14 billion worth of imports went into i think roughly $200 billion home building industry in a single year. it's a huge amount of cost that might come into play with the tariffs we're seeing now, but also the biden administration's tariffs on many of the same products. my question, and i would love if

everyone were to start with the governor, is how much do we expect this to harm the home industry? are we concerned these tariffs are going to create a problem for home building in your state and communities? >> thank you for the question. i start with the observation, and this is where we started. we basically have a supply problem. we have more people wanting to buy homes than we have supply. we also observe that 40% of the cost of the new home is government regulations. that's where the state can make a difference. i can't control tariffs at the national level. but we did, to your point, take two years to get a permit, we passed a law in montana that requires our large communities to do master planning. so they have to decide, the community gets to decide how they want to grow. we're going to put light industrial here, single family

here, whatever. and they go through a full public vetting process. but once the master plan is adopted, when a developer walks in and wants the subdivision permit, there's no public hearings. they just hand them the permit. we now allow -- >> i would die of a heart attack if that happened. >> well, move back to america. [laughter] >> all right. i'm flying home with you. >> we now allow anywhere we have single family homes, it's a property rights issue. you could have two units. we allow a.d.u.'s in every jurisdiction. that grandma who's on fixed income, wants to stay in the family home, she can put a tiny home in the backyard and a teacher can live there. and that income can help her stay in that home. and we've done now almost two dozen of these reforms, to

remove the friction so that builders can get permits and the nmby's voice is not as loud. >> your state has experienced great growth, right? it's an attractive state to live for reasons, especially post-covid-19 and everything else. there's got to be some tensions with people that have lived there and enjoyed the amount of space, for lack of a better word, and how do you balance that? >> this is why we brought a bipartisan group together, to build consensus around these issues. i'm a free market conservative guy. that's why i wanted to -- i think that, again, there's not enough government money to buy our way out of this problem. we need to release the free market. but we need more carpenters, so we passed a tax credit. we'll pay any construction firm in the state 50% of the tuition to send any of their employees to trade school, up to $3,000 a

year per employee. >> smart idea. >> we're getting high school students on the job sites, and they get high school graduation credit for it. they can spend eight to 20 hours a week on job sites. so we're building a pipeline for the construction firms. >> smart, yeah. i just want to answer on the tariffs, we're pricing out a project right now. i was just in a meeting yesterday with our construction team. you know commodity prices better than anybody. but at least in the bidding we're getting, we're saying drop in lumber costs. we're not buying it through canada. but we're seeing a drop in a lot of the commodity costs, and a big part is because there hasn't been a lot of building. contractors are super eager. they're being very, very competitive. but the commodity prices actually surprise me how they dropped. and nobody is building in -- >> do you expect that to maintain if these tariffs remain? >> you know, listen, these

tariffs are all over the board. i've gotten to the point where i take my seat belt off my desk chair. you know, this and that, i think it's going to balance out. it's going to probably somewhere in the range of 10%. a big part of it is going to get absorbed. i just don't think it's going to have a dramatic issue as this thing settles out and all the big rhetoric settles down. that's where i'm coming from. i put all of our projects, we had half a billion dollars geared to start this year. about 60 days ago, what was the big liberty day, whenever that was, after that? what was that? liberation day. after that, i put them all on pause, because it was so unpredictable what was happening. businesses did not like to move forward in unpredictable times, like so many businesses put things on pause. now i've gotten to the point, you see what's going to happen.

i gave a green light to them yesterday. we feel like there's more stability. there's going to be some interest rate movement. we'll test our financials on that, figure out how to get through that. interest rates are really not that expensive right now historically. but the tariffs i don't think are going to be a big issue. i don't think it's going to change. >> one point i would just add quickly, our lumber mills in montana that are making 2&4's are only running one shift a day. they can go to three shifts a day, triple their output, and we'll be fine. >> but therein lies the problem. we need to build more. >> right. >> richard, i want to bring you in here, because you recently said that home depot mentioned we're not going to raise prices as a result of tariffs. at least in the short term. is that a promise that you're making in perpetuity or just right now you're not seeing those costs rise internally?

>> well, we've worked hard. first of all, over 50% of the products that we sell are sourced in the united states. and we've worked over the last decade to make diversification of our supply footprint a strategic priority. so we worked, over that time with some of the best supplier partners in the world. when we win, our suppliers win. so we work closely together. we've made a ton of progress diversifying our footprint over that time. and that's put us in position to say we expect in 12 months' time, there won't be one single country that will represent more than 10% of our purchases. that's 12 months from now. we've accelerated some of those efforts, but they're just continuations of what we have always felt is good business. to get to the cost of housing, first of all, i agree with rick's comments on commodity

prices. lumber prices have been, for the most part, steady for the better part of a year, year and a half. and i'll echo what the governor said. it's the cost of regulation and labor. if you can, if we can work together to figure those two things out, that's where we can lower the cost of housing. >> nicole, i wanted to ask you about the politics of housing in texas. texas is a conservative state, but austin, dallas-fort worth, houston, there are democratic spots, even very progressive spots in the state. the politics are quite weird. you see some alignments from very, very progressive people joining the conservatives to pass legislation. how does that coalition come together? can you talk about how you built that? >> yeah, and i'm extremely grateful because the governor,

during his state of the state, where they set up the priorities that they're going to focus on that session, he talked about how slashing red tape and prioritizing housing affordability was going to be extremely important. then the lieutenant governor, for those familiar with the state of texas, the lieutenant governor is typically known as one of the most conservative folks up there. so that gave a lot of credibility, again, free market principles, property rights, and he spoke about this on news, spoke about this on the dais. and he also gave us one major priority bill that focused on minimal lot size in new neighborhoods, which in the next 24 hours here, we'll find out if that has passed the house. there's always the one guy who's opposed to these policies. and then the speaker also was extraordinarily helpful in giving us two priority bills, because again, this wasn't just nicole talking about how this is an issue. this is not only their

constituents talking about how this was an issue. but we had folks like americans for prosperity who would go on sort of their own road show, and they would hear all the time from their different supporters and different volunteers about how bad housing affordability is towards those very volunteers, and that was extraordinarily helpful. for example, when they would bring up the north texas delegation from the dallas-fort worth area, and those same volunteers who were dealing with those issues were going and talking to the republicans in texas. also, in terms of the left, we had folks like apple seed, austin habitat for humanity. so it really helped having this cross section. but what was also really fascinating was last session we got very close to getting a minimum lot size bill through the finish line. it didn't happen though. the city of austin i think saw the writing on the wall, i think there was a deep hunch we would

be bringing the same lot size bill back next session, so they actually adopted their own version, and we helped as an organization usher that through. it was really fascinating, because then when you have the city of austin and mayor watson, who did a phenomenal job on that, get that to a win, and they were criticizing mayor watson for being too conservative, because this is a policy that came from a group that was working with those republicans in texas. got that through, and now we're able to go back to texas and say, look, this is a policy that originated with a strong conservative, senator betancourt. and now it's a priority, but the city of austin just implemented this just over a year ago, and we're seeing rents decline like crazy in the city of austin. everyone is kind of looking at austin as this success story of how to reduce prices, similar to how people are looking at montana as a state, a success state on how to reduce prices in montana.

one day i hope we get to catch up to montana's success and knock on wood, we might have three or four really good wins here if we get the other governor greg's signature on these bills here in the next month or so. >> i want to turn to labor, because it's something that's come up multiple times, but also when i'm talking with home builders and developers, it's agree, it's one of the number one things they bring up, the struggle they have finding labor. i wonder how folks think about this problem in relation to the immigration policies that have happened in recent months and also the goal of this administration to increase deportations. we know roughly 40% of the workforce in california, texas, florida, that are constructing our homes are immigrants. and there's a deep concern, even in these very red states, there's concern about

immigration, that there's going to be a problem with labor if there is a large deportation effort in these spaces. so i want to ask folks on the stage, and we'll start with richard, because you bring up labor as a concern. how should we think about this problem? are you worried about immigration as creating a problem for home builders? >> we believe in a healthy immigration policy. we haven't seen any impact to our business with respect to recent developments or recent points of view. so we're head down running a business. like i said, we have our nine million pros that we're working with every day. but i think it is more about emphasizing the nature of these jobs. you think about, not to make this too broad sweeping, but the alternative between graduating

with a four-year college degree and heading out into the world, competing with a.i., versus actually being a skilled trades person age to generate significant income right now. i think wove to do a better job just getting the word out, marketing it, and helping people understand, this is part of the core of america. these jobs are jobs to be proud of. to me that's the point. >> this is and i hear a lot -- this is something i hear a lot. you can allocate american labor to make up what's happening with immigration. but right now unemployment is really, really low. that would mean moving people from industries that are currently, we're near full employment, many people think. so my question is, are you concerned about this in terms of workforce development? >> we have very low unemployment in montana.

we're third lowest in the country, 2.8%. the issue has been, i think to richard's point, we have not presented trades jobs as a noble profession to our young people. and we've set an educational policy goal of having every high school graduate be either college or career ready. so what ask that look like? i get to appoint the regents that oversees the university system. i get to appoint all the people on our board of education. i've put a chancellor of a two-year college on the board of education. i've taken k-12 district superintendent and put her on the board of regents. these two pillars have existed in isolation from each other. there's been no collaboration.

every time one of the two-year colleges come forward with some new program, they want to build a new building. it's like, higher ed, doesn't mean what the question is. the answer is i need another building. i want them to start, because we're so rural i want them to train people for the jobs that exist in their community. we're not going to be able to do that without partnership with the private sector. so bringing higher ed together with k-12, together with the private sector, we can create better opportunities. about 40% of our high school graduates don't go to college. we've been making it easier for them to get into these trades jobs. i mentioned the tax incentive, the integration with the schools and the private sector. we also changed all our apprenticeship ratios. and i was the first republican governor in montana in 16 years, so there was a little bit of

clean-up to do. but we quadrupled the number of apprenticeship slots in the state. electrical apprentice in billings, montana, they get a paycheck every week. they work 40 hours a week. they go to school on monday night. and in four years, they start, starting salary is $80,000 a year. that's a good job. why aren't reencouraging more people to do that? >> we should be, i agree. >> rick, i want to ask you the same question. in california 41% of the population of construction workers are immigrants. >> i believe we need a very robust immigration policy that has a path to citizenship. we need the workforce in the united states. we certainly need the workforce in california. there's a way to do it. and to do it right. especially what's happened in southern california with the amount of construction that's going to be going on, we're going to need the workforce.

i think an immigration policy is critically important, and the immigrant population throughout the country, but certainly in california, is an important part of our economy. we need to celebrate that, wrap we need them. i have been a big supporter of that. trade schools in california. and i am also fascinated by what is happening in robotics. there are companies that are almost fully robotic that are building homes, hotels. the cost per square foot is dramatically lower. these companies are out there now.

that does not mean that the trades are less important. they will coexist. >> i do think it is worth exploring. you have hard-working folks from other countries who have been background check. you are able to have more control over what we are seeing. this might be a great avenue to explore. >> i think that is a great point.

right now there is some concern. americans cannot do five jobs each. i have a really great question i want to ask the panel. how do you balance those interests? >> we did one legislative session. we found that we have had much more success. there are two main changes. pew trust has put out some really phenomenal data. they felt it was a gift to us.

they looked a lot of the main zoning and property rights proposals that were being presented. what was fascinating was i found the ones that were highest-rated. and the ones that were most high-impact. oftentimes they were the same ones. you can open up commercial. as long as the governor signs it, it will be the strongest, most preemptive commercial to residential policy across the u.s. you are opening up a lot of properties. as well as apartments.

you take a look at those areas. those are some of the most desirable areas to live in. i think this will be an absolute game changer. the new look at one of my favorite policies. you take a look at minimum lot sizes. we decided we are not california or new york.

there is a lot of undeveloped land. why not just say people can build to a smaller minimum lot size? five acres or more. we did the polling. you are going up by about 20% in approval. there are a lot of policies that are out there. similar to what you said earlier. we are not going into people's neighborhoods. we should not be using our cities as homeowners associations.

if you look at the polling, we probably need to be focusing a little bit more in commercial. and new neighborhoods. unless you have a governor who can really help create the momentum to get that done. >> we got rid of minimum lot sizes. we did a bunch of things. if you require big lot sizes and big houses, they cost more. if you allow smaller lot sizes, they cost less.

that appeal to the attainment of the american dream resonated with people. we had some odd bedfellows in this process. in montana we love the outdoors. the conservation groups want to keep open space. do you allow sprawl? or higher density? it protects the environment out of town. by reducing the sprawl required. we got tremendous support. from the conservation groups.

they helped advocate for these things. >> i had a very similar experience. the farm bureau really helped us lock down a lot of our rural legislators. they have done all of these studies about how large lot sizes ruin farmland. you have this obvious response. let's make sure we are conserving our farmland. it was very interesting.

but extraordinarily helpful. >> i went to ask you what you hear from your clients. we know that permitting is hard and these regulations are bad. which ones are the really causing pain points for developers? there are thousands. are the ones you hear repeatedly from clients? >> it does seem like the difficulty in getting a permit is at a different level than it has been. just the permitting process. the cost of permitting.

you talked about the folks in charge. you are talking about bureaucracy. it feels like there is a bigger drag. >> is their role that home depot can play? i was talking about this very issue. they are unaware that businesses are harmed and impacted by these types of policies. >> we have our great government relations folks. we work tirelessly. at a local level. we do what we can.

we feel the same way about the cost of housing. it takes everyone. that is why we are here today. to bring attention to the issue. >> in southern california, what specific things would you like to see changed to be speeding up the rebuild? >> what the local city needs to do is eliminate all the red tape. they put in things that were well intended but did not work.

everyone's permit should get expedited. everything should be in one place. it should be in their neighborhood. where you have one stop shopping. they need to help people get back into their neighborhoods. other agencies like the school district, you have to give schools rebuild quickly. there are so many layers of the rock receive. we offered to rebuild that school within a year. this is where i hope they welcome more and more private enterprise. home depot has been great. we have been working on a lot of

ideas. that is where private enterprise can really lean in. and help local officials solve these problems. now you can get it done in hours rather than months. those type of innovative things will eventually pick up the pace. we are very optimistic about it. >> there has been a flurry of laws passed in montana. i wonder if there are specific regulations you thought were most important to target. >> they all had an impact.

all the changes we made were listed. i think the master planning made a big difference. we excepted the weightings of some of our local communities about what they could do. but there is still more to do. we reduced parking requirements. we worked with the fire marshals to allow story apartment buildings. we eliminated impact fees that are not directly related to the project. there is a lot of layers to the onion and we are still peeling. >> the antiquated parking requirement today for buildings, apartments, homes, condos.

not everyone has a car anymore. and we are moving to driverless. if you can reduce that, it makes much more sense. >> is say one regulation that you can point to for all the folks to try to emulate? >> since i started this organization, i am infatuated with minimum wall sizes in starter homes. houston is the success story. the middle-class class is booming.

almost half of the homes built were under that pre-existing lot size. they found that the median home price was just over 300,000. we are talking about a 37% drop in price. we are not forcing a minimum lot size on people. we are giving them the freedom to determine what families need.

there is something very un-american about that picture. there are multiple ways to go about it. one of the ez policy proposals that can get at that is allowing people to buy less land. i think it is a real question of do we believe america is a place of upward mobility where if we work hard we can build a home. or will we wait until people are in their 50's or 60's to build -- buy home. >> i am not responsible. [laughter] >> on that note let's make all

of our panelists. [applause]