The Housing Bill Nobody Is Talking About

What if we've been asking the wrong question about America's housing crisis?

Congress has passed one of the most significant housing bills in decades, with the stated goal of making housing more affordable by encouraging more construction, higher-density development, and changes to local zoning policies. But is building more homes really the solution?

In this episode of Dishin' Dirt, I take a non-political, fact-based look at what the legislation actually does, how it could influence local communities, and why every homeowner, REALTOR®, builder, and buyer should understand the issues.

Topics include:

• What is actually in the new federal housing bill
• Why zoning has traditionally been controlled by local governments
• How federal incentives could influence future development
• The debate over higher-density housing and neighborhood character
• Infrastructure, traffic, schools, and who pays for growth
• Does South Carolina really have a housing shortage?
• Are housing shortages different in the South than in the Northeast and West Coast?
• Why builders across South Carolina are offering incentives, rate buydowns, and price reductions
• The difference between a housing shortage and a homeownership affordability crisis
• The one question every policymaker, REALTOR®, and homeowner should be asking

Whether you support the legislation or have concerns about its long-term impact, this episode is designed to educate—not advocate. I will explore both sides of the debate while challenging listeners to think critically about the future of housing, property rights, local control, and the American Dream of homeownership.

What do you think?

Does South Carolina actually have a housing shortage?

Should zoning decisions remain local, or should the federal government play a larger role in encouraging housing development?

And most importantly...

Have we confused a housing shortage with a homeownership crisis?

Share your thoughts in the comments—we'd love to hear from you.

👍 If you enjoyed this episode, please Like, Subscribe, and Share it with another real estate professional or homeowner interested in the future of housing.

🎙️ Dishin' Dirt with Gary Pickren brings you practical insights into real estate law, housing policy, industry trends, and the issues shaping the future of real estate in South Carolina and across the country.

Don't forget to like us and share us!
Gary

* Gary serves on the South Carolina Real Estate Commission as a Commissioner. The opinions expressed herein are his opinions and are not necessarily the opinions of the SC Real Estate Commission. This podcast is not to be considered legal advice. Please consult an attorney in your area.    

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:00

Today I'm going to be discussing a piece of legislation that, in my opinion, has received surprisingly very little attention from the real estate industry, considering the potential impact that it could have on housing policy in this country for many, many years to come. Now, before I begin the episode, I do want to say something very important. This will not be a political episode. It's not about Republicans, it's not about Democrats. It's not about the president, it's not about Congress. This is about real estate. It's about your neighborhoods, it's about zoning and who has the authority to implement zoning rules and enforce those zoning rules. It's about your homeownership rights. It's about your property rights. It's about whether decisions that have traditionally been made by local communities are beginning to now be influenced by Washington, D.C. And should that be the case? Those are very legitimate questions, regardless which side of the political aisle your beliefs sit. The housing bill we're going to be discussing today did pass Congress with bipartisan support. It has not been signed into law yet. But everyone agrees that America has a housing problem. Where people disagree is what that problem actually is and how we should actually try to solve it. As real estate agents, brokers, builders, lenders, appraisers, attorneys, homeowners, I think we all owe it to ourselves to try to understand what Congress is trying to accomplish here and to ask one very important question. Will these policies actually solve the housing problem? Now, for years we've heard the same message. America doesn't have enough housing. We need to build more houses. Zoning is way too restrictive. Developments take way too long. Local governments won't approve enough housing. The results we're told is higher prices and lower affordability. There is certainly some truth to a lot of those statements. Housing has become dramatically more expensive over the past few years. Mortgage rates have increased, insurance premiums have increased, construction costs skyrocket, property taxes continue to go up in many areas. And for many families, buying a home has become much more difficult than it was just a few years ago. For the first time home buyer, the age of that home buyer is skyrocketing. I think it's now into the 40s. No one disputes those problems. But here is the question: are we solving the right problem? Because if you can solve a problem, you first have to correctly identify the problem. And that's what we're going to examine here on today as well as next week's episode of Dish and Dirt, because today we have a very special two-episode edition of Dish and Dirt.

SPEAKER_00 2:20

This is Dish and Dirt with Gary Pickering, South Carolina's only podcast dedicated to the real estate agent craft. And now the host of Dish and Dirt, Gary Picker.

SPEAKER_01 2:33

I'm your often opinionated, but rarely wrong host, Gary Picker, coming to you from the beautiful downtown Columbia, South Carolina offices of Lair Cato Pickering Castellon, this the second week of July 2026. I hope everybody had a wonderful 4th of July and celebrated the 250th anniversary of this remarkable country, the best country the world has ever seen. Now, one thing I've learned after years of being in real estate is that this industry loves simple answers to very complicated and complex questions. You hear things like, we need more housing, we have a housing shortage, prices are way too high, builders need to build more. And those statements sound simple, but real estate is rarely that simple. Let's use an example. Imagine there are 100 homes available for sale in a community, and every one of those homes is listed, and every one of those houses can be purchased today. But the average monthly payment is going to be around $4,000 a month. Most first-time homebuyers simply can't qualify, and therefore they can't buy in that neighborhood. So is that a housing shortage or is that an affordability problem? Now imagine that same neighborhood, but let's say now there's no homes for sale. Everything sells within 24 hours. There's multiple offers on every house. Buyers are bidding against each other. That's a very different problem. Both communities have buyers struggling to purchase homes, but for completely different reasons. One lacks inventory, one lacks affordability. And that's an important distinction today because the solution to one might not be the solution to the other. And one might be a problem in one community where the other could be the problem in another community. As many of you know, I spent most of my professional life talking with people involved in real estate. And the one thing that it always comes back to is that real estate is hyperlocal. Probably more local than any other industry or any other business in America. What happens in Manhattan isn't happening in Myrtle Beach. What happens in LA isn't happening in Lexington. What happens in Boston certainly isn't happening in Greenville. And what is happening in Seattle certainly is not what's happening in Charleston. Every market has different economies. Even within the state, those markets have different economies, different demographics, different regulations, different opportunities. That's why I'm always a little skeptical whenever I hear some proposal on a national solution to what has traditionally been a local issue. That doesn't mean that national solutions are always wrong, but if you're waiting and hoping that the federal government is going to fix something for you, I'm afraid you're going to have about as much disappointment in your life as being a gamecock football fan. Now, the real question is whether one size really fits every community. And by the end of today's episode, I hope that you will think about several questions. What exactly did Congress pass in this bill? Why is Washington trying to become more involved in housing policy? How could that affect zoning on the local level? Should the federal government be involved in zoning on the local level? What does higher density actually mean? Is that problematic in and of itself? Does South Carolina have the same housing challenges as other parts of the country? And perhaps the biggest question of all is have we confused housing shortage with an ownership shortage? I don't expect everyone listening to agree with my conclusions here today. You should, because as my moniker says, I'm often opinionated but rarely wrong. My goal here isn't to tell you what to think, my goal here is to encourage you to think. Because once these neighborhoods and communities change, those changes often last for generations, even if those changes are for the worst. And before we can discuss whether legislation is good or bad, I think we first need to understand what it actually does. One of the biggest problems in today's real estate world is too many people have opinions about legislation they've never actually read. And as one politician once famously said, we have to pass it to see what's in it. Holy smokes, that is literally the scariest thing I've ever heard. But you all have seen the headlines. You've watched your 30-second clips on social media, you've seen the real estate agents on social media talking about how great it is or how bad it is. You listen to someone summarize this entire bill in a matter of 15-second clips. But those talking heads haven't looked thoroughly through what Congress is actually trying to accomplish. I would actually advise you to try to listen to a full-length podcast on it, somebody who has gone through each section of it and analyzed each section separately. So let's start there. At its core, the legislation is built on one central idea. That is that America needs more housing. And the people who draft this bill believe that one of the primary reasons housing has become so expensive is because we simply haven't built enough homes. Their conclusion is pretty straightforward. If we build more houses, supply increases, prices stabilize or drop, housing becomes more affordable. Now, whether that ultimately proves to be true is something we can discuss later, but that's the basic premise behind much of the legislation. Another major focus on this bill is reducing what Congress views as barriers to housing development, because if you need more houses, then you've got to get rid of the barrier so they can build houses quicker. Supporters of this idea argue that local zoning rules, lengthy permitting processes, minimum lot sizes, parking requirements, and other development regulations have made it much more difficult, more expensive to build housing. And there is definitely some truth to that. But I'm somewhat conflicted because one can see the bullshit that California has done to the people who are victims of the Palisade fires. One and a half years later, there's still no houses built. And they promised that all the red tape would go away and that people could rebuild immediately. And nothing has been built in a year and a half. But certainly, I would also argue that I trust the people of Greenville, South Carolina to make much better decisions for people who live in Greenville than the morons in Washington, D.C., regardless of what party they're in. And again, whether you agree or disagree with that, that is the problem that they're trying to address. The legislation's trying to encourage communities to examine ways to increase housing production. That is a noble idea in and of itself. But as is the norm in Washington, they rarely worry about their outcomes. They worry about showing that they've done something. They just want to look good in front of the camera, saying that they did something that they can campaign on, regardless of the shit sandwich that it turns out to be. And it doesn't take long to look back at the history in the last 10, 20, 30, 40 years at the shit sandwiches that were supposed to fix problems that made problems worse in Washington. So some ideas to encourage increased housing include encouraging a broader mix of housing types because everybody wants multifamily housing in their neighborhood, uh, support manufacture housing in appropriate situations. We want more of that, of course, promoting accessory dwelling units, ADUs, even though most neighborhoods outroyal them. I mean, helping communities expand housing opportunities through various federal programs and incentives, which we all probably can get behind. But notice something that's important. Congress claims it isn't directly taking over your local zoning ordinances. But the federal government, at the same time, is increasingly saying if a community will adopt our policies that encourage additional housing, there may be some federal resource funds available to support those efforts. So while it's not the same thing as federal zoning, you and I both know the result. There will be so much downward pressure put on the city and county council members to capitulate to the federal government ideas so that they can get their hands on this cash cow. And that does raise a very interesting question. How much influence should Washington, D.C., have over decisions that have traditionally been made by your local communities? The legislation also places significant emphasis on affordable housing. Again, a noble effort. Now, let's define that term because it's often misunderstood. Affordable housing does not necessarily mean public housing, and it doesn't necessarily mean Section 8 housing. It can mean those, and it can mean putting those in your neighborhood, but never underestimate the power of a government to pass something saying that it doesn't mean something and then turn around and say the exact opposite after it becomes law. They do it all the time. But affordable housing typically refers to housing that is affordable to households at various income levels. And that can include workforce housing, such as for housing for teachers, police officers, firefighters, healthcare workers, young professionals, retirees, and so forth. Affordable housing comes in many forms. It might be owner-occupied, it could be rentals, government-assisted housing. Some of it might be none of that. Those distinctions matter because people, when they hear the phrase affordable housing, they immediately picture one specific type of development where the reality is often much broader. Now, here's why I think this discussion is so important. When Congress passes housing legislation, it isn't just affecting the developers and the builders. Eventually, those policies will affect every single homeowner. It's going to affect all the buyers, every seller, everybody in that neighborhood, every real estate agent trying to sell houses in that neighborhood. Because housing policies ultimately shape the communities that we live in. It shapes the location of future development, the types of houses that we build, the pace of growth, the character of neighborhoods. Those are issues that matter to all of us. So before anyone decides whether the legislation is a success or a failure, let's agree on one thing. The goal is a good one. It's a noble one. Everyone wants housing to become more affordable. Everyone wants young families to have opportunities to buy houses. Everyone wants communities to grow responsibly. The disagreement isn't about the destination. The disagreement is about the road that we're going to take to get there. And that brings us to what I believe is one of the most fascinating parts of this entire conversation. For nearly 100 years, zoning has been primarily a local issue. But how did zoning become local in the first place? And why is the federal government now trying to play a much larger role in the conversation? So to answer those questions, I think we have to look back nearly a century and look at one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in American real estate history. Because if we're going to have an honest conversation about where housing policy is headed, I think we first must understand where it came from. Because zoning has not always been there. It has not always existed. In fact, for much of American history, if you own property, there were relatively few rules governing what you could build on. You could build a home, you could build a business, you could build a factory. You could build them next to each other. It didn't matter. In many of those places, those uses existed side by side. You could have a home, a business, and a factory all within the same block. Imagine buying your beautiful home. Oh, you discover six months later that someone's going to build a slaughterhouse or a steel mill or a landfill next door. Think it can't happen, but that did happen. And without zoning, it could happen today. So as America had become more urbanized in the late 1800s and early 1900s, cities began to recognize that unrestricted land use did create real problems. Property values would suffer, public health would suffer. I mean, think about having a landfill next to a neighborhood. Traffic issues became very complicated. Industrial uses and residential uses were often conflicted and they did not work together. And communities began asking the simple questions. Should government have some authority to decide how land is used? And the question then led to modern zoning. Most historians point to New York City's 1916 zoning resolution as the beginning of what we call the modern zoning of America. And at the time, New York was growing in this really incredible place, and their buildings were becoming taller, their factories were expanding, apartment buildings were replacing a lot of the homes in the boroughs. And one particular building, the equitable building, became the symbol of this problem. The building rose approximately 40 stories, which was tremendously tall in that era, and it put shadows over nearby streets and buildings and neighborhoods. And people complained that neighborhoods were changing too quickly and that unrestricted development was harming surrounding property owners. So New York reacted and they responded. The city created districts. You had a residential area, a commercial area, industrial areas, it's limited building heights, it put setback lines in and things of that nature. And it created rules that were designed to protect neighborhoods while still allowing for growth. Those ideas quickly spread across America and zoning became relatively common. The Supreme Court then had to look at it and decide whether zoning was actually constitutional. If governments could tell you what you could do and what you could not do and what you could build and can't build on your land, isn't that interfering with your private property rights? And so the question actually reaches the Supreme Court in 1926 with one of the most important real estate cases ever decided. The village of Euclid, Ohio versus Ambler Realty Company. Now, if you've ever heard somebody mention the word the Euclidean zoning, this is where that term actually comes from. Now, here's what's happened. Ambler Realty owned about 68 acres outside of Cleveland, you go Brown's. The village of Euclid adopted some zoning ordinances that restricted how portions of that property could be developed. So Ambler argued the restrictions significantly reduced the values of the land. Their argument was pretty straightforward. If I own the land, why should the government be able to tell me what I can build? So when looking at the case, the Supreme Court had to balance two competing principles. On one hand, private property rights. On the other hand, government responsibility to protect the public. Ultimately, the court upheld the zoning, and it concluded that local governments could regulate land use under what lawyers call police powers, which refers to the authority of the state or the local government to adopt laws and policies that protect the public's health, safety, safety, and general welfare. So that was the legal foundation of zoning. It wasn't created to punish property owners, as some people think today. It was created to try to balance individual property rights with the needs of the broader community. But notice who received that authority. Not Congress, not the federal government, the local governments. And why was it put on the local governments? Because local officials generally understand local communities better than anyone else. Someone all the way in Washington, D.C. has no idea what's happening here in Lyman, South Carolina. They know where the schools are. The local people know where flooding occurs. They know which intersections are problematic and already overloaded. They know what the sewer system capacity is. They know what residents in those neighborhoods are trying to preserve. Washington has no clue. Growth in Charleston isn't the same as growth in Greenville. Growth in Myrtle Beach isn't the same as growth in Rock Hill. Heck, even in Columbia, growth in different parts mean different things. So even within the same county, even within the same communities, they have different priorities and different needs. That's why zoning has always historically been one of the most local government functions in America. Now, let me pause here because I want to clear up a misconception. Supporting local control does not automatically mean opposing growth. Those are two different things. South Carolina has grown tremendously over the past 20 years, particularly in the last two or three years. People are moving here in droves because South Carolina is the greatest place to live in the greatest country on Earth. If you look at all the statistics, South Carolina constantly ranks in the top one or two or three of states that people are moving to. Everybody knows what you and I already know is that South Carolina is a tremendous place to live, a tremendous place to raise a family. It's a tremendous complement to our state, creates jobs, growth expands tax base, growth brings new business, it supports new business, it creates opportunity for everybody. The question has never been whether or not we should grow. The question has always been about how we should grow. Where that new development should occur. Should it occur here? Should it occur in a different part of town? Should it consist of single-family housing, townhouses, apartments, mixed-use development? Should roads be widened first? Should schools be expanded first? Those aren't anti-growth questions and ideas. Those are simply planning questions. One of the criticisms you hear is that local governments block too much housing. And sometimes that's true. There are communities that have made it extremely difficult to build. Permits can take years, approvals can be expensive, regulations are burdensome, the concerns deserve discussion. No one wants South Carolina to be like Los Angeles. Los Angeles doesn't want to be like Los Angeles, but they can't get out of their own way. So I get local politicians can be stupid as federal politicians. But at least on the local level, they live here, they work here, and they have to interact with you, and they can easily be voted out of office. There's another side to this story. Sometimes local governments reject projects because infrastructure simply isn't ready. I want you to think about your own community. Have you ever driven down a road near your community and thought to yourself, why wasn't this road widened 10 years ago? I live in Northeast Columbia. Spears Creek Road in Northeast Columbia definitely comes to mind. It's two lanes on an old rickety bridge. When you get off the interstate during rush hour, traffic backs up miles on the interstate. It's extremely dangerous. People try to turn left going over the bridge. It blocks up the entire bridge. That road should have been four lanes 10, 15 years ago. Have you ever driven by a school in your district and looked at it and see how many portals are there? Is the school already operating beyond its capacity? Could it withstand having another 200 or 300 students dropped into that school system? Have you ever watched a storm and wonder how the storm water system is going to handle all this heavy rain because development is happening so much faster than the infrastructure improvements? These are real concerns that these cities and towns and counties have. Local officials have to balance the two competing responsibilities. They want to encourage growth because if your town is not growing, it's shrinking. If your town's shrinking, it's going to die. You want to see towns that die, they're part of Highway 321 that you can drive from Columbia down toward Florida and see towns that time have forgotten because those towns did not continue to grow. You want your town to continue to grow, otherwise, it doesn't make it. So at the same time, though, these government officials, these local officials, have to protect the quality of life of the people who already live there. And that's not easy. Competing the we wouldn't need to grow, but we need to protect the quality of the life of the citizens already there. This brings us back to today's housing bill. What is changing is influence. The federal government increasingly believes that restrictive local zoning contributes to national housing affordability challenges. And I think that is extremely overstated in such a simplistic way at looking at a much more complex issue. That may be true in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, but it's not really the case here in South Carolina. Certainly we could do better. Richland County could do a lot better. Certainly Malden can do a lot better. It's very difficult to even get your sign approved in Malden for a business. Mount Pleasant certainly could do a lot better with builders. Even those don't rise to the level of LA or Boston or Portland or other crazy areas. We should be more like Nashville or parts of Florida where they encourage growth and they encourage it in a responsible way. Luckily, we have a very robust realtors association and a home builders association that works hand in hand with these municipalities to try to get some of these onerous regulations taken care of. This is why a national solution to a state or local problem seems very questionable to me, to say the least. But as a result, Congress now is encouraging communities to adopt policies that increase housing production, noble cause. But they're doing so by trying to connect certain federal housing resources with reforms designed to reduce those barriers to development. So supporters say that this is very smart public policy, but critics are asking whether financial incentives can gradually move that influence from local land use decisions to the federal government in a way that reduces local autonomy. Cities want those federal dollars. Cities need those federal dollars, but are you willing to sell out to Washington for those dollars? Again, reasonable people can disagree about it, but understand there is a distinction, and there is a distinction that matters. This isn't simply a debate over zoning, it's a debate over who should have. Have the greatest influence over the future of our neighborhoods. Should it be the local officials, the county officials, the state officials, or should it be people all the way up in Washington, D.C. that don't have anything to do with the state of South Carolina? Some of them probably can't even pick South Carolina out on a map. Let me see if I can illustrate this better in a point. Suppose someone proposes building a 300-unit apartment community directly behind your already existing subdivision. Who would you expect to make that decision? Your county council, your city council, your planning commission, Congress in Washington, D.C. Would you expect public hearings? Would you expect your neighbors to have the opportunity to speak? I think most people would say yes to that. Or would you expect some no-name bureaucrat in a federal office in Washington, D.C., to make those decisions? Now, suppose those local officials also know that adopting higher density housing policies that the federal government wants could improve their eligibility requirements for certain federal housing resources. Do you think that would influence their decisions? I think it does. I think we all know the answer. If your city is getting grants from Washington, then who is really going to be making these decisions now? They're going to be pushed by Washington to make the decisions that Washington wants that they're trying to apply nationwide that have nothing to do with our city. Certainly, some of these decisions they're trying to make would hopefully help some of these crazy cities like Los Angeles not be so burdensome for developers, but those cities aren't like South Carolina. And so these decisions could affect us in a poor manner. It becomes another factor in this discussion. And that's why this litigation matters, because Washington is becoming a lot more of an active participant in shaping the conversations about how our communities in South Carolina grow. I personally have no faith in the idiots that we elect to do anything that is good for South Carolina. Maybe you do, maybe you think government's altruistic and has a record of solving problems, but I think vanilla ice has a better chance of solving your problem. There's a problem, yo, I'll solve it. For you, generation Zers, Vanilla Ice was a rapper. He was from the 80s. He ripped off a David Bowie song. Never mind. Anyway. So then the next question becomes very obvious. If communities begin encouraging higher density development, what does that actually look like? When people talk about increasing housing supply, what kind of housing are they actually talking about? Are we talking about single-family housing, town housing, assessory dwelling units, complex or duplexes, apartment communities, mixed use developments? What of that do you want existing in your existing neighborhood? Are you ready to add townhouses, duplexes, and multifamily in or around your neighborhood? What will it do to your traffic? What will it do to your schools? What will it do to your infrastructure? Because these are there's a tremendous difference between saying we need more housing and deciding exactly what kind of housing we want and where that kind of housing is going. Which now brings us to this. We've talked about who is traditionally made zoning decision. Now let's talk about those decisions and what they actually involve. Because one word appears over and over when housing policy is discussed. It's density. It's one of those words everyone uses, but no one ever defines. If you've ever been in real estate for a length of time, you've probably heard people talk about accessory dwelling units, duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhomes, garden homes, infield housing, pocket developments, cluster developments. All those have different approaches to increasing housing density. So let's begin with that simple definition. Housing density is nothing more than the number of housing units built on a particular piece of land. Now imagine if a developer owns 10 acres. Developer number one builds 10 one-acre lots, developer number two builds 40 patio homes, and developer number three builds 80 townhouses, and then developer four would build 300 apartments. The same 10 acres, four completely different communities, four different traffic patterns, four completely different demands on infrastructure, four completely different lifestyles. Density in itself isn't inherently bad or good. It's simply a planning decision. But why do planners want more density? Well, supporters of higher density developments make some very compelling arguments. First, land's very expensive. If you can spread that cost of the 10 acres over 10 homes to now 40 homes or 300 units, each home will carry a significantly less land cost. That's one of the reasons that townhomes and condominiums can often be purchased below detached single-family home prices. Secondly, infrastructure can become more efficient. Instead of extending roads, water lines, sewer lines, and utilities to 10 homes and spread that across a lot of acreage, those same improvements can serve dozens or even hundreds of families, and that could reduce the overall cost. Third, higher density can typically support businesses, whether it's restaurants, grocery stores, or retail centers. Without enough restaurants, businesses won't survive, which is why a lot of communities are going to this mixed-use community, and that's become very popular. People want to live close to where they shop, dine, and work. And fourth, higher density creates housing choices. Not everyone wants or can afford a 3,500 square foot home on an acre of land. Young professionals may want a townhouse, retirees may want an apartment, single people may want to live in a condominium. Higher density communities can provide options that otherwise don't exist. Those are all legitimate benefits and they're all worth considering. But every decision has consequences. So now let's look at the other side of the equation. Every planning decision definitely has a trade-off. Everyone, more homes generally means a lot more people. It means more vehicles, which creates a lot more traffic headaches. More residents create bigger demand on schools, on fire departments, police departments, emergency vehicle demand, water systems, sewer systems, your parks, your libraries, all of that. Those services aren't free. Somebody has to pay for those. Sometimes it'll be the developer, sometimes it's going to be the taxpayer. Most of the time it's going to be the taxpayer. So the question isn't whether growth costs money, it always does. The question is whether communities are preparing for the growth before it even arrives. And that's where we're going to stop for today, because next week we're going to discuss the infrastructure issue and whether South Carolina actually has a housing shortage or a homeownership shortage. Because those are two entirely different things. But hopefully, what you've already seen today is some of what's in this bill. And it's about ceding control of a lot of local decisions to Washington, D.C. Maybe you're okay with that. Maybe you're not. But we're going to continue to look at this bill next week on another episode of Dish and Dirt. Thank you all for tuning in this week. Please like us, subscribe to us, and share us. Go on YouTube and click subscribe. Help get those number of followers up. Look forward to having you back again next week. And y'all take care and have a great weekend.