Have We Confused a Housing Shortage with a Homeownership Crisis?

🏘️ Is Congress Solving the Housing Crisis… or the Wrong Problem?

Everyone agrees America has a housing problem.

But what if we've been asking the wrong question?

Congress has passed one of the most significant housing bills in decades with the goal of making housing more affordable. Supporters say we need to build more homes, increase housing density, and reform local zoning laws to address the nation's housing shortage.

But does that solution fit South Carolina?

In this episode of Dishin' Dirt, I will take a non-political, fact-based look at what the new housing legislation actually does—and asks whether the real issue is a lack of housing or a growing homeownership affordability crisis.

You'll learn:
✅ What's actually in the new federal housing bill
✅ Why zoning has traditionally been a local government issue
✅ How Washington may influence future development through federal incentives
✅ The pros and cons of higher-density housing
✅ Whether roads, schools, water, and sewer systems can support continued growth
✅ Who really pays for new development
✅ Why builders across South Carolina are cutting prices, buying down mortgage rates, and offering huge incentives
✅ Does South Carolina really have a housing shortage?
✅ Is the housing crisis primarily a Northeast and West Coast problem?
✅ Why affordability—not inventory—may be the biggest challenge facing today's homebuyers
✅ The difference between a housing shortage and a homeownership shortage

The question that changes everything:

👉 Have we confused a housing shortage with a homeownership shortage?

Watch the episode and decide for yourself.

👇 Join the conversation in the comments:

• Does South Carolina actually have a housing shortage?
• Should local governments—or Washington—have more influence over zoning and development?
• Is affordability a bigger problem than inventory?

If you enjoy educational real estate content that goes beyond the headlines, be sure to LIKE, SUBSCRIBE, and SHARE this episode. 

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 0:11

Since last week's episode of Dish and Dirt, the housing bill actually was signed into law. We no longer have a housing bill, we actually have a new housing law. However, there was no big signing ceremony at the White House. The president didn't come out in front of the cameras. Democrats, Republicans, none of them in Congress held big signing ceremonies or media blitzes or media conferences bragging about what they did. Nothing. It simply was signed and very, very quietly became law. So quietly that the media even noticed how quietly it became law. It was a big man. What does that tell you about this housing bill, which is now housing law? Well, for me, it greatly concerns me because politicians never ever miss a chance to preen in front of a camera and talk about how brave they were, they saved the world, and they saved you from your own incompetency and ignorance. They always do that. But the fact is, I despise politicians about as much as I despise lawyers. And the fact that these self-grandizing buffoons from Washington, D.C. are not standing in front of every camera that they can get in front of, pounding their chest, talking about how wonderful they are to solve this problem, makes me believe that even they know that this housing law is not going to fix the issue of housing affordability and getting more people into housing. It's simply more spending. It's going to be more inflation, more government involvement in an area they don't need to be more involved. Because if you look at every time the government has gotten involved in areas they shouldn't have gotten involved, we've seen what that's happened. If you were in college in the early 1990s, in fact 1993, when the federal government passed the federal direct student loan program, we were told how this was wonderful. It makes all of your student loans government-backed. It'll make lending more accessible, and it's going to be wonderful. But what we saw was that the price of college not only doubled, tripled, it quadrupled. It became so unaffordable that then Congress talked about how we needed to forgive student loans that they created. Or maybe you were in real estate when the government in the early 2000s decided we're going to lower lending standards, relax all lending regulations, and expand subprime lending and adjustable rate mortgages. And we sat there and watched it fuel this amazing housing boom, which quickly became a bubble, which quickly burst and then created an economic collapse in the real estate market and almost a complete economic collapse of the entire world. We were teetering on the brink at that point. Or maybe you were around when the government decided that after COVID, we need to spend trillions of more dollars and give more checks to people, even including people who never missed a paycheck during the entire epidemic. And then when we watched inflation hit 9.1% in June of 2022 and wondered how that happened. But you know what was always missing in these things was the politicians standing there saying, I'm sorry, I was wrong. I did it wrong. I shouldn't have done this. My point being is that everything that these buffoons do in Washington, D.C. has an effect. And unfortunately, most of the time it's a very negative effect on you. If the political class and this media, this crappy ass media, thought that this was going to work, that this was going to save the day, don't you think they would be on TV nonstop talking about it, bragging about it, patting themselves on the back, congratulating themselves in an election era? You know, we have an election coming up here in a few months, talking about how they saved the world. But they're not. They're nowhere to be seen on this. And that gives me some great concern that they even know that this is a piece of crap bill, which is now a piece of crap law. The only thing along this process that gave me some hope was the fact that the National Association of Realtors was pushing for this law. But then on the other hand, I started thinking to myself, hey, don't underestimate the ability of NAR to screw this up just like they did the Sister Burnett case. So today I'm going to pick up where we ended last week on this episode of Dish and Dirt, and we're going to talk about all this and a whole lot more.

SPEAKER_00 4:08

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.

SPEAKER_01 4:21

But rarely wrong host, Gary Picker, coming to you from the beautiful downtown Columbia, South Carolina offices of Blair Cato Pickering, Castellan, this, the third week of July 2026. So last week I was on vacation, took the entire family to the Galapagos, which is off the coast of South America, beautiful islands. Amazing, absolutely amazing beauty. Got to see sea lions that swim with white tip and black-tipped sharks, got to swim with turtles the size of small elephants. And of course, I got to see the amazing blue-footed booby and do their mating dance. If you've never seen the mating dance of a blue-footed booby, I would suggest you go to YouTube and type it in and watch the males show off their feet. The bluer the feet, the more likely they'll attract the female. And then the female, I guess, to show all of her wingspan. It's really an amazing thing. And then usually another female comes over and the number one female gets mad at the number two female and it creates a standoff. It's an amazing thing that we got to watch. Now, the reason I tell you that is because before I left to go on this vacation, I researched and prepared for this episode. And that was when this was just a bill. But now it is a law. I may have to do another episode on this as we begin to see what's really in this law because, as one politician injudiciously said about the Obamacare, we have to pass it to see what's in it. So now we have passed it, and I guess we'll get to see what is in this housing law. I also got home last night at about 3 a.m. from Charlotte's Airport. And that was after leaving my hotel in the Galapagos at about 6:30 a.m. And it took about nine steps and three different plane rides and some boats and some uh truck rides to get home. But we got home. So my speech might be a little bit off today, my tone might be off a little bit, but we will get through this, I promise you that. So we're gonna jump right in where we left off last week. I think one of the most overlooked parts of this entire housing conversation related to this housing law is when people simply say we need more housing. I think everybody agrees with that. I don't think that's a big controversial statement. But here's the next question that has to follow that is can the infrastructure support that? Can the roads handle another thousand cars every morning during rush hour, every afternoon during rush hour? Can the elementary schools absorb another 300 students? Do we have the teachers for that? Do we have the classrooms for that? Does the sewer plant have the capacity? Does the water pressure have actual pressure to remain adequate? Can emergency responders maintain those response times? We're talking fire, police, EMS, all of that matters to the community. Those questions aren't anti-growth. That's about responsible city, community, county planning. Growth without infrastructure planning benefits no one. It pisses off the locals and makes people not want to buy. We have all driven through communities where development has clearly outpaced infrastructure, where the roads are parking lots during rush hour, where schools have more portable classrooms and actual building classrooms, where storm water drainage systems don't work and overflood. Residents get very pissed off. They get very frustrated. Even the developers are mad and the builders are mad and no one wants to move forward. Local governments become stagnant. That's why this planning matters so much. That's why that planning has to be local. Just look at the lack of planning on our interstates. What an embarrassment it is for South Carolina to be the only state with I-5 running from it, from Florida all the way to Maine, and not one section of I-5 in South Carolina is six lanes, three lanes in each direction. In order for us to get to six lanes, South Carolina has to replace all the bridges that cross I-95 that are not wide enough for six lanes to go under them or over them. So all of that, all those bridges have to be replaced before the federal government can even come in and widen I-95. Poor planning over decades has resulted in this. Here's another question that we don't often ask enough. Who has to pay for all of this? Should the existing taxpayers pay it? Should the new homeowners? Should the developers, the builders? Should maybe the state government or federal government or the county government should pay that? Which, if you think about it, is just another way of saying shouldn't the taxpayers pay for it? Because the counties, the federal government, the state government, none of them have their own money. Their money comes from the taxpayers or from them borrowing money against the taxpayers. So when the government pays for it, you're paying for it. Keep that in mind. Your government doesn't just pay for things. They take money from people and then they pay for things. Most of these communities have to use a combination of these things. Developers will have to build the roads in the subdivision. They may have to dedicate some of the land for schools, parks. There might be an impact fee that's charged to the developer, the builder, the homeowner. Developers hate that. Builders hate those. Sometimes the counties will try to rely on future property taxes, pay for the infrastructure now, and hope to get the money back in future tax payments. That's a risk. None of these approaches are perfect. None of them are perfectly bad. But here's what we have to recognize housing isn't simply about building homes, it's about building communities. Communities require financial investment. Now, I want to discuss a phrase that's often become controversial, and I don't know why. It's called neighborhood character. You hear this phrase at almost all the zoning hearings. And some people simply dismiss it as just a talking point. Others believe it's critically important. The truth is, it depends on what someone means when they say it. For one homeowner, neighborhood character could be the tree-lined streets. For another, it could be the large lots, it could be sidewalks or porches. Another might think about the historical architecture that needs to be protected, things of that nature. There's nothing inherently wrong with people caring about the community, the character of the community that they choose to live in. But at the same time, communities cannot be remained frozen forever. Cities have to evolve, neighborhoods change, populations grow and move and shift, and businesses relocate. The challenge is balancing that thoughtful growth pattern with the expectation of the existing taxpaying residents. The not in my backyard people. They're hard to deal with. That's not an easy job for any government official. Also, I think it's important to clear up another misunderstanding. When we ever talk about affordable housing, people often picture one specific type of development in their mind. Maybe it's government housing. But affordable housing isn't just one thing. It could be starter homes, townhouses, condominiums, manufactured home, apartments, senior housing, mixed use. Some affordable housing could receive government money, some of it could not. The discussion isn't whether affordable housing should exist. Everybody thinks that housing should be affordable. Every healthy community needs housing at all the different price points. The real discussion here is this where should that housing be located? How should it be designed? How should it fit into the surrounding community? And who should make those decisions? People in Washington, D.C. I mean, a senator from Montana or California or Texas? Or your local government officials who are here and answer to you and know that community. This is where I think real estate agents have become increasingly valuable. Local knowledge is why you won't be replaced by AI right now. Buyers ask questions like, what's going to be built behind this subdivision? Will this farm eventually become apartments or another neighborhood? Are they going to widen this road? If they widen this road, how will that affect my community? Will more density affect my property value in a good way or a bad way? Those aren't legal questions. Those are planning questions. And good real estate agents understand the importance of staying informed and in tune to what's going on in the community. You don't predict the future, you don't speculate the future. You should understand local comprehensive plans. You should understand where the growth is expected in that community, and you should understand any pending zoning changes. That's part of being the local expert, which keeps you as a real estate agent in this AI developing market. Consumers don't hire real estate agents simply to unlock doors or write contracts. They hire real estate agents because you understand the communities better than AI. AI cannot do that yet. My best piece of advice for you today is that you learn your community and you stay on top of what's going on there. So is higher density good or bad? Here's my answer. Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not. Higher density has truly transformed struggling downtowns into thriving communities. Look at Charlotte, look at Greenville. Those downtowns in the 70s were ghost towns and now they are amazing places. It has created vibrant mixed-use development. It's supported local businesses. It's provided housing opportunities that probably would not otherwise exist. But poor planning density has also created congestion, overcrowded schools, full of portals, infrastructure challenges, infuriated residents. The answer isn't that density is always good or that it's always bad. Let's compare for a second a wonderfully planned developed city like Greenville, and compare that to what is sometimes a chaos of 378 in Lexington, South Carolina. The answer here is that good planning mattered. Locations matter, infrastructure matters, community input matters, design matters, every community is different. Who knows that more? Washington, D.C. or Lyman, South Carolina, or Malden, South Carolina? Who knows that better? The question here isn't should we build more housing? Perhaps the better question is what kind of housing should we build? Where should we build it? And who should decide that? Washington or your local communities? Because there's a tremendous difference between adding 50 single-family homes to an area versus 100 townhouses or 300 apartments? Each creates a different community, each serves different residents at different price points, each has different long-term impacts on the community, and each reflects different priorities. Those decisions are going to shape that neighborhood for many decades to come. Which brings us to the next question. If Congress truly believes America needs significantly more housing, does South Carolina actually have the same problem? Or are we applying a national solution to a challenge in South Carolina that may be very different here at home? I want to spend the next few minutes talking about what I believe may be honestly the most important idea in this entire episode. In fact, if you remember only one thing from today's discussion, I hope it's this question. Have we confused a housing shortage with a home ownership shortage? Those two phrases sound almost completely identical, but they describe two completely different problems, don't they? And if we diagnose the wrong problem, then we most certainly will prescribe the wrong solution, as Washington has done many times in the past. So let's start with the housing shortage. A housing shortage means there simply aren't enough places for people to live. There's not enough homes, there's not enough apartments, there's not enough townhomes. Your demand for housing exceeds your supply. People are competing for that limited inventory. And when people compete for limited inventory, as we saw when we had the multiple offer issue about five or six years ago, prices rise because there's not enough homes available. And so everybody wants the same houses and people outbid each other to get them. If that's the problem, then the obvious solution is simply to build more houses. Now let's look at it from a different aspect: a home ownership shortage problem. That's something completely different. In a home ownership shortage, the home exists, the inventory exists, people simply can't afford to buy the house. Problem isn't supply, it's affordability. The problem isn't the house isn't available, the problem is the buyer can't qualify for the monthly payment. And see, those are two entirely different problems altogether. The house didn't change at all. So let's look at an example. Suppose in 2021 a family purchased a $400,000 home, mortgage rates were around 3%. Now let's fast forward to today. That same home could still be around the same price. Maybe it's a little bit more, maybe it's a little bit less, depending on the market. But mortgage rates are without a doubt dramatically different, more than double. The house didn't change, the neighborhood didn't change, school districts didn't change, square footage didn't change, nothing changed. The only thing that changed was the cost of borrowing the money. Yet one change, that one simple change, increased the family's monthly payment by hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. And suddenly that family who could easily qualify a few years ago for that house can no longer qualify today. Did we lose housing? No, we just lost affordability. Here's also another mistake I think we often make. We focus almost entirely on the sales price. Consumers don't typically buy sales prices, they're buying monthly payments. Let's think about this and think about everything that goes into owning a home today. It's the mortgage payment, the property taxes, the homeowner's insurance, flood insurance in some areas. You've got your HOA dues, which are skyrocketing, utilities, maintenance issues, repairs, landscaping. All of that goes into the cost of ownership. And that cost has increased across the board, without a doubt. In many parts of the country, home ownership insurance has become one of the fastest growing expenses that most people have in owning a home. I think that's why a lot of people have moved from Florida to South Carolina because the hurricane and the sink calls and all the other issues with the home ownership there have driven up the price of insurance that have not happened here in South Carolina. We certainly know our tax prices have brought a lot of people to South Carolina from New York and California because it doesn't cost nearly in tax as what it does in those other states. But construction costs remain elevated all across the country. Labor costs remain elevated. Property taxes are continuing to increase. Routine maintenance costs is much more than it used to be for labor and cost. People are telling us all the time that housing is becoming unaffordable, not non-existent, unaffordable. And I don't think they're talking about only the purchase price. I think they're talking about the total cost of owning the house. Now let's look at it this from a builder's perspective, because the builders are in a bad position here. People often ask if America needs more affordable housing, why aren't builders simply building cheaper houses? Well, they can't. It's a fair question, but the answer is they can't, because building inexpensive homes isn't nearly as simple as it sounds. Just build a home for $150,000. Developers are paying more for the land, they're paying more for the labor. The lumber costs are skyrocketing. Concrete, window costs, electrical components, all of that stuff costs a lot more. Their insurance costs, their permit costs, their engineering costs, their taxes, their financing costs, their environmental compliance costs, road construction, water sewer infrastructure, all of those costs have significantly gone up to the point where they can't build cheaper houses. Simply cannot turn it. I had a conversation with a builder a couple of weeks ago who said, you know, these days of these $200,000 starter homes is probably over. We're moving away from that because the builders simply can't build it that cheap. They would be losing money every single time they built one of those houses. So what you might start seeing is more of these units that are multifamily housing. You could see three, four, five unit buildings being sold as individual houses, because that's how they can spread that cost out. Virtually every component involved in building a home cost more today than it is just a few years ago. Builders didn't wake up one morning and ask themselves, how can we make housing more expensive? They're simply responding to the economic pressures that everyone faces in their entire household, which raises another question. If builders can't profitly build a $250,000 home, will simply changing zoning laws with this law suddenly make that home possible? Because that's the only thing that really matters here in this law. Will it work? Maybe it helps, maybe it lowers land costs, but I don't think that a builder who cannot build a $250,000 house because they can't make any profit all of a sudden will because of this law. It might reduce some development expenses, but zoning alone does not eliminate labor costs, lumber costs, finance charges, insurance costs, and taxes. Housing affordability is much more complicated than simply saying we just need to get more additional neighborhoods approved through zoning, which is what this bill attempts to do. As real estate agents, you hear it all the time. I can't afford the payments. Notice what they aren't telling you, I can't find a house. Those are two different conversations. The one that you're having is I can't afford the payment, not I can't find a house. Many buyers are finding homes they like, they're finding the neighborhoods they're like, they're finding the schools they like. But when they sit down with that lender and they start having discussions about the monthly payment, the math should simply ain't mathing for them. That's an affordability challenge. It's not necessarily an inventory challenge. The question has to remain can we build our way out of this? Suppose Congress succeeds, suppose communities approve thousands of additional homes in every single community. Suppose builders construct millions of new housing units over the next decade, will housing automatically become more affordable? Maybe. Additional supply usually generates lower prices. Price should go down. That's basic economics you learned in high school. But think about this. If mortgage rates remain elevated, if homeowners' insurance continues to increase at the rate it is, if property tax continue to accelerate, if construction costs remain elevated, if utility costs continue to rise, will those new homes automatically become affordable? Probably not. That's why I believe we need to be careful about assuming that one solution in this bill is going to solve our problems. And I think that's why nobody's jumping up and down about this bill. Sometimes I think we're having this wrong conversation entirely. Instead of asking how do we build more houses, perhaps we should be asking is how do we help more families become homeowners? And I'm not talking about the government giving people money to buy houses. I'm talking about getting the cost down. Those aren't identical questions. One focuses on supply, one focuses on opportunity, and one asks, how many homes exist? While the other asks is how can we get families to actually purchase one? Because ultimately, it doesn't matter if you've got 10 billion houses sitting on the market if nobody can afford to purchase one. If I could ask the policymakers one question, it would be this before we spend billions of dollars trying to solve a housing shortage issue which may not even exist, how certain are we that the primary problem is actually a shortage of housing? Should we be examining the cost of financing? Should we be looking at insurance costs, construction costs, regulatory and tax costs, the overall cost of home ownership? Again, I'm not advocating to giving money to people, handouts. What I'm talking about is getting these costs in line. Because if those are the factors that are actually preventing families from buying houses, then increasing the inventory is only going to solve a Very small part of this problem. So let me leave you with this question that's been on my mind throughout this episode. Have we confused a housing shortage issue with a home ownership issue? If America truly doesn't have enough housing, then building more homes makes perfect sense and problem solved. But if homes are increasingly available and families simply can't afford to purchase them, then perhaps our conversation needs to be much broader. Perhaps we should spend as much time discussing affordability as we do discussing supply. Perhaps we should focus not only on how many houses we built, but how many families can actually afford to achieve the American dream of owning one. Because at the end of the day, guys, the American dream was never simply about are there enough houses? The American dream is that ordinary hardworking families have the opportunity to own one. And maybe just maybe that's the real housing conversation we should be having in America right now. Now, as we wrap this up today, I want to go back to where we start because I'm that good of a podcaster. I really am. I'm circling back. This is whole thing's tied back together. It's an incredible innate skill that I have to circle back and get this whole thing tied together. So let's tie it together. This episode was never intended to tell you whether Congress was right or wrong in this bill, which is now a law. Reasonable people can disagree. There are intelligent people on both sides. They are people who sincerely believe America desperately needs more housing and that local governments have made it too difficult to build. I'm one of those people. I think we need more housing, and I think local governments have definitely made it too hard to build. But there's other people who also believe that local communities, not Washington, are in the best position to decide what growth should look like in your community. I'm also one of those people. Those are legitimate policy debates. My purpose today wasn't to pick a political side and try to convince you to move to it. My purpose was to engage you and encourage you to ask these questions because good decisions happen when we ask these good questions. One thing I hope that we've established today is that real estate simply doesn't fit into a neat national category. South Carolina isn't California, Charleston isn't Chicago, Greenville isn't New York City. Thank God. Every community has different needs, has different opportunities and very different challenges. Some communities genuinely need more housing. Others need different types of housing. Some need better infrastructure before additional growth. Some simply need housing today that's more affordable. That's why I've always believed real estate decisions are best made at the local level and not at the federal. Also, I want to make something perfectly clear. Growth is not bad. South Carolina has benefited tremendously from growth. People are moving here in droves because they want to live here. Businesses are relocating here. Manufacturing is expanding here. Our economy has grown. New restaurants have opened, new schools have been built, new employees have created new opportunities for people. Growth has helped make South Carolina one of the fastest growing states in America. So this isn't an anti-growth podcast, not even close. The question here isn't whether we should grow. The question is how we grow. Can we preserve the qualities that attracted people to South Carolina in the first place while still providing opportunities for future generations? Can we create affordable housing without sacrificing thoughtful planning? Can we increase supply without overwhelming our infrastructure? Can we protect property rights while recognize that communities also have legitimate interests, including growth? Those are very difficult questions, but that's exactly the questions that good planning has to address. If you're a real estate agent today, I think there's several lessons here. First, become a student of your local market. Don't rely solely on national headlines. Know what's happening in your local community, what's being built, what projects are under consideration, what future roads are being planned, where the schools are expanding. Know what your cities or county's comprehensive plan looks like. Consumers don't hire real estate agents because they know you know how to open a lockbox. They hire you because you understand the market. You are the local expert. Secondly, help your clients separate opinion from fact. When someone says, I heard they're building apartments near my subdivision, is that bad? Don't answer emotionally. Answer professionally. Explain the facts. How it could be good, how it could be bad. Discuss the planning process, the infrastructure. Discuss what is known, and just as importantly, what is not known yet. Thirdly, recognize that affordability concerns are very real. Many buyers today are frustrated, not because they don't want to buy, not because they can't find a house, but because the math simply doesn't math. Help them understand their options, their lending options. Make sure you're working with local lenders who can answer those questions. Help them understand financing. Help them understand local market conditions. Real estate is hyperlocal. It's the whole point here. Education has been one of the greatest services that real estate agents have provided their clients over the years. If you're a homeowner, hope today's episode has at least encouraged you to become more involved in your local community. Pay attention to these planning commission meetings. Read your county comprehensive plan. Understand what's being proposed in your area, what zoning decisions are going through. But you have to decide this and understand this before those bulldozers arrive because it's too late at that point. Local government works when us citizens are informed and participate. For decades, we've talked about housing almost entirely in terms of supply. Build more houses, approve more developments, increase density, reduce regulation. And I agree with a lot of that. That may be part of the solution, but perhaps there's only part of the solution there. Because if a young teacher, a fireman, a police officer, a nurse, or a young family simply can't afford the monthly payment, then have we really solved the problem? Maybe, maybe not. It's the same question we've been building toward throughout this entire episode. Have we confused a housing shortage problem with a home ownership shortage issue? If America truly lacks enough housing, then increase in supply will take care of this. But if homes exist, if builders are offering incentives, including $10,000 buyer agent incentives, it tells you that builders, buyers have more choices than they did just a few years ago. But the families simply can't afford to buy. Then perhaps our larger challenge isn't simply building more housing. Perhaps it's restoring the dream of home ownership itself, because there is a profound difference between saying there are enough houses and saying families can't afford to buy one. Our first-time home buyers should be in the 20s, not in their 40s. The American dream has never simply been about building neighborhoods. It's been about billionary people having the opportunity to build wealth, stability, and the future through home ownership. That's why this conversation matters, not because it's political, not because it's controversial, but because it affects every buyer, seller, real estate agent, builder, lender, closing attorney, and ultimately every community in the United States. So thank you for joining me for this week's episode of Dish and Dirt. Hope you found it to be valuable. I appreciate you do three things for me. Number one, please subscribe to this podcast, whether you do it on a platform, for the podcast platform, or in YouTube. Secondly, leave us a review. It does help others discover this show. And thirdly, share this episode and give it to another real estate agent, another broker, a builder, a lender, or whoever that you think would benefit from it. The more informed we are, the better conversations we can have about the future of housing. I hope everybody enjoyed this week's episode, and I'll see you again next week for another episode of Edition Dirt. Y'all take care. Have a good one.