Florida’s housing crisis demands more supply, not more control

Housing affordability is one of the most urgent challenges facing Florida families today.

In Miami, where I work every day as a real estate attorney and investor, the pressure is impossible to ignore. Our city has rapidly evolved into a global hub for finance, technology, logistics, and entrepreneurship. That success has created opportunity for many, but it has also dramatically increased demand for housing. When demand rises faster than supply, affordability suffers.

The question before policymakers is whether we respond with proven solutions or fall into costly policy traps.

High housing costs are not unique to Florida. They remain a national issue, particularly in fast-growing metropolitan areas. What sets Florida apart from many other states is the action it has taken to fix the problem.

Florida’s experience, especially South Florida’s, shows that increasing housing supply through pro-building policies can moderate price increases. Recent reports confirm that rents are beginning to soften in cities where meaningful new housing supply has reached the market, including parts of Florida. That matters in places like Miami, where population growth, job creation, and sustained domestic and international interest continue to put upward pressure on prices.

Florida’s progress did not happen by accident. State leaders have focused on policies that create the right conditions for housing to be built. Efforts such as Live Local and broader reforms aimed at standardizing zoning, streamlining permitting, and allowing appropriate height and density have helped reduce unnecessary barriers to construction.

Compared to many other states, Florida has taken a more practical approach to land use, regulation, and taxation. These factors directly affect whether housing can be delivered efficiently and at scale.

The economics behind housing affordability are straightforward. Supply and demand drive pricing. When demand increases and supply lags, prices rise. Strangely, a number of jurisdictions have chosen to blame high rents on tools used to understand the market rather than the forces driving the market itself. Across the country, some policymakers have jumped on a bandwagon targeting property management software that analyzes market data, claiming these tools are responsible for high housing costs.

That argument does not reflect how housing markets actually function – and given the guardrails around data use implemented by regulators, it doesn’t hold water. Property owners do not benefit from overpricing units and allowing them to sit vacant. The pricing tools in question simply analyze market data to suggest appropriate rates for like-kind units. In many cases, objective, data-driven recommendations reduce the risk of bias by anchoring decisions in transparent market signals rather than subjective judgment.

Eliminating these tools does not lower rents; it only obscures reality, which can lead to overpricing.

In places like San Francisco and New York, officials have moved to ban algorithmic price recommendations, claiming that doing so would help solve the housing affordability problem. San Francisco enacted such a ban in 2024 with great fanfare. Yet rents have continued to climb as the city remains resistant to meaningful zoning reform and hostile to new development.

Blaming technology did nothing to help renters because technology was never the problem. Florida should avoid this mistake, which could negatively impact continued investment in housing.

There is a misguided faction that views the affordability crisis as an opportunity to expand government control over housing markets. In addition to banning property management software, policies like rent control are often marketed as compassionate solutions, but history shows they are economically destructive. Rent control discourages new construction, reduces reinvestment in existing buildings, and shrinks long-term housing supply. Over time, it leads to fewer options, deteriorating housing stock, and higher costs for the very people it claims to protect.

For a state like Florida, this path would be particularly damaging. Real estate, construction, and development are core drivers of the economy. The state’s growth as a center for business, finance, and innovation depends on a reasonable regulatory environment. Introducing market-chilling restrictions that target advanced technologies sends the wrong signal to entrepreneurs and employers deciding where to locate and expand.

Florida is one of the most desirable places to live in the country. People move here because opportunity abounds. Housing demand is not going away. The responsible action is not to embrace disproven hypotheses copied from struggling cities and states; it is to continue building housing responsibly, and at the scale Florida needs.

Affordability will not be solved by blaming technology that analyzes the market or by manipulating it through rent control.

While prohibiting property managers from using tools they rely upon to efficiently manage their units won’t help consumers, expanding housing choices will.

___

Daniel Diaz Leyva is a corporate real estate attorney and investor. The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any firm, organization, or client with which the author is affiliated.