One of the most rewarding things for me is to reengage with people I’ve worked with decades back. A few months ago, I received a welcome email from Rey Ramsey. I first met Rey after he had assumed the presidency in 1994 of (what was then called) the Enterprise Foundation. I was then serving as Chief of Staff to Henry Cisneros, the U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
It was clear to me from our initial meeting that Rey was going to be a fellow traveler in the world of housing and cities and metropolitan economies more broadly. He exhibited an affirmative energy that was truly infectious as well as a level of open-mindedness and intellectual curiosity that was greatly appreciated.
Rey has had a remarkable career that included key roles in the affordable housing sector. Beyond his tenure at Enterprise, for example, he has served as Chair of Habitat for Humanity and has been on the board of LISC for 25 years. Rey has also worked in a variety of finance and tech roles; most notably, he founded the One Economy Corporation with Ben Hecht in 2000 to bring broadband access and digital literacy to low-income populations. He currently acts as the CEO of the Nathan Cummings Foundation.
When Amy Liu and I launched the Brookings Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy in late 1996, we immediately selected Rey to play a key role as a member of our advisory council and, subsequently, as an active participant in multiple public events and private gatherings.
Rey personifies one of my most favorite FDR quotes, which he delivered at Smith College in 1932 before assuming the presidency: “It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”
Now Rey has written a book entitled The Tyranny of False Choices: A Guide to Authentic Decision-Making, published by Forbes. I went to the launch of the book last month and was blown away by Rey’s engaging storytelling and timely insights. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the book and am already incorporating its wisdom in my work. The book deserves a broad audience; hence the following conversation.
1. You have had an unusual professional journey including as a housing leader, a new technology provider and, most recently, a philanthropist. Few people have such a varied career. What led you, after such professional success, to write this book?
These ideas have been with me since childhood, but what ultimately compelled me to write was witnessing the pandemic and the most recent presidential election. It was striking to see how Americans had turned against one another over differing views, and in many cases, openly declared that they would not associate with those who thought differently. Engagement is not a surrender of principle; sometimes, it is how we learn. The institutions we rely on for accurate data chose to become advocates instead of informers. And when the inevitable mistakes occurred, much goodwill was lost. Lastly, I am just frustrated by our collective inability to solve long vexing problems, often because we won’t expand our sightlines of inquiry.
2. We all know that authors agonize over the title of their books. What led you to select “The Tyranny of False Choices: A Guide to Authentic Decision-Making”? The title seems particularly aligned with the tumult of our times. Was that intended?
I had that title in mind for a long time. The core message of my book argues that many personal, organizational, and societal failures stem from accepting artificially limited choices as inevitable. Too often, I see that leaders lose agency when they default to binary thinking rather than questioning assumptions, broadening perspectives, and making values-driven decisions grounded in humility, clarity, and human-centered outcomes.
I often use the term “thought bullies” to describe people who aggressively impose their views on others, often with the backing of institutions. They present their perspective as normal and inevitable—as if it is simply the way things are. The turmoil of our time has many causes, but technology-driven algorithms have clearly become powerful filters of thought, making it easier to divide us. And this dynamic is compounded by our own internal assumptions, which can narrow our thinking and limit how we make decisions.
3. What I enjoyed about this book was its focus on the characteristics of reformers — humility, perseverance, the courage to shun conformity and cross boundaries. Can these characteristics be taught? How do we create a new class of problem solvers in this country?
I love this question because I remain optimistic that these qualities can be taught. I believe each of us has an inner compass; the challenge is whether we choose to follow it or allow ourselves to be distracted and distorted. The virtues I highlight in the book—intellectual humility, courage, and perseverance—are habits that can be developed, but none of us does it alone. I certainly benefited from support along the way. Unfortunately, there are also systems that work against these qualities by either promoting the fallacy of the self-made person or insisting that your destiny lies in systems, robbing you of personal agency. The truth is, of course, some mix of both, and your choices matter. This false choice plays out in many of the policy debates in this country. For example, in education, why can’t we both prepare students for workforce production while at the same time addressing matters of human and moral formation? It’s always about either or rather than what is best.
We can create a new class of problem solvers by resetting our incentive structures. Thoughtful over the loudest or flashiest voices on TikTok, for example. Teaching ethics and virtues should not be shunned. Lastly, we must encourage both personal agency and facilitate discourse and collaboration. We can liberate thought!
4. You reached the apex of the housing profession, working as a state housing official and as the head of Enterprise Foundation. As a result, you worked with such housing luminaries as Jim Rouse, Jack Kemp, Henry Cisneros, Nic Retsinas, Bart Harvey, and many others. Each of these individuals not only brought so much optimism in meeting the housing challenges of prior decades but a broader sense of purpose. There is a lot of momentum these days around housing, particularly around building more units, but are we missing this larger sense that housing is a vehicle for personal uplift and national potential?
I cannot begin to name all the people who shaped my understanding of affordable housing, and I remain deeply grateful for their influence. I am encouraged by the renewed attention to this issue, but we must also learn from past housing efforts as we move forward. The current system has fallen behind in both efficiency and innovation, and it has allowed too many nonresident stakeholders to profit from government-supported programs. Its cost structure is unsustainable. Too many municipalities also take a fragmented approach to housing: one agency provides subsidies, another delays permitting, and another imposes substantial fees that often flow into the general fund rather than back into the properties. As interests compete, low-income residents are the ones who lose.
Lastly, there is a reason why we say, “There is no place like home.” Where and how we reside is at the core of our lives. It’s also our hub for learning and culture. I believe we have failed to maximize the home to do more than shelter us, but also to facilitate our health, education, and general well-being. We should learn the lessons of Cabrini-Green in Chicago — we can’t just solve for shelter and fail to focus on social infrastructure that advances quality of life and standards of living. I believe we can harness some positive aspects of technology in the home to unlock hidden potential.
5. You started One Economy Corporation at the height of an earlier technological revolution, i.e., the birth of the internet. What do you think that experience can teach places and people trying to navigate the upheaval presented by artificial intelligence?
There is much to learn from what was once called the “Digital Age” and from efforts to expand opportunity by closing the “Digital Divide.” The central lesson is that technology’s promise to advance mobility and fairness often fell far short of its reality. Too many gatekeepers rushed to build frameworks and gather funding yet focused more on computers and connections than on meaningful adoption. Too often, they also failed to trust the agency of the people most affected.
AI may be the most transformative technology we have seen, but it also presents a paradox: it can create enormous wealth while concentrating that wealth in ways that deepen existing inequality. That pattern is not new. From the Industrial Revolution to the broadband era, innovation has always created opportunity for some while leaving others behind. The question is what we choose to do differently this time.
Two lessons matter most. First, public purpose cannot be an afterthought or left solely to philanthropy; it must be part of the conversation alongside profits, innovation, and competition. Second, we must approach AI with intellectual humility, resisting the certainty of both those who hold power and those who seek it. We all have a stake in this, which is why we must demand transparency, allow for trial and error, and avoid false choices.
6. You now lead an exceptional US philanthropy, the Nathan Cummings Foundation. You and I both experienced the potential for major philanthropies to come together and invest collectively in housing. In many respects, philanthropies created the modern US housing system with the creation of LISC and Enterprise and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit system. Is that kind of collective philanthropic action possible again, either around housing or other areas of domestic or global challenge?
You just laid it out, my friend, but I would add that, given the scope of the problem, we must have the engagement of enlightened individuals from the private sector. There have been some good public-private partnerships in the past, often involving lending institutions, but the times require greater scale. And this is not just about money. We need ideas and investment, and it’s not about red or blue, but instead about a commitment to solutions. I refer to this as radical pragmatism. It’s doable with the will to step forward. Heterodox thinking might be exactly what we need.
7. You’ve been on tour since the release of the book. What has been the most interesting question you’ve been asked?
What always sticks in my mind are the individual stories of encounters with thought tyrannies. Like me, they faced the problem of lowered expectations and had to find a way to push back. It takes me back in time to those struggles and reminds me to bring gratitude for leaving that state of mind.
The Tyranny of False Choices is not my story; it’s our universal story, and the choices we make personally, organizationally, and nationally matter now and to those who will come next
Bruce Katz is Founder of New Localism Associates and a Senior Advisor to the National Housing Crisis Task Force.