Last year, the city of Berlin agreed to a five year rent freeze for some 1.5 million flats constructed before 2014. The way it was initially approved is that it would freeze rents at mid-2019 levels and allow for only 1.3% inflationary increases. All of this is being challenged in the courts, but the Financial Times is suggesting that it could still come into force by March 2020. Here is an excerpt from a recent article. (Guy Chazan isn't holding back about the kind of people that he believes Berlin attracts.)
The legislation, which should come into force by March this year, is City Hall’s response to a lingering housing crisis that shows no sign of easing. Packed out with Brexit refugees, international party people and wannabe tech entrepreneurs, Berlin is in expansion mode, its population growing by 40,000 a year. Yet affordable housing remains scarce. Rents have doubled over the past decade, as new residential construction fails to keep up with soaring demand.
As I mentioned before on the blog, these policies are not intended to apply to new buildings. That would surely choke off new construction, which would only exacerbate the underlying supply issue that Berlin is facing. But not surprisingly, this move has also put a freeze on capital expenditures, according to the same FT article. Local trades are complaining that, "It's as if someone's just turned out the lights."
On February 1, 2017, an inclusionary zoning ordinance came into effect in Portland, mandating that all new residential projects with 20 or more units dedicate a portion of the building to affordable housing. For the first year, the requirement was 8% of all units for households earning 60% of the Area Median Income or 16% of all units for households earning 80% of the AMI. I'm not sure if it was or is possible to do a blend of the two income levels. After the first year, the requirement was supposed to step up to 10% and 20% of all units, respectively. But that step up was never enacted, which had many industry analysts arguing that it was a clear signal the ordinance was not performing as intended. According to Joe Cortright of City Observatory (which is based in Portland), the new ordinance largely resulted in 3 things happening: (1) Developers rushed to get new applications in during the transition period so that they would not be subjected to the new IZ rules; (2) applications increased for projects with less than 20 units (avoid the rules by building smaller); and (3), following the initial transition surge, building permit applications, as a whole, dropped off. This last point is what usually comes up in debates around inclusionary zoning. Does the requirement to build affordable housing actually reduce overall housing supply? I've written about this before, but the math is pretty simple. Inclusionary zoning policies are a drag on revenue and a direct cost to the project. What that means is that something else will need to give in order for the numbers to balance. That could come in the form of lower costs (such as an impact fee abatement) or in higher rents on the balance of the units. But this latter approach is easier said than done. Sometimes you need to wait for the market to "catch up", which could be what some developers in Portland are doing. They're waiting for housing to get more expensive -- overall -- so they can then offset the pro forma drag from the affordable units.
The average salary of a teacher in the United States was approximately $61,730 last year. This can make homeownership in high cost areas a challenge.
Here is a chart from Curbed:
Landed is trying to solve this problem by offering downpayment assistance to "essential professionals" -- starting first with teachers -- so that they can buy homes in and near the communities that they serve.
The way it works is pretty simple.
They'll contribute up to half of a traditional 20% downpayment -- so 10% of the value of the home -- in exchange for a 25% share in any future gains, or losses.
Put differently, for every 1% that Landed contributes, it takes 2.5% of any future appreciation (or depreciation). However, on an equity basis, they are actually putting up 50% of the required cash (in the maximum scenario) in order to get 25% of any future gains.
There's no monthly payment associated with Landed's money, but it does need to be repaid at the end of 30 years or when the homeowner exits the agreement, whichever comes first. Homeowners are free to repay Landed at any time should they decide to sell the property or they just want to pay them out.
Landed pitches the service as another version of "the bank of mom and dad." And for many prospective homeowners, I am sure that it makes all the difference in the world.
At first glance, it would seem that each homeowner also benefits from a kind of positive leverage. They only put up 50% of the required equity, but they get to enjoy 75% of the potential gains. However, each homeowner is also responsible for 100% of the carrying costs.
I ran a couple of quick return scenarios, assuming a $500,000 purchase price and a 10 year hold, in order to test whether Landed or the homeowner would receive a higher IRR once the property gets sold.
I didn't carry any transaction costs, but I did factor in principal recapture, as well as utilities, insurance, and maintenance.
My rough numbers suggest that it depends on the annual rate of appreciation. If appreciation stays close to the rate of inflation, it could tip in favor of Landed because they don't put out any money after t = 0.
But at higher rates of appreciation, the homeowner starts to benefit from the favorable 75/25 split at the end of the hold period.
Either way, Landed is providing a service to people who may not otherwise be able to afford to buy a home. That has value. Here's some more information on how it works, in case you're interested.