Yesterday, the City of Toronto announced that it would be "unlocking" 7,000 new rental homes -- including 1,400 deeply affordable homes -- by doing two key things:

• Waiving development charges on rentals

• Providing a 15% reduction on property taxes

And by their estimates, the value of these benefits would be roughly $58k per new rental home:

Great news, right?

But wait, there's a catch. If you read the details, you'll see that in order for a project to be approved under this program, there is also a requirement to deliver at least 20% of the homes as affordable rentals.

So let's look at what this could mean.

Here is a chart comparing a market rental suite at $3,000 per month to a more affordable one at $1,500 per month:

Both are assumed to be 600 square feet. In the case of the market suite, the per square foot (PSF) value is estimated at $933 psf, and the affordable suite is estimated at $467 psf. This represents a halving of the value (which makes sense because I halved the rents).

On a per unit basis (again, we're assuming 600 sf), this is a loss in value of about $280k. But since only 20% of the units would need to be "affordable", I multiplied this number by 0.2. The result is a per unit loss of approximately $56k.

What this means is that we're basically doing a whole bunch of stuff to get right back to the same place. Like, hey, we're not building enough rental housing and we're certainly not building enough affordable housing -- because the development margins are so dangerously thin -- so here's a credit of $58k per unit. But at the same time, here's a bill for $56k per unit.

What's the point, besides making it sound like we're doing something to create more housing? This program will do absolutely nothing to spur the creation of new rental housing.

The Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area is expected to see 6,821 new rental homes completed this year. This is a "multi-decade high", according to Urbanation's latest rental report. Indeed, you need to go back to the 1970s to get rental supply figures of this magnitude.

A big part of this has to do with the fact that we are now taxing rental housing less. Toward the end of last year, the federal government removed their portion of the HST on new rental housing and, then in November, the province of Ontario followed with theirs.

This was "a big first step" for the industry, according to leading apartment developers like Fitzrovia.

But there's another reason that many developers are now looking to purpose-built rentals: fewer people are buying new condominiums. And if you can't presell condos, well then you're going to need to find another path forward for your land.

However, flipping over to rental is not necessarily a panacea. The margins are generally razor thin (+/- 50 bps). It requires more and different capital (typically). And you need to believe in some fairly non-consensus assumptions (high rent growth, low cap rates, etc.).

It'll be interesting to see how many developers are able to successfully flip over to rental and how sustained this rental supply number will be.

One of the things that you'll notice on real estate listings in France is an Energy Performance Diagnostics (EPD) rating. In French, it gets reversed, and so it's a DPE (diagnostic de performance énergétique). What it tells you is how much energy the dwelling (or building) consumes and how much greenhouse gas it emits. And it is a requirement on all real estate listings and for all dwellings, except those that are occupied for less than 4 months per year. The output of this diagnostic is a rating from A (best) to G (worst).

According to FT, this is how primary residences in France rank today:

Less than 5% of homes are rated A and B (the most energy efficient). And many more are rated G and F. Beyond just being energy inefficient, this is potentially a problem because there are penalties and restrictions for the lowest rated homes, one of which is that you are not allowed to rent out the property. Right now and as of January 1 of this year, the upper consumption limit is 450 kWh per square meter per year. Go above this and the home becomes ineligible.

This number is also planned to reduce over time:

• January 1, 2023: Rental ban on properties with G+ energy label

• January 1, 2025: Rental ban on all properties with G energy label

• January 1, 2028: Rental ban on all properties with F energy label

• January 1, 2034: Rental ban on all properties with E energy label

Now here's what this is thought to mean for overall rental supply:

By 2028, 5.2mn homes rated F and G, or 17 per cent of total housing stock, will become ineligible for rental. By 2034, all E properties will also be excluded, amounting to about 40 per cent of homes.

This raises an interesting question: Is it more important to have energy-efficient homes or to have greater overall supply? Now obviously the goal and ideal scenario is both; lots of affordable homes that are also energy efficient. And presumably, one of the objectives of this rental ban is to stick/carrot owners into investing in energy measures. But it's not exactly obvious as to how many owners will be able to renovate their homes in time, and how many homes will become ineligible for rent. This will be an interesting policy to watch as it plays out.