Subscribe
There are lots of ideas out there for how to improve the supply of new rental housing. But it is important to remember, at least here in our market, that the playing field is not level between new condominiums and new rental homes. We have spoken about this before, over here, where I compared the (per square foot) revenue generated from your average new condo against that generated by your average new rental home. Of course, since I wrote that post in 2020, we have seen upward pressure on cap rates (meaning downward pressure on values). So feasibility has gotten even more challenging.
https://twitter.com/benmyers29/status/1642120297858977793?s=20
The important thing to remember is that developers do not have some philosophical aversion to building more rental housing; it is that the math is challenging. You generally need economies of scale (really big projects), patient long-term capital, and a belief that rents will continue to exhibit meaningful positive growth. If you want to negatively impact new supply, cap rental growth. But if you want to encourage new supply, somebody needs to pull out a development pro forma and make the call to improve the cost structure for new rental housing.
In my opinion, two obvious line items to focus on are development charges (as well as the other government levies) and HST (our harmonized sales tax). The point of development charges, as we always talk about, is for growth to pay for growth. They are intended to pay for municipal services like roads, transit, water and sewer, and so on. In the other words, they're supposed to capture of the cost impacts of new housing. But what about the impact of not building enough new rental housing? Are we thinking about this the right way? Especially if you consider the possibility of more new rental housing in our existing transit nodes.
The HST charged on new rental housing is also significant. There is a new residential rental property rebate available to builders (not tax advice!), but the thresholds have not been indexed and so it's grossly out of date compared to where values sit today. In any event, if the goal is more homes, why not make new rental homes exempt? Developers are simple. If the math works, they will build. If the math doesn't work, they will not build. And these two line items, alone, would go a long way to helping the former.
Photo by Pierre Châtel-Innocenti on Unsplash
I'm not all that familiar with Stockholm's housing market, but according to this recent article, it would appear that, like most big cities, there isn't enough affordable housing to go around. This is despite the fact that everyone in Sweden is technically entitled to it.
As of December 2021, there were 736,560 people (in Sweden) in the queue for a rent-controlled apartment, resulting in an average wait time of about 9.2 years. So basically what you want to do is put yourself on the list as soon as you turn 18. And then hope that at some point in the future you'll be granted an affordable apartment.
Given this dynamic, it makes sense there would be a long waitlist. If everyone is entitled to a rent-controlled apartment, you are effectively giving people two options: pay the market price or put yourself on this list, wait for a decade, and then pay less than the market price.
Why wouldn't you at least try to pay less?
The problem with this approach is that supply will almost certainly never keep pace with demand. It also appears to be fuelling a robust (and I guess illegal) secondary sublet market. Because if you have a below-market contract that is yours to keep forever and that lots of other people want, you have a valuable asset.
Getting housing right certainly isn't easy.
A blog reader responded to yesterday's post about rent controls (and inclusionary zoning) with an excellent point: If you're against rent controls, then you must also be against artificially low property taxes for homeowners. And I would agree with this.
One of the points I was trying to make yesterday was that if you're in a situation where your revenue is capped but your operating expenses are free to grow based on the market, then you are likely heading down an unsustainable financial path.
This is true if the revenue is in the form of rent and this is true if the revenue is in the form of property taxes. A good example of this is California's Proposition 13, which is the principal thing that keeps property taxes artificially low over on that coast.
Similar to what I argued yesterday with rent controls, it too creates a misallocation of housing. If you're sitting on historic and artificially low property taxes, then you are now highly incentivized to stay put where you are. Why would you move only to have your taxes mark to market?
So this line of thinking cuts both ways, whether we're talking about renters or homeowners.
There are lots of ideas out there for how to improve the supply of new rental housing. But it is important to remember, at least here in our market, that the playing field is not level between new condominiums and new rental homes. We have spoken about this before, over here, where I compared the (per square foot) revenue generated from your average new condo against that generated by your average new rental home. Of course, since I wrote that post in 2020, we have seen upward pressure on cap rates (meaning downward pressure on values). So feasibility has gotten even more challenging.
https://twitter.com/benmyers29/status/1642120297858977793?s=20
The important thing to remember is that developers do not have some philosophical aversion to building more rental housing; it is that the math is challenging. You generally need economies of scale (really big projects), patient long-term capital, and a belief that rents will continue to exhibit meaningful positive growth. If you want to negatively impact new supply, cap rental growth. But if you want to encourage new supply, somebody needs to pull out a development pro forma and make the call to improve the cost structure for new rental housing.
In my opinion, two obvious line items to focus on are development charges (as well as the other government levies) and HST (our harmonized sales tax). The point of development charges, as we always talk about, is for growth to pay for growth. They are intended to pay for municipal services like roads, transit, water and sewer, and so on. In the other words, they're supposed to capture of the cost impacts of new housing. But what about the impact of not building enough new rental housing? Are we thinking about this the right way? Especially if you consider the possibility of more new rental housing in our existing transit nodes.
The HST charged on new rental housing is also significant. There is a new residential rental property rebate available to builders (not tax advice!), but the thresholds have not been indexed and so it's grossly out of date compared to where values sit today. In any event, if the goal is more homes, why not make new rental homes exempt? Developers are simple. If the math works, they will build. If the math doesn't work, they will not build. And these two line items, alone, would go a long way to helping the former.
Photo by Pierre Châtel-Innocenti on Unsplash
I'm not all that familiar with Stockholm's housing market, but according to this recent article, it would appear that, like most big cities, there isn't enough affordable housing to go around. This is despite the fact that everyone in Sweden is technically entitled to it.
As of December 2021, there were 736,560 people (in Sweden) in the queue for a rent-controlled apartment, resulting in an average wait time of about 9.2 years. So basically what you want to do is put yourself on the list as soon as you turn 18. And then hope that at some point in the future you'll be granted an affordable apartment.
Given this dynamic, it makes sense there would be a long waitlist. If everyone is entitled to a rent-controlled apartment, you are effectively giving people two options: pay the market price or put yourself on this list, wait for a decade, and then pay less than the market price.
Why wouldn't you at least try to pay less?
The problem with this approach is that supply will almost certainly never keep pace with demand. It also appears to be fuelling a robust (and I guess illegal) secondary sublet market. Because if you have a below-market contract that is yours to keep forever and that lots of other people want, you have a valuable asset.
Getting housing right certainly isn't easy.
A blog reader responded to yesterday's post about rent controls (and inclusionary zoning) with an excellent point: If you're against rent controls, then you must also be against artificially low property taxes for homeowners. And I would agree with this.
One of the points I was trying to make yesterday was that if you're in a situation where your revenue is capped but your operating expenses are free to grow based on the market, then you are likely heading down an unsustainable financial path.
This is true if the revenue is in the form of rent and this is true if the revenue is in the form of property taxes. A good example of this is California's Proposition 13, which is the principal thing that keeps property taxes artificially low over on that coast.
Similar to what I argued yesterday with rent controls, it too creates a misallocation of housing. If you're sitting on historic and artificially low property taxes, then you are now highly incentivized to stay put where you are. Why would you move only to have your taxes mark to market?
So this line of thinking cuts both ways, whether we're talking about renters or homeowners.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog