I received an email from a reader over the weekend saying that my comments around rent control have been too critical, and that they are not doing proper justice to the challenges that renters face in today's cities. I thought this was a fair comment and so I'd like to respond to it publicly on the blog.
But before I get into that, it's worth saying that housing issues are incredibly complex. And I am certainly not professing to have all of the answers. In fact, part of the reason I write this blog is so that I can think critically about these topics and hear what other people have to say.
It is obvious that wages have not kept pace with home prices in many cities around the world. This is a problem. And so we can all agree that we need more economic opportunities, we need more housing, and we need more attainable housing. The question is how best to go about this.
Mechanisms like rent control and inclusionary zoning might seem like obvious solutions. Just cap rents and force developers to build affordable housing. Problem solved at no cost to anyone, right? It's not that simple. Every intervention creates distortions in the market.
I received an email from a reader over the weekend saying that my comments around rent control have been too critical, and that they are not doing proper justice to the challenges that renters face in today's cities. I thought this was a fair comment and so I'd like to respond to it publicly on the blog.
But before I get into that, it's worth saying that housing issues are incredibly complex. And I am certainly not professing to have all of the answers. In fact, part of the reason I write this blog is so that I can think critically about these topics and hear what other people have to say.
It is obvious that wages have not kept pace with home prices in many cities around the world. This is a problem. And so we can all agree that we need more economic opportunities, we need more housing, and we need more attainable housing. The question is how best to go about this.
Mechanisms like rent control and inclusionary zoning might seem like obvious solutions. Just cap rents and force developers to build affordable housing. Problem solved at no cost to anyone, right? It's not that simple. Every intervention creates distortions in the market.
To give just one example,
studies suggest
that rent controls end up creating a misallocation of housing. Because if you are living in a rent controlled home and your rent is well below market, you are now heavily incentivized never to move. Even if you have an empty nest with 5 bedrooms, why would you?
Of course, there are other possible repercussions. Residential contracts are typically gross leases (though some utilities might be sub-metered and paid for by the tenant). This is in contrast to commercial leases where net leases are common and most, if not all, of the operating costs are passed through to the tenant.
Why this matters is that if your rents are capped but your utility costs, taxes, and other operating expenses are continuing to rise, you may run into a situation as a landlord where you can no longer afford to upkeep your building. And you're certainly not going to invest in any new improvements if this is your situation.
Rent controls could also impact the supply of new housing by making it no longer feasible to build. This is similar to what we have seen with policies like inclusionary zoning. Just last month San Francisco went on the record saying that it's going to rethink its inclusionary zoning policies because of a view that it is now choking off new housing supply.
And so herein lies one of our great housing challenges. We want more housing and we want more affordable housing. But depending on how we approach the latter, it could hurt the former, which ends up creating a viscous cycle.
Building new rental housing is very challenging in Toronto (and elsewhere). Typically the way the process goes for a developer is that you start by preparing a detailed development pro forma. This pro forma will then tell you that your new rental development is infeasible. And so you go back, convert it to a condominium development, and then it magically becomes feasible.
I am exaggerating, but only slightly. The point is that there are lots of developers out there who would love to build more rental housing -- they just can't make the math worth.
My goal with this post was to explain where I have been coming from with some of my past comments. I also used the opportunity to link to a number of my related posts. But I haven't really put forward any possible solutions. I plan to do that in a follow-up post, and I think I'm going to call it "the definitive but crazy guide to creating more affordable housing."
I was catching up with a friend of mine over coffee this morning and he was telling me about his recent trip to Porto, Portugal. I’ve never been, but it’s fairly high up on my list of places to visit.
He was telling me about how beautiful the center of the city is and how it’s a UNESCO World Heritage Site. But he was also telling me how eerie it was to see so many abandoned and decaying buildings.
And part of the reason for this – I learned – is that up until fairly recently, Portugal had some incredibly onerous pro-tenant rent controls in place that dated back to the beginning of the 1900s.
Because of this, landlords in many cases could not, and cannot, actually afford to maintain their properties. Buildings were left to decay, and in some cases they were completely abandoned. That was their only option. And it led to a virtually non-existent rental housing market (according to the IMF).
Clearly, this is a problem. If you have a market distortion as serious as this one – where there’s virtually no incentive to invest – you’re on a highly unsustainable economic trajectory.
The hope was that the reforms would allow Portuguese landlords to charge more reasonable and market-oriented rents, as well as do other crazy things like evict tenants that don’t actually pay their rent. Not surprisingly, many fought the changes.
I don’t know precisely how these reforms have ultimately played out in the market over the past few years (if you do, I’d love to hear from you in the comments below), but I do believe that liberalization of the market was, and probably still is, needed.
While paying €5 a month for a 4 bedroom apartment in a desirable central neighborhood might be great for that one individual family, it’s not so great for the economy as a whole. And ultimately that comes around to impact even that household.
that rent controls end up creating a misallocation of housing. Because if you are living in a rent controlled home and your rent is well below market, you are now heavily incentivized never to move. Even if you have an empty nest with 5 bedrooms, why would you?
Of course, there are other possible repercussions. Residential contracts are typically gross leases (though some utilities might be sub-metered and paid for by the tenant). This is in contrast to commercial leases where net leases are common and most, if not all, of the operating costs are passed through to the tenant.
Why this matters is that if your rents are capped but your utility costs, taxes, and other operating expenses are continuing to rise, you may run into a situation as a landlord where you can no longer afford to upkeep your building. And you're certainly not going to invest in any new improvements if this is your situation.
Rent controls could also impact the supply of new housing by making it no longer feasible to build. This is similar to what we have seen with policies like inclusionary zoning. Just last month San Francisco went on the record saying that it's going to rethink its inclusionary zoning policies because of a view that it is now choking off new housing supply.
And so herein lies one of our great housing challenges. We want more housing and we want more affordable housing. But depending on how we approach the latter, it could hurt the former, which ends up creating a viscous cycle.
Building new rental housing is very challenging in Toronto (and elsewhere). Typically the way the process goes for a developer is that you start by preparing a detailed development pro forma. This pro forma will then tell you that your new rental development is infeasible. And so you go back, convert it to a condominium development, and then it magically becomes feasible.
I am exaggerating, but only slightly. The point is that there are lots of developers out there who would love to build more rental housing -- they just can't make the math worth.
My goal with this post was to explain where I have been coming from with some of my past comments. I also used the opportunity to link to a number of my related posts. But I haven't really put forward any possible solutions. I plan to do that in a follow-up post, and I think I'm going to call it "the definitive but crazy guide to creating more affordable housing."
I was catching up with a friend of mine over coffee this morning and he was telling me about his recent trip to Porto, Portugal. I’ve never been, but it’s fairly high up on my list of places to visit.
He was telling me about how beautiful the center of the city is and how it’s a UNESCO World Heritage Site. But he was also telling me how eerie it was to see so many abandoned and decaying buildings.
And part of the reason for this – I learned – is that up until fairly recently, Portugal had some incredibly onerous pro-tenant rent controls in place that dated back to the beginning of the 1900s.
Because of this, landlords in many cases could not, and cannot, actually afford to maintain their properties. Buildings were left to decay, and in some cases they were completely abandoned. That was their only option. And it led to a virtually non-existent rental housing market (according to the IMF).
Clearly, this is a problem. If you have a market distortion as serious as this one – where there’s virtually no incentive to invest – you’re on a highly unsustainable economic trajectory.
The hope was that the reforms would allow Portuguese landlords to charge more reasonable and market-oriented rents, as well as do other crazy things like evict tenants that don’t actually pay their rent. Not surprisingly, many fought the changes.
I don’t know precisely how these reforms have ultimately played out in the market over the past few years (if you do, I’d love to hear from you in the comments below), but I do believe that liberalization of the market was, and probably still is, needed.
While paying €5 a month for a 4 bedroom apartment in a desirable central neighborhood might be great for that one individual family, it’s not so great for the economy as a whole. And ultimately that comes around to impact even that household.
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."
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."
