Rental housing in France is both heavily regulated and supported through dedicated public funds. Here's a high-level overview of what that means (via this 2021 Brookings case study by Arthur Acolin):

• Homeownership rates in France went from 35% in 1954 to 56% in 2001

• As of 2018, 58% of French households own, 40% rent, and the remaining 2% supposedly get free housing from either their employer or a family member

• Not surprisingly, younger households are most likely to rent (the figure is > 60% for people aged 18-29)

• Household size seems to play a major factor in how likely people are to live in public housing

• France has some 4.5 million public housing units and 17% of all households live in them (which represents about 43% of all renter households)

• Within the unsubsidized rental market, 93.5% of households live in homes owned by individual investors (this is as of 2013) and only about 3.5% live in homes owned by institutional investors

• This is pretty typical of Europe, where multi-family isn't an established real estate asset class like it is in North America; so for those of you who like to hate on individual condo investors, check out France

• In the decade between 2010 and 2020, 28 metro regions in France adopted some form of rent control and, in a few markets, like Paris and Lille, there are also maximum rents that can be charged for specific housing types

If you're interested in rental housing, Brookings also has articles covering the US, Germany, Spain, Japan, and the UK. They can be found here.

"Your local self-inflicted housing criss ouroboros" tweeted this chart out over the weekend, showing the number of new rental suites completed in Toronto since 1900. The data is from Open Data Toronto and it does not include any condominiums. It also only includes apartment buildings with 10 or more suites (which would be most of the supply anyway).

This chart is a good example of what we spoke about yesterday: "If you want to negatively impact new supply, cap rental growth." And that's exactly what was done in the 1970s. But in reality, the changes were more broad than this. The 1970s saw a philosophical shift in the way Canada thought about new housing.

Housing became rightly viewed as a basic human right. But because of this, the policy landscape shifted away from facilitating the private sector, to intervening and regulating the private sector. This included tax changes which negatively impacted new housing development and, yes, rent controls.

Ironically, but not unexpectedly, this dramatically lowered the overall supply of new rental housing. To the point where we had effectively shut off the taps by the late 1990s. Thankfully, the condominium sector stepped in and started meaningfully delivering new housing -- both for sale and for rent (via individual private investors).

The supply of new condominiums in Toronto is not shown above, but there is no question that this (shadow rentals) has formed the vast majority of our new rental stock over the last two decades. But in my view, this shift was largely the result of policy decisions. We decided that we didn't want the private sector building so many new purpose-built rentals, and so we told them to stop.

It then listened remarkably well.

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.

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