Daily insights for city builders, delivered every morning at 6 AM ET. I’m Brandon Donnelly — a Toronto-based real estate developer and founder of Globizen. I’ve been writing here since 2013.

Toronto announces nothing plan to create more rental homes

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:

MarketAffordableVariance
Face Rent$3,000 $1,500 ($1,500)
Suite Size$600 600 
PSF Rent$5.00 $2.50 ($3)
Annual PSF Rent$60 $30 ($30)
NOI Margin70%70%$0 
Annual Net Rent$42 $21 ($21)
Cap Rate4.50%4.50%$0 
PSF Value$933 $467 ($467)
Per Unit Impact($280,000)
20% of Units($56,000)

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.

8 responses to “Toronto announces nothing plan to create more rental homes”

  1. Norman Hathaway Avatar
    Norman Hathaway

    Hello Brandon:

    Thanks for pointing this out and demonstrating what governments do so well!!

    Cheers,

    Norman Hathaway

  2. Jakob P Avatar
    Jakob P

    So, the value to you is more or less zero. Which I guess means you won’t be building any more rentals than you would otherwise have.

    However, the rentals that you do build will now have a monthly benefit of $1,500 for the resident, where previously you’d have to charge them full price to make the numbers work.

    So instead of getting more units built, the city is indirectly transferring $1,500/mo to these renters, without changing your financial incentives. Not a great plan to get more housing built, but also a way to make units more affordable that were already going to get built?

    1. Brandon Graham Donnelly Avatar

      My numbers are very rough estimates

    2. ncohen226 Avatar
      ncohen226


      So, the private sector is supposed to be the provider social housing and take a long term hit on value while taking on 100% of the risk?

      Altruism works well for those that don’t have the money or sense to actually take this on.

    3. ncohen226 Avatar
      ncohen226


      So, the private sector is supposed to be the provider social housing and take a long term hit on value while taking on 100% of the risk?

      Altruism works well for those that don’t have the money or sense to actually take this on.

      1. Brandon Graham Donnelly Avatar

        Properly incentivize the private sector to build social housing and they will do it.

    4. Ume K Avatar
      Ume K

      One thing to keep in mind is that Brandon’s math is high level and a rough estimate at a moment in time (to prove a point). A long term risk with affordable units is that rental growth is capped. And given that all operating expenses are borne by the landlord, your NOI can lower over time with expenses like insurance and utilities increasing more than what you can grow your affordable unit rent. In order to yield the same financial returns, landlords will price this spread into the value they are willing to pay for affordable units. Brandon is using the same cap rate to demonstrate his point. In reality, this is not the case and the variance is much more.

      1. Brandon Graham Donnelly Avatar

        Thanks Ume. You’re right. These are very rough numbers. Lots of variables, as you correctly point out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *