“The bill contains a number of provisions designed to lower costs and boost housing supply. Among them are initiatives to change manufactured home requirements to lower their costs, simplify environmental review processes for small building projects, and tie certain state and local government grants and funding to housing production goals.
…
While the portions of the bill designed to encourage building and unlock new housing funding have broad support, one section of the package could prove deeply divisive.
That provision prohibits many large investors from buying single-family homes and requires others to sell off rental home holdings to individuals after seven years. It has drawn concerns that the rules could end up worsening the housing shortage, especially for rentals, by discouraging future investment in the burgeoning build-to-rent business.
…
The bill now heads to the House, where conservative Republicans have raised objections to a variety of provisions, and divisions between the two chambers could lead to an acrimonious amendment process in the weeks ahead.”
“Beginning in 2017, the city began enforcing a requirement that new apartments of 20 units or more include “affordable” housing units, which are rented at money-losing, below-market rates to lower-income tenants.
The results were predictable. Developers shrank the size of projects to avoid having to comply with the costly mandates. Overall, permitting fell.
…
It’s certainly true that “funding” inclusionary zoning to offset developers’ losses helps to mitigate the negative impact the policy has on new supply. It would also go a long way toward making inclusionary zoning constitutional. (Critics periodically argue in lawsuits that unfunded inclusionary zoning is an unconstitutional, uncompensated taking.)
Even so, there are still many problems with “funded” inclusionary zoning that make it an inferior policy to simply having no inclusionary zoning at all.
For starters, funded inclusionary zoning does not remove a regressive tax on housing. The tax, in the form of the mandated affordable units, is still in effect. It is just offset by a countervailing subsidy intended to prevent housing production from falling.
Funded inclusionary zoning thus still has a suppressive effect on overall housing supply that must be mitigated with government subsidies/tax breaks.
Instead of spending tax dollars on schools, police, or lowering tax rates, city hall must spend that money just to keep housing production flat. The tradeoff of funded inclusionary zoning then is no new housing and fewer public services (or higher taxes).
…
That YIMBY worldview would therefore seem to suggest that housing subsidy dollars should be spent expanding supply even more, not zeroing out the effects of supply-killing affordable housing mandates.
If a city has a housing shortage, boosting housing production, and not tinkering with the mix of incomes in new buildings, would seem to be the priority.”
“Commercial real estate firm CBRE reported in an October 2024 research brief that single-family rental inventory had declined by 1.7 million units since 2016. Investors who own more than 100 homes are also responsible for some 3 or 4 percent of single-family home purchases each year.
The vast majority of homes are owned, bought, and sold by either individual owner-occupiers or small mom-and-pop investors who own fewer than 10 homes.
This is the windmill that Trump and lawmakers of both parties are tilting at.
And even though large investors are not major purchasers of single-family homes, they do provide benefits that would be lost if federal regulation excluded them from the single-family rental market.
A 2022 study by Neroli Austin of the University of Michigan found that institutional investment in real estate increases neighborhood diversity by opening up more affordable rental housing options. That study did find that these investors were raising home prices overall.
Banning institutional investors from the single-family market would reduce the accessibility they provide to renters who can’t qualify for mortgages.”
“The social impact of the housing affordability crisis is huge: fewer marriages, less household formation, lower birth rates, lower economic growth. The prices of stocks and bonds can go up indefinitely with few consequences. But housing is something people need, in addition to being an asset. It is an asset you also consume.”
“Creating true housing affordability for homebuyers would require an expansion of housing supply to lower overall housing prices—the thing Trump said he did not want to do.
The good news is that the federal government does not have too much direct influence over the number of homes that are built in the country. It’s local and state governments that decide what’s allowed to be built where.
…
it’d also be a mistake to completely dismiss the idea that we can lower buyers’ housing costs and raise property values at the same time. Contra the president, that can easily be accomplished by allowing more homes to be built on existing residential land.
Free markets are generally win-win institutions. One should expect that free market reforms in the housing sector would produce win-wins for homeowners, buyers, and builders.
When local officials “upzone” land to allow more housing to be built on it, one expects the value of that land to increase to reflect the additional development potential. If a single-family property is upzoned to allow apartment construction, the current owner will see a windfall increase in the value of their property.”
“Few alphabet soups have as many letters as California’s system for financing affordable housing.
The time and headaches developers must endure when seeking funding from acronym-laden state agencies helps drive up California’s nation-high cost to build apartments for low-income residents, strangling housing production in a state badly in need of affordable places to live.
…
after six years of half-measures and stalled reforms, the governor has unveiled a proposal to streamline the system, while at the same time consolidating power in his office. In the state budget proposal he released this month, Newsom outlined a plan to move decisions over potentially billions of dollars annually in cash, tax credits and bond allocations to a new housing agency he controls, and by doing so, strip authority from State Treasurer Fiona Ma.”
“Two of Mamdani’s executive orders directly address that latter goal. One creates a Streamlining Procedures to Expedite Equitable Development (SPEED) task force dedicated to identifying and removing bureaucratic barriers to new housing construction and leasing.
The second creates the Land Inventory Fast Track (LIFT) task force that will identify city land that can be used for housing construction.
Both are fine ideas. They’re also not exactly novel.
Mamdani’s predecessor, Eric Adams, likewise convened task forces to speed up the city’s permitting process and to identify city-owned land that could be used for housing.
…
Perhaps a Mamdani administration will be able to squeeze more juice out of new task forces.
But as the Manhattan Institute’s Eric Kober details in a new report, substantially increasing new supply will require more comprehensive legislative changes to city zoning and permitting laws.
The end goal of those reforms, like many of the zoning reforms the City Council passed under the Adams administration, is to induce private developers to add more units to the housing-starved city.
Several of Mamdani’s other initial housing moves may well make them less likely to do that.
On his first day in office, Mamdani appointed Cea Weaver, a tenant activist and one of his campaign advisers, to lead the city’s Office to Protect Tenants.
A few days later, the New York Post reported on Weaver’s long history of hard-left social media commentary. She’s called for seizing private property and derided homeownership as a “weapon of white supremacy.”
…
In addition to appointing Weaver, Mamdani has directed city agencies to host a series of “rent ripoff” hearings, in which tenants will be given a public forum to complain about conditions in their buildings.
Mamdani, beginning his administration by appointing communists and scheduling housing struggle sessions designed to demonize landlords, might not be the most surprising development. It’s not entirely unprecedented either. Former Mayor Bill de Blasio liked to talk about seizing private property from time to time.
It’s nevertheless worrisome for anyone who does care about private property protections. It’s also maddeningly hypocritical.
Weaver was a primary proponent of New York’s 2019 rent stabilization law that made it much more difficult for landlords to fund maintenance and building improvements through higher rents.
As recent lawsuits and reports have highlighted, the result has been declining housing quality and a growing number of units sitting empty because their owners cannot finance needed, often city-mandated repairs.
Neither Mamdani nor Weaver can expropriate private housing all by themselves. The U.S. Constitution provides some protection against that. They can, however, scapegoat landlords for problems that are caused by overbearing regulation.
…
Housing production has plummeted in Montgomery County, Maryland, which borders Washington, D.C., following the implementation of a local rent control ordinance.
In 2023, the county council approved a rent control policy that caps annual rent increases at the lesser of inflation plus 3 percent or 6 percent.
…
multifamily housing permits have fallen by some 96 percent since the implementation of rent control. County planning officials report that the multifamily projects that are getting permitted are generally for-sale units.”
“Large institutional investors have gone from buying effectively zero single-family homes before the Great Recession to being responsible for a small but non-negligible percentage of home purchasers in recent years.
…
any real federal effort to squeeze institutional investors out of the single-family housing market is bound to make shelter more expensive and less plentiful.
For all the political attention paid to larger institutional investors, they make up a small percentage of home purchasers and own an even smaller share of the country’s single-family homes.
According to The Wall Street Journal’s parsing of the data, investors were responsible for about 25 percent of single-family home purchases in the first quarter of 2024. That is up from 20 percent in 2016, and the increase is almost totally driven by larger investors who own upward of 100 homes.
Over the past few years, companies owning 1,000 or more homes have accounted for only about 1 percent of all single-family purchases, but in 2024, their purchases appear to have dropped to effectively zero.
Purchases by entities that own more than 10 homes have ranged from 2 percent to 6 percent in recent years. That means that the 20 percent or so of homes being bought by investors are predominantly being sold to smaller landlords who own 10 or fewer homes.
And the bulk of home sales (some 75–80 percent) continue to be owner-occupiers.
…
An owner-occupier doesn’t need to argue with a landlord about replacing an old appliance. They don’t need to worry about a tenant not paying rent, damaging the property, or moving and leaving them with a vacancy to fill.
As such, owner-occupiers are willing to pay a higher purchase price for a home. Landlords who do have to absorb all the risks and costs of their business demand a higher offsetting yield from owning a home, says Erdmann, which means demanding a lower purchase price.
…
The only growth in home production to be squeezed is from expanding build-to-rent construction. While politicians are interpreting this activity as homes taken from homeowners, they are, in fact new supply that would go away under any ban on institutional investors.”
Taiwanese chip manufacturer TSMC is building a subsidized plant in Arizona, but is having trouble dealing with: thousands of pages of regulation, unions who want Americans to get the jobs, cultural clashes, and homeowners who don’t want plants nearby.
This event shows that the US can be a tough place to do business. We should consider reform.