Conversation
![David Watson 🥑](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="96" height="96"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
1) Eviction mitigation policies -- i.e. "just cause eviction" and "right-to-counsel" -- drive up rents by 6.5% on average, according to the authors' analysis using Census ACS data.
How?
Authors: "These regulations add costs for property owners in the form of longer eviction
2) Source-of-income laws (which require property managers to treat government vouchers as income in the application process) drive up rents by 5.2% on average.
Again, the lowest-income renters bear the largest burden (+5.7%).
How?
Authors: "While these laws are designed to
3) Applicant screening policies -- including limits on using criminal history and credit history or past evictions -- drove up rents by 1.4% on average (or by 3.4% if using private sector data from CoStar).
How?
Authors: "While the intent is to level the playing field for
The authors conclude: "A balanced approach is essential. Policymakers should consider rental housing regulations in light of their adverse impact to affordability ... Thoughtful regulation should safeguard renters from harm while avoiding undue burdens on multifamily operators
"Balance" is the keyword lost in some city halls today.
Cynics may dismiss this research b/c it's been backed by trade groups like NMHC, but let it stand on its merits as a robust, data-rich study written by MetroSight researchers with pristine academic credentials.
It's encouraging to see a growing movement that recognizes how regulations drive up the cost of BUILDING new housing.
Now we should also recognize how regulations drive up the cost of OPERATING rental housing, too. And how, at the end of the day, renters shoulder those costs.
Adjacent anecdotal comment, and small sample size, but of three multi-family properties I owned, the low-income, even publicly-assisted tenants were never an issue. Two evictions I had, and they were nasty, were a dentist and a white collar guy.
It's certainly less about the people than it is about the process. Accepting voucher means accepting longer vacancy for processing time (lost revenue), adherence to new set of rules without additional payment to offset, and higher administrative costs etc.
The irony is low-income renters often pay the same rent as wealthier areas because they have no choice, whereas landlords have less overhead and make more profit.
this has been proven for a century, since we embarked on rent control in this country. yet, we are still passing the same types of laws!
One of the things I witnessed over my decades of doing housing work is how source of income laws drove landlords to set minimum rents above the payment standard for HUD Housing Choice Voucher programs. It wasn't just that subsidized tenants are more troublesome. Equally weighted
Most regulation will have a detrimental effect on consumers re price. However, they're created with the aim of ensuring the stability provided to the renters (i.e. not getting kicked out without cause etc.) significantly overcompensates for said extra price. Balance is difficult
All worker safety laws “drive up costs”; should we remove them?
Prices rise when employers have to pay employees; should we allow a return of slavery?
More industry junk peddled by retards to each other.
Finally, some clarity on this. Hope it really makes a difference for renters out there.
Make America Fentanyl Free supports President Trump’s efforts to end the fentanyl crisis.
0:00 / 0:30
0:30
Paid for by Make America Fentanyl Free Inc