Rent control initiatives continue to gain steam across the country, further limiting housing supply and exacerbating affordability issues.
With property owners and housing providers still feeling the effects of inflation, any additional layers of already heavy regulation by state and local governments can have severe unintended consequences, like driving housing providers out of the communities they serve. That’s why NAR is focused on fighting these misguided policies and sharing the facts on this important issue.
Currently, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is seeking the public’s input on tenant protections for multi-family properties backed by the federal government through the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This request for information (RFI) comes on the heels of the White House’s Blueprint for a Renter’s Bill of Rights, which directed the FHFA to investigate policy measures that provide relief to renters but could also infringe on private property rights, state and local law, and standard lease agreements.
The FHFA oversees the GSEs as they carry out their chartered responsibilities, including facilitating the financing of affordable housing opportunities. The GSEs are key stakeholders in providing financing to housing providers who develop rental properties in communities across the country. Their participation in the secondary market ensures there are financing options to develop multifamily properties across the country.
In response to the RFI, NAR is highlighting the vital role REALTORS® play in creating opportunities for upward mobility for renters by helping them obtain quality, affordable, and safe housing opportunities. We need you!
At our Call for Action page, you can share comments in the personal story field about how you work with renters to provide and maintain quality affordable housing. This can include topics like helping obtain rental assistance, proactively communicating lease renewals, using alternative credit scoring models, or other best practices. You can also share details about how housing providers play a vital role in your community and the potential impacts of additional regulation. Please submit your comments by July 31.
In addition to sharing the REALTOR® perspective with agencies like FHFA, NAR is working with our industry partners to fight misguided rent control policies. In June, NAR joined the National Apartment Association, the National Association of Homebuilders, and the Mortgage Bankers Association in filing an amicus brief in two cases asking the Supreme Court to hear a challenge to New York’s rent stabilization law (RSL).
The brief provided numerous examples of how New York’s rent control law – and others around the country – make it difficult for property owners to possess and enjoy their own properties, even for personal uses, and how these burdens fall hardest on individual “mom and pop” property owners with the fewest resources. It detailed how these laws exacerbate housing supply and affordability problems and decrease consumer mobility and entry into the housing market.
NAR has also joined with four other national trade associations to establish the Housing Solutions Coalition. This initiative will provide tools and resources to develop campaigns and offer proven, effective alternative solutions on rent control policies and proposals where they arise.
Many local and state associations from coast to coast have used REALTOR® Party resources to help fight rent control measures. You can read more about their efforts in the REALTOR® Party success stories.
History has shown rent control is an antiquated policy that exacerbates shortages, disproportionally benefits higher-income households, and ultimately drives up rents. REALTORS® will continue to push for solutions that lower housing costs and allow more people to find a place to call home.
Comments(27)-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Gloria J Husick says
atRent control is fine for now. What we need to do is protect mom and pop owners as renters are using the laws that protect renters to the extreme. Example, Oakland RAP told me one attorney, even though working full time, claimed COVID and had not paid rent for years claiming various ordinances that Oakland has protecting renters. She told RAP it was landlord’s problem but knew she could get away with not paying rent because she knew the law on renters’ protections. The kae has gone too far on renters’ protections.
Anthony Cavalea IV says
atThese policy makers need a basic economics course. Price controls ALWAYS lead to supply shortages, and real estate is no exception.
Maria Haydee**** Torres says
atBuilding new house renting go in better control it’ll going in low renting price.
Ben Indiviglia says
atHow about the government provide low interest loans to builders who build actual affordable housing rather than sign off on more rental projects that prohibit renters from being able to save money to buy something because they pay market rents that are at record highs!
Sonja Thompson says
atI agree with you 100%
Lisa says
atLimit amount landlord can increase rent at expiration closer to cost if living especially for seniors that are being shut out. One 85 yr old with ssi only had $100 icrease for last 2 years, has to choose food or med rx ir home in st living apt
Natalie says
atI agree Lisa; rent increases from landlords are a sham for renters. I am for 100% rent control. I am a realtor in Sacramento, CA, plus I work another job the sad situation is I have been a renter for nine years. DUE to the Artificially Inflated Market in this area Created By the Deep Pockets of buyers from the Bar Area, many LOCAL Sacramento families are pushed out of the purchase market. Disappointed with the property I lived in and threatened by owners, I tried to buy the duplex, which resulted in a NO Win. Property owners owned free & clear and wanted beyond a reasonable amount for a dated 1964 original. I AM MOVING from CALIFORNIA on July 31, 2023, to Tucson; I can own below $260K; if that falls apart, I’ll move to a small community in Missouri, TX or GA to live out my senior days. Lastly, my frustration is felt by many 60+ seniors. The housing market is forbidding in many states with the grim reaper close by. I pray for all of US.
Jamie Mahoney says
atAgreed! We need rent control in Florida. It is absurd. Corporate greed at it’s best ! Not everyone has the dow payment to own or verifiable income/ credit score etc., yet we are payong more in rent than some pay for a whole house!
Jeannie Llewellyn says
atHmm, seems like SSI isn’t keeping up with the CPI or COLA. That’s really where the problem lies, not from landlords having to increase rents as utilites, taxes, supplies and repairs have increased by almost 20% in the past three years, and the lack of rental payments due to eviction moratoriums certainly hasn’t helped landlords. Limiting reasonable rent increases means a property will be kept up. Homes don’t repair themselves (I wish!), nor do banks allow non-payment of mortgages. Even free and clear properties don’t live on air alone.
Michelle Fenn says
atA major affordability issue in the Cleveland Metro area is the great number of landlords that will not accept a CMHA housing voucher. The issue is the process, the client is awarded a voucher and then is tasked to find a landlord providing housing that will accept that voucher. The Housing Assistance package is then sent to CMHA for processing and to schedule an inspection. Due to processing inefficiencies at CMHA the inspection often takes 60-90 days to complete. An offer of rent is then sent to the prospective landlord for acceptance or rejection. The offer is it often low and has no relation to the zip code based fair market rents published annually by CHMA. The inspection delay results in 2-3 month vacancies and I am inclined to think that the slow process is a TACTIC to encourage the landlord to accept the low rent offer. A simple change in the “process” could result in more landlords accepting vouchers and thus creating more affordable housing availability. Landlords and property managers use the time between tenants to make the property rent ready. Allow the landlord to call CMHA for inspection, this would have the added advantage of providing a property manager leverage to encouraging owners to make required health and safety repairs. Once the home passes inspection provide the landlord/property manager the rent offer and then allow the landlord/property manager to accept any voucher candidate with a voucher for that amount or less and initiate the contract in 30 days or less. More than 80% of landlords in the Cleveland Metro area will not accept a voucher. So instead of correcting the administrative issues at CMHA, politicians are attempting to legislate fair housing solutions to the problem. They are writing and enacting Source of income laws, making a voucher holder a protected class. Fair Housing Law dictate that about the only variables a landlord can legally discriminate are income and cleanliness. So in response to Source of Income Legislation landlords enact requirements for higher credit scores, effectively eliminating most potential voucher holders. In the past I would work with motivated voucher holders whose credit score may be under 600, now due to source of income legislation and fairness I can no longer consider exceptions. If HUD and CMHA insist on keeping the current process and accepting poor process administration I recommend that the government budget to build low income housing. So instead of placing voucher holders in the preferred scattered site housing in better neighborhoods, they rebuild the projects.
Ellen Robbins says
atRegarding NY rent control- it is not fair for a tenant living in a rent control apt paying a very low rent and then purchasing property in Florida or other states and still refusing to give up their rent control apt and sometimes signing it over to their children. My parents owned a rent controlled 3 family house and the tenant on the top floor 2/2 was only paying $40 a month. I am a realtor in florida now and there is section 8. Ex if the landlord is charging $1300 a month and based on income a tenant qualifies for sect 8 they might get $1000 and only have to pay the $300 on their own. One reason Lots of landlords do not want to accept it is because at the end of the year they get a 1099 and have to claim it on their income tax. Most do not want to claim how much they get.
ricardo thomas says
atNAR and the local CAR in California is not doing enough to fight the onslaught of rent control legislation that this sweeping across the nation. There is a war against landlords and their is no one fighting or standing up to help property owners. Most if not all the rent control ordinances are one sided and not fair to property owners.
Renter says
atNothing in this article actually explains how affordable housing is maintained without rent control? Give the details. What is the supporting data? Where are the examples?
Christian says
atThank you for saying this. This article basically says nothing.
Michael Briant says
atI agree. This article is just a call to arms for landlords. I am in south Florida where rents are out of control. Many senior citizens are becoming homeless and many people are moving to Alabama, Tennessee & West Virginia. Wages are very low here & people are living in their cars, in sheds, storage units & friends’ garages and these people are working full time jobs.
Gavin R. Putland says
atWhat’s better than rent control? A market in which landlords have to compete against each other for tenants, instead of the other way around. How do you get that sort of market? Not by making it less attractive to supply accommodation, but by making it less attractive NOT to—by imposing a tax on vacant lots and unoccupied buildings. The “vacancy tax”, as it is sometimes called, is not limited to what real-estate agents call vacancies, i.e. properties advertised for rent; it also applies to unoccupied properties that are not on the rental market (preferably including vacant land, so as not to encourage demolition or deter construction), and prompts the owners to find occupants in order to avoid the tax.
A vacancy tax is good for general taxpayers because *avoiding* the vacancy tax requires economic activity, which expands the *bases* of other taxes, allowing their *rates* to be lower.
A vacancy tax on residential property is good for commercial property owners because it keeps nearby residential properties populated with prospective customers and workers.
A vacancy tax on commercial property is good for residential property owners because it keeps nearby commercial properties populated with employers and service-providers. It’s good even if you’re a commercial property owner because it keeps nearby commercial properties populated with complementary businesses that will attract foot traffic to *your* property!
And of course a vacancy tax is good for real-estate agents because it generates more rental-management fees or (if owners decide to sell rather than let) sales commissions.
Susan says
atAs usual, a one pill fixes all ailments approach, is not a fix at all. What may be going on in New York City isn’t necessarily applicable in small town USA. We still get stiffed on rent and evictions are difficult to acquire. Many people don’t realize how frustrating it is to own a property and then watch as someone destroys your property and refuses to pay rent and then you have delays and legal fees to get access to your own property. Nevermind the damages that need to be repaired. And forget about getting those costs from the evicted tenant. They had no respect for the landlord to pay the rent so they certainly aren’t going to pay a judgement, which by the way, costs the landlord to enforce. Garnishing wages is a joke. Our government wasn’t implemented to “control”. The comments regarding the inspections and vouchers is proof of this.
IC says
atRight now we are at a crossroads. We do not know which way we are going because of the state of our country. You see some areas doing good like Texas and then you go to New York and California you see a mess.. It is all about who is in the driver seat that will dictate. Sorry to say, but I have been real estate since 1986. I got into real estate before computers. Ive gone through bad markets and good markets. What we see right now is what is in their interest and not us. I speak with prospects all week and they seem to all say, they do not want to make any moves until things get brighter. Cost of living is high, interest rates have gone up very fast, whereas they usually go up slower so the economy can balance. I wish I could tell you what to do, but I think we will know more when we get a new leader in the house, that is if that happens. Right now the bee hive has been messed with. We need level headed business men/women to get this country up and going. We need more flexibility right now, which we do not have. We can not make changes for the whole country because for example Look at New York and compare it to Texas or Florida even Arkansas, South Dakota. These are states that are doing good because of who they have as governors. New York, Portland, Chicago, San Francisco look at how those cities are being governed. This rent control may work for those places but not the ones that have good economies. This is why this is a hard question to answer. A nationwide law would hurt some and help others. I wish I could give you a solid answer to this but right now it is wait and see. In the meantime, get involved with where you live to see how you can help.
John Prins says
atI find it fascinating that nothing in this article or the comments above addresses what used to be a core philosophy for local and national associations and that is property rights. Does anyone care anymore about the taking clause of the fifth amendment? Does anyone see “RENT CONTROL” as a clear violation of a person’s property rights, a taking of your property to serve a greater societal good? (the clear definition of a taking) We have traveled so far as an industry that we no longer understand what the founders meant regarding the fifth amendment and the taking clause. Taking your property by regulation is no different than taking your property by seizure, the results are the same. If the government values affordable rent so highly then come up with financing plans for multi-family properties that address this problem. Create an economic model that works to alleviate this issue, but they won’t because it is too easy to go after the real property rights of the owner. This will soon come to someone you know or even yourself. Today they want to solve the affordable rent question, but they are also questioning the duration of your lease. How many of us have been affected by “you can not rent for less than 180 days” rules being enacted by local county governments ending your Air B & B or VRBO business? A city in my market area has passed an ordinance that you can not rent for less than 180 days. So, what we are saying as a society is we want to control how much money you can make, and we want to control how long your lease is to make that money. Wow, I would think that the bundle of rights that come with owning real property would include, you can charge what the market will bear and you can rent it for a week a month or a decade that is up to the real property owner.
CMC says
atWhat about landlords who do not utilize government financing, programs to purchase their properties, they are under the same guidelines. I agree with Michelle Fenn. The process takes too long. Also adding, if a landlord is getting the asking rent, then housing agencies need to comply. Why should a landlord have to discount his rent? Rules should also reflect that if the housing agency has not completed its process within 30 days, the landlord no longer has to consider the voucher holder. I am sick of all these rules and regulations that force owners to go bankrupt when all there needs to be are better processes and fairer laws–inspections, negotiations, and evictions. It will take the right market renter to contest and sue a landlord for their own protections because they too feel discriminated against when viewing/applying for a rental only to be told by the landlord they want a voucher holder vs a market renter.
Also, in addition, some voucher holders feel entitled, they treat the landlords with disrespect, some have poorly kept the units up and moved out without any consequences, and they feel they do not have to comply with the criteria because the landlord is getting their money each month. They do not want to pay security deposits and always feel someone owes them something. I am all for helping those who are in need and unable to work; however, those who can, must be required to hold a job, and if they are the culprit in losing their job, maybe the voucher should be put in jeopardy as well. I am for a man that does not work does not eat!
William C Tierney says
atAs a Realtor, I refuse to support rent control enhanced by the bleeding hearts who want to “SAVE” everyone, at the expense of time honored legal leases which have protected both landlords and tenants for decades. Done!
Tonya says
atIn our very small, rural area, rents were fairly stable until COVID rent control. Now Owners feel behind the market and are always doing increases and 60% are doing full amount allowed. Rent control hurts everyone, Owners, Tenants and the community. Now the local workers are getting pushed out due to remote workers. These remote employers are not putting anything into our community. Local business owners have very limited hours, as they are unable to find enough employees. The cycle is killing off local business. Think about the BIG picture. Rent control is not working!
Natalie says
atI am a Realtor in Sacramento, CA, and I DISCUSSED with the Segregated Housing Market. Young families can not afford an entry-level home at the High $400-$550K. Seriously how is that attractive? 5% down on a $550K, then PITI $4031+- per month is a recipe for disaster if that family doesn’t have 6-12 months of house payments saved to cover the mortgage in place of a family emergency. The housing for that family is in jeopardy—NO THANK YOU FOR OVER-INFLATED Building PERMIT FEES and HOME PRICES in CA. Taxifornia is no longer a friendly state to live in.
Don Truett says
atI don’t believe in rent control, once our government gets involved controlling anything the more screwed up it becomes. I believe in letting people dictate what they’ll pay. I’m seeing rent prices reducing to satisfy the customer. Creating rent control will cause less inventory of residential rental properties, property owners will search and find other avenues to use the property for, to generate the best income possible.
Susan says
atI so appreciate reading these responses on both sides of the fence. Mine is a question…I read we let corporate, wall street, foreign (who knows who they are!) investors buy whole neighborhoods for more than the going home sale rate and that these homes are rentals and that they drove the rental rates up. I heard that there is no way for normal home buyers to compete with them. Can we outlaw corporations from buying residences? Can we make them sell back those houses to individual Americans at no more than 10% of what they paid for the house? maybe “nationalize” the homes? And my last 2 questions for now, can stock brokers/foreign investor “landlords” avoid local income taxes? And if so, does this limit income taxes that pay for police and firefighters? Appreciate any insight. Thank you! Susan