Money laundering and affordable housing

The Treasury's decision to investigate money laundering through NYC real estate might actually save New York from wholesale gentrification.

Constructing a lot of new housing can keep rents low by adding supply. Because it's expensive to build, developers prefer constructing luxury housing to get the quickest and highest rate of return. If the wealthy move out of older housing stock or locations further from the city center into these new luxury units, they free up housing for the less wealthy, who decamp from their older and further locations in turn freeing up housing for the even less wealthy and so on down the line. This is the one good reason for de Blasio's Zoning for Quality and Affordability (ZQA) -- allow new units to have higher ceilings to attract the wealthy out of less appealing older models.

But if the luxury housing is being bought by foreign speculators or money launderers who have no intention of living in the apartments, new construction does no good for the housing market. It turns the city's real estate into a non housing market crowding out the housing market. It's a disaster for the resident citizen, especially the low-income and immigrants.

(You might think, well if we eliminated rent regulations, the market would be flooded with vacant apartments, but this is both empirically and theoretically wrong. Most people who would be pushed out of deregulated apartments don't -- and often can't -- leave the local rental pool. They just move to a lower income neighborhood where they create a tighter market and push out lower income tenants who in turn move to lower income neighborhoods evicting people there, again, all the way down the line until at the bottom immigrants huddle up in substandard housing crowded together in dangerous conditions. At the top, landlords renovate the vacated luxury units and hike the rents there. Iow, deregulation doesn't free up the market, it's just a game of musical chairs, destabilizing everyone and raising rents everywhere. This happened in Boston when rents were deregulated, so we know that it's not just a theoretical speculation-- it's reality.)

The alternative to constructing luxury apartments to ease the housing market is constructing affordable housing. But if the monied are still coming to the city and searching for apartments, the pressure on gentrification in outer boroughs will be greater than the creation of affordable housing can accommodate.

It's easy to show that the current model of affordable housing creation is necessarily inadequate. De Blasio's Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning, for example, would require one affordable apartment for every four luxury unit. But as we know from Occupy and presidential campaigns and memes everywhere, the ratio of the wealthy to the struggling is not four rich folks to each struggler, but more like 1:99, and that's actually generous. 1:999 would be closer to reality. So the current model is beyond inadequate -- it's preposterously inadequate.

So again, the affordable housing model can only work if the luxury housing doesn't become a place for billionaires to park their money. It's got to be housing, not speculation, otherwise the entire geography of the city will be distorted into empty speculation at its center without even a tax base.

WNYC covers rent regulations

Adam Davidson, appearing on WNYC's morning "Brian Lehrer Show" discussion program, gave his strongest argument for rent deregulation without any analysis at all. Instead, he appeals to authority: economists on all sides agree that rent regulations are bad for the housing market and harm the middle class. 

True, economists agree on across-the-board rent regulations, but that's not New York's model. New units in NYC are not required to be regulated, so rent regulations here incentivize new construction. Deregulation would remove that incentive since raising rents and evicting tenants are cheaper and easier than construction. The New York model is actually healthy for the market.

Davidson refers to one economist, Christopher Mayer, but Mayer completely forgets that deregulated tenants don't simply disappear from the rental pool. If they have to vacate, they move from upscale neighborhoods into middle class neighborhoods and create a tighter market, raising rents there. So deregulation will hurt the middle class especially. In aggregate: 

deregulation = same # of units, same # of renters, just more wages going into rent, a windfall for landlords and no incentive to construct or ever ease the market. 

A land tax would help, tagged to upzonings in selected neighborhoods that can withstand increased development. 

The Times at it again

Rent regs in the Times again. Amazing to me that they can print baldfaced lies. 

This was empirically studied in Boston:  when rents were deregulated, all rents rose. 

Mayer's key assumption is false. When the deregulated renters vacate, they don't disappear -- they have jobs and family in the city. They move to cheaper neighborhoods where their numbers create a much tighter market in those lower-income neighborhoods, raising rents, displacing more renters who in turn move down the ladder creating a tighter market down the line.

So deregulation would raise rents steeply for the middle class and those below. The highest renters alone might get a break. Deregulation is a win for landlords and maybe the wealthiest renters, a lose for everyone else. 

Building new units will increase supply and ease market rates. Since new units are not required to be regulated in New York, our rent regulations incentivize new unit construction. Deregulation would end that incentive: raising rents and evicting tenants are cheaper than building new housing. Deregulation will likely raise rents steeply across the board while tightening the market even more, driving the middle class out to the further reaches of the metro area. Deregulation is a gift to landlords at the expense of nearly everyone else.

NYC's rent regulations are healthy for its housing market except it's deeply unfair for new arrivals. The state should really get back into housing of all kinds -- upscale to low -- using the upscale housing to finance the rest.

Rent regulations

Thinking about the construction boom and the Rent Guidelines Board rent hike, I went back to a piece I did for Met Council refuting the claim that rent regulations artificially raise market rate rents. The key insights were two: 1) in New York, newly constructed apartments are not required to be regulated, so regulation doesn't add to the tight housing market (in fact, rent regs are one of the few incentives to construct in NYC); 2) deregulation doesn't flood the market with new apartments since evicted tenants don't leave the local pool of renters, and wherever they go they tighten the housing market there, displacing lower-income renters. 

Looking back, I'd want to explain explicitly why it is that displacement always shifts downward, and not just a musical chairs of apartments among renters. Deregulation eviction implies that the tenant can no longer meet the high market-rate rent. In a tight housing market, if they go to a lower-income neighborhood, they will find an apartment by displacing someone who was renting at a lower rate. The displaced renter does the same in the next lower-income neighborhood and so on.

[Update: on second thought I think I was right in the original, not as in the paragraph immediately above. Obviously deregulation evictions out of prime locations also allow high renters to move upward -- upward displacement. That displacement doesn't ease market rates: the evicted have created a tighter market down the line. On the other hand, if new upscale renters are entering the market from outside the pool, they would increase downward displacement pressure.]

Some of those deregulation-evicted tenants can pay higher rents than they'd been paying under regulation, just not quite as high as the market rent where they'd been. No one will seek a cheaper apartment -- if there was something cheaper suitable to them they'd have decamped long before deregulation. But some will seek apartments somewhat more expensive than what they'd been paying under regulation. So the only change in the economic equilibrium is the added funds available for rent among the deregulated. 

At the end of the day, deregulation increases the aggregate funds available for rents taken from whatever else the regulated tenants had been spending on in the economy. All of that increase goes to the landlords. Deregulation is just a pointless shift from the non real estate economy to landlords and a downward spiral of displacement, while more upscale renters flow into the city to raise the luxury rates. With more funds flowing into the real estate market, developers construct to meet those upscale renters, who then recreate the commercial economy in their own image, buying upscale items. 

So rent regulation is just a restriction on upscale real estate speculation and upscale commerce. It doesn't raise market rate rents, but actually dampens them. And it's good for non upscale commerce.

So here's the article. The point about the rent pool seems to have grown legs -- I've heard it repeated by lawyers as well New Yorkers on the street. 

Why Rent Regulations Don't Raise Market Rents 

By: 

Rob Hollander

Published: 

June 2011

"If rent decontrol would mean a fairer, less insane market, then it is a just cause," the libertarian-conservative Cato Institute argues.

In every debate over rent regulations, someone—often an angry tenant paying outrageous rent—argues that regulations are responsible for pushing market-rate rents way up. If those regulated rents were brought into the free market, the market would level down, allowing a fair rent for all.

This argument has had wide currency among conservatives in their effort to undermine rent regulation and promote developers and landlords, the market suppliers in the real-estate industry. It appeals directly to people who, bitter over their heavy rent burden, welcome a convenient scapegoat: their own neighbors. And the authority, the landlord, is conveniently exculpated.
This argument is false. It is based on these premises:
1) Rent regulation discourages housing construction, restricting housing availability;
2) landlords make up their losses on regulated rents by gouging market-rate renters; and
3) deregulation would level the playing field, lowering high rents

Its conclusions have been demonstrated to be empirically, factually untrue. It is time to put this claim to rest.

Let's start with the basics. Not only conservative think tanks like the Cato Institute, but the consensus of economists, even the liberal Paul Krugman, accuse rent regulation of discouraging new housing construction. Without new apartment units, the supply can't keep up with demand, and fierce competition for the few remaining units pushes market rates up.

Their observations are true where rents for new construction are regulated. But in New York, it isn't.

New construction is exempt from rent regulation in New York. Building new affordable housing is entirely voluntary in New York, and developers only provide it where the city gives them special incentives, such as allowing construction beyond the zoning restrictions or giving tax breaks. In fact, rent regulation encourages new construction, as the Citizens Budget Commission has pointed out, since new units can garner far higher rents than older regulated units. If landlords can't cash in on regulated units, the only other means to make money is to build new, unregulated units. Rent regulation is an incentive for construction.

The difficulty of building in the city has many causes—the cost of land and construction, restrictive zoning laws, building codes, permits and bids, and, not least, the private and political graft involved. Nevertheless, New York continues to see housing construction. Even during the recession year of 2008, the city issued 33,911 permits for new housing, the greatest number since 1972. In a city of obstacles to construction, rent regulation is one of the few encouragements to build.

The second premise contends that if landlords can't raise regulated rents, they will raise rents on unregulated units to make up for the lost revenue. Unfortunately for the landlords, the free market doesn't work that way.
Market rates depend on renters' willingness to pay, not on owners' costs or losses. Rents can't rise above what renters are willing and able to pay, and the nature of the profit motive ensures that market-rate rents will rise exactly to that level of renter willingness, regardless of what other renters are paying.
In a city where construction lags behind demand, it may be legitimate to ask whether deregulation would free up apartments and ease the market down—the third false premise. Quite aside from the consequences of displacing individuals or even whole communities, the answer is a surprising no.

Rent deregulation, believe it or not, raises market-rate rents. The conservative Manhattan Institute, in its 2003 study of deregulation in Cambridge, Massachusetts, found that, following deregulation, landlords invested in improvements to attract the highest possible market-rate renters. The result of the 1994 deregulation in Massachusetts has been better-quality housing, but higher market rents across the board.

That shouldn't be surprising. A tight housing market implies that many renters can't find apartments in their preferred locations. That's the meaning of a housing crunch. Renters can't find the spaces they want, and the ones they have to live in become overpriced. But when vacancies appear, those renters are willing to pay exorbitant rents for the locations they prefer, and landlords will meet their willingness.

The market value depends on three general factors: demand, supply, and the aggregate available funds for rents. If regulated renters are paying less than their available rent funds (the excess of which presumably goes into the goods and services economy), when they are forced to pay more, it will increase the aggregate funds going to landlords as rents, since most of those renters are tied to the metropolitan area by work, family, or preference. If their rents are deregulated, these people will force rents up wherever they go in the metropolitan area.

That's a recipe for disaster. When renters can't afford their location as a result of deregulation, they move to lower-rent neighborhoods, where they create a tighter rent market, raising the rents there and even gentrifying the area. Some of the longtime renters in those neighborhoods will be priced out and move to even lower-income neighborhoods, tightening those locations in turn.

More affluent longtime renters will see their rent increases as an opportunity to move to a more desirable location. But wherever they go, landlords will raise their rents as high as they are willing to pay. If the market is tight and people are not leaving the metropolitan area, the market rates will remain high.

Market rates only go down if demand goes down—if people leave the city entirely or excess housing is built. But New York's population is increasing, not decreasing, and construction is costly and difficult. Deregulation here will not ease the market any more than it did in the Boston area.

It's not even certain that in a tight market like New York, landlords would invest widely in improvements, as they did in Boston and Cambridge. Unregulated renters have few rights, so if they complain to the city about lack of services or repairs, the landlord can retaliate by refusing to renew their lease when it expires. Regulated renters can compel repairs without that fear. So it is possible that deregulation in a tight market would result in lowered quality of housing and a degrading of services, as well as higher market rents. That's exactly what happened in New York when vacancy decontrol was imposed in 1971.

Regulated rents actually help to depress market rates. Renters who pay exorbitant rents may think it's unfair that regulated tenants pay so much less than they do, but the source of exorbitant rents is not regulation. It is landlords' profit motive and New Yorkers' desire to live here. We are the market that sustains high rents.

So what is the effect of deregulation? It provides a cheaper means of placing money into landlords' hands than construction does. The chief effect of deregulation is an increase in the aggregate funds available for rents. It doesn't ease the market, it won't improve the quality of housing in New York, and it won't create more housing. It will give more money to landlords, it will raise rents all over the city, and it will wreak havoc on communities as markets are tightened even in low-income neighborhoods, causing a spike in gentrification and displacement.

Rent regulation does create an unfairness—the lucky get to spend their money on the local economy, not just on rent, while their market-rate neighbors have to suffer. But forcing everyone to suffer doesn't solve the suffering of the overpriced. It just makes life worse for everyone. Two wrongs don't make a right. Deregulation is a lose-lose. 

Where to apply the Yglesias solution

Matt Yglesias has been arguing to remove zoning restrictions that prevent residential development and increase rents. It's the obvious answer to the misguided view that rent regulations raise market-rate rents. 

Adding supply lowers demand and price, but evicting regulated renters don't add supply since the evicted tenants remain in the renting pool (the piece I did for Met Council's Tenant/Inquilino explains this in more detail), so they just raise rents wherever they go in the locality. The only available means of adding supply, short of killing renters, is construction. As it happens, rent regulations are one of the very few incentives to construct housing: new housing, unless it's subsidized, is unregulated. 

Yglesias also points out correctly that if cities don't construct, a tight housing market gentrifies their older, lower-income neighborhoods, displacing whole communities. 

But what happens when the city constructs at a scale commensurate with its demand? Yglesias seems to assume there is a limit to demand. That might appear to be necessarily true, since there's a limit to global population. But one person can rent more than one unit, so any limit has to be found in the aggregate funds available for rents, and there's no reason to assume that that's necessarily limited, especially where there's fiat money, and that holds of just about every nation across the globe, even Europe if considered as a whole.

In most urban markets, the limit is reached through preference and employment opportunity. More people want to live in L.A. than in Detroit, and in particular, more people with more money want to live there, for a variety of reasons. Supply that preference demand, rents should decline, or should they? 

But not all markets have a limit. Some actually create more demand the more it is supplied. Bars are a perfect example. One or two local bars may suffice for a neighborhood. But if the neighborhood boasts many lively bars, it becomes a nightlife strip attracting non locals. The more the bars, the more attractive the strip to non local consumers. More supply=more demand.

Some cities have this attraction too. The more you construct, the more people live in the city, the more people want to be where those people are. People are themselves an attraction, especially among young singles actively seeking. So if New York abandoned its zoning regulations and constructed wildly, would market rents decline? Would the upscale leave older neighborhoods to themselves? Or would New York just grow, continuing to spread upscale development everywhere? 

If that's so, then the Yglesias recommendation won't help New York, unless other cities become more attractive and cheaper than NYC. The only hope I see to prevent gentrification of the entirety of this city, is recommending the Yglesias solution to other cities.