Friday Roundup 10-1-21

ByBrian Phillips

This summer, Oregon passed a law that prohibits the transmission of love letters. Love letters are written by a prospective home buyer to the owner, and they explain why the buyer loves the home. Oregon lawmakers concluded that “these letters can be a tool of discrimination by including identifying information concerning race, sex or familial status.” Neither the state nor NAR could point to a single example of discrimination. This law is, as the authors state, “an ill-conceived solution in search of a problem.”

Seattle recently extended its eviction moratorium until January 15. Through early September, the city had distributed only 6.6 percent of the federal funds it had received for rent assistance. So, while the city doddles in disbursing money, it simultaneously prohibits landlords from taking any action that might mitigate the financial damage that they have been suffering. In announcing the extension, the mayor said that it give the city more time to distribute aid. Given its track record so far, it might be safe to bet that the moratorium will be extended again.

This past weekend, voters in Berlin, Germany, approved a non-binding referendum to expropriate about 200,000 housing units from the city’s largest landlords. Advocates of the seizure claim that it is necessary to deal with rapidly rising rents. If the city follows through, it would become the owner of the properties and presumably set rents below market rates. In the short-term, expropriation might be effective in keeping rents down. But in the long-term, this will be a disaster. If the city can seize property from large companies—which have the resources to fight such an injustice—smaller landlords won’t stand a chance if the city comes for their property. Knowing that the city can arbitrarily take their property will not encourage individuals or businesses to invest in rental housing. When the supply is stagnant or even declining while demand continues to rise, rents will increase. And that will lead to calls for additional expropriations.

Similar Posts

  • Those Who Can, Do

    ByBrian Phillips

    To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, “Those who can, do; those who can’t, try to control those who can.” Cea Weaver, a housing activists at New York’s Housing Justice for All is a prime example. Weaver has been a leading voice for tenant “protections” in New York, including a “rent stabilization” law—a euphemism for price controls—passed…

  • |

    Friday Roundup 7-2-21

    ByBrian Phillips

    Progressives can easily find themselves facing a conflict of values. On the one hand, they support efforts to build affordable housing for low-income families. On the other hand, they don’t want that housing near their own home. It’s a classic example of NIMBYism (Not in My Back Yard). This conflict results from altruism. Altruism holds…

  • Racism and Housing

    ByBrian Phillips

    Housing advocates frequently claim that racism explains the large gap in home ownership between whites and non-whites. To overcome this racism, they call for government programs to help non-whites purchase homes. It is true that past racism did deter home ownership among non-whites, but that fact must be considered in the full context. The source…

  • Friday Roundup 10-8-21

    ByBrian Phillips

    In September, California passed SB 10, which allows cities to “upzone” and permit greater housing density in neighborhoods previously zoned for single-family homes. A “housing justice” organization, AHF, has filed a lawsuit that asserts “allowing legislators to override zoning restrictions violates the constitutional right of initiative by allowing local government to repeal or disregard initiative…

  • |

    A Collision on the Left

    ByBrian Phillips

    A political controversy between housing advocates and construction labor unions has been brewing in California. These two groups generally agree on many political principles, and their disagreement over a proposed bill might confuse some. But the fact is, the very nature of those political principles makes such disagreements inevitable. Both housing advocates and labor unions…

  • | |

    The “Right to Return”

    ByBrian Phillips

    Austin has become the latest city to implement a “right to return” policy. Though such policies vary, they give households an opportunity to return to a neighborhood after being displaced by gentrification. Austin will sell twenty-eight homes owned by the city to low-income households. Each property will be operated as a community land trust (CLT)….