Housing

Council housing, once the bedrock of the housing system — providing secure and cheap tenure — is in shockingly short supply. According to the National Housing Federation, 1.6 million households are languishing on the waiting list — more than the number of households in the North-East — while all of England only managed to deliver a pitiful 8,900 council homes in 2021-22. Only 2,500 of these were for social rent, the traditional rent level for social housing, with the remainder at higher-cost tenures.

In the same period, the UK also sold off or demolished around 20,000 social homes, with 14,000 council homes sold off under the Right to Buy scheme. Over the years, Right to Buy has led to some 3 million homes being lost from the social housing stock. With millions in need of secure and affordable homes, rebuilding the council stock is a vital step — perhaps the most vital — in confronting the housing emergency. Council housing offers secure, lifelong tenancies and rent levels far below that of the private sector and most Housing Association properties, with the homes remaining in public hands, owned by us.

Amid this backdrop of depleted social housing, Sadiq Khan unveiled his ‘Right to Buy Back’ scheme in 2021, which has subsidised London councils to purchase homes from the private sector for use as council housing. This has allowed for former private sector homes to be added to the council housing stock, so long as the homes meet or are brought up to the Decent Homes Standard. In its first year, the scheme managed to facilitate the purchase of 1500 homes — a long way from what is needed to meet the city’s social housing needs, but almost as many council homes as were built across the rest of England last year.

Although “supply skeptics” claim that new housing supply does not slow growth in rents, we show that rigorous recent studies demonstrate that: 1) Increases in housing supply slow the growth in rents in the region; 2) In some circumstances, new construction also reduces rents or rent growth in the surrounding area; 3) The chains of moves sparked by new construction free up apartments that are then rented (or retained) by households across the income spectrum; 4) While new supply is associated with gentrification, it has not been shown to cause significant displacement of lower income households; and 5) Easing land use restrictions, at least on a broad scale and in ways that change binding constraints on development, generally leads to more new housing over time, but only a fraction of the new capacity created because many other factors constrain the pace of new development.

In an interview, Been said new housing development tends to have two effects, pulling in opposite directions. Increasing the supply of housing tends to lower its cost or slow the rate of cost increase, but new development often also brings new amenities to a neighborhood – restaurants, shops, better maintained parks – that push prices upward.

“Which of those two things is going to predominate is the critical question,” she said. “Under what circumstances would the amenity effect swamp the supply effect?”

It can differ depending on the particular circumstances, she said, while adding that across the breadth of studies that have been conducted, “the supply effect seems to be predominating.”

Because housing growth tends to come in places experiencing high demand and upward pressure on prices, Been said it’s not unusual to see rent increases in an area along with a development boom.

“You don’t know what the counterfactual is,” she said, referring to what would have happened to rents in the area had the development not taken place. One study cited in her report found that the average new apartment building lowers nearby rents by 5 percent to 7 percent “relative to the trend rent growth otherwise would have followed,” a change that the authors said translated to savings of $100 to $159 per month.

Since the 1980s, Finnish governments had been trying to reduce homelessness. Short-term shelters were built. However, long-term homeless people were still left out. There were too few emergency shelters and many affected people did not manage to get out of homelessness: They couldn’t find jobs – without a housing address. And without any job, they couldn’t find a flat. It was a vicious circle. Furthermore, they had problems applying for social benefits. All in all, homeless people found themselves trapped.

But in 2008 the Finnish government introduced a new policy for the homeless: It started implementing the “Housing First” concept. Since then the number of people affected has fallen sharply.

And the country is successful: It is the only EU-country where the number of homeless people is declining.

A job guarantee would go a long way toward helping people afford housing by locating living wage jobs in communities with cheaper housing. However, for the Job Guarantee to deliver the stability and prosperity we hope to see in a people’s economy, it should be paired with a guarantee of homes to everyone. Without a Homes Guarantee, real estate developers, mortgage brokers, and landlords will do everything in their power to capture the increased Job Guarantee earnings. Speculators who treat housing as an investment vehicle leave properties vacant to manipulate prices, systematically pushing people into homelessness. Lacking an alternative due to chronically underfunded public housing and a federal government legally barred from building new housing, many people have no choice but to rely on the private sector. Because the private sector has near total control over the housing stock, and housing is so fundamental to life, it is easy for speculators to bully people into paying more and more of their income. If we want our people’s economy to include quality, stable, community-controlled housing for all, we need the Homes Guarantee to provide an alternative to the speculative housing system.

The rise of short-term rental of entire homes is taking away much needed homes for British Columbians. Data shows that more than 16,000 entire homes are being used as short-term rentals for the majority of the year in B.C. This is making it more challenging to find affordable long-term rentals.

Many local governments have taken action to regulate short-term rentals, but enforcement of bylaws is a challenge, and they have asked the Province for more tools and resources.

The purpose of the Act is to:

• Give local governments stronger tools to enforce short-term rental bylaws
• Return short-term rental units to the long-term housing market
• Establish a new Provincial role in the regulation of short-term rentals

The Act applies to short-term rentals being offered to the public including:

• Offers hosted by a platform, where people reserve and pay for the rental service (which may include for example, Airbnb, VRBO, Expedia, and FlipKey) 
• Offers on other web listing forums (which may include for example, Facebook Marketplace, Kijiji, and Craigslist)
• Listings in classified ads in newspapers

This is just staggering.

Council to Homeless Persons chief executive Deborah Di Natale says homelessness has changed dramatically across the country, and families living rough like this in Bendigo are not uncommon.

“What we used to see before was mainly single people,” she says.

“But the trend that is emerging is that we’re seeing families setting up tents in the bush because there is simply nowhere left for them to go.”

As the weather warms up, there’s another pressing concern for these families.

Fire.

“It’s really alarming that some Victorians find themselves sleeping rough in bushland during what’s tipped to be a hot, dry summer,” Sarah Toohey, from the Community Housing Industry Association Victoria, says.

A Jeff Bezos-backed real estate investing startup is launching a new fund to make it even easier for everyday Americans to speculate on the rental homes of other everyday Americans.

Arrived, which first launched in 2021, snatches up single-family homes and turns them into rental properties that anyone can invest in for as little as $100. Until now, Arrived customers could only purchase shares of individual homes and receive dividends from the rental profits, effectively creating a distributed network of landlords.

Now, the company plans to allow customers to easily invest in a broad portfolio of its rental housing, further financializing the housing market for a growing consortium of fractional mini-landlords. The company’s newly launched “Single Family Residential Fund” lets investors put their money in a fund that invests in single-family homes across the company’s holdings, similar to a Real Estate Investment Trust. The fund also has a minimum $100 investment. 

In a webinar touting the new fund last week, the company explained it is betting on single-family home rentals because fewer people can afford to buy homes and more people are stuck renting.

Eliminating single-family zoning was part of a broader package of reforms deliberated by Alexandria’s city council known as the Zoning for Housing/Housing for All initiative. While most council members welcomed the reforms, lawns across the city have been littered with “anti-zoning” signs for months in anticipation of the vote. Some residents assumed that by eliminating the codes that restrict what can be built how and where, the city would lose its charm.

Others point out, however, that the pride of the city, Old Town, would not be able to exist within the restrictive zoning that has defined Alexandria for the last half-century. Originally laid out in 1749, Old Town follows a grid pattern and is beloved for its multi-story brick buildings housing a mixture of commercial uses as well as medium-, low-, and high-density residential opportunities. By contrast, the majority of Alexandria is zoned exclusively for low-density, single-family residential housing. In fact, it’d be illegal to replicate Old Town in most of Alexandria under the current zoning regime. 

In 1990s Berlin, baugruppen (building groups) came to the fore in response to the German city’s housing crisis. Building groups are DIY collectives of future resident-owners who come together to develop their new homes. Households become producers rather than consumers, so they save on the developer’s profit margin and have more control over building design and quality.

At its peak, about 17% of new homes in Berlin were baugruppen projects. By 2017 more than 600 projects had been completed. The current master plan for redeveloping Berlin’s former Tegel airport calls for baugruppen to produce 2,000 homes – 40% of the project’s housing.

The success of baugruppen has inspired building groups in Australia. Data from one development and advisory service that assists building group members show members have on average saved around 10% on their new home building costs since 2010.

As well, they save on transfer taxes/stamp duties and mortgage interest payments. So in Victoria, for example, total savings could be as much as 16.5% on a A$1 million house.