A really interesting idea that I want to highlight for people outside of Montreal: given the challenges of predicting population growth and unmet housing need, Vivre en Ville is suggesting setting a *vacancy rate target* in the city’s 2050 urbanism plan. carrefour.vivreenville.org/publication/...
Consultez notre publication « PUM 2050: Des unités pleines, c'est bien, mais des unités vides, c'est mieux ». Carrefour Vivre en Ville
(In a very generous spirit of "yes, and":) rent inflation still beats general inflation at 3% according to CMHC numbers. Rent stability or rent deflation are good/better targets.
It simply does not follow that allowing rents to adjust to marginal buyers (essentially pricing in the communal benefits of land and local economies) eternally will lead to more construction. Zoning and regulation matter more. Tax policy matters more. Countercyclical public investment matters more.
Would rent increase caps hurt the upkeep and maintenance of older buildings? Only if you can attract high-quality tenants to badly serviced units, which is a function of overall supply much more than it is of individual rents. The way we improve quality of services is through competition for renters
The details matter a lot. If you set price caps/targets underneath reasonable new build profit margins, nothing gets built by private actors (bad). But a built building delivers services way after the initial building costs have been reimbursed.
It would do us a world of good to think harder about rent control. I understand the language of Prop 33 is slippery enough that it ought to be turned down but the "rent control harms overall supply" argument is the "minimum wage hurts job creation" kind of received knowledge. We can do better.
I avoid the problem with my super advanced strategy of making posts that are seen and liked by absolutely no one. (This is a real guess, only once had a catfishy DM and nothing else.)
Thanks!
Do you know what is the FAR of this site/project?