That rent control debate

My not unbiased take on the X-Ray Rent Control debate held last night at the Alberta Rose Theater.

First off, in general, I am not a Jefferson Smith fan; something about anger management and a date rape accusation.  But, he did a very good job as moderator of such a hot button topic. 

As you might imagine, the room (Alberta Rose Theater) was about 2/3 pro-rent control to 1/3 anti.  Tenants and tenant’s rights groups were out in force,  I’m not sure why landlords were so under represented.  So, lots of landlord bashing, and a strong sentiment that housing is a basic right, profit from housing wrong and that people should be able to live where they want in the kind of housing they want.

I’m not sure about housing as a right.  We do live in a capitalist society. Housing does cost money.  Our economy is set up such that the majority of housing is owned and provided by private entities.  Those owners take financial risk and contribute significant financial resources to own or develop housing. That is just plain reality.  Right, wrong, good, bad, it just is.  Similarly, different neighborhood and different types of housing vary in price.

I was rather appalled at the disrespect shown, even by “pro” debater Margot Black, and Commissioner Eudaly.  I don’t think eye rolling, grimaces and thumbs down signs are appropriate in a debate.  And I didn’t think Commissioner Eudaly (remember, that is how we are to refer to her) should have taken question time to make a speech.  Doesn’t she have enough of a bully pulpit?  And wasn’t that question time for people to be heard?  And of course a good amount of hisses, talking over, etc. 

There was a fair amount of mis-information.  Margot Black, with Tenants United, gave many an impassioned speech, one talking about how we have no rent control and landlords can raise rent 100%.  Last I checked, we’re under a 10% cap, have lost the “no cause” eviction option, and can, under certain circumstances, be required to pay thousands of dollars to tenants we want to move out.  That kinds feels like rent control, to me.  She was not corrected.

Both debaters were pushed to cite examples of housing markets they thought were working well.  Gerald Mildner (anti) believes in no rent control, and thinks bringing more land into the urban growth boundary, would address some of the supply issues, thus driving down costs. He, when pushed, gave Atlanta, GA as an example of a more balanced and healthy housing market (note, healthy does not mean hugely appreciating).  Margot Black cited Vancouver, BC.  And a questioner cited Amsterdam.  No one mentioned that housing markets in other economies will behave differently.  For instance, real estate finance is VERY different in Canada.  How their rental market acts is also bound to differ.

Landlords seems to be separated into two groups; large, corporate non-local owners, and local slumlords.

The “pro” argument was about stabilization, both of rent and communities and neighborhoods.  There are varying numbers showing the in migration to Portland, and some mention that stabilization does nothing to house all the folks moving here.  Margot Black failed to provide any provision for housing all those people.  The focus was on protecting and stabilizing those already here.

I was surprised at, what I heard as, xenophobia.  Portland first can sound a bit like America first, but somehow Portland first is cooler.  I don’t have numbers to back it up, but I’ve had the sense that a good amount of Portland’s diversity is from the recent surge in folks moving here.  So, I hear Portland first as perhaps a bit racist.  And yes, the room was pretty white.

There was some talk, and concern for vulnerable populations, elderly, mentally ill, addicted, LGBTQ etc.  I think all agreed, pro or anti, that these populations can be more greatly impacted by a rapidly appreciating housing market.

Talk of rent control focused on limiting rent increases, limiting deposits and limiting landlord profits.

What I should have asked is this, “We bought our properties long ago, we have aggressively paid down our mortgages (that’s money not spent on vacations or other luxuries), we manage them ourselves, and do much of the work on them ourselves, including yard work.  Are we not entitled to greater profit than someone who bought at 2-3 times the price we did, carry higher mortgages, pays a property manager and pays for all maintenance and improvements?”  I don’t view us as making our money at the expense of our tenants, but rather making our money through diligence and hard work.

 

The housing crisis in Portland, and other cities, is a huge, multi-faceted problem.  I do believe landlords, developers and real estate agents do need to be part of the solution.  We need many solutions.

I can see bringing more land into the urban growth boundary (and creating more neighborhoods like Orenco Station, a walking neighborhood with good access to public transportation and close to employment).

I do think we need to incentivize development of affordable housing, and ease some development costs for affordable housing.

I would be open to an annual, per unit fee on rentals to go to a fund for low income renters.

I don’t mind a cap on rent increases during a tenancy. 

I might be okay with the 90 day noticing for no cause evictions and rent increases.  

I’d love to hear other thoughts.