MassDevelopment’s Post

Response to Budget 2025: Limited Action on the Housing Crisis Despite ongoing concerns about the lack of housing stock and rising property prices, the budget includes very few meaningful incentives or adjustments aimed at improving the situation. Some of the key areas where the budget could have made a stronger impact: 1.Limited Focus on Housing Supply - While there was some continued investment in social and affordable housing, there is little to suggest that the scale of the problem—particularly in the private housing sector—has been adequately addressed. The housing supply crisis requires a more aggressive approach, including increased funding for building new homes and significant measures to unlock land for development. 2. No Substantial Tax Incentives for Developers - One omission was the absence of targeted tax incentives to encourage private developers to accelerate housing construction. With rising construction costs and planning delays, there was an opportunity to reduce VAT on building materials or provide other reliefs that could boost the development of much-needed housing stock. These steps could have significantly eased the supply bottleneck. 3. Support for First-Time Buyers Insufficient - The continuation of the “Help-to-Buy” scheme is welcomed, but there were no significant improvements to assist first-time buyers facing continuous rising property prices. The scheme remains unchanged, despite clear indications that affordability remains a major barrier to homeownership for many young people. 4. Rental Market Overlooked - The rental market continues to face severe pressures, yet the budget provides no clear relief for tenants or landlords. Tax relief for small landlords, which could have encouraged them to remain in or re-enter the rental market, is notably absent. With many landlords exiting the market, renters are left with fewer options and higher costs. 5. Missed Opportunity for Regional Development - Although there is some focus on regional investment, there are no significant incentives to drive housing development in regional areas outside of the main cities. Strategic investment in infrastructure and tax reliefs could have encouraged population growth and housing demand in less concentrated areas, easing pressure on urban centers like Dublin, Cork, and Limerick. 6. Lack of Support for Green Housing Initiatives The budget missed the chance to expand grants for sustainable housing or energy-efficient retrofits, which would have aligned with both housing and climate objectives. More robust support for green building practices would benefit both the housing market and long-term sustainability. In summary, Budget 2025 offered few solutions to one of the most pressing issues facing the country. We urge the government to reexamine its approach and consider more substantial interventions to tackle this ongoing crisis head-on.

We need more housing but it is very unfortunate that governments at all levels continue to poorly explain what they are doing. By my math, this project is recieving over $120 million in government "support", "funding", "tax breaks". Reporters should insist that press releases and their reporting provide the details. It is just as easy to write "grant" and "loan" as it is "funding". But they mean something very different. There is over $600,000 per unit being provided from our tax dollars for this project. Is that reasonable? Without knowing if it is a grant or loan (and its cost) it is not possible to judge whether this is positive or not. You can't tell if you read a government or CMHC press release that is for certain. Everyone is concerned about housing affordability. This lack of transparency diminishes our ability to pursue the most effective means to deliver housing affordability.

An Ohio Senate committee has published the state's first comprehensive report on housing in 40 years. The report and its 23 recommendations are the culmination of six months of work by the Select Committee on Housing. The 2024 Housing Reimagined: Building a Solid Foundation for Ohio’s Future findings are based on more than 35 hours of testimony from more than 200 witnesses during hearings held statewide aimed at assessing and fixing Ohio’s housing crisis. “Through this process, it has become abundantly clear that Ohio’s housing crisis is pervasive and escalating,” said the committee's chair, Sen. Michele Reynolds Some of the Report Findings: ⏺ The report shows more than 67% of Ohio's total housing is owner-occupied, meaning about 33% are rental properties and Ohio’s residential median listing prices rose by more than 82% from 2016 to 2023. ⏺ The median time a home stays on the market went from about 69 days to 40 in that same time period. ⏺ Ohio, as of 2023, is short about 350,000 housing units. ⏺ The state is not meeting housing demand in either the fast-growth urban markets or the slower-growth rural markets.  ⏺ Many urban departments like the city of Columbus and the city of Cleveland, they are backed up with building department applications, and sometimes it takes the better part of two months to get an application through.  ⏺ Northeast Ohio is the rising cost of property taxes, the months-long wait time to get the city of Cleveland to approve building permit applications, and the general lack of affordable housing, and, of course, homelessness, Senate Select Committee 23 Recommendations ▶ Ohio Housing Dashboard ▶ Ohio Housing Toolkit ▶ Zoning ▶ Alternative Housing ▶ Homeownership ▶ Consumer Protection ▶ Updating Codes for Renters ▶ Workforce Housing Tax Credit Program ▶ Transaction Transparency ▶ Housing Legislation ▶ Qualified Residential Construction Personnel ▶ Third-party reviewer Services ▶ Rename Ohio Department of Development to Ohio Department of Housing and Development ▶ Ohio Housing Accelerator ▶ Ohio Housing Finance Agency ▶ Ohio Housing Trust Fund ▶ Ohio Yes In My Backyard (YIMBY) Campaign ▶ Ohio Housing Capacity Building Grant Fund ▶ Property Taxes ▶ All Ohio Future Fund ▶ Department of Medicaid ▶ Housing Tax Policy ▶ Housing Referendum Read the full report and recommendations in full detail ▶ https://shorturl.at/EZAzU

The Biden administration has long prioritized tackling the pressing issue of affordable housing. In a recent Economic Report to Congress, a significant spotlight was placed on the crucial topic of "Increasing the Supply of Affordable Housing." What's noteworthy is the administration's novel approach: targeting local land-use regulations and zoning restrictions to enact change. Acknowledging the challenges in the realm of affordable housing, the report highlights a national shortage estimated at 1.5 million to 3.8 million homes, partly attributed to restrictive land-use regulations and zoning constraints. While some regulations serve legitimate purposes such as safeguarding community interests, many others act as artificial barriers, driving up housing costs and impeding growth. The focus shifts towards federal interventions to catalyze change at the local level. Initiatives like the Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing (PRO Housing) program, spearheaded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, exemplify this approach. By awarding $85 million in competitive grants to communities committed to dismantling barriers to affordable housing, the program aims to spur transformative reforms. Key reforms highlighted in the report include facilitating the construction of multifamily housing, particularly near public transportation hubs, legalizing accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and abolishing minimum parking requirements and density restrictions. These measures aim to diversify housing options while preserving the flexibility for single-family home construction. Yet, despite these efforts, challenges persist. For instance, a Department of Transportation program offering transit-oriented loans for housing projects has faced hurdles, with no housing projects successfully closed due to lengthy approval processes spanning 18 to 24 months. In navigating these complexities, the Biden administration remains steadfast in its commitment to addressing the housing crisis by reshaping local regulations and fostering an environment conducive to affordable housing development.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has announced a $6-billion federal housing program to fund provinces and territories that commit to specific actions to increase housing supply. Mr. Trudeau’s announcement in Halifax Tuesday comes two weeks before his government’s federal budget, set for release on April 16. The $6-billion in funding is targeted at building critical housing infrastructure including water, wastewater, storm water and solid-waste infrastructure to support the construction of more homes, with $5-billion of that available to provinces and territories that agree to a series of commitments. They include requiring municipalities to adopt four units as-of-right and allow such “missing middle” homes as duplexes, triplexes and townhouses. Another required commitment is to implement a three-year freeze on increasing development charges from April 2 levels for municipalities with a population greater than 300,000. The other actions include adopting forthcoming changes to the National Building Code to support more accessible, affordable and climate-friendly housing options, and implementing measures from the Home Buyers’ Bill of Rights and renters’ bill of rights. The Prime Minister recently announced the renters’ bill of rights – a measure developed with provinces and territories that would require landlords to disclose a clear history of apartment pricing and create a countrywide standard lease agreement. Provinces have until Jan. 1, 2025 to secure an agreement, while territories have until April 1, 2025. A statement in the plan says, without elaborating, that if a province or territory does not secure an agreement by their respective deadline, their funding allocation will be transferred to the municipal stream. Mr. Trudeau also said that the new measures will include adding $400-million to the existing Housing Accelerator Fund program, which provides federal funding to create a greater supply of affordable housing. That funding, said the statement, will fast track an additional 12,000 new homes over three years. The statement noted there is now $4.4-billion in the fund, which has supported 179 agreements across Canada.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has announced a $6-billion federal housing program to fund provinces and territories that commit to specific actions to increase housing supply. Mr. Trudeau’s announcement in Halifax Tuesday comes two weeks before his government’s federal budget, set for release on April 16. The $6-billion in funding is targeted at building critical housing infrastructure including water, wastewater, storm water and solid-waste infrastructure to support the construction of more homes, with $5-billion of that available to provinces and territories that agree to a series of commitments. They include requiring municipalities to adopt four units as-of-right and allow such “missing middle” homes as duplexes, triplexes and townhouses. Another required commitment is to implement a three-year freeze on increasing development charges from April 2 levels for municipalities with a population greater than 300,000. The other actions include adopting forthcoming changes to the National Building Code to support more accessible, affordable and climate-friendly housing options, and implementing measures from the Home Buyers’ Bill of Rights and renters’ bill of rights. The Prime Minister recently announced the renters’ bill of rights – a measure developed with provinces and territories that would require landlords to disclose a clear history of apartment pricing and create a countrywide standard lease agreement. Provinces have until Jan. 1, 2025 to secure an agreement, while territories have until April 1, 2025. A statement in the plan says, without elaborating, that if a province or territory does not secure an agreement by their respective deadline, their funding allocation will be transferred to the municipal stream. Mr. Trudeau also said that the new measures will include adding $400-million to the existing Housing Accelerator Fund program, which provides federal funding to create a greater supply of affordable housing. That funding, said the statement, will fast track an additional 12,000 new homes over three years. The statement noted there is now $4.4-billion in the fund, which has supported 179 agreements across Canada. #housing

Insightful and interesting piece re: affordable housing from Sacramento Business Journal https://lnkd.in/g_rG8P_4 "Unlike California, Azhar said, Texas law forbids the kind of linkage fees on new development to pay for affordable housing, and also any kind of inclusionary zoning to incorporate affordable units in with market-rate ones. There's also no state affordable housing funding, Azhar said. Even so, since 2006, Austin's bonds have built more than 6,700 homes, including 5,475 rental homes for people making $88,250 or less, 477 ownership homes for that income category and 794 permanent supportive housing units. Given the constraints in Texas law, Azhar said, the best way to increase the impact in Austin would probably come from the federal government, either through expanding the availability of low-income tax credits or more direct federal funding of affordable housing."

Post 2 of 3 brief posts on the new Government House Building Target and Planning Changes… Planning has been a key problem for small house builders, given planning departments’ lack of resource and rising planning application difficulties (skewing approvals to larger builders). Easing planning and more sustained planning resource would help small builders as their business models are based on building homes quickly and selling them to do more building. After being decimated in the last 3 recessions, small developers only account for a small % of house building, but, on the positive, it means there is a lot of potential for growth, if the demand is there. Social housing investment is largely missing so far. 80% of house building is private housing. The other 20% is mainly from Housing Associations and councils but still market-linked due to Section 106, shared ownership or up to 80% of market rent. So, dependent on the housing market; mortgage approvals, transactions and house prices. Government stated “an appropriate proportion of affordable housing should be Social Rent, subject to viability” and it “expects that many areas will give priority to Social Rent”, although with no clarity, that means little. Overall, it is difficult to see house building rates rising anywhere near levels government is looking for by relying on private house builders and pushing them to provide a higher % of affordable housing plus just pressuring councils to allow building. Much of the focus after the government announcements was around the change in targets at the regional level. The new targets are being reduced in London and increased significantly in the North West and North East compared to the previous non-binding targets. This appears to make little sense given that in London and the South East housing is unaffordable as supply doesn’t meet demand, whilst in other parts of England, housing is unaffordable for some as wages are too low. However, note that the target for London has been revised down from 99,000 to 80,000 per year (see Chart), but even so, achieving 80,000 requires delivery to more than double in the capital (from levels before the housing slowdown), so the new target is more realistic (or at least less unrealistic). Conversely, increasing housing targets in areas where it is easier to get planning permission, such as the North, may make it easier for the government to get slightly closer to its overall targets, if the demand is there... See link to Post 1 here: https://lnkd.in/eksHv96V #ukhousing #ukhousingmarket #housingmarket #ukconstruction #ukbuilders #construction #builders #constructionuk #buildersuk #building #ukbuilding #buildinguk #ukeconomy #constructionindustry #constructionworkers #constructionworker #constructionwork #contractors #housebuilding #labour #buildingcontractors #mortgagerates #interestrates #NewTowns

The City of Baltimore is proposing the use of noncontiguous TIF bonds (NCTBs) to spur the rehabilitation of blighted and vacant homes. NCTBs are TIFs that apply to individual properties that are 1) vacant and 2) have an owner not paying property taxes. The proposal is estimated to bring in significant revenue for the city, and could be a real game-changer when it comes to maximizing land use and bolstering the city's housing stock. NCTBs could also be interesting, especially when paired with affordable or supportive housing that best addresses the needs of those most acutely experiencing housing insecurity. Time will tell if Baltimore goes down this path, but this is an exciting prospect and potential case study for other cities around the country. This makes me think about my home in New York City, where I read that a significant number of affordable and rent-controlled housing units are in a state of disrepair. Landlords of these properties are concerned that they will not receive a sufficient return on their investment to bring the property back up to code, and so they remain vacant. While NCTBs may not apply in this case, what other policy tools do we have to align incentives, encourage landlords to rehabilitate their properties, and put more housing units back on the market?