The Rent Is Too Damn High

by Jon Baliles

I think RVA needs to recruit retired New York City politician Jimmy McMillan to come to Richmond and run for office. He was the straight-talker who ran for Governor of New York under the Rent Is Too Damn High Party banner in 2010 and said more genuine truths in 35 seconds at a debate introduction than many politicians say in their career.

In the wake of COVID and all of its turbulence, it was reported this week that rent in the Richmond region is going through the roof and increasing even faster than 40-year-high inflation. WRIC reports:

Data from rental listing site Apartment List showed that from March 2020 to May 2022, city-level rent estimates increased significantly throughout Virginia. In Glen Allen, rent grew approximately 19.5%; 25.3% in Richmond; and 26.8% in Chester.

Rent.com reports

that the increase in Richmond over last year was more than 35% (to an average of $1,512 for a one-bedroom), the 8th-highest rent for a single-bedroom in the country (the U.S. average is $1,701 per month, up 25.3%). A 2021 study by Virginia’s Joint Legislative Audit & Review Commission (JLARC), revealed approximately 44% of renting households were cost-burdened in 2019, meaning more than 30% of their income was being used for rent.

The flood of information even included Congress doing something useful when they released a report highlighting the corporate buying spree of homes in recent years, purchased strictly to rent as a long-term revenue stream, and the harmful impact this is having on communities. Mix all of this together along with the well-known eviction Scarlet letter Richmond has earned in recent years and it is a toxic brew.

And if you are a renter and want to buy a home, it is not exactly a sunny forecast either. Dana Markland had a recent eye-opening op-ed detailing rising interest rates, falling inventory, and regulations and their collective impact on prices.

Among a sample of builders, who all are Home Building Association of Richmond members, the average price — for both single-family homes and townhouses — was $393,366 in June 2020. By June 2022, the average price was $518,384, an increase of 32%.

Her detail on financing points out that even with all of your financial ducks in a row (like zero debt and good credit score, etc.), at a 6% mortgage interest rate you “need to make $88,619 annually to qualify for the average new home.” She also points out Census data showing the average income in the Richmond region is about $71,000. Don’t need a calculator for that math.

She also points out that the tightrope government must walk to encourage growth without suffocating housing inventory and supply is tricky. She notes that home builders’ numbers were down 45% in the last ten years and down 20% in the past two years. So we are growing in population and shrinking in new housing construction.

Don’t worry, though, government is here to help! Every municipality in the region knows housing affordability is important, but the adoption of new/different land-use policies that would help encourage growth is politically challenging (to put it mildly). “Local government did not keep pace with the demand for housing.” Then, Markland drops the whopper:

Government regulation at all levels accounts for an estimated 23.8% of the final price of a single-family home, or $123,375 on the local average price. This amount is directly attributable to regulation during development and construction. The cost to the homeowner taking on this additional $123,375 debt, at a 6% interest rate for a 30-year fixed mortgage, equates to a $740 monthly payment. This amounts to an increase of $8,877 each year, or $266,292 over the entire 30-year mortgage period.

It is reasonable to assume (although Markland doesn’t mention it) that this type of regulation applies to the cost of an apartment building, whether it is on Richmond Highway or in Scott’s Addition. Delays in zoning, permitting, and approvals (especially in the City) drive the cost of all housing higher just at a time when we can afford it least.

She concludes with a polite warning, which essentially is that we need to address and meet the challenge or we will end up like San Francisco. Yikes.

As we watch and applaud economic development wins — AutoZone, Lego, Amazon and more — where do the workers sleep at night? Will we learn from the housing failures of communities like San Francisco, or will we repeat them?

It is time to course-correct the region’s economic development efforts to include housing in the strategy. If regulation is left unchecked, demand for housing once again will outpace supply, and consequently drive up the cost of homes to the region’s detriment.

This column has been republished with permission from RVA 5X5.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

41 responses to “The Rent Is Too Damn High”

  1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
    James C. Sherlock

    Government drives scarcity- scarcity drives price. The Government party in America, the Democrats, now the party of the college educated progressive left, can’t let go of their environmental and NIMBY fixations long enough to notice.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      And Trump won the popular vote twice and received more votes than any other president. Why stop at lying to yourself?

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        A classic “what about Trump”. So scarcity is Trump’s fault. See the report from 2005 below.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          He’s the dominant force in your party. You’ve no choice, and to not point that out to you would be a dereliction of duty on my part.

    2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      Real estate development is almost always a bad deal for existing taxpayers and local governments. It is the pocketbook that drives governments to curtail residential development. Don’t believe me, see the data center boom in Loudoun County. No problems getting those monsters through…

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        It is the government’s pocketbook that drives governments to curtail local residential development when they curtail it. And it’s their own pocketbooks that allow residential development when they support it.

        Datacenters generate taxes and house no children looking to use the public school system.

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          Agreed… exactly my point…. I should have said “Residential real estate development…” above.

    3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      It is reflexive reaction for conservatives to blame Democrats for all the ills of society, without offering specific solutions.

      What specifically would you change in the laws or regulations to encourage more more and cheaper housing? Bear in mind that apartment and condo developments are springing up all over Richmond and Henrico (I would assume Chesterfield, as well, but I don’t so south of the river much, so I can’t say for sure.) I sincerely doubt if government policies could be held accountable for the 32 percent increase in the median prices of single family and townhouses in the Richmond area over a period of two years.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        More than even Dems – Government itself!

        and “regulation” ….

        much better to have “free markets” like we see in 3rd world countries where the rent is so damn high that people live in slums and forage for food in dumps.

        yes indeed.

        How would/should a country be “correctly” governed? What country model would Conservatives point to?

        More often than not, they point to the US of old , decades ago – yep.

        sorta defines Conservatism – always looking back… never ahead and right now, it’s all the Dems and GOvt fault.

        QED

      2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        See my comment starting “I refer readers to an article by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) in 2005.”

      3. Super Brain Avatar
        Super Brain

        I think the multifamily growth rate in Chesterfield is the highest in the metro area.

      4. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        “I doubt government policies could be held accountable for the 32 percent increase in the median prices of single family and townhouses in the Richmond area over a period of two years.”

        Wanna bet. That spike is directly traceable to supply/demand imbalance.

        The government of Virginia cities, led exclusively by Democrats in living memory, have suppressed supply for decades with zoning and building regulations.

        Until the 80’s, the cost of building, the costs of land and the costs of builders’ zoning and variance bribes added up to the costs of housing.

        Since then, the owners of current housing have pulled up the ladder using “environmental” concerns as excuses, and elected officials replaced the builders’ bribes with “environment group” bribes.

        Supply has kept dwindling under those conditions in every Democratic-run city in America. When supply reaches a critical point, the greater fool theory takes over.

        See the greater fools at work in the Richmond market.

    4. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      yes, that’s why the countries with the least govt have “plenty”…. right?

      ya’ll can’t seem to help yourselves with these anti-govt canards…

      The countries with the highest levels of literacy, highest per-capita income, longest lives, highest per-capita production, highest economic output are the ones with the most government.

      Not a single 3rd world country of the almost 200 comes close.

      but don’t let that interfere with the mythical conservative beliefs.

  2. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Maybe we can draw lines? Blue ones this time.

    I dunno, from last year’s reports, JAB and Steve had me believing the city was in exodus to the burbs.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      mainly white folks in search of less regulation and cheaper rent?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        They want that good NG heat.

      2. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        The article is about the Richmond area, not just the City of Richmond …

        “Data from rental listing site Apartment List showed that from March 2020 to May 2022, city-level rent estimates increased significantly throughout Virginia. In Glen Allen, rent grew approximately 19.5%; 25.3% in Richmond; and 26.8% in Chester.”

  3. Paul Sweet Avatar
    Paul Sweet

    Don’t forget cash proffers of several thousand dollars per unit. They are usually required for rezoning, so they probably affect single-family housing more than apartments.

    I expect that the high percentage in rent increases is largely due to construction of far more high-end units than low income units (if any low income units were constructed).

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      A whole bunch of single-family housing is constructed by-right. No proffers. Proffers are compensation to the taxpayers for capital infrastructure (usually roads and schools) and are often calculated on a per unit basis for the additional units over what would be allowed by-right. Because there is no compensation to the taxpayers for operating budget items (like per student educational costs) re-zonings are almost always a bad deal for the taxpayer and local government budgets. Many local governments are realizing this and just saying “no” to rezonings or cutting the number of extra units before saying “ok”. This may be contributing to a shortage on the housing supply side… kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario…

      1. Paul Sweet Avatar
        Paul Sweet

        I agree that there proffers might be justified. However, they are usually applied as a fixed number of dollars per dwelling unit, so they act as regressive tax on lower income housing because they are a higher percentage of the cost.

        Rezoning is hard enough for large tracts of high end single family, but nobody wants low income housing within 10 miles of them, which makes it even harder to construct affordable apartments. Besides, there isn’t enough profit in lower income housing to offset the high risks, such as material price increases, labor shortages, etc., in the current construction market.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          So you’ve touched on a big issue : “low income housing” and I ask – is this a govt-caused problem that we should blame on govt for making such housing “unaffordable” and the “rent too high”?

      2. WayneS Avatar

        You have a much better grasp of the purpose of proffers than most.

        By the way, some localities are at least partially addressing the increased load on schools caused by traditional residential development by ‘requesting’ that developers proffer age-restricted housing when a project requires rezoning of property.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      proffers pay for new schools, new fire/rescue, new libraries, new roads, etc to serve new development. If you don’t charge proffers, that stuff still has to be built and existing taxpayers have to pay for it.

      contrary to some beliefs, there are no free lunches when it comes to infrastructure needed for new development – that the developers don’t pay for.

  4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    I wonder how much the airbnb investment bubble is contributing to this issue…??

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      I don’t expect that Richmond is a mecca for airbnb seekers except during the legislative session. But maybe.

      1. Super Brain Avatar
        Super Brain

        Actually it is a good market for the ST rentals. Business travelers are using ST now. The sports families coming in prefer the An B to hotels.

  5. Super Brain Avatar
    Super Brain

    Prime driver of the cost constructing a single family home is the cost of developed land. They stopped making raw land awhile back. Gov’t does affect the in the soft costs of developing and construction.
    May not be easy for one younger person to have income of 88,000 but a two income family can get to the number needed. Virginia Housing offers programs to get first time home buyers into homes.
    There is a lot more nuance in real estate construction and finance than can be covered in a blog post. It is not all the governments fault.

  6. WayneS Avatar

    Government regulation at all levels accounts for an estimated 23.8% of the final price of a single-family home…

    Mr. Bacon[Correction] Mr. Baliles: In most, if not all, localities, developers are required to do the following for their projects, be they residential or commercial:

    1) Design and construct roads to adequately carry vehicles and pedestrians to access the project from existing roads and travel within the project.

    2) Obtain access to, or develop, a safe source of drinking water.

    3) Obtain access to, or develop, an adequate and safe method of sewage disposal.

    4) Design and construct a storm water management system which controls storm runoff and prevents damage to downstream properties and waterways.

    5) Design, construct and maintain an erosion and sediment control system which will prevent erosion of soil and deposition of sediment in streams or on adjacent properties during and after construction.

    6) Design and construct buildings which are safe to occupy, using consistent standards for mechanical, electric, plumbing and structural systems. This is so that the buyer, his bank and his insurance company can be reasonably confident the building is not going to burn down, fall over or collapse due to design flaws.

    The above items are, no doubt, part of the 23.8% of total cost associated with government regulations. How large a part? I don’t know, but I suspect it is substantial.

    So, if you want to reduce cost of regulations, which of the above would you be willing to trust a land developer to do on his own with no regulatory oversight? What other specific reductions in regulation of development would you make to lower the burden on developers and, ultimately, their customers?

    If I was inclined to buy a house in a residential development, which I am not, I would want to know that the roads leading to my house were not going to fall apart during the first winter, that my neighbors’ yard drainage was not going to flood my garage or basement, that my yard drainage was not going to flood my neighbors’ garages or basements, that I’d have clean, usable, water when I turn on the tap, and that sewage was not going to be running in the streets when my neighbors and I flush our toilets.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      Perhaps there is a good amount of waste in the taxes associated, they all the items you listed above could be accomplished with less of a hit.

      Like you said, we’d have to see where that 23.8% is derived and what exactly it goes towards.

    2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      I agree totally. Actually, given the items you cited I am surprised it is only 23.8%. The author (not JAB, btw) neglected to note that these are National Association of Home Builder numbers…. no conflict of interest there…

    3. Wayne, why are you directing this comment to me? You should be directing it to Dana Markland, or perhaps to Jon Baliles.

      Speaking personally, I agree that there are reasons for all these regulations. State and local government didn’t enact them just for yuks. But we need to acknowledge that the regs have costs, and that they come with trade-offs, such as driving up the cost per dwelling. It might be appropriate to subject housing regs to a cost-benefit analysis.

      My major concern is that zoning codes and comprehensive plans restrict what kind of housing, and how much, can be built. Zoning has made it significantly more difficult to build multi-family projects, which contributes to the scarcity of affordable housing. Ordinances in many places also restrict the development of trailer parks, of manufactured housing, of tiny housing, of boarding houses, of granny flats and basement apartments, and of facilities devoted to single-room occupancy. We could get a lot more mileage out of our existing housing stock.

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        See my comment and the reference article below. The NBER made an issue of it in 2005.

      2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        If prices appreciated by 32% in the past 2 years and the TOTAL regulation-based costs are just 24%, well then you know that regulations are not driving the real estates bubble.

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          Those price increases indicate a supply/demand imbalance. We are talking about what caused the supply problem. The short answer is zoning and regulations. Government action.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Not necessarily, you ignore the demand side of the equation which is what is driving the imbalance right now. Government regulation did not add 15% to prices year after year and surely we would have heard if a local government had significantly downzoned across the board over the last two years. I know Loudoun hasn’t.

      3. WayneS Avatar

        I apologize. I saw your name as “posted by” but missed Mr. Baliles’ byline. My mistake. I have corrected my comment.

      4. WayneS Avatar

        Ordinances in many places also restrict the development of trailer parks, of manufactured housing, of tiny housing, of boarding houses, of granny flats and basement apartments, and of facilities devoted to single-room occupancy. We could get a lot more mileage out of our existing housing stock.

        I agree with that. It seems like most local governments give lip-service to affordable housing, but write their zoning ordinances so that they allow only single family McMansions and ‘luxury’ townhouses & condos.

    4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      I agree totally. Actually, given the items you cited I am surprised it is only 23.8%. The author (not JAB, btw) neglected to note that these are National Association of Home Builder numbers…. no conflict of interest there…

      1. WayneS Avatar

        Thank you for catching my error. I have corrected it.

  7. James C. Sherlock Avatar
    James C. Sherlock

    I refer readers to an article by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) in 2005. The NBER has been in existence since 1920. It is as non-partisan as it gets – that is its calling card.

    You will read that:

    “The evidence, the authors write, points toward a man-made scarcity of housing in the sense that the housing supply has been constrained by government regulation as opposed to fundamental geographic limitations, especially in the last two or three decades. They see evidence that judges and local government officials have become increasingly sympathetic to community and environmental concerns with new housing developments. Zoning has become more restrictive. Permitting has declined by an estimated 37 percentage points between 1960 and today.”

    If you think the costs of a home are increasingly not represented by the actual building costs, you will note from the 2005 report:
    -“along a swath of the east coast roughly approximated by Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor, the non-structure component of house value exceeded 40 percent by 1990.
    – “that in the San Francisco area, structure costs probably represented no more than 30 percent of house value”.

    Richmond is just belatedly catching up.

    NBER is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of 51 members from leading North American research universities, economics professional organizations, and the business and labor communities.

    The 2005 article in question can be found at https://www.nber.org/sites/default/files/2019-08/sep05.pdf . The full working paper can be found at https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w11129/w11129.pdf

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      re: ” “The evidence points toward a man-made scarcity of housing in the sense that the housing supply has been constrained by government regulation as opposed to fundamental geographic limitations, especially in the last two or three decades.”

      Apply this logic to a place like NoVa or for that matter Richmond City. Where is the cheap vacant land?

Leave a Reply