New Rent Control Proposal: Could This Be The End Of Landlording As We Know It?
A few evenings ago I attended a meeting of the Property Owners Association of NJ and as usual there’s a point in our meeting when the attorneys who work with our group get up to speak about what changes have recently taken place that we landlords need to be aware of.
Want more articles like this?
Create an account today to get BiggerPocket's best blog articles delivered to your inboxSign up for free
Besides the mentions of changes that needed to be in our leases going forward, there was a moment during the presentation that caught my attention, and that of everyone else in the room.
They mentioned two words that have been my bane since I started investing in Real Estate: Rent Control.
I am not a fan of rent control. I never understood how its beneficial to any market.
I know that it was recently mentioned on Podcast 66 with Michael Blank who mentioned it, saying that there are cases where it can be beneficial, but (and no offense to Michael) I personally have never seen a case where its been beneficial to anyone including the tenant!
My personal opinion is that it destroys markets instead of protecting them. So when attorney Derek Reed said those two words, yes it grabbed my attention!
According to most recent news there is much talk about Newark, NJ changing its rent control ordinance. The proposal, should it pass, will in my opinion immediately cause investors to look away from this market.
In fact it will probably make them run away from it. Derek was kind enough to share a handout to anyone that was interested.
According to his handout, a landlord in Newark can currently raise rents up to 5% per on dwelling units 49 or less, and 4% if they’re 50 dwelling units or more.
The proposal seeks to limit the raise to equal or less than the CPI (Consumer Price Index) for the preceding 12 months for the New Jersey area, but never to exceed 4%.
Using CPI multifamily property owners would have obtained, on average, a 2% rent increase since 2009 and possibly as low as .8%. That alone would send me running however it’s just the beginning…. and it doesn’t end there.
Additional proposed changes include:
Major Capital Improvements (MCI):
Current ordinance allows a landlord to recoup the cost of MCI however the proposed changes eliminates MCI for “Major New Improvements”.
That means if the existing elevator needs replacing you will not be able to recoup the costs of upgrading it since it’s not “new”. According to Reed this could deter property owners from replacing critical building items such as roofs, boilers, elevators, risers, etc. And the sentiment amongst the group came out in the form of moans and groans.
Vacant Unit Rent Increases:
The current ordinance allows owners to apply for a 25% increase of a previously rented unit that had undergone renovations equal to $100 per room.
In most cases that could be just painting a room and you can get a price increase. The new proposal seeks to limit the increase to 20% of the previous rent as long as the renovations equate to $5,000 per room.
This is a 4900% increase and as Reed pointed out, simply unrealistic.
I don’t know of any of us that would consider investing and fixing up a rental knowing that they couldn’t bring the unit to market value in rent after performing renovations.
Reed states that the typical one bedroom apartment there has 3-4 rooms. Owners would spend $15,000-$20,000 in order to be eligible for an increase of 20%. So, chances are most owners will not make upgrades or repairs as a result of this.
This is most important as the new proposals say that unless the property owners are not in violation of “heat, hot water, water, air conditioning, elevator, and all health, safety and fire violations, as well as ninety percent (90%) qualitatively free of all other violations” they will not be allowed to increase the rent a single penny.
According to Reed there is no way that a landlord can prove “Substantial Compliance” in a city where the inspectors are already in in short supply and overworked.
Can we expect this to happen or is this pandering to the voter base?
If this language is adopted by Newark property values will instantly decrease. I don’t know of a single potential landlord that would be willing to invest in Newark under these scenarios.
Reed brought up an interesting point when he asked the group how many of us had property in Newark. A fair amount raised their hands. I did not.
Still it didn’t matter because Reed went on to tell us that this was not just a problem for Newark, NJ, it was a problem for all of us.
If language like this could get adopted in Newark it would make it much easier for the language to be adopted in other towns locally and then in other counties and other states.
Rent control anywhere is a national issue when you’re a real estate investor. Nowhere else in society are we limited in how much we can earn off our investments.
If overall property ownership is decreasing nationwide and more people are renting, its a threat that language like this can get adopted anywhere. We landlords it seems, will consistently be portrayed as bad people, taking advantage of others however that’s not the case.
The majority of us aren’t large holders with hundreds of rental units. We just people like anyone else trying to do our best and make a decent living.
Right now Newark is experiencing a boom of investment in places like downtown and the Ironbound section. This area is now being sought after by those who like great food and an easy commute into New York City.
Housing prices have increased sharply over the past couple of years as demand for the area has gone up. Its helping revive neighborhoods and the city itself.
It’s the opinion of many other than just myself that Newark, NJ hasn’t lost the stigma it attained in the 1960’s when it experienced race riots.
From that point on the city has had a dark cloud hanging over it, similar to Detroit. There have many who’ve tried to revive the city and great things have taken place. Sharpe James brought in the New Jersey Performing Arts Center and other improvements.
However he’s since been to prison for conspiring to sell 9 city lots to his mistress. After James, Corey Booker came in and did a world of good and the city has now seen its best years since before the riots.
Unfortunately he’s gone now. And now it looks like Newark could be going back to the ways that made it a blight on the landscape of New Jersey. This is very sad.
In my last train ride into New York City (which takes me through Newark) I marveled at the site of new construction. There were cranes reaching high into the sky of downtown Newark where there hasn’t been any in a very long time.
It would be sad to see the progress come to an end. If it can happen here in New Jersey it will happen in Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, Denver, Miami, San Francisco, etc. Do I need to list more?
What do you think the impact will be if this proposal is approved?
What can we do to make sure it doesn’t happen?
Be sure to leave your comments below!