Tag Archives: court decisions

Zoning and Housing Affordability

Posted on by

Vanessa Brown Calder has posted Zoning, Land-Use Planning, and Housing Affordability to SSRN. It opens,

Local zoning and land-use regulations have increased substantially over the decades. These constraints on land development within cities and suburbs aim to achieve various safety, environmental, and aesthetic goals. But the regulations have also tended to reduce the supply of housing, including multifamily and low-income housing. With reduced supply, many U.S. cities suffer from housing affordability problems.

This study uses regression analysis to examine the link between housing prices and zoning and land-use controls. State and local governments across the country impose substantially different amounts of regulation on land development. The study uses a data set of court decisions on land use and zoning that captures the growth in regulation over time and the large variability between the states.

The statistical results show that rising land-use regulation is associated with rising real average home prices in 44 states and that rising zoning regulation is associated with rising real average home prices in 36 states. In general, the states that have increased the amount of rules and restrictions on land use the most have higher housing prices.

The federal government spent almost $200 billion to subsidize renting and buying homes in 2015. These subsidies treat a symptom of the underlying problem. But the results of this study indicate that state and local governments can tackle housing affordability problems directly by overhauling their development rules. For example, housing is much more expensive in the Northeast than in the Southeast, and that difference is partly explained by more regulation in the former region.

Interestingly, the data show that relatively more federal housing aid flows to states with more restrictive zoning and land-use rules, perhaps because those states have higher housing costs. Federal aid thus creates a disincentive for the states to solve their own housing affordability problems by reducing regulation. (1)

This paper provides additional evidence for an argument that Edward Glaeser and others have been making for some time now.

Local governments won’t make these changes on their own. Nonetheless, local land-use decisions have a large negative impact on many households and businesses who are not currently located within the borders of the local jurisdictions (as well as some who are). As a result, the federal government could and should take restrictive land use regulation into account when it allocates federal aid for affordable housing.

The Obama Administration found that restrictive local land-use regulations stifled GDP growth in the aggregate. Perhaps reforming land-use regulation is something that could garner bipartisan support as it is a market-driven approach to the housing crisis, a cause dear to the hearts of many Democrats (and not a few Republicans).

Are Month-to-Month Rentals Good Deals?

Posted on by

photo by umjanedoan

Zillow.com quoted me in Are Month-to-Month Rentals Good for Landlords? It opens,

Your tenant’s lease is up, and they ask about switching to a month-to-month arrangement. Assuming they’re a good tenant — they pay rent on time, keep the place clean, don’t host loud parties — you might be tempted to accommodate the request. But before you do, be sure to understand the relevant landlord-tenant laws.

The Appeal Of Month-To-Month Renting

From the tenant’’ perspective, the benefit of month-to-month renting — also known as tenancy at will — is its flexibility compared to a standard long-term lease. Whether they’re pursuing out-of-town job opportunities, considering relocation to a different neighborhood or just thinking about moving up to a more spacious abode, the elasticity of month-to-month renting is appealing to a potentially footloose tenant.

From your point of view as a landlord, the appeal centers on cash flow and convenience — of not having the property stand vacant while you hassle with finding a new renter. In addition, a month-to-month rental can give you some added flexibility, too.

The Terms Of The Original Lease Generally Remain In Effect

There is no overarching federal law regarding tenancy at will; the rules are typically state-specific. Or, as Matthew Kreitzer an attorney with Booth and McCarthy in Winchester, Virginia, notes, “Tenancy-at-will is largely a creature of local law.” If and when there is no formal written agreement in place, local case law usually comes into play to fill the gap, he explains.

Michael Vraa, managing attorney at HOME Line, a tenant hotline based in Minnesota, says that in his state, as well as many others, the terms of the initial rental agreement carry forward into the month-to-month rental period.

Assuming rent is paid on a monthly basis, “unless the lease has some provision that describes what would happen if a new lease is not agreed to, the law would default to the notion that the agreement becomes month to month,” says Vraa. “If the lease ends July 31 and the tenant pays the next month’s rent (August), and the landlord accepts it, the agreement probably shifts to a month-to-month agreement.”

Tom Simeone, attorney at Simeone and Miller in Washington, D.C., adds that even a verbal contract or agreement to carry forth on a month-to-month basis is legally enforceable in most states. “If the parties previously had a written lease that expired, those terms will remain in effect in the tenancy at will. If not, the court will enforce what it finds to be the parties’ intentions and fill in any contract terms with what it deems to be reasonable,” Simeone says.

As Vraa noted, landlords sometimes include provisions in the original lease describing what can or will happen if a new lease is not agreed to at the end of the set term. Some management companies, for example, include a statement in the original lease saying the landlord or management company can or will raise the rent if a new lease is not signed. This may be by a certain dollar amount, such as “increased by $50 per month,” or by a specified percentage rate, as in “up to 5 percent per month.”

Rules About Tenant Privacy And Intent To Vacate Still Apply

Vraa and Simeone say that, generally, the rules regarding a tenant’s right to privacy are the same under tenancy at will as under a lease. Thus the amount of notice you have to give a tenant before entering their premises remains the same — typically 24 hours, as dictated by law in many states.

In regard to the notice required for intent to vacate, Simeone says this, too, is determined by the original lease. “If not,” he adds, “a court will likely require the lease to be month to month, especially if rent is paid on a monthly basis, which is typical. If so, thirty days’ notice is required to terminate — by either [the] landlord or tenant.”

However, Vraa says, in a month-to-month rental term, neither the landlord nor tenant are required to provide a specific reason for discontinuing the contract. That means you can give the tenant a notice to vacate the property, regardless of whether you plan to sell the property, rent to someone else, or simply do not wish to continue leasing to that specific tenant. But David Reiss, professor at Brooklyn Law School, notes, “The big risk, for both parties, is that the other party wants to terminate [the tenancy] at a time that is inconvenient for the other party. In that case, the parties can agree to a longer term (a year-to-year lease or one for a specific term of years).”

Reiss also stresses that although most state laws regarding tenancy at will derive from common law, “each jurisdiction may have variations from these common law principles that result from court decisions or statute. For instance, the meaning of one month’s notice to terminate a month-to-month lease can have small, but legally significant variations among jurisdictions.”

REFinBlog has been nominated for the second year in a row for The Expert Institute’s Best Legal Blog Competition in the Education Category.  Please vote here if you like what you read.