Tag Archives: local government

Who Controls the Block? How States Can Regulate Tokenized Residential Real Estate

Posted on by
Reply

AI Image created with ChatGPT

I have posted Who Controls the Block? How States Can Regulate Tokenized Residential Real Estate to SSRN (with Bizub & Peralta). The abstract reads,

In July 2025, the City of Detroit filed a major nuisance abatement action against RealT, a fintech that had sold blockchain-based fractional interests in more than four hundred Detroit rental properties to some 22,000 investors around the world. Within a year, a court had ordered the company’s rents into escrow, the company had conceded to its investors that its “model no longer works,” and it had announced the liquidation of its portfolio  —  leaving tenants without basic services and token holders facing steep losses.

This article uses the rise and collapse of RealT, together with case studies of the other leading real estate tokenization business models, to evaluate the claims made for tokenized real estate as a new asset class for individual investors. Measured against the publicly-traded REIT, tokenization offers only one advantage to investors —  a bespoke level of diversification  —  and it does so while shedding the investor protections that registration and exchange listing provide. More fundamentally, the leading business models rest on skirting the state and local legal infrastructure of real property: recording regimes, transfer and property taxation, and homeowner and tenant protections. Like the mortgage industry’s Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) a generation ago, tokenization externalizes the costs of that end-run onto the parties least able to bear them.

Real estate tokenization is still in its infancy, and state and local governments have a window of opportunity to shape how these fintechs operate within their borders. Some have begun to use it: Maine’s first-in-the-nation statute regulating shared appreciation agreements supplies one template, and Detroit’s enforcement campaign another. This article maps the gaps that remain  —  most notably in transfer taxation and tenant protection  —  and offers an agenda for closing them before tokenization scales.

 

Rising Property Tax Assessments

Posted on by

Canton, NY (CC BY-NC 2.0 Decaseconds)

I was interviewed by North Country Public Radio in Canton’s  Reassessment Doubled Many Home Values. How Does That Affect Taxes? The story reads,

Last month, Canton residents started receiving letters in the mail notifying them of their new property value assessments. Some people said their home values more than doubled, causing concern about unaffordable tax increases.

Canton’s last property tax assessment was almost two decades ago, in 2008. Since then, the values of people’s properties have changed. They’ve mostly gone up.

The town says properties were assessed at only 60% of their market value, and that the new revaluation brings these property values back up to 100% of their assessed value.

Reassessments have also happened recently in Potsdam, Ogdensburg, and other towns in the North Country. According to the Department of Taxation and Finance, these revaluations are happening to equalize property values so that people are taxed fairly.

But these changes have shocked some Canton residents. At a town board meeting in March, Phillip Burnett said his assessment seemed way too high.

“It’s so far out of whack…we’re talking about a double wide that tripled in 13 years,” said Burnett. “The discrepancy is so large that I don’t have confidence in anybody inside of these four walls, because this is what you voted for. I mean, my hair’s blown back that you guys got it so wrong.”

Town Supervisor Jim Smith says that just because a property value increases, that doesn’t mean your taxes will.

“That does not mean your taxes are going to double. No way, does it mean your taxes are going to double,” said Smith. “They would only double if county, town, and school left their tax rates at the very same rates as what they are, but all those tax rates are going to come down.”

Smith says he’s expecting there to be a reduction in tax rates by next year. That’s because, due to this reassessment, Canton’s tax base is expected to grow from $417 million to $730 million.

David Reiss, a Clinical Professor of Law at Cornell University, says property assessments need to keep up with how neighborhoods change.

“And so if you don’t reassess, you don’t really capture the introduction of the park. You don’t capture the introduction of the highway exit,” says Reiss. “And so you have relative unfairness where maybe both houses were valued at $200,000 15 years ago, but one is now worth $250,000, and then the other’s worth $400,000. And the reassessment is supposed to capture how that has diverged over time.”

Reiss says there are many variables, but it’s important for property owners to understand not just the assessed value of their property, but also their neighbours and the town as a whole.

“You need to understand the tax rate. You need to understand the budget. And then you have a better sense of how this is playing out across the board and also how it’s playing out for each individual property owner.”

Canton residents have the opportunity to contest their new property values at Grievance Days, which start on May 26. Town Supervisor Jim Smith encourages people who have concerns with their assessment to get in touch with the assessor’s office.

Smith says that in the future, he’s hoping to make these assessments happen more often, so that people aren’t surprised by what their property’s assessed value is.

Law in The Time of COVID: The Ripple Effect in Real Estate

Posted on by

Dean Michael Cahill

In many ways, COVID-19 has changed the way we live for both the immediate future and long-term. Brooklyn Law School Dean Michael Cahill has been sitting down with members of the Brooklyn Law School faculty to discuss the legal ramifications of our response to COVID-19 and what a post-pandemic world may look like.  Here is the link to our discussion of the effect of the pandemic on the real estate market and beyond: https://youtu.be/j9DFBOsU3qw.

The Hunger Games: Amazon Edition

Posted on by

photo by SounderBruce

The New York Law Journal published commentary of mine, The Hunger Games: Amazon Edition. It opens,

Last week Amazon finally announced that New York and Northern Virginia would be the sites of its planned major expansion. While many are caught up in the excitement of Amazon bringing 25,000 high-paid jobs to both metropolitan areas, it is worth thinking through the costs that beauty contests like this one impose on state and local governments. Amazon extracted billions of dollars in concessions from the winners and could have extracted even more from some of the other cities courting them.

It is economically rational for companies to create such Hunger Games-type competitions among communities. These competitions reduce their costs and improve their bottom lines. But is it economically rational for the cities? As long as governments are acting independently, yes, it is rational for them to race to the bottom to secure a win. So long as they are a bit better off by snagging the prize than they would have been otherwise, they come out ahead. But the metrics that politicians use are unlikely to be limited to a hard-nosed accounting of costs and increased tax revenues. Positive buzz may be enough to satisfy them.

Consider Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s deal with Foxconn. Just over a year ago, he was touting the $3 billion state subsidy for FoxConn’s manufacturing plant. This was the year leading up to his hard fought election fight, a fight he ultimately lost. His public statements focused on Foxconn’s promise to create 13,000 jobs. While that was a lot of jobs, it was a hell of a lot of subsidy—more than $230,000 per job, more than six times the largest amount Wisconsin had ever paid to subsidize a promised job. Walker got his campaign issue, FoxConn got its $3 billion and Wisconsin residents got … had. The $3 billion dollar subsidy has grown to over $4 billion at the same time that Foxconn is slowing down its investment in Wisconsin. So now taxpayers are subsidizing each job by well over $300,000 each. Nonpartisan analysts have determined that it will take decades, at the earliest, for Wisconsin to recoup its “investment.”

Likewise, hundreds of millions of dollars are thrown at stadiums and arenas even though economists have clearly demonstrated that those investments do not generate a positive financial return for the governments that provide these subsidies. Fancy consultants set forth all of the supposed benefits: job creation, direct spending by all of the people drawn to the facility, indirect spending by those who service the direct spenders. This last metric is meant to capture the increase in restaurant staff, Uber drivers and others who will cater to the new employees, residents and visitors to the facility. But as has been shown time and time again, these metrics are vastly overstated and willingly accepted at face value by politicians eager to generate some good headlines. They also ignore the opportunity cost of the direct subsidies—monies spent on attracting a company is money that can’t be spent on anything else. While we don’t know what it would have been spent on, it is likely to have been public schools, mass transit, roads or affordable housing in many communities.

 

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).

Cracked Foundation for American Households

Posted on by

photo by shaireproductions.com

President Trump’s budget claims to lay A New Foundation for American Greatness. Whatever else it does, when it comes to housing it leads down a path to ruin for many an American family.

Here is just some of what he proposes: cutting housing choice vouchers by almost $1 billion; cutting support for public housing by nearly $2 billion; and getting rid of the entire $3 billion budget for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). These are all abstract numbers, so it is worth breaking them down to a more human scale.

Vouchers.  Housing choice vouchers help low-income families afford a home. Republicans and Democrats have long supported these vouchers because they help tenants afford apartments that are rented by private landlords, not by public housing agencies. Vouchers are effectively an income subsidy for the poor that must be used for housing alone. The landlord is paid the subsidy and the tenant pays the difference between the subsidy and the rent. These vouchers are administered by local public housing agencies.

Nearly half of vouchers go to families with children, nearly a quarter go to the elderly and another fifth go to disabled adults. The nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has found that voucher dramatically reduce homelessness. It also found that voucher holders were likely to be in the workforce unless they were elderly or disabled. While vouchers are a very effective subsidy, the federal budget has only provided enough funds for about a quarter of eligible households. Trump’s proposed cuts would cut funding for more than 100,000 families. That’s 100,000 families that may end up homeless as a result.

Public Housing. Public housing has been starved of resources for nearly forty years. While some believe that public housing has been a failure overall, it remains a vital source of housing for the very poor. Trump’s proposed cuts to public housing operating and capital expenses means that these tenants will see their already poorly maintained homes descend deeper into decrepitude. Unaddressed leaks lead to mold; deferred maintenance on boilers leads to no heat in the winter – every building needs some capital repairs to maintain a baseline of habitability.

We must ask ourselves how bad will we allow this housing stock to get before we are overcome by a sense of collective shame. If a private landlord provided housing that was as poorly maintained as much of the public housing stock, it would be on a worst landlords list in local newspapers. The fact that the landlord is the government does not redeem the sin.

CDBG. The Community Development Block Grant funds affordable housing and anti-poverty programs along with community development activities engaged in by local governments. CDBG has broad support from Republicans and Democrats because it provides funds that allow local governments to respond more nimbly to local conditions. Local governments use these funds for basic infrastructure like water and sewer lines, affordable housing and the soft costs involved in planning for their future.

While these expenditures are somewhat abstract, recent press stories have highlighted that CDBG also funds Meals on Wheels for the elderly. While this is not a big portion of the CDBG budget, it does make concrete how those $3 billion are being allocated each year by local communities seeking to help their neediest residents.

*     *     *

Trump’s budget proposal is honest in that it admits to making “substantial changes to the policies and spending priorities of the previous administration . . .” Members of Congress from both parties will now have to weigh in on those substantial changes. Are they prepared to make Trump’s cuts to these housing and community development programs that provide direct aid to their neighbors and local governments? Are they prepared for the increase in homeless that will follow? In the increase in deficits for state and local governments? If not, they should reject President Trump’s spending priorities and focus on budget priorities that support human dignity and compassion as well as a commitment to local responses to address local problems.

Trump, Homelessness and the General Welfare

Posted on by

photo by Jay Black

The Hill published my column, Trump’s Budget Proposal Is Bad News for Housing Across the Nation. It opens,

The White House unveiled its much anticipated budget proposal today. It shows deep cuts to important agencies, including a more than $6 billion decrease in funding to the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). More than 75 percent of the agency’s budget goes to helping families pay their rent. Thus, these cuts would have a negative impact on thousands upon thousands of poor and working class households.

Many years ago, Congress enshrined the “goal of a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family” within its Declaration of National Housing Policy. This goal was not just justified by the basic needs of those with inadequate housing, but also because “the general welfare and security of the nation” required it. As our nation’s leading cities grapple with rapidly growing homeless populations, this additional justification takes on added weight today.

Click here to read the rest of it.