Rentals Rule

With the recent news that three of New Haven's newest and fanciest apartment complexes have changed hands at eye-popping prices, it's clear that New Haven has a presence on the national scene for investment potential.  Investors from other places, mainly those priced out of the NY market, have entered our arena with enthusiasm.  Most are institutional investors, who are in it for the long haul, and that shows a confidence in our market that should help us all.

New Haven has, for several years, been at or near the bottom of national lists of rental vacancies, getting as low at one point as 1.5%.  The current situation is not all that different--less than 2% overall, with slightly over 3% vacancy rates at the upper end. Almost every high-end unit that has come onto the market in the past few years is occupied, something that many people doubted would happen.

The really interesting aspect, however, is that the units existing before are still full, and in demand.  In addition, the traditional graduate student housing on Orange Street and environs was expected to fall off in value, as more attractive options lured away those with money, but we haven't seen that occur.  There is still very strong demand for multifamily units in the East Rock neighborhood, as well as in other parts of the city.  Finally, despite all the rental interest, there are not enough condo units to satisfy the demand.  Part of that is because lenders are shying away from financing condominium projects, and that decreases new supply, but, whatever the reason, certain complexes are still in constant demand.

What all of this means is that the number of renters continues to grow.  Some are coming from increasing population, although New Haven is still far from its 1940s peak population.  Student demand is also growing, even as Yale continues to add to its own supply of housing.  We do have a large immigrant influx, and they may be pushing former renters into new areas and developments.  It also appears that New Haven may be achieving its goal of attracting young workers from around the State, who live here for the nightlife and cultural aspects, then commute by train or car to other environs for work.

There is also a heavy influence of baby boomer renters, those who previously owned large homes in the suburbs here or elsewhere, and are downsizing to rentals with amenities.  The traditional stigma against renting, when you could afford to buy, seems to be rapidly disappearing, and the convenience and portability of lifestyle is more important than the tax deduction to many.  We could easily see more of this group if their McMansions in the suburbs would sell more quickly, allowing them to move into the urban core.  While most experts believe that those with young children will eventually choose suburban venues, it does appear that walkability scores may continue to keep those families in cities longer.

What to tell investors?  It's a seller's market for multifamilies and developments, as well as for shovel-ready projects, although there are still opportunities for local people to guess the paths of gentrification, and use them to advantage.  But what about what usually follows?  We haven't yet seen the office and retail that so often accompanies housing, or even precedes it.  While office is years from recovery, and may never reach the pre-telecommuting heights, retail should still be in the wings as a growth opportunity.

And all of this is cause for New Haveners, and those in the region it supports, to rejoice!

Southwestern CT housing prices strain owners and renters (from CT Mirror)

The following article is from the CT Mirror and was written by Schae Beaudoin, please click here to visit CT Mirror online

Almost half of Americans pay too much for their rent, and in southwestern Connecticut those numbers are even higher, says a national study.

Harvard University’s annual State of the Nation’s Housing report says 18 million renters across the nation are burdened by their housing prices. Homeowners and renters are considered “burdened” if they spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent.

In Fairfield and New Haven counties, about 55 percent of renters are considered burdened. Both counties are in the top ten in the nation for percentage of burdened renters. The national average is about 48 percent.

Additionally, over 11 million renters in the U.S. were considered “severely burdened” in 2015 because they paid at least half of their income for housing. The number of homeowners considered severely burdened was at its lowest since 2004, but there still were more than 7.5 million Americans in that category.

In their proportion of burdened homeowners, Fairfield County is behind only the New York City and Los Angeles metro areas. The Hartford metro area, which includes Hartford, Middlesex and Tolland counties; the New Haven metro area; and the Worcester, Mass., metro area, which includes Windham county, also are above the national average for burdened homeowners, which is 24 percent. About one out of every three homeowners in Fairfield and New Haven counties are burdened, according to the report.

Burdened renters and homeowners

Percentage of burdened renters and homeowners in CT, surrounding metro areas and the national average

Area	Percent of burdened renters	Percent of burdened homeowners
Fairfield County metro	55%	35%
New Haven metro	55%	31%
Hartford metro	47%	27%
Worcester metro	46%	27%
New York metro	53%	36%
Boston metro	49%	28%
National average	48%	24%

HARVARD JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES, STATE OF THE NATION’S HOUSING 2017

Rents in Fairfield County are among the highest in the nation, with median rents higher than those in the New York and Boston metro areas.

Pete Gioia, economist at the Connecticut Business and Industry Association, said Fairfield County’s high prices aren’t new, and Connecticut is relatively affordable compared to the larger surrounding cities. In Boston and New York City, housing prices are growing faster than they are in Connecticut. Affordability problems arise when houses in buyers’ desired price range aren’t available.

“Is the housing stock that’s available comparable to what purchasers are looking for? That’s where you get into some affordability issues,” Gioia said. “This is not just true of Connecticut. This is true of other areas. There’s a lot of buyers out there for reasonably priced housing. There’s fewer buyers out there for very high-end, expensive and large properties.”

While median income for renters in New York, Boston and Fairfield County are similar, the median rent in Fairfield County is about $100 higher per month than in Boston and New York, suggesting higher rents, not lower incomes, are behind the burdens on renters in Connecticut.

Fairfield and New Haven counties have some of the lowest percentages of 18- to 24-year-olds heading households. About 10 percent of 18- 24-year-olds are independent heads of households in those counties. The national average is closer to 20 percent.

Gioia said affordability probably keeps some younger millennials from moving out on their own in Connecticut, and many who do leave for other places. Gioia said students who leave the state for college are more likely to stay out of state. Larger metro areas also appeal more to younger people, he said.

“If you’re an unmarried 23-year-old, you want to be where the action is, and there’s a heck of a lot more action in New York City or downtown Boston than there is in Connecticut,” Gioia said, adding many young people come back to Connecticut later in life when they begin families.

However, Gioia said there is economic opportunity here. “If you’ve got the skills, you can make a pretty darn good income in Connecticut, even if you’re fairly young,” Gioia said.

The report found that nationally, higher rents may become a norm. The number of rental units costing less than $800 per month has decreased between 2005 and 2015. In the same decade, units with monthly rents over $2,000 increased by 1.5 million.

News from Augusta, Georgia

For those of you who have been reading this blog for a long time, you know that twice a year I go to some other part of the country, to meet at another large independent real estate company, and consult for them on best business practices, with a group of other independent broker owners.  Last week, we were in sunny Augusta, Georgia, where the weather, and the golf, were both excellent.

Most of the brokers surveyed there thought that the national market for real estate was flat, and would remain so for the rest of the year, and most had experienced a slowdown in the late summer.  In some markets, although sadly not ours, it has picked back up again since.  Most also saw prices close to flat.  Some had units up and prices down, and some the reverse.  It's more or less the same story we've seen for the past few years:  two steps forward; one step back.

Many of those present had the same concerns, including wondering when the millennial generation will buy houses.  Is it student debt, lack of roots, later marriages, or something else, that's causing the delay?  Most markets were seeing big numbers of renters, often outstripping the supply of rental housing.  People accepting jobs are regularly leaving their families at the old location, so there would be two households instead of one created.

Still, there were trends about which we were optimistic.  Commissions for agents are up, independent companies are bucking the trend of decline in many of the large franchise firms, and consumer confidence has risen.  All in all, a good week.

Rent or Buy Decisions Now

The New York Times recently had a real estate section cover story about how both sales prices and rental rates were out of sight for many areas of NYC.  There didn't seem to be a good choice for someone looking to move to make.  Here, we see things as being different.  Rentals in our region are increasingly scarce.  New Haven has the lowest apartment vacancy rate in the country.  In addition, we haven't seen the wave of foreclosures that people think may be coming in our state.  If or when it does, that will mean that large numbers of people will go from being owners to being renters, for at least the seven years that they will need to wait before they can borrow again.  Where are they all going to go?

On the other side of the equation, prices for homes are low.  Very low.  And so are mortgage rates.  That makes it a good time to buy, if you believe that prices are going to rise.  In that regard, we got some help from a Trulia article, albeit a backhanded compliment.  Greater New Haven was listed among the ten cities where the number of people looking to move out most exceeds the number of people looking to move in.  It also predicted that prices would go down a couple of percent by the third quarter of this year.  BUT, it went on to say that price increases would average 5.3% per year through 2016, meaning that someone who buys a home and plans to hold onto it for five years, whether living in it or renting it out, will be likely to get quite a bit more for it when he or she goes to sell.

That seems to me to make the rent versus buy decision pretty simple around here.  It's the time to buy.

An Idea to Move the Market

Much thought and discussion went into the enactment and extension of the first-time homebuyer tax credit, and it clearly impacted the market, both while it was in effect, and after it expired. It moved sales for last year into the first half, and the immediate drop in activity and sales beginning last July proved that it motivated people to buy before it ran out.

Although I have my issues with that credit, both in terms of policy and in practice, there is no question that it made a difference while it was in effect, and that the market responded. It is also clear that the jump start that the government must have hoped that it would give to real estate did not occur, as sales fell off as soon as it was over. In retrospect, I think that the government was right in thinking that we needed that kind of stimulus, and I think we need to try again. After all, cash for clunkers helped the auto industry, the TARP money helped the financial industry, and real estate is still lagging. It is hard to imagine any real recovery taking place without our industry improving.

My problem with the first-time homebuyer credit was that it aimed at exactly the people who would buy in any type of market: those forming households; and renters with no homes to sell. One of the main problems with the current market is that it is stopped up, because sellers who can sell refuse to do so, because they feel that they are losing equity, even though that perceived equity may have been phantom gains.

In order to give an incentive for those who can to sell now, and to buy something else, I propose that the government offer a one-time tax credit for sellers who will lose equity when they sell, on the same terms and up to the same amount as the first-time credit. So, for example, someone who paid $200,000 for her house and now is selling for $180,000 could deduct up to $8000 on her tax bill this year. I believe that the market may now be ready for the jump start that such a program could provide, and that it would help even more than the last incentive, since it would both produce a supply of homes for others to buy, and sales for developers and other sellers when those people buy a new place to live. It's time for bold action, and helping the housing industry would be good for everyone.