Earlier this month, the U.S. Senate approved the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act with a notable majority of 89 to 10. The legislation, largely crafted by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and her team, criticizes the single-family home rental market as a significant factor in the country's ongoing housing crisis.
The central premise of this bill is that rental enterprises are acquiring or constructing homes with the intention of renting them for profit, which diminishes the number of homes available for purchase. This reduced supply subsequently drives up home prices and restricts choices for prospective buyers.
Former President Trump has expressed his support for initiatives aimed at preventing investors from entering the single-family home market, demonstrating this through an executive order issued in January.
Nonetheless, it is uncertain whether this law will be enacted in its current form, as the House is currently deliberating on how to merge its provisions with a separate housing bill approved in February. Despite its objectives, the essential components of the ROAD Act, if enacted, could inadvertently hinder its aims by considerably decreasing investments in new single-family housing stock.
Ed Pinto, director of the American Enterprise Institute’s Housing Center and former chief credit officer at Fannie Mae, voiced his concerns regarding the unpredictability of such legislative measures: "The Senate bill makes it clear that the rental-home industry is an unwanted sector in America. It’s a textbook example of the law of unintended consequences."
Pinto pointed out that the burgeoning rental-home market was driven by genuine community needs. He explained that many individuals opt for renting single-family homes for three primary reasons: inability to purchase due to insufficient savings or credit, a desire for short-term housing due to impending relocations, or a preference for the flexibility associated with renting rather than owning.
The firms that have evolved to fulfill this demand typically acquire properties through two principal methods: buying and refurbishing distressed homes or financing the building of new rental homes. For instance, Amherst, a prominent entity within this sector, has rehabilitated around 58,000 homes, with total investments surpassing $2 billion.
Proponents of the ROAD Act contend that purpose-built rentals fail to enhance housing supply and divert essential investment resources, while Pinto counters that many of these renovated properties are viable candidates for sale markets post-renovation.
The ROAD Act encompasses provisions that may inhibit investment within the housing sector. Firstly, it limits "large institutional investors," defined as any for-profit entity owning 350 or more homes, from acquiring additional properties beyond their existing portfolios under severe penalties. Secondly, while the legislation permits the construction of new rental homes, it requires these to be sold after a seven-year lease period, thereby discouraging financing for such projects.
Pinto highlights that this dynamic makes investors hesitant to participate in the housing market, particularly in light of potential economic downturns. Additionally, the act endows the Secretary of the Treasury with extensive authority, which introduces risks of further legislative modifications that could affect homeownership models.
Interestingly, despite the apprehensions surrounding this issue, the rental-home industry accounts for approximately 1% of the total homes in the U.S. Pinto underscores that their contribution is vital in promoting new housing supply, especially in regions where affordability presents a significant challenge. He also points out that there is no statistical evidence to suggest that rental homes inflate market prices.
Share this story