This summer, Oregon passed a law that prohibits the transmission of love letters. Love letters are written by a prospective home buyer to the owner, and they explain why the buyer loves the home. Oregon lawmakers concluded that “these letters can be a tool of discrimination by including identifying information concerning race, sex or familial status.” Neither the state nor NAR could point to a single example of discrimination. This law is, as the authors state, “an ill-conceived solution in search of a problem.”
Seattle recently extended its eviction moratorium until January 15. Through early September, the city had distributed only 6.6 percent of the federal funds it had received for rent assistance. So, while the city doddles in disbursing money, it simultaneously prohibits landlords from taking any action that might mitigate the financial damage that they have been suffering. In announcing the extension, the mayor said that it give the city more time to distribute aid. Given its track record so far, it might be safe to bet that the moratorium will be extended again.
This past weekend, voters in Berlin, Germany, approved a non-binding referendum to expropriate about 200,000 housing units from the city’s largest landlords. Advocates of the seizure claim that it is necessary to deal with rapidly rising rents. If the city follows through, it would become the owner of the properties and presumably set rents below market rates. In the short-term, expropriation might be effective in keeping rents down. But in the long-term, this will be a disaster. If the city can seize property from large companies—which have the resources to fight such an injustice—smaller landlords won’t stand a chance if the city comes for their property. Knowing that the city can arbitrarily take their property will not encourage individuals or businesses to invest in rental housing. When the supply is stagnant or even declining while demand continues to rise, rents will increase. And that will lead to calls for additional expropriations.