SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Tenant protections aren't just good policies—they're good politics," said one housing justice campaigner.
An analysis released Tuesday bolsters an argument that progressive lawmakers and organizers have been making with growing urgency in the lead-up to the critical November elections: Housing should be at the top of the Democratic Party's—and President Joe Biden's—agenda.
The research brief, authored by Russell Weaver of the Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations (ILR) Buffalo Co-Lab, shows that tenants are a "large, untapped political base" that can be mobilized by candidates who offer bold solutions to the housing crisis and support the rights of renters against the predatory landlords squeezing them for profit.
While homeowners typically turn out to vote at a far higher rate than tenants, Weaver noted, the "owner-renter turnout gap is nearly cut in half when candidates run on renter-friendly platforms." Renters in New York state (NYS)—the focus of the new analysis—are more likely than homeowners to be registered as Democrats or members of the Working Families Party.
Analyzing the results of New York's statewide general election in 2022, Weaver found that NYS tenants "might have been relatively motivated to turn out for candidates who were vocal supporters or co-sponsors of the 2022 state-level Good Cause Eviction bill, which protects renters against rent hikes and evictions."
"In NYS Senate races that did not feature such a candidate, the average turnout rate among likely renters was roughly 29% (after adjusting for race-ethnicity and political party)," Weaver wrote. "In races that included Good Cause proponents, however, average renter turnout was more than five percentage points higher, at 34.1%—a statistically significant difference."
Weaver said in a statement that his analysis underscores that "candidates who campaign on housing affordability and tenant protections have the potential to significantly boost renter turnout, which could be decisive in tightly contested races."
"An organized tenant voting bloc could be the key to jump-starting a statewide housing policy agenda that works for all New Yorkers," said Weaver.
The findings could also have implications for national races as rent remains high across the country, leaving roughly half of U.S. tenants unable to afford their monthly payments as corporate landlords and billionaire investors gobble up rental properties and drive up costs. The Federal Reserve is also making the crisis worse by keeping interest rates elevated.
"This brief tells us what we already know: Renters are a powerful voting bloc that will determine the 2024 election," Katie Goldstein, a housing justice organizer at the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD), said of Weaver's analysis. "We can't leave these votes on the table."
"Tenant champions who run on these issues will be rewarded at the ballot box—and politicians who fail to do so will be voted out of office."
CPD, Right to the City Action, and HIT Strategies released survey data earlier this month showing that 87% of U.S. voters believe the "cost of rent and housing is a major or big problem in their state" and that 70% said they are "more likely to vote for someone who supports rent stabilization policies."
The new research brief and polling data strengthen the case for making housing a top priority for an incumbent president and Democratic lawmakers hoping to defeat their Republican opponents in November.
"Tenant protections aren't just good policies—they're good politics," said Esteban Girón, member of the Tenants PAC Board. "Candidates have the opportunity to win big by committing to keep rents affordable and protect tenants from displacement."
At a gathering in Los Angeles in early April, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) joined Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and other lawmakers at the national, state, and local levels in imploring Democrats to elevate bold housing policies and tenant protections such as federal rent control to the top of the party's agenda.
"This is the richest country on Earth. We're not a poor country," Sanders said at the event. "Can we build affordable housing that we need? Can we protect? And the answer is of course we can. But it will require a massive grassroots effort to transform our political system to do that."
Politicoreported earlier this year that Biden has privately expressed "increasing concern" that housing costs are putting his reelection hopes in jeopardy.
"The White House is now pushing a range of bulked-up tax credits to incentivize existing homeowners to sell their starter homes, as well as expand rental assistance and extend help for lower-income buyers with their down payments," the outlet noted. "Yet all those ideas require legislation. And while the White House has publicly argued the crisis affects red states just as much as blue states, aides privately acknowledge any movement is a long shot in an election year. Indeed, Republicans have been quick to pan Biden's housing push."
Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, meanwhile, has not released a housing agenda as he vies for another four years in the White House. During his first term as president, Trump repeatedly pursued steep cuts to federal housing programs and assailed affordable housing initiatives.
Brahvan Ranga, political director of For the Many, said Tuesday that it is "critical we elect legislators who will enact policies that expand tenants' rights, create and maintain affordable green social housing, and affirm housing as a guaranteed right."
"The housing crisis is front of mind for tenants as they head to the polls—both in Democratic primaries and general elections. As housing costs continue to rise and working families struggle to stay in their homes, corporate real estate and greedy landlords are raking in record profits," said Ranga. "Tenant champions who run on these issues will be rewarded at the ballot box—and politicians who fail to do so will be voted out of office."
"Through-the-roof rent hikes based on greed—not need—have kept many Americans from getting ahead," said one advocate at Accountable.US.
With monthly inflation down to its lowest point in more than two years and heading toward the Federal Reserve's target, the Biden administration on Wednesday celebrated "welcome progress."
But an analysis from Accountable.US showed how more than 100 million people who rent their homes in the U.S. are not seeing the benefits of what one Biden spokesperson called "the great American comeback" in their housing costs, particularly millions of people whose homes are owned by corporate landlords.
The government watchdog found that the six largest corporate landlord companies brought in close to a combined $300 million in increased profits in the first quarter of 2024, with the profits mostly stemming from rent hikes.
Overall in the U.S., rent prices have skyrocketed by 31.4% since 2019 while wages have increased by just 23%, meaning tenants need to earn nearly $80,000 per year to keep from being rent-burdened and spending 30% or more of their income on rent.
The six companies included in the Accountable.US analysis on Wednesday have more than rent increases in common: They have all faced lawsuits regarding their use of the property management software company RealPage, which is alleged to have used an algorithm to fix rent prices, impacting about 16 million rental units in the United States.
The largest net income increase Accountable.US found among the six corporate landlords was that of Camden Property Trust, which increased its net income by 97% in the first quarter of this year to $85.8 million. The company spent $50 million on stock buybacks that it said were made possible by its "weighted average monthly rental rate," which went up nearly 2% year over year.
"Big corporate landlords have kept right on raising rent on everyday families regardless of how high their profits have grown."
Essex Property Trust increased its net income by 76% year over year to more than $285 million, also raising rents by 2.1%, while Equity Residential's income jumped 39% to $305 million as it increased its rental rates by 3.4%, with tenants paying an average of $3,077.
AvalonBay Communities saw its net income increase 18% to $173.6 million, apparently owing both to its "rental and other income" revenue going up by 5.6% and its "management, development, and other fees" for tenants soaring by 68.4% to nearly $1.8 million.
"Big corporate landlords have kept right on raising rent on everyday families regardless of how high their profits have grown. Adding insult to injury, many landlords rewarded a small group of wealthy investors with new handouts at the expense of struggling tenants," said Liz Zelnick, director of the economic security and corporate power program at Accountable.US.
The group's analysis was released weeks after the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted a raid on an Atlanta-based property management firm in the Department of Justice's antitrust investigation into RealPage regarding "allegations of a nationwide conspiracy to artificially inflate apartment rents."
As Competition Policy International (CPI) reported earlier this month, "RealPage's system, which provides rental price recommendations based on real-time data from landlords, is alleged to be a key tool in manipulating the rental market. The firm's influence covers 70% of multifamily apartment buildings."
"The scheme purportedly operated by encouraging landlords to adopt RealPage's pricing recommendations, a practice they follow 80-90% of the time," reported CPI. "This coordinated approach reduces the availability of rental units, driving up prices. One of the architects of RealPage's system reportedly stated that the aim is to prevent landlords from undervaluing their properties, ensuring consistently higher rents across the board."
Zelnick said it was "unsurprising that some of the same companies that needlessly inflated housing costs have worked closely with a software company accused of helping landlords coordinate a massive price fixing scheme. Through-the-roof rent hikes based on greed—not need—have kept many Americans from getting ahead, which is why Congress must do more to support the Biden administration's affordable housing actions."
President Joe Biden has urged Congress to pass legislation to stop price gouging by landlords and to build millions of affordable rental units.
Current policy doesn’t make sense if the goal is to provide affordable housing; if the goal is to create market conditions beneficial to real estate developers and investors, it appears to be working quite well.
Affordable rental housing policy fails to provide sufficient affordable rental housing decade after decade, yet policymakers continue to do largely the same things. A researcher at the Joint Center for Housing Studies recently observed that in 1960, about 45% of renters in the bottom income quintile spent more than 50% of their income on housing costs. Today, it is about 65%. Renters below the official poverty line spend on average 78% of their income on housing. At what point will policymakers admit that their policies have failed renters?
Affordable rental housing policy now primarily relies on the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). LIHTC seems like a rather bad idea if one is interested in addressing the affordable rental housing crisis. LIHTC has a number of problems, but two of them should be considered fatal flaws. First, LIHTC is not very good at providing low-income rental housing. The Joint Center for Housing Studies states, “LIHTC does not necessarily protect a renter from cost burdens” and that “lower-income renters living in LIHTC units often require additional subsidies to make this housing affordable.” The primary policy to create affordable rental housing does not do a very good job at creating affordable rental housing, yet policymakers rely on it more and more.
The second major problem is that LIHTC rentals typically convert to market rate after 30 years (in some cases 15 years). This transition rate might be reasonable if there were an adequate supply of affordable rental housing, but there isn’t. The National Low-Income Housing Coalition estimates that the United States has a shortage of 7.3 million rental homes for the lowest-income renters. The Joint Center for Housing Studies finds that the country lost 2.1 million rental units for these lowest-income renters between 2012 and 2022. Affordable rentals are too scarce to allow them to be converted to market-rate housing.
The current estimate is that 325,000 LIHTC rental units will transition to market rate by 2029. LIHTC creates a rental housing bucket with a hole in the bottom. Since more and more of our affordable rental housing is created by LIHTC, the amount of affordable rentals lost to market conversion will increase over time. The United States already does not build enough affordable rental housing to keep up with demand, but policymakers have created a system that will lead to accelerating losses of affordable rental housing over time. This doesn’t make sense.
Current affordable rental housing policy doesn’t make sense if the goal is to provide affordable housing. If the goal is to create market conditions beneficial to real estate developers and investors, it appears to be working quite well.
Public housing, especially when adequately funded, is a far more effective method of providing affordable rental housing than LIHTC. The rate of cost-burdened renters is quite low in public housing—much lower than in LIHTC housing. Because of this fact, there are very long waiting lists and tremendous demand for public housing.
From the private real estate industry’s perspective, public housing is a serious threat. “From the beginning, the real estate industry bitterly fought public housing of any kind,” Richard Rothstein stated in The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. Rothstein adds that the industry later lobbied to structure public housing so that it would be underfunded. Today, after the passing of the Faircloth Amendment, Congress has prohibited the increase in the number of public housing units built by the federal government in spite of the fact that people are, in some cases, waiting for decades to get into public housing.
In addition to investors receiving more and more via tax credits from the LIHTC program, the Joint Center for Housing Studies reports that corporate owners make up a growing share of the rental housing market. (The corporate share of rental properties ranging from 5 to 24 units nearly doubled between 2001 and 2021.) More private equity firms have also moved into the rental housing market. While more and more renters are being cost-burdened, it appears that more corporations and investors are making good profits.
It is possible to create affordable rental housing policies that work well for renters. There are good social housing models in Europe and Asia. Social housing is nonprofit housing. In the European models, it is not restricted to just the lowest income households, which tends to provide it with a stronger political and economic base. The good news is that U.S. city and state governments are beginning to explore these models. In Congress, Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.), and Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), and other members of Congress have recognized the need to repeal the Faircloth Amendment. Once that amendment is gone, the federal government can move toward constructing affordable, quality social housing.