内容来源：美国房地产和城市设计网站CURBED，原文链接见文末
翻译整理：石曼卿，陈杰
*机器翻译未经详细复检，仅供参考
Photo: Andrew Harnik/Getty
New Yorkers may not be swing-state voters, but we certainly perk up when we hear anyone promise to make real estate more affordable. Last week, Vice-President Kamala Harris laid out a set of economic proposals designed to capture our attention on exactly this topic; it included measures for first-time homebuyers and renters struggling with hikes, and the builders who might theoretically construct the housing that they can afford.
Among her proposals are a pledge to build 3 million new homes; offer a $25,000 down-payment subsidy and $10,000 tax credit to first-time homebuyers; provide tax incentives for builders constructing affordable starter homes for those buyers; repurpose federal land for affordable housing; and ban algorithm-based price-setting tools that raise the rent. She also supports the 5 percent rent-increase cap proposed by the Biden administration. It sounded ambitious, and some of it was familiar; and we were curious how all of it would work, if at all.
We spoke to NYU Furman Center’s executive director Matthew Murphy on what he’s excited about, what he has questions on, and where he sees hints of YIMBY-ness in Kamala Harris’s housing ideas.
First of all — we don’t have too many details here.
It seems like it’s their strategy to say big things and not rely on policy details. Maybe more will come out after the DNC. In the small housing-policy arena that I run in, the understanding is that she’s just going to try to win the presidency, and then when the transition time comes, that’ll be the time when they hash out the basics of proposals.
Taking what we do have: Which policy ideas in particular excited you the most?
It’s always exciting when housing is on a presidential agenda at all. I look at these and ask, what do they hint at as policy if they don’t say the actual policy? I think that the tax incentive for builders that build starter homes to first-time homebuyers is exciting in particular.Or at least the acknowledgment that there has historically been this pocket of affordability that has just been wiped out.
There’s also a deep curiosity to know what the federal government can do to stimulate supply. This idea of building on federal-owned land to me is straight from New York City. I read all that as expanding those tools and building out supply. They are genuinely thinking, Okay, what do the millennials and first-time homebuyers actually want and how can we finance that? Much in the same way the policy-makers who designed the GI Bill and the investment in the suburbs 70 years ago were thinking — but those have a whole legacy of discrimination and segregation. So what does our generation look like in getting that right? I think that’s an exciting question for a president to be asking.
So is Kamala Harris really “going full YIMBY”? Is she all about upping the housing supply?
She wants to build 3 million homes. She’s saying we have federal land, we’ll make it available to build housing — that on its own is YIMBY. If she was full-blown, it would be even more stepped-up federal involvement. Anybody who acknowledges that there’s a supply issue and that we need to build, I think, is a YIMBY now. The brass tacks are how much political capital are they willing to spend to really address these issues at the scale they need addressing?
I’m sure you still have a lot of questions on how any of it would work.
The vaguest idea to me is the same as the most exciting: the tax incentives for builders that build starter homes for first-time homebuyers. Just thinking about how that actually plays out from a builder’s perspective: Are they thinking about a suburban-style development of a cul-de-sac of homes or something? How would everybody in that development be a first-time homebuyer? And then how does that sync up with the $25,000 subsidy? If you look at the demographics of first-time homebuyers, how do you make sure that’s not a discriminatory thing? And if you’re going to rely on tax incentives, then builders are going to want clarity on how that works. They are not going to risk 10 or 30 years of financing if it’s not clear how the program would actually work. Those are exciting challenges that intersect with ideas about urbanism and townhome development or condominium development, but it’s probably too vague at the moment.
One reaction to the $25,000 subsidy was that it would just increase prices — like, “Oh, great, new houses just went up by $25,000.” Is that fair?
I think it’s simplifying. Policies targeted to what we want to accomplish are a good thing. We do it for electric vehicles and other kinds of policies. And I think this is just probably swing-state politics, too. $25,000 doesn’t go nearly as far in a place like New York. In fact, in New York City, at HPD, they have a home-assistance program that gives $100,000. In other places, it would go further. I think the criticism of it is fair — subsidies like that do get baked into home prices. But at the same time, the tax code is riddled with subsidies that benefit existing homeowners. Mortgage-interest deduction, capital-gains exemption. So this is something to help even that asymmetry out. What is the exact harm in that? And if your complaint is that it benefits existing homeowners — they’re already benefiting.
What about the ban on algorithm-based price-setting tools like RealPage? How would that work?
Logistically, it probably looks like a continuation of legal action against firms that have access to data that nobody else has access to. And against the idea that they are using that data to tell landlords, “Here’s how much you can raise your rent.” There is something about broader curbs of corporate power, which in terms of housing policy is the asymmetry of information, the kind of unfairness, even to home purchasers. Tools to introduce parity are positive in the long run.I would also have a lot of questions, though: How would it play out? What does it actually look like, and who is it targeted to? Most renters in America are not living in corporate-owned buildings with landlords who use this technology. A lot of people live in single-family homes, two-family homes. The majority of renters are living in a much smaller housing stock. How would this create more affordability?
Let’s talk about the renter bait in her proposal: the 5 percent cap on rent increases (previously introduced by the Biden administration). Will this ever happen on a federal level?
This country has enacted rent control before, during World War II. And New York’s legacy of rent stabilization and rent control is an offshoot of that. So there is a history here, but obviously an extremely different kind of policy context. If it’s the same plan as the one Biden announced, the cap is targeted to 50-plus-unit buildings.What are 50-plus-unit rental buildings in America? It’s low-income housing, public housing. Similar to what New York passed where they said, “You’re subject to Good Cause if you’re in a ten-plus-unit portfolio.” But obviously that’s super complicated, anyway: How do you know how many units your landlord owns?
There are just as many complications, if not more, federally than there were in New York, or what any state would go through in passing something like Good Cause. And the ones that have done it in recent years, California, Oregon, Washington, New York — their rent caps have been tied to inflation. Harris probably doesn’t want to talk about inflation, which I totally understand, but the 5 percent reads to me as a very strict cap. It could create the issues that have been documented about rent control — disinvestment, the landlord not being able to keep up with the rising costs and then reacting by not maintaining the housing or cutting stock. It’s extremely delicate, and these policies are hard to pull off.
I saw a lot of people in the real-estate industry reacting negatively to the cap.
I take it that the Harris-Walz campaign is sending a shot across the bow that they are focused on renters and renter issues— and that’s relatively new in federal history and presidential campaigning. So is not thinking of renting just as a low-income issue. We have a low-income housing tax credit, and we have Section Eight. But we spend a lot more in federal dollars via the tax code on homeownership than we do on rental. That’s the conversation it seems like they want to have.
Maybe renters are finally becoming a political bloc.
I’m actually really interested in how that would play out in a question at a debate. You would assume Donald Trump would be extremely opposed to rent control as a landlord. But it’s a pretty populist position. It is a question to ask: What would this look like in more states, and should the federal government intervene? I do think it takes a leader running on a platform to at least say, “This is what we see is possible in the future.” There’s no magic to housing policy. You decide what you’re going to do and you have to put the funds toward it. The potential presidents of America should be laying out how they think about that.
卡玛拉·哈里斯新提案中的住房专家观点
纽约人或许不是摇摆州的选民，但我们确实会对任何承诺使房价更为可负担的消息格外关注。上周，美国副总统卡玛拉·哈里斯提出了一系列经济提案，旨在吸引我们对这一话题的关注；这些提案包括帮助首次购房者和面临租金上涨压力的租房者，以及那些可能会建造他们能够负担得起的住房的建筑商。
她的提案包括：承诺建造300万套新住房；为首次购房者提供25,000美元的首付补贴和10,000美元的税收抵免；为建造可支付起步房的建筑商提供税收激励；将联邦土地重新用作可支付住房开发；以及禁止利用算法设定价格、推高租金的工具。她还支持拜登政府提出的5%租金增长上限。这些提案听起来雄心勃勃，其中一些内容并不陌生；我们很好奇这一切将如何运作，或者是否会运作。
我们采访了纽约大学弗尔曼中心的执行主任马修·墨菲，了解他对哪些提案感到兴奋，哪些提案他仍有疑问，以及他在卡玛拉·哈里斯的住房想法中看到了哪些亲YIMBY（“是的，我家附近可以建房”）的迹象。
首先——我们这里没有太多细节。
看起来他们的策略是说一些大话，而不依赖政策细节。或许在民主党全国代表大会之后会有更多的细节。在我所处的小型住房政策领域，普遍的理解是她只是试图赢得总统职位，然后在过渡时期，他们才会敲定提案的基本内容。
以我们现有的内容来看：哪些政策想法让你特别兴奋？
当住房问题出现在总统议程上时，总是令人振奋。我看这些议题时会问，如果他们没有直接说明具体政策，这些议题暗示了什么政策？我认为，针对首次购房者建造入门级住房的建筑商提供税收激励尤其令人兴奋。或者至少他们承认了历史上存在的这种已被消除的可负担性空间。
联邦政府能做些什么来刺激供应，这也是一个非常令人好奇的问题。对我来说，在联邦拥有的土地上建房这一想法直接源自纽约市。我读到这些时，感到这是在扩展这些工具并增加供应。他们确实在认真思考，好的，千禧一代和首次购房者实际上想要什么？我们如何为此提供融资？这与70年前设计《退伍军人法案》和投资郊区的政策制定者的思路非常相似——但那些政策带来了歧视和隔离的遗产。那么我们这一代人在做到这一点时应该是什么样的？我认为这是一个总统提出的问题，非常令人兴奋。
那么，卡玛拉·哈里斯真的“全力支持YIMBY”了吗？她是否完全支持增加住房供应？
她想建造300万套住房。她说我们有联邦土地，我们将使其可用于建造住房——仅此一点就已经是YIMBY。如果她完全是YIMBY，那将是更大力度的联邦参与。任何承认供应问题并认为我们需要建房的人，我认为现在都是YIMBY。关键问题在于他们愿意花费多少政治资本来真正以所需的规模解决这些问题？
我确信你对这些提案的运作方式仍有很多疑问。
对我来说，最模糊的想法也是最令人兴奋的：为建造起步房的建筑商提供税收激励。只是想想这实际上从建筑商的角度来看会如何运作：他们是否在考虑郊区风格的开发，一个住宅区的房屋或者类似的东西？在那个开发项目中每个人都是首次购房者吗？这与25,000美元的补贴如何同步？如果你看看首次购房者的人口统计数据，如何确保这不会成为一种歧视？如果你要依赖税收激励，那么建筑商们会希望对其运作方式有明确了解。如果不清楚这个项目将如何实际运作，他们不会冒险进行10年或30年的融资。这些都是令人兴奋的挑战，涉及到城市主义和联排别墅开发或公寓开发的想法，但目前可能仍然过于模糊。
有人对25,000美元的补贴反应是，这只会推高价格——比如，“哦，太好了，新房价刚刚上涨了25,000美元。”这种说法公平吗？
我认为这是在简化问题。针对我们想要实现的目标制定的政策是好事。我们在电动汽车和其他类型的政策上也是这样做的。我认为这可能也是摇摆州政治。25,000美元在纽约这样的地方远远不够。事实上，在纽约市的住房保护与发展局（HPD），他们有一个提供10万美元的住房援助计划。而在其他地方，这笔钱的效用可能更大。我认为对这种政策的批评是合理的——这样的补贴确实会反映到房价中。但与此同时，税法中充满了有利于现有房主的补贴。比如抵押贷款利息扣除、资本收益免税。所以这可以帮助平衡这种不对称。究竟有什么坏处呢？如果你抱怨它有利于现有房主——他们已经在受益了。
对类似RealPage这样的基于算法的价格设定工具的禁令呢？这将如何运作？
从操作层面来看，这可能会延续对那些拥有独家数据访问权的公司的法律行动，以及针对他们利用这些数据告诉房东“你可以将租金提高到这个水平”的做法。这里涉及到限制企业权力的问题，尤其是在住房政策方面，这关系到信息的不对称性和不公平性，甚至对购房者来说也是如此。从长远来看，引入公平的工具是积极的举措。不过，我也有很多疑问：这将如何实施？实际操作起来是什么样的？针对的对象是谁？美国的大多数租房者并不住在由企业拥有的建筑中，这些房东也不使用这种技术。很多人住在单户住宅或双户住宅中。大多数租房者居住的都是较小的住房存量。这将如何创造更多的可负担性呢？
让我们谈谈她提案中的租户吸引点：将租金涨幅限制在5%以内（此前由拜登政府提出）。这在联邦层面真的能实现吗？
美国在二战期间曾实施过租金管制。纽约的租金稳定和租金管制传统就是从那时起发展而来的。所以，这里有一个历史背景，但显然现在的政策环境截然不同。如果这与拜登宣布的计划相同，那么这项限制是针对拥有50个以上单元的建筑。那么，美国的50个以上单元的出租建筑是什么？是低收入住房和公共住房。类似于纽约通过的法律，其中规定，“如果你拥有十个以上单元的物业，那么你就要遵守‘合理原因’法案。”但显然，这非常复杂：你怎么知道你的房东拥有多少单元？
在联邦层面，这种政策所面临的复杂性并不亚于纽约，甚至可能更多，或者说任何州在通过类似“合理原因”法案时都会遇到的复杂性。近年来实施过此类法律的州，如加利福尼亚、俄勒冈、华盛顿和纽约——他们的租金上限都与通胀挂钩。哈里斯可能不想谈论通胀，这我完全理解，但5%的上限对我来说是一个非常严格的限制。这可能会引发与租金管制相关的问题——如资本撤出，房东无法跟上成本上涨的步伐，然后通过不维护住房或削减库存来做出反应。这是一个极其微妙的领域，这些政策很难执行。
我看到很多房地产行业的人对这一限制反应强烈。
我觉得哈里斯-沃尔兹竞选团队是在发出一个信号，表明他们专注于租房者和租房问题——这在联邦历史和总统竞选中相对较新。再者，租房问题不再被视为仅仅是一个低收入群体的问题。我们有低收入住房税收抵免，我们有第八条法案（Section 8）。但我们通过税法在房屋所有权上花费的联邦资金要比在租房上多得多。这似乎就是他们想要展开的对话。
也许租房者终于成为了一个政治势力。
我真的很感兴趣，这个问题在辩论中的表现会如何。你会假设唐纳德·特朗普作为房东会非常反对租金管制。但这却是一个非常民粹主义的立场。这是一个值得提出的问题：这种政策在更多州会是什么样子，联邦政府是否应该介入？我确实认为，需要一个在竞选纲领上明确表态的领导人，至少要说，“这是我们认为未来可能实现的目标。”住房政策没有什么魔法可言。你决定要做什么，然后必须为此投入资金。美国未来的总统候选人应该阐明他们对此的看法。
