Jesse Scheckner
A 93-page bill aimed at growing Florida’s affordable housing inventory cleared its first committee stop Wednesday with unanimous support — after weathering criticism for its ban on rent controls.
The GOP-backed measure (SB 102), dubbed the “Live Local Act,” would ease county and municipal zoning restrictions on residential projects with sizable portions reserved for affordable housing and give tax exemptions to landlords offering shares of their units below market rate.
Similar to since-rescinded legislation filed before it last month, the bill would also enable local governments to proportionally increase the percentage of those tax breaks based on the number of units landlords set aside for affordable households.
Notably, it would also add hundreds of millions of dollars to state programs targeting affordable housing solutions, including the long-gutted Sadowski Trust Fund, and prohibit local governments from capping rent rates — a provision that attracted disapproval community advocacy groups and cost-burdened residents.
Freshman Miami Republican Sen. Alexis Caltayud, the bill’s sponsor and Chair of the Senate Community Affairs Committee, which took up the measure Wednesday, called SB 102 “a transformational, market-driven (consolidation) of policies that provides attainable housing options for Floridians at every stage of life (and) income level.”
That includes ensuring no family’s rent and utility costs exceed 30% of their household income, she added, and creating a clearer pathway for renters to become homeowners.
“We are tackling the complex issue from all angles by incentivizing private-sector investment to historic (increases to) state funding (and) common-sense reduction in regulations,” she said.
“As our state continues to grow, we need to make sure Floridians can live close to good jobs, schools, hospitals and the critical centers of their communities in a way that fits comfortably within their household budgets.
Skyrocketing housing prices in Florida have made the state among the lease affordable for renters and homebuyers in America. Mounting insurance costs and utility rate hikes have further exacerbated the problem.
Florida’s growing workforce has also brought with it increased demand for additional rental units in recent years alongside higher mortgage rates that strain state residents regardless of age, said Senate President Kathleen Passidomo, who tapped Calatayud to carry the bill last month.
“These factors are driving the current demand for rental housing, which is outpacing supply, keeping rents high, and pushing rental prices beyond affordable prices,” she said in a statement.
But according to Calatayud — and the legislation — the answer to rent unaffordability is “providing accessible, affordable units to (Florida’s) workforce, not rent control.”
Some who spoke at the meeting disagreed.
Rich Templin of the Florida AFL-CIO called the measure “otherwise good legislation” except for its preemption on local governmental rent oversight. He noted that Florida statues already forbid local rent control measures except in the case of an “existing housing emergency which is so grave as to constitute a serious menace to the general public.”
Calatayud’s bill would eliminate that narrow allowance.
Templin said his organization represents some 80,000 union workers in Orange County, where residents last year approved a ballot referendum on rent control. Realtors there sued to keep the question off the ballot and, after it remained and won approval, sued to keep rent controls there from going into effect.
Templin said the AFL-CIO represents some 80,000 union workers in Orange County. Many can’t find a place to live within their budget because real estate businesses have little reason to lower prices
“What you will find is the interest groups that oppose the ballot measure to have this rent control program, they’re not motivated by anything other than profit,” he said. “These are profitable properties, and these entities do not want to see this cut into profits.”
Republican Sen. Jason Brodeur, whose district encompasses part of Orange County, blamed the county’s relatively slow zoning approval process — which the bill would address — for its limited affordable housing supply.
Removing constraints on developers will lead to a housing boom in the area, he said, and bring rents “back down to market level — and we’re going to have plenty of supply.”
Kyle Mitchell, a Marine Corps veteran living in Jacksonville, said his city’s housing situation is dire, with nearly half of renters are cost-burdened, paying more than 40% of their monthly income on shelter and related amenities. And it’s not because there’s a shortage of available homes.
“It’s happening solely because greedy corporations and real estate investors are buying them all up and then turning them into rentals and then increasing the rent by 20, 50, sometimes even 100% each year,” he said. “Why should these companies have more influence over our housing market than us? What we need is rent stabilization, a tenants’ bill of rights or, at the very least, some state reps who won’t use their power to screw over the middle class even more.”
Others eschewed condemning the rent control ban to instead offer recommendations on improving the bill.
Miami-Dade County Commissioner Eileen Higgins, who is leading a $10 billion initiative to develop upwards of 3,000 new affordable and workforce units near the county’s central transit hub in downtown Miami, suggested raising the definition of “affordable housing” in the bill from 120% to 140%. That, she said, would enable vital, middle-class workers like public defenders, nurses and emergency personnel to live close to where they work.
She also recommended that lawmakers consider including an incentive tier for smaller-scale housing developments in addition to those with 50-69 units and 70 or more.
In Miami’s Little Havana neighborhood, she said, there is an abundance of “naturally occurring” affordable housing at scales as small as four-unit apartment buildings.
“We would be happy to create a program to administer (incentives for those developments) at that lower level so the state would not be burdened,” she said.
SB 102 and its twin in the House, which Coral Gables Republican Rep. Demi Busatta Cabrera is carrying, would reroute $150 million annually from documentary stamp taxes on real estate transactions to the State Housing Trust Fund. Of that, 70% would go toward redeveloping existing buildings into housing projects near military bases. The remainder would cover housing for seniors, young adults and developments in rural regions.
The bill would also move $252 million into the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) program and $259 million into the State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) program. Together, the two funds make up the Sadowski Trust Fund, which lawmakers created in 1992 but have raided to the bones since the 2002 housing boom.
Another $100 million would go to the Hometown Heroes program, which the Legislature approved last year to help “essential community workers” across 50 professions buy homes for the first time.
If passed in its current form, the bill would earmark the same sum to cover inflation-caused cost increases to new residential projects in development.
The bill is now headed to the Senate Appropriations Committee, its second and final stop before going to a floor vote.
12 comments
Paul Passarelli
February 9, 2023 at 9:06 am
Where is the >>FACEPALM<< emoji?
Gavin R. Putland
February 10, 2023 at 1:35 am
What’s better than rent control? A tax on vacant lots and unoccupied buildings. While rent control makes it less attractive to supply accommodation, a vacant-property tax makes it less attractive NOT to! Such a tax, although sometimes called a “vacancy tax”, is not limited to what real-estate agents call “vacancies” — that is, properties available for rent. It also applies to vacant lots and empty properties that are not on the rental market, and prompts the owners to get them occupied in order to avoid the tax.
Yes, a vacant-property tax is meant to be AVOIDED. It’s not meant to be paid. Better still, its avoidance would involve economic activity, expanding the bases of other taxes and allowing their rates to be reduced, so that everyone else—including tenants, home owners, and landlords with tenants—would pay LESS tax!
Paul Passarelli
February 10, 2023 at 10:08 am
Gavin,
That sounds kinda like Obamacare.
I understand your motivation, but with all due respect, I could *NEVER* endorse such a plan. And would actively oppose it.
It stinks of seizure.
Then again, I’ve been a vocal opponent of rent control ever since I learned of it back in the 70s.
Gavin R. Putland
February 10, 2023 at 2:03 pm
If landowners have the right to keep their land unoccupied, they have the right to deprive non-landowners of the right to exist. If that’s OK, who else may be justly deprived of the right to exist? The unborn? The old? The disabled? Persons of a particular ethno-religious heritage?
Paul Passarelli
February 10, 2023 at 3:20 pm
Well, that’s a stretch!
The essence of Private Property is the control which ownership conveys. If I own a parcel of land it is 100% within my rights to ‘deprive’ *YOU* (meaning anyone I choose) of access to my little slice of heaven.
That deprivation in no way impacts your (meaning any other person’s) right to exist. But it apparently does generate within them the desire to whine about it.
Sorry, I di usually save that level of personalized rhetoric for the Fake Aliases, but when I see someone lean back for the express purpose of railing against the virtues of Private Property, regardless of the reasons, I take it personally.
The other thing is that people of good conscience seldom go down that path. But it is frequently trodden by those wit a Progressive-Socialist bent. Interestingly Socialism and its big brother Communism killed more than 100 million people in the 20th century. You you’ll understand why I hade reasons to distrust that particular philosophy.
JD
February 11, 2023 at 9:17 am
I have a couple of places I find umbridge with on personal property rights:
Right of way – I’m tired of people being allowed to walk across the sidewalk and I have to maintain it / be liable for it. Or worse in my city they can park in the front yards up to a certain measure and I have to still maintain and own it.
Imminient domain – I have spent decades making my place, my home or business, just as I like it but they can take it (at what should be fair market value – is suspect often) “for the public good”?
Euthanasia agreed to by the person- the right to die – all rights are tecnically property rights, including ones own life.
Lastly, I hate when people mix Progressive with Socialism as if they had to go hand in hand. They can live happily without each other. FDR’s policies created the middle class along with not being bombed to shit and back in WWII.
But if you want a prime example of a Liberal Progressive capitalist country that came back from WWII look at Japan.
Communism is a very different story than Progressive in my book, but I agree it’s killed way too many.
Gavin R. Putland
February 11, 2023 at 3:18 pm
“If I own a parcel of land it is 100% within my rights to ‘deprive’ *YOU* (meaning anyone I choose) of access to my little slice of heaven.”
People cannot exist without occupying space. But ALL the space is owned by SOME of the people. It follows that the right to exclude the others from that space is the right to obliterate their right to exist.
To say “That deprivation in no way impacts your (meaning any other person’s) right to exist” is therefore a straight-out denial of logic and arithmetic.
Workers acquire Private Property in their wages. But in order to earn those wages, they have to occupy space. If the space is owned by others, who don’t even have get tenants, then those others can extort as much of that Private Property as they wish in return for the minimum space needed to earn it. So which one of us is “railing against the virtues of Private Property”?
“The other thing is that people of good conscience seldom go down that path.”
That’s because it’s so obviously a SIN. And what do government do about sins? Some they leave to priests and shrinks or treat as breaches of contract (e.g. adultery). Some they discourage by taxes (e.g. smoking). And some they criminalize (e.g. murder). I am suggesting that keeping habitable land vacant should be in the second category. But, speaking of murder…
“Socialism and its big brother Communism killed more than 100 million people…” And it would be interesting to know how many millions the enclosure movement killed, by depriving them of the means of supporting themselves.
That being said, a vacancy tax does not take away the legal right to hold land vacant, any more than an income tax / payroll tax / sales tax takes away the right to earn income / hire workers / sell stuff, respectively. All of these taxes merely attach prices to the taxed activities. But of the four activities mentioned, holding land vacant is by far the most worthy of having a price attached — indeed by far the most worthy of a price high enough to say “Don’t even think about it.”
Paul Passarelli
February 12, 2023 at 12:29 pm
Gavin, {wordpress limits reached}
you wrote: “People cannot exist without occupying space. But ALL the space is owned by SOME of the people. It follows that the right to exclude the others from that space is the right to obliterate their right to exist. {and you wrote} To say “That deprivation in no way impacts your (meaning any other person’s) right to exist” is therefore a straight-out denial of logic and arithmetic.”
I’m not certain if you believe that or are just flailing & trying to stretching a broken set of assertions way past the point of reasoning?
then you wrote: “Workers acquire Private Property in their wages. But in order to earn those wages, they have to occupy space. If the space is owned by others, who don’t even have get tenants, then those others can extort as much of that Private Property as they wish in return for the minimum space needed to earn it. So which one of us is “railing against the virtues of Private Property”?”
Which is just word salad. So is the next two paragraphs.
And finally, you wrote: “That being said, a vacancy tax does not take away the legal right to hold land vacant, any more than an income tax / payroll tax / sales tax takes away the right to earn income / hire workers / sell stuff, respectively. All of these taxes merely attach prices to the taxed activities. But of the four activities mentioned, holding land vacant is by far the most worthy of having a price attached — indeed by far the most worthy of a price high enough to say “Don’t even think about it.””
Which given the timbre of the rest of the post I think you copied from someone else’s thoughts. So, to that I’ll reply with the canned “Taxation is Theft!” You can attempt to justify by saying “We’ll just agree to disagree.” But I’ll counter with: “No, you’re just wronger than wrong.”
Ciao,
Paul Passarelli
February 12, 2023 at 12:43 pm
JD,
If you are tired of then ‘sidewalks’, as you erroneously describe them, then move out of the city.
I maintain that SCOTUS erred in Kelo v New London!
History will show that Dr Kevorkian was not a criminal.
As for Progressive-Socialists, well, now you’ve identified a rather disgusting group of people. Many (most?) of which are actually just Useful Idiots. But the ones that are not — well they are truly reprehensible.
Communism — is the ultimate goal to the Progressive-Socialists I referred to above.
JD
February 13, 2023 at 7:30 am
RE: Sidewalks – are actually part of right-of-way issue – not sure how I erroneously misidentified them.
“Communism — is the ultimate goal to the Progressive-Socialists I referred to above.”
If you review, I separated Progressive from Socialism – and again, I cite Japan as the Progressive – Democratic – Capitalist success (but not withouth problems) as the counter to a Conservativism – Democratic – Capitalist counterpart.
Paul Passarelli
February 13, 2023 at 3:44 pm
JD,
I stand before you dumbfounded. Nowhere in all my readings or discussions has anyone ever called Japan Progressive.
Perhaps one of us slipped into this universe from an alternate one. One where the current definitions of words have no bearing with their traditional meanings.
Oh wait — that’s the Current Progressive-Socialist & Democrat’s technique for altering a debate to the point of incomprehensibility for their opponents & the audience.
And with that I bid you adieu and farewell.
JD
February 13, 2023 at 5:02 pm
The conservative LDP started losing ground in the 1990’s and was more or less ousted in the mid Oughts. The completely conservative ruling ways of the LDP put Japan into a liquidity trap for a decade. They only escaped as it got more progressive.
And if you’re the same Paul Passarelli from CT that ran for comptroller, you know what that means.
Adieu
Comments are closed.