The year 2016 came to a close with no respite from fast-rising house prices. The prospective homebuyers are perturbed by the prices they deem unaffordable. The policymakers are concerned about the potentially devastating impacts of a housing market crash.
While most agree that a lack of new housing construction is contributing to the house price inflation, the consensus on what's behind the lack of housing supply is missing. The pro-conservation groups accuse builders and developers of land hoarding and creating an artificial scarcity of new housing. The development industry puts the finger on the Places to Grow Act that it believes has restricted the supply of developable land.
The slump in new housing construction in the GTA, which is the worst observed in the past 15 years, can be addressed if one were to understand the fundamental axioms of urban economics. The land is a heterogeneous good whose fertility (profitability) varies widely over space. The provision of low productivity land in undesirable remote places does not qualify as land supply.
Thousands of acres of land in the remote corners of Hamilton will not address the house price inflation in Toronto.
What is needed instead is the provision of developable land in places where consumers would like to live and the freedom to build the type of housing consumers desire. Restricting choices of consumers for location and the type of accommodation will continue to exacerbate the new housing crunch in the GTA.
Not all land is created equal
In a recent panel discussion organized by the Canadian Association of Business Economics the ideological differences on what's behind the housing price inflation came to the surface. Some argued that the municipal authorities have already earmarked sufficient land to accommodate the expected growth and hence there was no scarcity of developable land.
The key to understanding the supply crisis in the GTA is to know that all land is not created equal. Just like the agricultural land with different yields and suitability for various cash crops, urban land also differs widely in its productivity and suitability for various types of development. Moreover, the land is heterogeneous strictly because of its location. Thousands of acres of land in the remote corners of Hamilton will not address the house price inflation in Toronto.
Moreover, a mere availability of land does not guarantee its suitability for development. It's location and zoning bylaws that often restrict the type of permissible development, and market timing determines if the land is developable for profit or otherwise. Public sector urban planners using computer cartography to demarcate developable land ignore the suitability and profitability of land for further development.
It is erroneous to assume that landowners will deliberately ignore market signals, hoard land, and not develop as some naively suggest. The leftover principle in urban land economics states that if the development of a parcel were to be profitable, a developer would purchase the land and build accordingly. It is not the hoarding of land that is preventing development, but the unsuitable location of the parcels or the type of development permitted by the public sector planners that is hindering its development.
Density is in the eye of the beholder
Another hindrance to development is the mandated high development densities. The Growth Plan stipulates greenfield development at a minimum 5,000 persons and jobs per square kilometre. The average population density in the GTA drops below 5,000 persons per sq. km. for neighbourhoods located more than 10-km from downtown Toronto.
Since most greenfield development will occur at distances greater than 10 km from downtown Toronto, an artificially high level of legislated urban density acts as a deterrent for new housing development as it forces built forms not desired by the consumers who prefer living in outer suburbs.
The worsening supply side constraints in the GTA have caught the attention of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Evan Siddall, president of CMHC, is advocating for "a more aggressive supply response." The Ontario government must act soon to stimulate residential construction in the GTA. At the very least, it should commission an impartial review to determine why the supply of new housing has faltered in the GTA and what is needed to reverse the slump.
Ignoring advice from experts and formulating policy on urban myths that defy urban economic axioms cannot be good policy for the Ontario Liberals who have to find a solution before they head to polls in 2018.
Follow HuffPost Canada Blogs on Facebook
Also on HuffPost:
Finance Minister Bill Morneau's new mortgage rules, enacted in October, 2016, could "reduce the risk of a knock-on to the Canadian economy" from any possible corrections in Toronto or Vancouver, BMO economist Sal Guatieri told The Financial Post. The Bank of Canada has long warned that interest rates could go up again — and Canadians should ensure they can still afford to pay. Now they have to prove it to lenders.
First-time homebuyers tend to be the "primary users of mortgage insurance," according to Royal Bank of Canada. So the "stress test" could make it difficult for them to borrow as much as they'd like to. In a way that's a good thing. It means they can only borrow what they can afford. But it also means they won't have as much purchasing power in a hot market. That said, the new rules are probably protecting them from a debt burden they can't handle.
Home sales could fall as much as eight per cent in the first year after the new mortgage rules come into effect, Bloomberg reported. Of course, that depends on what buyers do. They may decide not to buy homes at all, they could also opt to buy cheaper properties, or dig into their savings just to afford their purchases, finance department spokesman Jack Aubry told the news agency. Meanwhile, the Bank of Canada says home sales could fall by as much as 10 per cent, while prices could drop by five per cent.
Stricter mortgage rules could mean that borrowers start turning to "shadow-banking," according to Canaccord Genuity. "Shadow-banking" refers to activities that happen outside traditional financial institutions. While bigger banks lend money using cash from deposits, shadow banks use money from groups of investors and aren't subject to the same scrutiny as major financial firms. They could therefore be more likely to hand out bad loans.
Canada's economy as a whole grew by $4.2 billion from the fourth quarter of 2014 to the second quarter of 2016, according to Macquarie Research. But residential investment increased by 3.5 times that amount ($14.7 billion) in the same time frame as housing activity skyrocketed in Vancouver and Toronto. Watch for residential investment to decline.
There are concerns that the new rules don't create an even playing-field for mortgage lenders outside the big banks, The Globe and Mail reported. Alternative lenders such as Home Capital Group, which generally target riskier borrowers with lower credit scores, may find themselves scrambling for business now that mortgage clients have to qualify for loans at higher interest rates.
Follow Murtaza Haider on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@regionomics