Decoding the New Rental Housing Fee Initiatives: Perspectives from the White House and NMHC

Yesterday, The White House
unveiled a comprehensive initiative addressing the ongoing concern of
“junk fees” in the rental housing market. The announcement emphasized
what it described as burdensome and often misleading fees millions of
families encounter during rental application processes and lease
durations. As part of the initiative, major rental housing platforms
such as Zillow, Apartments.com, and AffordableHousing.com have committed
to providing renters with transparent and upfront cost information. In
addition, several states have taken legislative action to control and
regulate these fees:

• Colorado: Implemented two House Bills, one allowing application reuse without additional fees and the other controlling disguised fees.
• Rhode Island: Introduced House Bill 6087 to regulate rental application fees.
• Minnesota: Senate File 2909 mandates a clear display of all fees on lease agreements and advertisements.
• Connecticut: Senate Bill 998 sets fee limits and prohibits specific fees.
• Maine: Legislative Document 691 controls application and screening fees.
• Montana: Senate Bill 320 dictates refund conditions and sets fee caps.
• California: Senate Bill 611 calls for comprehensive monthly rent rate disclosures.

In response, the National Multifamily Housing Council
(NMHC) agreed on the importance of cost transparency in rental housing
for both renters and housing providers. While the NMHC supports the
voluntary measures announced by the White House, they took issue with
the notion that rental housing residents are widely exploited by housing
providers, emphasizing the absence of concrete evidence to back such
claims. The Council suggests that any misconduct by housing providers
should be tackled through existing legal channels. Notably, the NMHC
highlighted that regulations governing the relationship between housing
providers and residents are primarily managed at the state and local
levels, tailored to the specific needs of individual communities.

Given the significant housing affordability challenges nationwide,
the NMHC has encouraged the White House and lawmakers to prioritize
policies that reduce housing expenses. They particularly championed the
Biden administration’s Housing Supply Action Plan,
which proposes several measures to lower housing costs. The Council’s
final call to action urged leaders to adopt solutions that expand
housing opportunities rather than pushing for further regulations that
could potentially deter housing development and inadvertently elevate
costs for renters.

In summary, while both the White House and NMHC concur on the
importance of transparency in rental housing costs, their perspectives
diverge on the extent of the problem and the best strategies to ensure
fair pricing and practices in the rental housing market.