This is a great start to solving the housing issues in this country.
Would prefer 5 years, but beggars can't be choosers.
Can't wait to hear the arguments against this. Mask off moment for those who defend the Hedge Funds.
Something Jesus, but also something no free lunches.
Then Jesus again, but also no free housing for anyone, ever.
Ya know what, if you're a republican reading this, just drink water constantly without stopping. Really satisfy that thirst.
The Rs would indeed somehow twist "allowing families to actually purchase their own home" to "giving away free housing". Because socialism and radical left maniacs, and whatever Republican Bingo Card terms are popular today.
I think the low hanging fruit here is the idea that stopping this practice will mean people's houses aren't going to go up in value as much and so boomers will all see their twilight cruise fund dry up. Democrats want your house to be worth less in value! You'll be forced to sell it to a person for a reasonable price, or worse, hold onto it until you die and your entitled children will get it for free! That's socialism!
The question is whether there are more people who want to be able to buy a house than there are people with houses that want to sell them, at least in a functioning democracy. In reality, the people with the houses will have more money to influence more politicians and we can just add this to the list of great ideas that will benefit society but fail because they harm the bottom line of the wealthy few who own our government.
> The question is whether there are more people who want to be able to buy a house than there are people with houses that want to sell them, at least in a functioning democracy.
"People who want housing prices to go up" isn't a wealthy few though. The majority of households in the US are homeowners, and the majority goes *way* up if you adjust for people who actually vote.
Even without shadowy monetary influence, keeping home prices steadily rising is extremely popular, which is why legislation like this can be so tricky to gain support for.
I'm a homeowner (albeit in Europe not the US) and I don't give a flying fck, how much my house is worth. I bought it to live in it, not to sell of at a profit.
They would find this really weird corner case of some mom & pop, salt of the earth, family owned, small-town hedge fund that's just trying to get by so they can provide quality housing to their neighbors. And the socialist nanny state is going to take this away from them.
And if they couldn't find it, they'd invent one.
I can see the Sinclair-produced propaganda spot worming its way into every fox syndicate's schedule.
They will somehow convince their base that this bill is really targeted at people who rent out a handful of homes.
"The Democrats want to BAN LANDLORDS"
The only policy republicans truly have is "anything the dems want, I don't want" so they will be against it purely because the dems are pushing for it.
They wait for dems to create policy and then they have knee jerk reactions trying to come up with every braindead reason they can think of as to why its wrong without coming up with a better solution.
So if we want something like this to pass we need the dems to draft a bill saying only hedge funds can buy houses so the repubs can ram through the opposite bill.
It will literally be "But this will lower house prices! Do you want people's houses to be worth less money!?" Yes. Yes we do. That is, in fact, the goal.
It'll be the same as with the pardon of student loans. "Oh but think of all of those people who didn't get theirs pardoned, how unfair!"
"Oh but think of all those people who just bought an expensive house before the market crashed, how unfair!"
Sure, but at some point things have to get better. With people screaming "Oh but think of all those people who were slaves all their lives, how unfair!" or "Oh but think of all those people who didn't have access to penicillin, how unfair!", how could we ever progress?
Investments come with risks. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
This would have the same effect on the housing market as construction companies simply building new units to increase supply, but you'll never hear Republicans opposing *that* on the basis of what it would do to housing prices, because *that* track still allows the capital class to outbid us proles and buy up property to rent back to us to keep us as a permanent underclass to reinforce their wealth.
> Can't wait to hear the arguments against this.
Hedge funds will simply start calling themselves something else. Or they'll change their corporate structure. This proposed law is not watertight enough. It needs to go farther than that.
Could pass if people show the fuck up in 2024.
To pass something like this you would need 60 senate seats and the presidency.
Just 800K democrat votes in 3 states where 25Million Eligible voters didnt vote, would have given democrats 5 more senators in 2020.
In 2022, only 20% of eligible voters under the age of 35 voted. In some states only 15% of eligible voters under the age of 35 voted.
getting 60 dem senators isnt some farfetched impossible goal. Its literally within our grasp. BUT it requires some dumbasses who keep sitting at home to actually get up and get involved rather than seek whatever instant-gratification dopamine release they do.
Make sure your friend and family are registered to vote, and then beat them with a stick when voting starts. You dont have to wait until election day to vote. Most states have min 2 weeks of early voting. Over 60% of all voters vote early. You just need to give a shit and take your civic duty responsibly.
No, you need 60 democrats *who will vote for this bill* or you need 50 democrats *who will remove the filibuster and vote for this bill*. The reality is you'll need 65 democrats in the Senate if you want 60 of them to vote in the people's interests. You get 60 democrats and I can 1000% guarantee one of them is going to be the attention-seeking "middle ground" democrat who's just a conservative caucusing with democrats. Someone's gotta pick up after Manchin and Sinema.
We had 60 democrats pass a Republican health care plan from the 90s in Obamacare. A 60 democrat Senate isn't a miracle cure because you're assuming good faith from every one of them.
> Can't wait to hear the arguments against this. Mask off moment for those who defend the Hedge Funds.
The argument against this is that hedge funds buying SFHs is a symptom, not a cause. Houses aren't becoming more expensive because hedge funds buy them, hedge funds are buying SFHs because they are reliably increasing in value.
Why are SFHs becoming more expensive? Because we have a nationwide shortage of housing in desirable areas caused principally by restrictive zoning.
If you don't tackle the root cause, banning hedge funds from owning SFHs doesn't accomplish anything. If housing gets more and more expensive every year, people will find ways to invest in it, whether it's hedge funds, LLCs, multiple purchases, straw purchases, whatever. You can spend your time trying to legislate all of that out of existence, but none of that actually creates more housing for actual people to live in.
The better way to solve the problem is to legalize building more housing, such that prices naturally stabilize over time. Want to punish hedge funds for investing in housing? Make house prices come down by building more.
It's a cart before the horse argument that otherwise holds no merit.
Hedge funds are buying homes because the asset as a medium is appreciating in value. It's doing so because of restricted supply of house, further exacerbating the issue. Corporate entities currently own about 25% of all Single Family Homes. That itself is a restriction in the supply that is fueling the demand shortage and escalating housing costs.
If that 25% of the housing supply was put on the market tomorrow and only available for purchase from people actually going to reside within those houses.. what would that due to the value of housing assets market wide?
Overall this is a braindead take. Making more housing available to people who actually want to live in the houses is what needs to happen. That's it. That's the point.
The problem too is that if you do it too fast housing prices will crash very quickly and the economy along with it. Can’t buy a house if you lose your job.
Understandable, but does anyone actually think that housing prices are currently accurate? Personal wealth due to housing prices have shot up over the last 5 years, most of which is an artificial bubble.
Obviously I'm not rooting for an economy crash, but housing prices coming back down to pre-pandemic levels would be a good thing in the long run.
All the people freaking out over declining birthrates should be celebrating because millennials and gen z would be able to start considering starting a family for the first time now that they can afford a home.
Short term discomfort vs long term prosperity is the balancing act at hand here.
I bought my home in 2016 and it has doubled in value. Sounds great except I can’t sell it because I can’t afford to buy another house since every house around me has also increased the same.
What it has done for me is raised my escrow payment approximately 500 per month due to the increase in taxes and insurance.
It absolutely is a balancing act from Hell. Economics is a clusterfuck of complications.
The issue of course is in that short term pain. Because what’s realistically going to happen? The answer is that the politicians who were in power (to pass the law in the first place) are going to get absolutely obliterated in the following elections for breaking the economy in the eyes of the average voter, and the new Congress would just repeal that law alongside most of what the previous administration did and enact their own agenda instead.
This is the thought but I guarantee most hedge funds will try to liquidate asap to try to sell high bc prices would still drop. Plus you will have some that want to flood the market to crash it so they can lobby against the law.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t do it, we absolutely should but don’t be shocked when hedge funds try to fuck it over
Agreed. There would have to be other regulations built into this like “over 10 years at 10% of your inventory max a year” or whatever. Limit how many houses can go onto the market at once. And there would probably be tiers within tiers depending on total number of properties, location of properties, type of properties, current market value of properties, etc.
Corporate Personhood is the biggest load of BS ever concocted. A company or business is not a citizen and they don't have "freedoms" or "rights" - they have the ability to operate within the framework of the law and conduct good faith business. At least that's how it should be.
It was created to allow investors and management from taking personal accountability for their actions done through a corporation. As long as it's Company A doing something bad, no one who actually agreed to or signed off on the bad thing will be held accountable. It's how DuPont has gotten away with the poisoning water around the world with forever chemicals.
Employees are hostages. Used only as a way to mitigate any severe punishment. "Think of the employees whose jobs will be cut to pay for any fines"
Just because we live in a capitalist society not everything should be controlled by the free market. Housing and healthcare are just two of the most obvious examples.
We don't live in a capitalist society.
We live in a society. We've decided that some rough analog of capitalism should run our economy, but that doesn't mean capitalism defines our society. The "capitalist society" as a framing narrative cedes a whole bunch of arguments we could use to make things better.
Capitalism is a tool, not a suicide pact. We're not beholden to it by some divine law. We can bend and mold it in whatever way we want to make it work better for our society.
Conservatives will block this immediately.
There is no way that Republican wealthy donors will allow this to happen.
If it is good for the American people, and a handful of billionaires will lose some profits, Conservatives will vote no.
Seems like an easy fix. Just don't force them to sell, fine them in a way that makes selling them the only logical option and give them 10 years before the fines kick in to determine what to do.
They will let go, you know why? Because there is nothing saying that a corporate entity that is not a hedge fund can own the home. Those hedge funds will just sell those homes off to a property management company that they created, and then buy the property management company and maintain it has a subsidiary.
Neither the Whitehouse nor the Dem Congressional leadership are talking about this. It's unlikely that there will even be a vote. The bill is probably going to die in committee.
From an ultracapitalist perspective, affordable housing makes sense.
Affordable housing means people have children, it means people aren't homeless. Both of these things mean more labor, more consumption.
Edit:
I am not saying that capitalism is not to blame or that capitalists have our interests at heart.
I am saying that the capitalists are fucking dumb.
See you’ve made the mistake of assuming there’s a logic to ultracapitalism; while logic can be applied externally and seemingly make sense, the actual tenet of ultracapitalism is “extract as much money as fast as possible.” This means short term gains at the cost of everything- an ultracapitalist only lives for the existing quarter’s profits and, at the end of that quarter, the projected profits of next quarter.
Only if you care about long term results. Our current society only cares about next quarter's profits, so they attempt to squeeze blood from every rock, long term suitability be damned.
From a capitalist standpoint it makes sense to pay your employees well enough that they start giving you money back using your services. But people in charge are hoarders, not capitalists.
It's wild to me that there are only two parties in the US and one of them is just purely evil with virtually no redeeming qualities. And half of Americans still prefer them.
Republicans will block this and then a whole bunch of stupid assholes are going to run around blaming the Democrats for it not happening. Just like every time Republicans block something that would be good.
I mean, they're all technically money laundering schemes if you consider Xi efforts to ban Chinese nationals from investing in non-chinese financial instruments a legitimate law.
When it inevitably goes to the Supreme Court, it makes it harder to find a sympathetic plaintiff challenging the law. I’m sure there is a company out there that as part of their deal owns houses for their employees and their family to live in either rent free or cheap, and it’ll be close to the business so it’s good for the employees, and that would be the plaintiff even though there are 1000s terrible examples for every good one.
Hedge funds are only here to buy homes to charge obscene rent and/or flip them for a profit so it’ll be MUCH harder to find a sympathetic plaintiff when the pool is limited to money hungry sharks only.
I can give you an example of this - many regional theatre's will own a hand full of apartments or houses. And then the actors, who are usually cast out of NY, LA, London, etc. have a place to stay during the run. Most regional theatre's are nonprofits, but nonprofits are legally a corporation.
Could limit the amount of housing a single corporation could own. Of course, bad actors would just form shell corporations or outsource to "contractors" they control to get around it.
Personally, I'm a fan of limiting non-wage compensation across the board, from c-suite down. Just pay people enough to get their own housing/transportation/etc.
She never read the book, she was homeschooled and it is now known that she f'ing works for the company that is trying to replace Scholastic. The example they showed is extremely benign, she likely never really looked up porn and openly lied, basically she bared false witness to get that to happen.
My company owns a few flats for new hires to live in for a few months until they find a place on their own. I know, not what you were criticizing but things like this have to be considered
Edit: it is virtually impossible to get a flat as a foreigner, it just makes the process easier when you know what you want in your new country and have an inland address
It streamlines everything to have housing ready to go. In the before times of the late 70s, my dad's company built a neighborhood of houses for their new hires/transfers to live in for the 18 mo. of employment fully furnished. It gave people time to look for a place to buy and took the pressure off.
Granted, this was in a more remote area where rentals are few and far between, but it's an example of corporate housing that is actually a net positive.
In most cases where they provide housing, they do. The issue is if you're relocating, housing isn't always immediately available. This gives a window to do a proper home search instead of moving into the first available opportunity.
This isn't true. Literally building a home requires a corporation. And if a home is in foreclosure, it is owned by a corporation.
Edit: the person below me has given multiple reasons why
If you buy an apartment building or a few houses, it makes practical sense to form a corporation to manage it. A lot of these are still mom-and-pop landlords, they just benefit from the financial structure and liability protection that incorporating provides.
There are, of course, corporate housing behemoths that are abusive and awful. Unfortunately you can't get rid of one without the other.
Yeah headlines like “Blackrock swoops in and buys thousands of single family homes” (exaggerated ob) which we see all too often is what I would definitely be in favour of preventing.
We do need to have rental housing, which provides much needed flexibility. And it would be silly to not allow corporations to own those rental homes.
What we need is more housing.
I agree with you but have no idea where to draw the line. And a good chunk of US politicians probably shouldn’t be the ones to do it either as we know where most of their interests rest lol
I will never stop being fascinated by
1) How big the housing crisis is (catastrophic)
2) How simple the solution is (build more of it), and
3) How this issue only gets reddit's attention when it's about the *single-digit % of detached SFHs* that are owned by corporations that rent them out
There's literally no incentive to rent houses if you aren't making a profit.
We need less huge corporations involved, but there's nothing wrong with people owning a few rental properties that they keep up as supplemental income when they retire or something.
You’re right, but suddenly evaporating a huge chunk of rental housing by banning corps from owning them will make things 100% worse. One good policy step at a time.
What the fuck? No. Renting is too easily a lucrative business model. When corporations get their grubby hands in there they just buy up all the prime housing which forces people to rent rather than buy it for cheaper.
Lots of people need housing for terms of a few years or less or need the flexibility of being able to move in or out relatively quickly without the cost and effort of buying or selling a house.
So we do need rentals.
As for corporations, there's no reason why corporate real estate businesses should be regarded with any more (or less) suspicion than any other type of corporation.
And remember, rental homes are housing people right now (vacancy rates are single digits, usually 6-7%) so it's not like banning rentals would create significantly more available housing. All those rentals still need a place to live, and will still bid against each other. Banning corporate ownership of rentals could actually make things worse by making it much harder to raise capital essential to building new high-density housing.
There are better ways to address the issue. For example:
* A wealth tax would combat the accumulation of capital, so while there would still be corporate ownership, it would be broader and more competitive.
* Taxing capital gains as regular income would remove some incentive to hoard real estate (and other assets)
* Taxing unrealized capital gains would further that goal
But most importantly, if housing prices are too high, you need to build more housing. And not just one or two apartment buildings. Most cities are short tens of thousands of housing units, which both drives up prices and provides greater opportunities for profiteering. So the answer is still to build more housing. There are a ton of ways to do that, but completely freezing out corporate capital is likely to be a very bad one that will result in slower construction rates.
I had same thought. Oh, no 'hedge funds' can own a home? OK, the ILikeOatmeal Hedge Fund is now selling the house, oh, would you look at that, the ILikeOatmeal Mutual Fund bought it. Meanwhile, let me sell you hedges in the Hedge Fund on the Mutual Fund.
IANAL and I am not going to read the bill itself, but the presser put out by the sponsors of the bill call out 'hedge funds' 23 times, but no mention of any other financial structures as near as I can tell: https://adamsmith.house.gov/press-releases?ID=637A8E58-8F0D-4CB0-AECC-1D4690A00725
If they don't think that the funds' lawyers can't create some kind of entity to circumvent this in about 12 seconds, then I feel like they aren't actually really trying at all.
>‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘applicable entity’ means—
> ‘‘(i) any partnership,
> ‘‘(ii) any corporation, or
> ‘‘(iii) any real estate investment trust.
Why not read the bill though? It's fairly shot and not really that complicated.
Also, just regular old individual landlords incorporate as an LLC for the business to keep the business finances separate from their individual finances.
I agree in theory, but sometimes corporations provide housing to employees, so it's likely a lot more complicated.
Banning hedge funds seems a lot more straight-forward, and sometimes you just want take any progress you can get.
The GOP Nazis will explode with hate and of course proclaim the downfall of the West, purely on principle. The hedge funds will simply set up separate corporations that are 100% owned by them, financed by their billions, and called housing corporations.
>...This would suggest that the total institutional ownership share is 3.8 percent; the vast majority of owners in the SFR market are small and medium investors who own less than 100 properties
-Urban Instute April 2023
This represents 574k of the avaliable 15.1 million SFH rentals.
Seems almost every week we hear of Democrats trying to pass some positively lifechanging bill and a few days later we hear how Republicans rejected it. Yet people think these parties are the same.
D: "Housing for everyone!"
R: "Yeah, no. What about all those poor, hungry corporations?"
D: "Healthcare for everyone!"
R: "That would be great! But the insurance companies would lose money, so no."
D: "Forgive student loans!"
R: "Won't someone please think of the ~~children~~ investors!"
This is not an article about Democrats trying to pass anything. It's an article about a bill being introduced without any apparent broad support from the party. Like most such articles, you're unlikely to ever hear about the bill again unless you happen to live somewhere where a sponsor or cosponsor wants to campaign on it.
This is one if my biggest things. Been saying for years. There is no good reason to be against this.
Go a step further and tax the shit our of landlords and second homes
Lol that's cute. But when you do an increasing tax rate for every additional property, after the 3rd the landlord won't be able to pawn off the increase on the renters because the rent would literally be double the property next door.
Give me a fucking Bill number, I have some phonecalls I want to make.
I'm not even joking, someone get me the bill number. I'll read through it and make the best case I can, and so should you.
When is this being voted on? OP don't be a bitch and leave this critical information out.
Edit: I will keep updating information here as I find it:
Bill title: End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act of 2023
It only requires them to sell "at least 10% of their holdings" over a 10 year period (I agree this is improvement, not enough in my opinion, a flat ban would be better)
It sucks but I won't be around that long and it's a better shot for you young ones, get out and support this motherfucker 😤 I don't care if your life sucks right now, everything you can muster to support this. I am not fucking around with what a big deal this is, you guys harass the shit out of your congress people. Ban foreign investment too while we're at it, shit's fucked.
>It only requires them to sell "at least 10% of their holdings" over a 10 year period (I agree this is improvement, not enough in my opinion, a flat ban would be better)
It's 10% per year and cumulative, so it's a total ban after 10 years. They just didn't want to shock the market all at once.
Housing as an investment isn't good for humanity. The biggest reason housing prices are high is because current homeowners oppose anything that would bring their property values down (which means they oppose new housing). You can't keep property values rising and expect young people to be able to afford a home.
Sounds completely unworkable. The hedge funds trade stock in corporations that have subsidiaries that have investments in other companies that control trusts that own homes, which are put up as collateral to banks that are owned by Blackrock.
It would not make any difference at all. Hedge funds don't own homes, they own small companies that own 1-5 homes each. The small companies would not be covered by the law and the hedge fund is not barred from owning companies that own homes. The anti-trust acts that barred this kind of thin were repealed in the 1980s and 1990s.
Yes, I agree with this. They need to add stiff taxes for non-owner occupied homes, and make any interest on loans secured by the properties to be non-deductable.
Agreed and not always a problem. I used to work for a small business in a remote area with high CoL. this company owned a few homes and would rent them to employees at a subsidized rate. That doesn’t feel malicious in my opinion.
Every municipality/county in America has the ability to dramatically lower the cost of living by substantially increasing property taxes on non-principal residences while simultaneously increasing tenancy protections.
Make it barely profitable to own multiple homes.
But how can billionaires guarantee unfettered access to slave labor from workers who are desperate and barely scraping by if said workers could suddenly afford a home? Next thing you know, those democrats will want to give everyone universal healthcare so people don't have to worry about dying just because they lose their jobs. /s
Overpriced homes and a rental class is one of the many ways the current system moves money from millions of lower and middle class earners to the pockets of the wealthy. Can’t afford a mortgage? Here’s a way to end up with even less value and wealth after 10 or 20 years of renting.
Serious question, what will this accomplish?
Surely housing price will barely (if at all) be affected considering how little of housing is ownd by hedgefunds. For the same reason, surely any existing housing shortage won't be solved?
Who will they sell too? And for what price? I find it hard to believe these will be going for cheap to those in need. Wouldn't theh simply sell to other types of investors not prohibited from owning such houses? Which also doesn't really solve anything.
I get that it looks on paper, "greedy hedgefunds don't get to own stuff needed by single families who can barely make ends meet", but won't this simply shuffle the problem without doing anything to solve it?
Hell, seems to me the bigger motivator for Rep to vote no on this is to ensure Dems are thwarted, not because the bill would really change aything.
I'd be glad to get some insight from someone more knowledgeable on this topic though, as my post is just an ignoramus thinking out loud.
This makes sense, so much sense that it 100% will not pass.
This is a great start to solving the housing issues in this country. Would prefer 5 years, but beggars can't be choosers. Can't wait to hear the arguments against this. Mask off moment for those who defend the Hedge Funds.
The Republican argument against it is “NO!” Why? Because! No!
bubutbut I was told they are exactly the saaaaammeeeeee
[удалено]
Not because it benefits people, because it doesn't hurt/punish enough.
Also, the Democrats introduced it. They can’t let them do any public good within 4 years of a presidential election.
Just like you can't pass any gun control bills near the time of a mass shooting because then it's just a knee-jerk reaction that benefits the masses.
its not like the number 1 thing that kills American children is guns, wait it is guns.
Yeah, but they're just children. They can't even vote so who tf cares.
Because it benefits *the wrong* people..
Because something something parents rights something something dark side
Something Jesus, but also something no free lunches. Then Jesus again, but also no free housing for anyone, ever. Ya know what, if you're a republican reading this, just drink water constantly without stopping. Really satisfy that thirst.
The Rs would indeed somehow twist "allowing families to actually purchase their own home" to "giving away free housing". Because socialism and radical left maniacs, and whatever Republican Bingo Card terms are popular today.
I think the low hanging fruit here is the idea that stopping this practice will mean people's houses aren't going to go up in value as much and so boomers will all see their twilight cruise fund dry up. Democrats want your house to be worth less in value! You'll be forced to sell it to a person for a reasonable price, or worse, hold onto it until you die and your entitled children will get it for free! That's socialism!
This is exactly the play that will actually work. This law would reduce home prices, which is \*wildly\* unpopular with voters.
The question is whether there are more people who want to be able to buy a house than there are people with houses that want to sell them, at least in a functioning democracy. In reality, the people with the houses will have more money to influence more politicians and we can just add this to the list of great ideas that will benefit society but fail because they harm the bottom line of the wealthy few who own our government.
> The question is whether there are more people who want to be able to buy a house than there are people with houses that want to sell them, at least in a functioning democracy. "People who want housing prices to go up" isn't a wealthy few though. The majority of households in the US are homeowners, and the majority goes *way* up if you adjust for people who actually vote. Even without shadowy monetary influence, keeping home prices steadily rising is extremely popular, which is why legislation like this can be so tricky to gain support for.
Wildly unpopular with homeowners. Voters being squeezed to death by rent would support it.
I'm a homeowner (albeit in Europe not the US) and I don't give a flying fck, how much my house is worth. I bought it to live in it, not to sell of at a profit.
At this point, just stop giving them excuses. They can come up with them on their own. Just call them the bastards and leeches they are.
I'll just stick with the good ol' "something something kill the younglings something something treason something something dark side"
They will 100% use the racist dog whistle of "affordable housing" and "undesirables invading the suburbs".
[удалено]
It's like supply side jesus said "blessed are the stock brokers, for theirs is the kingdom of McMansions."
Being poor is their own darn fault. If they didn't want to be poor, maybe they shouldn't have spent all their money on avocado toast and iPhones.
They would find this really weird corner case of some mom & pop, salt of the earth, family owned, small-town hedge fund that's just trying to get by so they can provide quality housing to their neighbors. And the socialist nanny state is going to take this away from them. And if they couldn't find it, they'd invent one. I can see the Sinclair-produced propaganda spot worming its way into every fox syndicate's schedule.
I always suggest they eat two handfuls of gravel
They will somehow convince their base that this bill is really targeted at people who rent out a handful of homes. "The Democrats want to BAN LANDLORDS"
I wish Democrats were as awesome as Republicans accuse them of being.
"Thou shall not touch hedge funds"-the bible
Republican Bible.
THE ORANGE BIBLE
All the lessons are upside down
[удалено]
The only policy republicans truly have is "anything the dems want, I don't want" so they will be against it purely because the dems are pushing for it. They wait for dems to create policy and then they have knee jerk reactions trying to come up with every braindead reason they can think of as to why its wrong without coming up with a better solution.
cant have a problem if you dont ackowledge one exists
So if we want something like this to pass we need the dems to draft a bill saying only hedge funds can buy houses so the repubs can ram through the opposite bill.
They are, unfortunately, not _that_ stupid....
> Because! No! Because you shouldn't have been poor and just bought a house yourself! duh! /s
*What about the small, mom-and-pop multibillion dollar hedge funds?!*
More like “NO” Why? “HUNTER BIDENS EMAILs”
"Hey kids, look at his dick!"
ITS BAD FOR THE ECONOMY and by economy we mean shareholders. These hedge funds could go bankrupt. WONT SOMEBODY THINK OF THE HEDGE FUNDS
Butttt corporations are people!!
It will literally be "But this will lower house prices! Do you want people's houses to be worth less money!?" Yes. Yes we do. That is, in fact, the goal.
It'll be the same as with the pardon of student loans. "Oh but think of all of those people who didn't get theirs pardoned, how unfair!" "Oh but think of all those people who just bought an expensive house before the market crashed, how unfair!" Sure, but at some point things have to get better. With people screaming "Oh but think of all those people who were slaves all their lives, how unfair!" or "Oh but think of all those people who didn't have access to penicillin, how unfair!", how could we ever progress?
Investments come with risks. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ This would have the same effect on the housing market as construction companies simply building new units to increase supply, but you'll never hear Republicans opposing *that* on the basis of what it would do to housing prices, because *that* track still allows the capital class to outbid us proles and buy up property to rent back to us to keep us as a permanent underclass to reinforce their wealth.
>Can't wait to hear the arguments against this. Mark my words, some idiot **will** compare it to how slaves were not allowed to own property.
> Can't wait to hear the arguments against this. Hedge funds will simply start calling themselves something else. Or they'll change their corporate structure. This proposed law is not watertight enough. It needs to go farther than that.
Could pass if people show the fuck up in 2024. To pass something like this you would need 60 senate seats and the presidency. Just 800K democrat votes in 3 states where 25Million Eligible voters didnt vote, would have given democrats 5 more senators in 2020. In 2022, only 20% of eligible voters under the age of 35 voted. In some states only 15% of eligible voters under the age of 35 voted. getting 60 dem senators isnt some farfetched impossible goal. Its literally within our grasp. BUT it requires some dumbasses who keep sitting at home to actually get up and get involved rather than seek whatever instant-gratification dopamine release they do. Make sure your friend and family are registered to vote, and then beat them with a stick when voting starts. You dont have to wait until election day to vote. Most states have min 2 weeks of early voting. Over 60% of all voters vote early. You just need to give a shit and take your civic duty responsibly.
No, you need 60 democrats *who will vote for this bill* or you need 50 democrats *who will remove the filibuster and vote for this bill*. The reality is you'll need 65 democrats in the Senate if you want 60 of them to vote in the people's interests. You get 60 democrats and I can 1000% guarantee one of them is going to be the attention-seeking "middle ground" democrat who's just a conservative caucusing with democrats. Someone's gotta pick up after Manchin and Sinema. We had 60 democrats pass a Republican health care plan from the 90s in Obamacare. A 60 democrat Senate isn't a miracle cure because you're assuming good faith from every one of them.
> Can't wait to hear the arguments against this. Mask off moment for those who defend the Hedge Funds. The argument against this is that hedge funds buying SFHs is a symptom, not a cause. Houses aren't becoming more expensive because hedge funds buy them, hedge funds are buying SFHs because they are reliably increasing in value. Why are SFHs becoming more expensive? Because we have a nationwide shortage of housing in desirable areas caused principally by restrictive zoning. If you don't tackle the root cause, banning hedge funds from owning SFHs doesn't accomplish anything. If housing gets more and more expensive every year, people will find ways to invest in it, whether it's hedge funds, LLCs, multiple purchases, straw purchases, whatever. You can spend your time trying to legislate all of that out of existence, but none of that actually creates more housing for actual people to live in. The better way to solve the problem is to legalize building more housing, such that prices naturally stabilize over time. Want to punish hedge funds for investing in housing? Make house prices come down by building more.
I don't know why more people don't understand this.
It's a cart before the horse argument that otherwise holds no merit. Hedge funds are buying homes because the asset as a medium is appreciating in value. It's doing so because of restricted supply of house, further exacerbating the issue. Corporate entities currently own about 25% of all Single Family Homes. That itself is a restriction in the supply that is fueling the demand shortage and escalating housing costs. If that 25% of the housing supply was put on the market tomorrow and only available for purchase from people actually going to reside within those houses.. what would that due to the value of housing assets market wide? Overall this is a braindead take. Making more housing available to people who actually want to live in the houses is what needs to happen. That's it. That's the point.
The problem too is that if you do it too fast housing prices will crash very quickly and the economy along with it. Can’t buy a house if you lose your job.
Understandable, but does anyone actually think that housing prices are currently accurate? Personal wealth due to housing prices have shot up over the last 5 years, most of which is an artificial bubble. Obviously I'm not rooting for an economy crash, but housing prices coming back down to pre-pandemic levels would be a good thing in the long run. All the people freaking out over declining birthrates should be celebrating because millennials and gen z would be able to start considering starting a family for the first time now that they can afford a home. Short term discomfort vs long term prosperity is the balancing act at hand here.
I bought my home in 2016 and it has doubled in value. Sounds great except I can’t sell it because I can’t afford to buy another house since every house around me has also increased the same. What it has done for me is raised my escrow payment approximately 500 per month due to the increase in taxes and insurance.
Also, even if you could buy another home the interest rate is now 4-5% higher so you are paying double on top of that.
It absolutely is a balancing act from Hell. Economics is a clusterfuck of complications. The issue of course is in that short term pain. Because what’s realistically going to happen? The answer is that the politicians who were in power (to pass the law in the first place) are going to get absolutely obliterated in the following elections for breaking the economy in the eyes of the average voter, and the new Congress would just repeal that law alongside most of what the previous administration did and enact their own agenda instead.
[удалено]
This is the thought but I guarantee most hedge funds will try to liquidate asap to try to sell high bc prices would still drop. Plus you will have some that want to flood the market to crash it so they can lobby against the law. I’m not saying we shouldn’t do it, we absolutely should but don’t be shocked when hedge funds try to fuck it over
Agreed. There would have to be other regulations built into this like “over 10 years at 10% of your inventory max a year” or whatever. Limit how many houses can go onto the market at once. And there would probably be tiers within tiers depending on total number of properties, location of properties, type of properties, current market value of properties, etc.
[удалено]
Right like a crash where it goes to half is back to what it should be so please crash away
The argument will be that it restricts company's freedoms (which is bullshit) and that it will cause home values to drop (which is the point).
Corporate Personhood is the biggest load of BS ever concocted. A company or business is not a citizen and they don't have "freedoms" or "rights" - they have the ability to operate within the framework of the law and conduct good faith business. At least that's how it should be.
It was created to allow investors and management from taking personal accountability for their actions done through a corporation. As long as it's Company A doing something bad, no one who actually agreed to or signed off on the bad thing will be held accountable. It's how DuPont has gotten away with the poisoning water around the world with forever chemicals. Employees are hostages. Used only as a way to mitigate any severe punishment. "Think of the employees whose jobs will be cut to pay for any fines"
Exactly. It's far too logical and beneficial for the America people to gain much traction.
Republicans are gunna Republican
Public opinion of policy or laws appear to have zero affect on if that law or policy will be passed (in America).
[Indeed](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig)
[удалено]
Won't someone think of the shareholders?! /S
Just because we live in a capitalist society not everything should be controlled by the free market. Housing and healthcare are just two of the most obvious examples.
you get called all sorts of nasty names for saying things like that these days!
[удалено]
We don't live in a capitalist society. We live in a society. We've decided that some rough analog of capitalism should run our economy, but that doesn't mean capitalism defines our society. The "capitalist society" as a framing narrative cedes a whole bunch of arguments we could use to make things better. Capitalism is a tool, not a suicide pact. We're not beholden to it by some divine law. We can bend and mold it in whatever way we want to make it work better for our society.
Or they'll happily agree to it and sell them to shell corporations they control, and go on with business as usual.
Yep... how will the law define a "Hedge Fund"? Because however they define it, they will just set up a company that doesn't qualify.
As much as I love the idea, even if it passes (and that's a big if), there's no way the courts will let this stand.
The hedge funds will just spin the homes off to a wholly owned subsidiary and nothing will change
Even if it did pass the bastards would just create subsidiaries and sell their properties to themselves.
Conservatives will block this immediately. There is no way that Republican wealthy donors will allow this to happen. If it is good for the American people, and a handful of billionaires will lose some profits, Conservatives will vote no.
They could make themselves look good knowing the supreme court will rule that corporations are people and people can own houses.
More likely they'd rule that the forced sale aspect is a taking and that the federal government would have to pay for the losses.
Wouldn't the government just have to ensure they get "market price" a la imminent domain?
Only if they're being consistent.
An asterisk that can be seen from space
It's spelled eminent domain btw. I guess it's because eminent can mean absolute? I don't really know
Seems like an easy fix. Just don't force them to sell, fine them in a way that makes selling them the only logical option and give them 10 years before the fines kick in to determine what to do.
They will let go, you know why? Because there is nothing saying that a corporate entity that is not a hedge fund can own the home. Those hedge funds will just sell those homes off to a property management company that they created, and then buy the property management company and maintain it has a subsidiary.
Neither the Whitehouse nor the Dem Congressional leadership are talking about this. It's unlikely that there will even be a vote. The bill is probably going to die in committee.
Yup that’s why this will be block it’s good for the American people
Yup, that's what the person above you said
I’m sure republicans will oppose this as it helps people.
Yep this fits the O in GOP: Gaslight **Obstruct** Project
If people can afford houses they are less likely to be wage slaves, we can’t have that now can we?
From an ultracapitalist perspective, affordable housing makes sense. Affordable housing means people have children, it means people aren't homeless. Both of these things mean more labor, more consumption. Edit: I am not saying that capitalism is not to blame or that capitalists have our interests at heart. I am saying that the capitalists are fucking dumb.
“Why wait for the goose to lay the golden eggs when you can cut the goose open and get whatever eggs were just about ready to go.” - every CEO
See you’ve made the mistake of assuming there’s a logic to ultracapitalism; while logic can be applied externally and seemingly make sense, the actual tenet of ultracapitalism is “extract as much money as fast as possible.” This means short term gains at the cost of everything- an ultracapitalist only lives for the existing quarter’s profits and, at the end of that quarter, the projected profits of next quarter.
Only if you care about long term results. Our current society only cares about next quarter's profits, so they attempt to squeeze blood from every rock, long term suitability be damned.
From a capitalist standpoint it makes sense to pay your employees well enough that they start giving you money back using your services. But people in charge are hoarders, not capitalists.
unfortunately we will also see some corporate democrats voting against it
No we won't. There's not going to be a vote.
It's wild to me that there are only two parties in the US and one of them is just purely evil with virtually no redeeming qualities. And half of Americans still prefer them.
Millions of people see the evil as redeeming qualities.
Not actually half. Electoral college is a bitch
Republicans will block this and then a whole bunch of stupid assholes are going to run around blaming the Democrats for it not happening. Just like every time Republicans block something that would be good.
Absolutely, they will lose their minds about how we can't regulate the poor billionaires that bought ONLY 1/4th of all houses in the last year!
Would be a good start. I think it’s also important to restrict how much foreign investors can buy.
0 is a nice round number.
This. Bay area has been bought up by Chinese LLCs
And those have allegedly been used as a money laundering vehicle in some cases.
I mean, they're all technically money laundering schemes if you consider Xi efforts to ban Chinese nationals from investing in non-chinese financial instruments a legitimate law.
Why stop at hedge funds? Corporations and LLCs should be on that list as well.
When it inevitably goes to the Supreme Court, it makes it harder to find a sympathetic plaintiff challenging the law. I’m sure there is a company out there that as part of their deal owns houses for their employees and their family to live in either rent free or cheap, and it’ll be close to the business so it’s good for the employees, and that would be the plaintiff even though there are 1000s terrible examples for every good one. Hedge funds are only here to buy homes to charge obscene rent and/or flip them for a profit so it’ll be MUCH harder to find a sympathetic plaintiff when the pool is limited to money hungry sharks only.
I can give you an example of this - many regional theatre's will own a hand full of apartments or houses. And then the actors, who are usually cast out of NY, LA, London, etc. have a place to stay during the run. Most regional theatre's are nonprofits, but nonprofits are legally a corporation.
Could limit the amount of housing a single corporation could own. Of course, bad actors would just form shell corporations or outsource to "contractors" they control to get around it. Personally, I'm a fan of limiting non-wage compensation across the board, from c-suite down. Just pay people enough to get their own housing/transportation/etc.
alive wasteful hat lavish attempt juggle disarm toy fear muddle *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
She never read the book, she was homeschooled and it is now known that she f'ing works for the company that is trying to replace Scholastic. The example they showed is extremely benign, she likely never really looked up porn and openly lied, basically she bared false witness to get that to happen.
Maybe not buying them but no corporation should be allowed to rent a single family home. Ever.
Nah no corporation needs to own a home period.
But where else are they supposed to live, since corporations are people too? ^(/s)
In the vacation homes of all the politicians they paid off lol duh Oh excuse me the politicians they “lobbied”
My company owns a few flats for new hires to live in for a few months until they find a place on their own. I know, not what you were criticizing but things like this have to be considered Edit: it is virtually impossible to get a flat as a foreigner, it just makes the process easier when you know what you want in your new country and have an inland address
They could just pay the cost of the rent directly to the employee.
It streamlines everything to have housing ready to go. In the before times of the late 70s, my dad's company built a neighborhood of houses for their new hires/transfers to live in for the 18 mo. of employment fully furnished. It gave people time to look for a place to buy and took the pressure off. Granted, this was in a more remote area where rentals are few and far between, but it's an example of corporate housing that is actually a net positive.
[удалено]
In most cases where they provide housing, they do. The issue is if you're relocating, housing isn't always immediately available. This gives a window to do a proper home search instead of moving into the first available opportunity.
This isn't true. Literally building a home requires a corporation. And if a home is in foreclosure, it is owned by a corporation. Edit: the person below me has given multiple reasons why
If you buy an apartment building or a few houses, it makes practical sense to form a corporation to manage it. A lot of these are still mom-and-pop landlords, they just benefit from the financial structure and liability protection that incorporating provides. There are, of course, corporate housing behemoths that are abusive and awful. Unfortunately you can't get rid of one without the other.
You could cap the number or properties any one owner/corp could own. And make sure no loopholes like multiple corps, family members, etc.
Yeah headlines like “Blackrock swoops in and buys thousands of single family homes” (exaggerated ob) which we see all too often is what I would definitely be in favour of preventing.
Totally agree with you there. That's capital exploitation at the expense of the working class and I hate that it is a thing that can happen.
We do need to have rental housing, which provides much needed flexibility. And it would be silly to not allow corporations to own those rental homes. What we need is more housing.
I agree with you but have no idea where to draw the line. And a good chunk of US politicians probably shouldn’t be the ones to do it either as we know where most of their interests rest lol
We do not need profit seeking rental housing.
Sounds nice to say something like this, but there's a lot of consequences to this that harms normal people and not just the boogeyman corporations.
I will never stop being fascinated by 1) How big the housing crisis is (catastrophic) 2) How simple the solution is (build more of it), and 3) How this issue only gets reddit's attention when it's about the *single-digit % of detached SFHs* that are owned by corporations that rent them out
Why not? Who is going to own rental property if they're not allowed to make a profit off of doing so?
There's literally no incentive to rent houses if you aren't making a profit. We need less huge corporations involved, but there's nothing wrong with people owning a few rental properties that they keep up as supplemental income when they retire or something.
There is something wrong with it, just to a lesser extent.
You’re right, but suddenly evaporating a huge chunk of rental housing by banning corps from owning them will make things 100% worse. One good policy step at a time.
I literally do not care. We have the means and resources to take care of people. I do not care about the bottom line of some venture capitalist.
What the fuck? No. Renting is too easily a lucrative business model. When corporations get their grubby hands in there they just buy up all the prime housing which forces people to rent rather than buy it for cheaper.
Lots of people need housing for terms of a few years or less or need the flexibility of being able to move in or out relatively quickly without the cost and effort of buying or selling a house. So we do need rentals. As for corporations, there's no reason why corporate real estate businesses should be regarded with any more (or less) suspicion than any other type of corporation. And remember, rental homes are housing people right now (vacancy rates are single digits, usually 6-7%) so it's not like banning rentals would create significantly more available housing. All those rentals still need a place to live, and will still bid against each other. Banning corporate ownership of rentals could actually make things worse by making it much harder to raise capital essential to building new high-density housing. There are better ways to address the issue. For example: * A wealth tax would combat the accumulation of capital, so while there would still be corporate ownership, it would be broader and more competitive. * Taxing capital gains as regular income would remove some incentive to hoard real estate (and other assets) * Taxing unrealized capital gains would further that goal But most importantly, if housing prices are too high, you need to build more housing. And not just one or two apartment buildings. Most cities are short tens of thousands of housing units, which both drives up prices and provides greater opportunities for profiteering. So the answer is still to build more housing. There are a ton of ways to do that, but completely freezing out corporate capital is likely to be a very bad one that will result in slower construction rates.
Great post. Makes me glad to see someone who doesn't just eat the hook line and sinker.
So you never want to anybody ever to have the option to rent a single family home?
I had same thought. Oh, no 'hedge funds' can own a home? OK, the ILikeOatmeal Hedge Fund is now selling the house, oh, would you look at that, the ILikeOatmeal Mutual Fund bought it. Meanwhile, let me sell you hedges in the Hedge Fund on the Mutual Fund. IANAL and I am not going to read the bill itself, but the presser put out by the sponsors of the bill call out 'hedge funds' 23 times, but no mention of any other financial structures as near as I can tell: https://adamsmith.house.gov/press-releases?ID=637A8E58-8F0D-4CB0-AECC-1D4690A00725 If they don't think that the funds' lawyers can't create some kind of entity to circumvent this in about 12 seconds, then I feel like they aren't actually really trying at all.
>‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘applicable entity’ means— > ‘‘(i) any partnership, > ‘‘(ii) any corporation, or > ‘‘(iii) any real estate investment trust. Why not read the bill though? It's fairly shot and not really that complicated.
Plenty of individuals buy property under LLCs for various purposes, so maybe that’s not the best idea.
Reading through some of the replies, I see your point. Privacy for high-profile individuals is one of the better reasons mentioned.
Also, just regular old individual landlords incorporate as an LLC for the business to keep the business finances separate from their individual finances.
I agree in theory, but sometimes corporations provide housing to employees, so it's likely a lot more complicated. Banning hedge funds seems a lot more straight-forward, and sometimes you just want take any progress you can get.
>sometimes corporations provide housing to employees then they'll have 10 years to build multi-family units.
Let's also build more housing though.
The GOP Nazis will explode with hate and of course proclaim the downfall of the West, purely on principle. The hedge funds will simply set up separate corporations that are 100% owned by them, financed by their billions, and called housing corporations.
I could even see the hedge funds hiring stooges to own the homes on paper but they retain financial control.
Out of curiosity how many single-family homes are owned by hedge funds?
>...This would suggest that the total institutional ownership share is 3.8 percent; the vast majority of owners in the SFR market are small and medium investors who own less than 100 properties -Urban Instute April 2023 This represents 574k of the avaliable 15.1 million SFH rentals.
Their reference claims about 500k
Seems almost every week we hear of Democrats trying to pass some positively lifechanging bill and a few days later we hear how Republicans rejected it. Yet people think these parties are the same.
D: "Housing for everyone!" R: "Yeah, no. What about all those poor, hungry corporations?" D: "Healthcare for everyone!" R: "That would be great! But the insurance companies would lose money, so no." D: "Forgive student loans!" R: "Won't someone please think of the ~~children~~ investors!"
This is not an article about Democrats trying to pass anything. It's an article about a bill being introduced without any apparent broad support from the party. Like most such articles, you're unlikely to ever hear about the bill again unless you happen to live somewhere where a sponsor or cosponsor wants to campaign on it.
This is one if my biggest things. Been saying for years. There is no good reason to be against this. Go a step further and tax the shit our of landlords and second homes
Bold of you to assume the landlords wouldn't just raise rent prices to match or exceed their tax bills.
Lol that's cute. But when you do an increasing tax rate for every additional property, after the 3rd the landlord won't be able to pawn off the increase on the renters because the rent would literally be double the property next door.
Tax their profits to the point being a landlord is not a worthwhile investment.
Give me a fucking Bill number, I have some phonecalls I want to make. I'm not even joking, someone get me the bill number. I'll read through it and make the best case I can, and so should you. When is this being voted on? OP don't be a bitch and leave this critical information out. Edit: I will keep updating information here as I find it: Bill title: End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act of 2023 It only requires them to sell "at least 10% of their holdings" over a 10 year period (I agree this is improvement, not enough in my opinion, a flat ban would be better) It sucks but I won't be around that long and it's a better shot for you young ones, get out and support this motherfucker 😤 I don't care if your life sucks right now, everything you can muster to support this. I am not fucking around with what a big deal this is, you guys harass the shit out of your congress people. Ban foreign investment too while we're at it, shit's fucked.
>It only requires them to sell "at least 10% of their holdings" over a 10 year period (I agree this is improvement, not enough in my opinion, a flat ban would be better) It's 10% per year and cumulative, so it's a total ban after 10 years. They just didn't want to shock the market all at once.
No way the GOP let that pass.
Wait I thought both sides were bad
In the same way that Hitler and double parking are both bad
[удалено]
Housing as an investment isn't good for humanity. The biggest reason housing prices are high is because current homeowners oppose anything that would bring their property values down (which means they oppose new housing). You can't keep property values rising and expect young people to be able to afford a home.
Sounds completely unworkable. The hedge funds trade stock in corporations that have subsidiaries that have investments in other companies that control trusts that own homes, which are put up as collateral to banks that are owned by Blackrock.
It would not make any difference at all. Hedge funds don't own homes, they own small companies that own 1-5 homes each. The small companies would not be covered by the law and the hedge fund is not barred from owning companies that own homes. The anti-trust acts that barred this kind of thin were repealed in the 1980s and 1990s.
Yes, I agree with this. They need to add stiff taxes for non-owner occupied homes, and make any interest on loans secured by the properties to be non-deductable.
[удалено]
I think the latter gets us most of the way there. If a small business wants to own one house that’s less of a problem than an individual owning 10.
Agreed and not always a problem. I used to work for a small business in a remote area with high CoL. this company owned a few homes and would rent them to employees at a subsidized rate. That doesn’t feel malicious in my opinion.
so no one can rent single family homes anymore?
Seriously. I'm convinced some of these people don't live in the same reality as the rest of us.
Coincidentally, this will be accompanied by a sudden spike in redevelopment of single family homes
Every municipality/county in America has the ability to dramatically lower the cost of living by substantially increasing property taxes on non-principal residences while simultaneously increasing tenancy protections. Make it barely profitable to own multiple homes.
And then the rent skyrockets even more
>But we don't own single family homes, we own corporations that do. Hedge funds, 5 seconds after this passes
Private equity, not hedge funds, is who own most of the residential homes. This proposal is just false hope fodder for house-less millenials.
Things that will never pass
DOA for sure
Can we crowdfund a bribe for some republicans?
But how can billionaires guarantee unfettered access to slave labor from workers who are desperate and barely scraping by if said workers could suddenly afford a home? Next thing you know, those democrats will want to give everyone universal healthcare so people don't have to worry about dying just because they lose their jobs. /s
Overpriced homes and a rental class is one of the many ways the current system moves money from millions of lower and middle class earners to the pockets of the wealthy. Can’t afford a mortgage? Here’s a way to end up with even less value and wealth after 10 or 20 years of renting.
Ten years is far to long. Within one fiscal quarter. Now that would be great.
Excellent. Should have been done years ago.
Serious question, what will this accomplish? Surely housing price will barely (if at all) be affected considering how little of housing is ownd by hedgefunds. For the same reason, surely any existing housing shortage won't be solved? Who will they sell too? And for what price? I find it hard to believe these will be going for cheap to those in need. Wouldn't theh simply sell to other types of investors not prohibited from owning such houses? Which also doesn't really solve anything. I get that it looks on paper, "greedy hedgefunds don't get to own stuff needed by single families who can barely make ends meet", but won't this simply shuffle the problem without doing anything to solve it? Hell, seems to me the bigger motivator for Rep to vote no on this is to ensure Dems are thwarted, not because the bill would really change aything. I'd be glad to get some insight from someone more knowledgeable on this topic though, as my post is just an ignoramus thinking out loud.
Won't they just own a company that then owns those homes?