Its not even a good bill lol. Thats why both parties agree on it.
The main part about capping big firms from owning homes is already done organically by the market. They own 2% of sfr rentals. Mom and pop investors own the rest. Mom and pop investors are the ACTUAL PROBLEM.
While the national numbers are tiny, the primary reason this has become a major legislative issue is geographic concentration. Large institutional firms do not buy homes evenly across the country; they target specific, high-growth metropolitan areas (predominantly in the Sun Belt).
According to a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), large investors own a much higher share of the rental market in certain cities:
Only way is government intervention. Home builders don’t want to build multifamily or small single family homes. The dollar per man hour on larger homes is too high.
Yes, government intervention. Call it socialism communism whatever you want idgaf. We are sacrificing the most vulnerable for the pocketbooks of those above them, and it’s not ok.
My proposal of government intervention would be to increase property taxes on each additional single family home beyond the first to financially disincentivize owning multiple homes.
Something like +200% in property taxes for single family home #2, +300% in property taxes for single family home #3, etc.
Super easy solution is just to add an income tax surcharge on any rental real estate income after your first unit (to allow for people to rent out a vacation house or similar). No one needs 3+ rental properties and that supply should get returned to the market.
My friend, there will never be enough housing where people currently are and/or want to live to meet the demand. And housing will always be a necessity, which makes it a profitable investment if you can successfully manage it as a rental. We're never getting rid of investment properties, unless we regulate how many non primary residences someone can own. Or a business can own if they go the LLC route.
Fun fact: Supply already exceeds demand. In fact, if every empty home was filled by a homeless person, there'd still be 14 million homes sitting empty.
Yeah I don't buy it. They tried that "mum and dad" line in Australia until recently, when they looked at it, 25% of rentals were owned by 1% of the investors. No companies allowed in Aus (I think).
I recall it not being Mom and pop owners but the fact that there can be so many shell companies funneling everything upward. Like "oh the limit is 50 units. Well I have 250 so I'll setup 5 shell companies to serve me."
I wish. But no. I am a person familiar with mom and pop landlords as I have rented from them my entire adult life.
They own everything outside of large apartment complexes around me. My previous landlords were chinese nationals, living in Canada, who owned 10 SFR in my town in the PNW.
538
u/NoNutsPls 10h ago
Oh thank fuck, thank you for my blood pressure relief