US House passes bill barring investors from buying up single-family homes — Trump expected to sign it at the Capitol - Blackstone jews in shambles

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

House passes bill barring investors from buying up single-family homes — Trump expected to sign it at the Capitol Article | Archive

By Josh Christenson and Victor Nava | Published June 23, 2026, 9:16 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives on Tuesday cleared a Senate-passed bill aimed at reducing the cost of housing in the US by barring institutional investors from buying up single-family homes, among other provisions.

The revamped 21st Century Road to Housing Act overwhelmingly passed the House in a 358-32 bipartisan vote.

The legislation was approved in the Senate in an 85-5 bipartisan vote on Monday.

President Trump is expected to sign the bill into law during a visit to the Capitol Building on Wednesday.

Bottom line is we need more housing and this bill, working together, does just that,” Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) said on the House floor.

“It eases regulations. It creates greater access to capital. It provides more accountability at [the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs], but ultimately it increases supply, which will have a profound impact on Americans across this country,” the congressman added.

Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) marveled at the bipartisan support for the housing bill, calling it a “remarkable thing in this polarized and angry Congress.”

“We are actually getting something done, and we’re getting something done that is really important,” Himes said.

“We have a crisis of housing in this country … and while this won’t fix everything, this is a huge step in the right direction,” he added.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott (R-SC) said in a statement before the vote that the legislation would help “lower costs, expand housing supply, cut red tape, protect taxpayers, and help more Americans achieve the dream of home ownership.”

“For me, this is personal. I know what it means for a family to have a safe, affordable place to call home because I watched my mother work hard to make that dream a reality in North Charleston, South Carolina,” he added.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the committee, called the measure “historic,” noting it would “for the first time ever” halt “private equity from buying up homes.”

House lawmakers had pushed for the provision, in addition to items extending the Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery program for three years to help localities and cities recover from presidential disaster declarations.

The compromise bill also has tucked in the House’s provisions on banking deregulation, making it simpler for smaller banks to return to engage in mortgage lending.

The House’s version had been approved in an overwhelming 396-13 vote in May, while the Senate version passed in an 89-10 vote in March.

Sens. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) were the only senators to vote against the measure on Monday.

Some GOP lawmakers had balked at the Senate’s bill initially due to it having been crafted by Warren.

Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.), the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said in a statement that nine of his chamber’s key provisions ended up in the final package and the bill was “a meaningful step toward increasing housing supply, improving affordability, and helping more Americans achieve homeownership.”


“I look forward to President Trump signing it into law,” Hill added.


Trump had first called on Congress in January to pass legislation stopping investors from scooping up single-family homes, eventually signing an executive order that requested the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission look into Wall Street purchases “for anti-competitive effects.”
 
This law only applies if the company owns more than 350 homes and the law also expires in 15 years.
 
I realise that the instant response to giving the evil corpo landlord a good kicking is, great, about time. But; this isn't Reddit. Take the time to consider how this will be "a good thing". How does the freehold ownership of a house being with an institutional investor as opposed to an individual investor, a public agency (social housing), a financial institution (mortgaged) or a corporation set up for the specific purpose (blocks of flats) or the individual occupier affect either the overall availability of housing or its cost? Spoiler alert - it doesn't.

Houses are sold (or rented) for what someone is prepared to pay. A corporate purchaser looking to rent out (save for redevelopment schemes, which are not the issue here, corporations don't but housing to take it out of the housing stock) will purchase if the rent achievable generates a return on investment (the acquisition cost) that exceeds that achievable were the funds expended on acquisition invested elsewhere. That "new" money coming into the housing market will, in the absence of any other change, increase overall prices. That should not happen unless demand is excessively high compared to supply which itself should result in more housing being built (as its sale price benefits from that imbalance between supply and demand) reducing overall costs such that the financial benefits from buying/building houses no longer exceed those from investing elsewhere.. None of this is new. It's been understood for centuries.

Land availability despite Twain's (buy land, they ain't making it anymore) is largely a red herring. It becomes an issue where governments artificially restrict housing land supply (zoning and other planning controls) but this will do nothing to ameliorate that problem. It does all fall apart if corporate purchasers are acting for other motivations such as effecting social change or it they can exert market control which is certainly tenable at least on a local basis. Again this legislation is not going to address those issues and the worst offenders by far when it come to market manipulation are governmental bodies.

Excessive housing costs always come down to an imbalance between supply and demand usually caused by artificial factors (governments). Here we have greatly increased demand (how's that uncontrolled immigration working out?) with supply restricted and made more expensive by the same politicians complaining about excessive housing costs.

And if that was not enough..... whilst not all regulation is equal, you might want to think long and hard about the banking deregulation and "improving access to capital" also included. That worked out so well in the years leading up to 2007 the consequences of which we are still suffering.

I look forward to reasoned and rationally coherent rebuttals (just joking!).
 
They push through this bill now, when the kikes have already bought up most of the houses they wanted to buy?
I don't know for certain why people want to blame the investment banks and real estate companies for the current housing crisis when the blame falls entirely on homeowners treating their properties as investments. The inevitable result is that the median (or average, whichever metric you prefer) house ends up costing far more than it should be if we base normal growth off inflation (2-4% annually). If anything, these large companies want housing prices to go down in a lot of areas because it makes them more attractive and thus brings in more people creating an incentive to build more housing and thus creates a positive feedback loop.
These companies also invest in commercial space which is why a lot of them are building tons of 5 over 1s in just about every major and minor cities downtown. Making housing cheaper increases occupancy rates and makes people want to spend more money on goods.
To hazard a guess, I think people just want to find a singular entity to blame all of their problems on which is why they default to Blackrock, Vanguard, etc.
 
This is good I guess but kinda seems like rearranging deck chairs on the titanic. That might explain the huge support in congress - it does basically nothing but can be spun as doing something for their constituents.

IMO a lot of the housing supply is held by a couple groups. One is people with a low mortgage locked in from the past 5 years. Even if they wanted to move any sober evaluation of the costs of losing your 2.5% mortgage rate mean you're staying put. The other is boomers who aren't downsizing their house. A lot of them are feeding the jews with a reverse mortgage so they'll be in their home until they die. These depress supply.

And as has been mentioned all the immigration (legal and illegal) has driven up demand.

Combine these and you get the high house prices we see today. Further even if institutional investors own a ton of houses that they're renting, those houses are still in the supply because they are providing housing. And the rent they can charge is essentially dictated by the housing market. If houses are $3mil you can collude to fix rents. If houses are $100k and you try to charge $5k/mo then even if you're fixing prices no one is going to rent from you.

Maybe this lowers demand just a smidge and that helps a little bit. Maybe it's just a show for political points. Maybe our congressmen have some bird ideas. I don't think it matters.
 
So basically they bought everything they wanted and the goyim get a bullshit stage show like always. Nothing has gotten cheaper.
 
I'm pretty sure all the player homes in Skyrim are for personal use.
That goatfucker Olaf Battle-Born oughta stuff his head up his own mother’s ass if he thinks he’s buying Breezehome out from under me

Fusrodah that grey haired shit straight outta Nirn I tell you what
 
This is an Elizabeth Warren bill that gives the federal bureaucracy control over local zoning and funds building more housing for immigrants and welfare recipients:

Sec. 107 – Housing Supply Frameworks*​

  • Directs HUD to publish guidelines and best practice frameworks for state and local zoning and land-use policies.

Sec. 201 – Increasing Housing in Opportunity Zones​

  • Allows HUD to prioritize projects based in or primarily serving communities designated as Opportunity Zones for any competitive grants relating to housing development or preservation.

Sec. 203 – Community Investment and Prosperity Act*​

  • Raises the cap on bank public welfare investments, including those in affordable housing and community development projects, from 15% to 20%.

Sec. 204 – Addition of Affordable Housing Construction as an Eligible Activity*​

  • Allows CDBG funding to be used for the construction of new affordable housing.

Sec. 207 – Grants for Planning and Implementation Associated with Affordable Housing​

  • Creates a competitive grant program at HUD to help state, local, and tribal governments, as well as regional planning agencies, implement planning and community development activities. These activities include updating regulatory processes, increasing capacity to conduct inspections, and coordinating housing development with transportation planning.

Sec. 208 – Innovation Fund​

  • Creates a $200 million annual competitive grant program for local governments and tribes that demonstrate measurable increases in housing supply, incentivizing reforms such as streamlined permitting, density bonuses, and zoning changes. The program sunsets after seven years.

Sec. 209 – Accelerating Home Building Act*​

  • Provides grants to local governments and tribes to select and implement pre-reviewed housing designs (such as accessory dwelling units, duplexes, or townhouses) to streamline affordable housing construction, with 10% of total funding reserved for rural areas and a five-year window for adoption.

Sec. 211 – Housing Affordability Act*​

  • Updates statutory maximum loan limits for FHA multifamily mortgages and reforms the formula used to set them.

Sec. 212 – Rental Assistance Demonstration Program​

  • Lifts the RAD program cap by 100,000 units and extends protections for tenants in RAD buildings.

Sec. 503 – Incentivizing Local Solutions to Homelessness​

  • Allows Emergency Solutions Grant funding recipients to request a waiver of the statutory 60% spending cap on emergency shelter beds and street outreach.
Source (Archive)
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole