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.”
 
That's nice and all but the real actual answer is to build more houses, sending NIMBYs to Gitmo, and tossing every border hopper back to their own shithole; dispersing their assets here among Americans affected by their leeching off government gibs. The only tried and true way to lower prices is to either increase supply or decrease demand. Cutting out corpo interests is spitting in the bucket due to historically residential real estate is generally an awful passive investment, even with retardedly inflated prices, so it's likely these investors are renting out for higher passive income.
 
One of the easiest ways to build passive income is to start buying properties that can be rented out, but these huge conglomerates that buy up a 100 or more properties at a time from across the US without stepping foot in the state once are what’s ruining it.
 
How big of a problem is this really? Google says around 0.7% of the US housing stock is owned by big investors but that would include foreclosed homes too right?

Like most subjects, the reality is more complex than people want to admit. With real estate prices, the only thing that matters is location. So when you see 0.7% of the US housing stock, that's including the 95% of the country that already has very limited demand and affordable prices.

For instance, go to Zillow and set your filters for $200k or less and look at most major cities that aren't in California, or in cities like NYC, Miami, Chicago or Boston. Think St Louis, Baltimore, Jacksonville, Tucson, DFW, Buffalo, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, OKC etc. There is a lot of inventory available, which means with a 3% FHA first time homebuyer loan, you can put less than $6k down and be paying around $1,500/month.

The issue is, the vast majority of home buyers want to buy in the most desirable places. This makes sense, but it's also why those prices are so unaffordable, and it's also where the vast majority of that 0.7% of investor owned homes are actually at, because (duh) everybody wants to live there so the prices go up. My guess is the 0.7% figure is probably closer to 25-30% or more in a lot of those areas, while it's closer to 0% in 90% of the country.
 
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 houses didn't appreciate, literally nobody would ever buy a house. Even the cheapest house on the market would ream you if its value just kept up with inflation.

Let's say to can somehow find an extremely modestly priced home that's also turnkey. It's $100,000 and you put down 20%.

Over the next 30 years, you will spend:
$100,000 on interest
$50,000 on property tax
$35,000 on insurance
$30,000 on maintenance

Add that up and you're at $215,000 in the hole, or a loss of almost $7200 a year.

For a $100,000 house. Quadruple that for average prices.

In other words, that 100k home would have to be worth at least 300k in 30 years to make it remotely financially viable. So, tripling every 30 years. Let's compare today's prices to prices 30 years ago, shall we?

1000055826.jpg
1000055825.jpg

Would you look at that.

And that's not even taking into account that 137,000 in 1996 dollars is $288,000. So people still aren't making money. They're just spending slightly less money than they would be if houses didn't appreciate.
 
This will do nothing about the unaffordability of housing (due to kike monopolies like blackrock and berkshire), quote me.

Iudea Delenda Est, quote that too.
Of course it won't. The cost of housing materials hasn't changed and actual purchase power slumps more and more every year.
But this will at least throw a gear into the machine trying to corporatize this shit and enslave regular people as forever-renters, ASSUMING it does what people think it will.
 
Nice. Doesn’t quite go far enough for me though.

Limit is 350, so 349 is fine by the letter of the law which is very stupid. The limit should be significantly lower.

They should also seize all the empty houses held by banks, hedge funds and other useless parasites as “assets” without a penny in compensation and sell them at dirt cheap fire sale prices to young Americans (foreigners can fuck off).

Always with the half measures to bandaid the problem, never a proper fix.
 
On a scale from ov vey to being turned into a lampshade approximately how many holocausts is this?
 
If houses didn't appreciate, literally nobody would ever buy a house. Even the cheapest house on the market would ream you if its value just kept up with inflation
Bullshit, if houses become cheap enough you could just walk away from one that’s getting run down and buy a new one off Amazon. In the past you could order a house off the sears catalog and it would be shipped to your location where you could do final assembly yourself.
 
Bullshit, if houses become cheap enough you could just walk away from one that’s getting run down and buy a new one off Amazon. In the past you could order a house off the sears catalog and it would be shipped to your location where you could do final assembly yourself.
Nah bro, people would never buy a useful asset for anything other than its resale value. Thats why no one ever buys cars or cellphones.
 
Over the next 30 years, you will spend:
$100,000 on interest
$50,000 on property tax
$35,000 on insurance
$30,000 on maintenance

Add that up and you're at $215,000 in the hole, or a loss of almost $7200 a year.
Sure those things can justify some level of an appreciation but my point about people treating housing as an investment still stands. People will spend maybe 10k on a house to do some minor improvements over the course of a year or two and then flip it for an extra 50-100k. What you've mentioned would only be applicable for those who have owned a house for an extended period of time.
I still hold the belief that homes should be treated more as cars.
 
If houses didn't appreciate, literally nobody would ever buy a house.
Add that up and you're at $215,000 in the hole, or a loss of almost $7200 a year.
Your math doesn't make sense to me. If you were to rent an apartment instead, say $800/month (very cheap, but so was your price of a house), then in those 30 years you would have paid $288,000. The house you can recoup the $100k from its value, the apartment you cannot. And you have the benefit of having a house instead of living in the same building as 50 other families.

Prices constantly outpacing inflation is terrible because everyone in the future then has to pay even more than the people before them. You can't have houses costing 20% of your income, then 20 years later 30%, then 20 years later 40%, etc. forever because it would eventually hit 100%, and be unaffordable for pretty much everyone well before then.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole