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.”
 
If you're wondering why Trump didn't sign it, this is why. Literally doesn't matter, it will pass either way.

So he's just delaying the passage of an extremely popular bill in order to throw a hissy fit. Very stable genius.
 
Could this just be a test law, and if all hell doesn’t break loose and it does seem like enough they will lower the limit to 100 or so and close any loopholes that corporations find, then lower it to 50 then 25 then 5 as needed?
 
Its to make a point about the SAVE act. If Congress wants it passed, they can override his veto, or if he doesn't sign it, wait until it automatically becomes law.

Yeah no shit, he's just throwing up a minor bureaucratic hurdle, but he's still delaying an important law that everyone wants to see passed, including him. How many Republicans who are up for reelection think that being a petulant whiner will help them? I guarantee you that attack ads are already being made that will tie Republican candidates to this.
 
Yeah no shit, he's just throwing up a minor bureaucratic hurdle, but he's still delaying an important law that everyone wants to see passed, including him. How many Republicans who are up for reelection think that being a petulant whiner will help them? I guarantee you that attack ads are already being made that will tie Republican candidates to this.
Nigga i already don't have a house. Its delayed by a week or so at most. I really don't care, and neither does trump because it doesn't fucking matter what he does, it'll pass anyway.
 
Nigga i already don't have a house. Its delayed by a week or so at most. I really don't care, and neither does trump because it doesn't fucking matter what he does, it'll pass anyway.
If he doesn't sign it and Congress doesn't push back their recess that's supposed to start next week, won't it just become a pocket veto? (Dead bill.)
 
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.
I mean, don't get me wrong. If I could buy some land and pay 20k for a modular house with no mortgage, I'd do it in a second. But modern code makes this basically impossible. Homes have to be built like bomb shelters these days for safety reasons. The only ones allowed to build shit boxes that fall apart in five years are fly by night construction companies who employ illegals. Can't get sued if there's no trace you ever existed.

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.
I think we can both be right. Homes need to appreciate to be worth buying, but flippers are a scourge. Rehabbing an unlivable home for profit? Sure. Painting the walls and charging 50k? Fuck off.
 
I mean, don't get me wrong. If I could buy some land and pay 20k for a modular house with no mortgage, I'd do it in a second. But modern code makes this basically impossible. Homes have to be built like bomb shelters these days for safety reasons. The only ones allowed to build shit boxes that fall apart in five years are fly by night construction companies who employ illegals.
Modular homes are already a thing, but since everything is expensive it’s still low volume. If the price of houses drops enough that building new ones from scratch becomes economical, you can be sure that you can buy a flatpack Hemtrevlig from IKEA and it would meet all regulations.
 
Modular homes are already a thing, but since everything is expensive it’s still low volume. If the price of houses drops enough that building new ones from scratch becomes economical, you can be sure that you can buy a flatpack Hemtrevlig from IKEA and it would meet all regulations.
I actually looked into it several years ago. The cost to have a modular home built plus the land was way more than just buying a house. You get the benefit of a brand new house built exactly to your liking on whatever land you want, but you absolutely pay for the privilege.

Besides, there are millions of houses that are in terrible shape but are dirt cheap. Buying some poor neglected property for nothing and then fixing it up is the way to go. My theoretical $100,000 house is very much a real thing, if you're willing to put in the sweat equity.
 
Besides, there are millions of houses that are in terrible shape but are dirt cheap. Buying some poor neglected property for nothing and then fixing it up is the way to go. My theoretical $100,000 house is very much a real thing, if you're willing to put in the sweat equity.
Part of the reason many said houses are in terrible shape and dirt cheap is because they are smack dab in the middle of high-crime areas filled with, ahem, "urban" demographics."
 
he's still delaying an important law that everyone wants to see passed,
The SAVE act is one of the most popular pieces of legislation in the country by far and the faggots in Congress will not pass it. I am in favor of banning investment firms from buying up single family homes, but none of that shit matters if importing voters and harvesting ballots continues to pay off. They aren’t even hiding it anymore.

It doesn’t matter how much is built or if it’s an investment group that buys it when leftists and their NGO handlers use your tax money to stuff a thousand third world migrants into your neighborhood and ensure every single one of them “votes” the right way.

Securing our elections is the single most important piece of legislation because it will determine whether or not we can even begin to fix things. They’re fine passing this because it’ll run out in 15 years and by then they’ll have replaced anyone who gives a shit with various tribal groups that only care about getting more gibs.
 
I can think of reasons someone would have more than 2 houses. 10 seems a reasonable cut off to me.
My reasoning for 2 is that it would free up a majority of the market as the majority of private investor own 1 to 5 houses, putting the cut off at 10 would leave 90% of available homes in the hands of the small private investor.
 
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?

Wyświetl załącznik 9187127
Wyświetl załącznik 9187128

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 is asinine. You could make the same argument about cars which have maintenance costs, insurance costs, registration fees (aka taxes), and interest if you get a car loan. They even depreciate instead of keeping up with inflation.

People buy cars because they need them to go places. People buy houses because they need shelter from the elements. And using your number I think $7200/yr. ($600/mo.) is a very reasonable cost for housing. Just ask everyone paying several thousand a month for a shitty apartment.

In the same vein saying "literally nobody would ever buy a house" is flat out nonsensical. Where are they going to live? And don't say they're going to rent because if nobody is buying houses that includes potential landlords. You are saying everyone would simply die of exposure rather than spend $600/mo. on a place to live.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole