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.”
 
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.
What nobody has mentioned in this thread is how few SFHs are actually owned by corporations. The impact will be minor if at all. May affect urban bughives though. Corporations do invest in multi-family properties like condo complexes and apartment buildings.
 
What nobody has mentioned in this thread is how few SFHs are actually owned by corporations. The impact will be minor if at all. May affect urban bughives though. Corporations do invest in multi-family properties like condo complexes and apartment buildings.
At least he's doing better then Canada's Carny which promised to buy all the unsold condos off developers in Vancouver BC, and when asked what he would be paying he said that the developers shouldn't have to sell at a loss.
 
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?

Nice try Schlomo.

The big firms like Blackrock use people's pension money to capitalize the smaller ones to buy up existing homes and then get a share of the returns. Anyone that owns a home will tell you they've gotten constant solicitations to sell in the past 6+ years when their house isn't even on the market. If you try and buy often an "investor" swoops in and buys at a 10+ percent markup.
 
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.
If your car ends up costing you hundreds of thousands of dollars, you may have a point. You may also live a life that doesn't apply to most people. People will spend what they can afford. It's much easier to afford $3000 a year on a car than $30,000 on a house. Ten times easier, if I'm correct. But I'm no mathematician.

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.
Autistic pedantry is unbecoming of you. Besides, people wouldn't. Corporations who could afford to eat the cost would. And then they'd jack up your rent for the trouble.
 
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.
Are you wilfully ignoring that a house is a major factor for building generational wealth. Sure, you'll get less of the financial benefits, but as soon as you have kids and one takes over your house, the benefits immeadietly hit hard.
 
If your car ends up costing you hundreds of thousands of dollars, you may have a point. You may also live a life that doesn't apply to most people. People will spend what they can afford. It's much easier to afford $3000 a year on a car than $30,000 on a house. Ten times easier, if I'm correct. But I'm no mathematician.
You're being obtuse. Yes, a car costs less than a house, but that's irrelevant. A car provides a useful function (transportation) so despite not appreciating in value it's a rational to own one. A house provides a useful function (shelter) so despite hypothetically not appreciating in value it's rational to own one.

Autistic pedantry is unbecoming of you. Besides, people wouldn't. Corporations who could afford to eat the cost would. And then they'd jack up your rent for the trouble.
You're saying houses need to appreciate otherwise no one would buy a house since they'd lose money. If that were the case why would a corporation want to own multiple houses? So they can "eat the cost" on multiple houses and lose a ton of money? They're not Captain Planet villains.
 
What nobody has mentioned in this thread is how few SFHs are actually owned by corporations. The impact will be minor if at all. May affect urban bughives though. Corporations do invest in multi-family properties like condo complexes and apartment buildings.

I can tell you niggas saying this don't own a house.

If you did you would know that investors have been trying to scoop up everything they can in the last few years. The only exception is probably if you live somewhere like bumfuck West Virginia and there's no upside to investors there.

In desirable locations they've been turning them into Air BnBs to get max returns, but that's not such a great idea now that the market for that has fallen through.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole