Lawmakers say investors that scooped up hundreds of thousands of houses to rent out are driving up home prices

Wall Street went on a home-buying spree. Now, more lawmakers want to stop it from ever happening again.

Democrats in the U.S. Senate and House have sponsored legislation that would force large owners of single-family homes to sell houses to family buyers. A Republican’s bill in the Ohio state legislature aims to drive out institutional owners through heavy taxation.

Lawmakers in Nebraska, California, New York, Minnesota and North Carolina are among those proposing similar laws.

While homeowner associations for years have sought to stop investors from buying and renting out houses in their neighborhoods, the legislative proposals represent a new effort by elected officials to regulate Wall Street’s appetite for single-family homes.

These lawmakers say that investors that have scooped up hundreds of thousands of houses to rent out are contributing to the dearth of homes for sale and driving up home prices. They argue that investor buying has made it harder for first-time buyers to compete with Wall Street-backed investment firms and their all-cash offers.

Non-paywall link

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    114
    ·
    2 months ago

    A Republican’s bill in the Ohio state legislature aims to drive out institutional owners through heavy taxation.

    That’s how you know this is a truly desperate situation. Republicans want to raise taxes on corporations.

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I know nothing about Ohio specifically, but some Republicans in state legislature aren’t completely brain dead or MAGA.

      I am going to hop onto my soap box for a minute and say if we want high quality US politicians, we need to better compensate State legislature roles. In Ohio they make 68k, which isn’t great, but maybe liveable in Ohio. Looking up CT as a random example, they just bumped the pay from 28k to 40k two years ago and their staffers still earn 2 to 3x their pay.

      That’s ridiculous. It means only rich people or people funded by rich people can afford to run for state legislature. This doesn’t even get into local politics where selectman can earn like 12k yearly… if we want more normal down to earth politicians, we need to fund this shit better.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        No, but they’re still conservatives, which means they will only act in their own self-interest.

      • Neato@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        You’re right. I make triple my state senator and I can only just afford a house here if I wanted to beggar myself with current rates.

      • penquin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        68k in Ohio is pretty good for one person or maybe 2, but not more than that. I live in Ohio.

      • PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        But if we paid them a better wage they wouldn’t be so hungry for corporate boots to lick, and the people who rule this country wont stand for that.

  • blazera@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    107
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I hate modern journalism

    here’s the senate bill they’re talking about https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2224?s=1&r=92

    It’s a very weak bill, only kicks in at over 50 homes purchased, is not retroactive so existing damage to the market is unaffected, and only affects taxes on interest. Plus a lot of other restrictions to make sure this doesnt affect rental properties at all. Frankly I think this bill is meant to make more affordable property for landlords than anything.

    • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      It’s the WSJ, it’s the Fox News of print. It’s going to have that “mostly true, but also any regulation is bigger than life” vibe.

      NYTimes reported on different forms of this bill way back in December when things were still in infancy https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/realestate/wall-street-housing-market.html

      If signed into law, the legislation, called the End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act of 2023, could upend a growing sector of the housing market, and potentially increase the supply of single-family homes available for individual buyers. Homeownership, long a cornerstone of generational wealth in the United States, is increasingly out of reach for Americans as home prices and interest rates soar.

      In separate legislation, Representatives Jeff Jackson and Alma Adams of North Carolina, both Democrats, introduced the American Neighborhoods Protection Act on Wednesday. That bill would require corporate owners of more than 75 single-family homes to pay an annual fee of $10,000 per home into a housing trust fund to be used as down payment assistance for families.

      The bills were introduced three months after The New York Times published a story examining the impact of corporate-backed investment on Charlotte, N.C., where, in 2022, investors purchased 17 percent of the city’s homes in cash, often outcompeting first-time buyers who rely heavily on mortgages.

      Investors buying up 17% of a city with nearly a population of 900,000 people is just nuts. If you say 4 people per household, that’s roughly 38,250 homes.

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        mixed with like converting a large percentage from regular rentals to short term rentals.

    • Thann@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 months ago

      The legislators would not propose it if it wasn’t great for institutional investors

  • Boozilla@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Our HOA made it much harder for corporate raider types to buy and rent houses in our neighborhood. Took a lot of legwork and paying a lawyer to get the changes passed. Was well worth it, though. Sleep better at night.

    I’ve mentioned this before on Lemmy, and a few pious Ackshualemmys felt the compulsion to preach about how this was just a move to keep home prices up. But it really wasn’t. The legal language still allows individual families to rent their homes if they want to. But it strictly limits how many corporate / institutional type landlords can be in the neighborhood.

    My main point here is: as much as most of us hate HOAs (including me)…if you have an HOA think about leveraging it to help slow this corporate creep of mass home buying.

    • Chocrates@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      My problem with HOA’s is that they seem to have no accountability if a power tripping asshole is in charge. If HOA’s lost the ability to put leans on properties and was just an organization that neighbors joined of their own volition, it might be better

      Then again, if they don’t have that power then they can’t do what your HOA did.

      • Granbo's Holy Hotrod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        I will NEVER live in another HOA community. To your point, it just takes a few dicks to ruin it for everyone. Sold my house to an institutional investor just to get out of one. Everyone peering out their blinds, ready to speed, dial the gastopo if a car they dont recognize appears at someone else’s residence. The 6am geriatric weed police making sure everyone’s lawns are mowed at 90’ angles. Can’t have a work truck in your own driveway, gotta repaint your house every 10 years now you wanna tell me who I can and can’t unload this paper house to? Get bent. Communities usually full of big truck, clean bed freedom lovers too.

        • Mirshe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          They either speed-dial the police, OR they simply just come out and shoot at whoever they feel is “invading”. My friend had a whole list of areas he wouldn’t deliver when he was running Instacart stuff because he’d gotten shot at or threatened by neighbors (or sometimes the people who actually ordered things).

      • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        My guy YOU are the accountability. Yes, it’s another exhausting and thankless form of governance, but if you hate the board and the despots? Run a flyer campaign, run for the board/leadership, get on the finance committee and run obstruction, abuse the bylaws and force actual proper process and procedure - the power trippers rarely are actual good administrators, and generally hate procedures and checks on power.

        It’s not a fun process to fight back, but “refi and run” doesn’t solve the issue of bad HOAs/leadership

      • HubertManne@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        its an election system and you can actually call a vote by petition of residents. I get peoples feelings but there are options to stop gross negligence. Its tougher when the person is sorta annoying but not enough to go through the pain of getting rid of them or like people deciding to run themselves and do the work. Its unpaid work and in my experience the ones doing it are more put upon than those that don’t. With a few exceptions.

      • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        When I lived in a condo, there was a cap on the total of units that could be rented.

        Rentals required an additional administrative charge to the HOA, which essentially acted as a property manager.

        Basically, it was so that people who had to move temporarily for extended periods (like being deployed) could keep their house.

        Imo, it was a good compromise.

        • HubertManne@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yeah I would not mind that. From what I know from other people is you had to be on a list and it sorta rotated if all the slots were filled. Downside it would seem to me is if you had folks trying to keep it as rental property rather than a temporary situation. Also likely a bit harder to enforce compliance since some units are legitimately rented whereas in my situation folks would notice if you tried to rent it out. Its actually really restricted. Units can only be occupied if your on the lease or certain direct relatives like children.

    • glimse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      They paid for a lawyer? I’m jealous. I couldn’t even get mine to create a 2024 budget…in April…which is not only needed for a lender to approve the sale, it’s a legal requirement to run an HOA. And this was after the president sabotaged the first sale because I renovated it and the appraisal would make his taxes go up. So glad I’m finally out of that place…

      • Boozilla@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        It was a huge PITA. Our fees are very low (thank goodness) so we don’t have much of a budget to work with. But it was one of those unicorn bipartisan things where almost everyone really wanted to do it. Even some of the nay-sayers changed their minds after all was said and done and they saw how it actually works (and not how they feared it would work).

  • Asafum@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m in NY and I literally have to quit my job and start over in another state because as it is right now there is literally 0 chance I ever own a home here… I’ve watched prices double in less than 4 years, it’s absolutely disgusting…

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s not really true. Depending on where you live in NY, prices are very affordable. Also, NYC has neighborhoods that are also affordable.

      You mentioned that “prices double in less than 4 years”. What happened 4 years ago? People left the city during Covid. Yes, that meant prices went down, but a lot of sellers pulled places off the market too. There was very few available places, so it’s not a valid point of comparison.

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I don’t live in or near NYC, and you’d have to define affordable because I’ve been looking all over and I can’t find anything in the 200k range that is anywhere close to available work. Unfortunately I’m not someone who has the luxury to WFH. This market is absolutely killing people like myself that don’t have the WFH option.

        • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          I have no idea where you’re looking, but I just looked at Syracuse (chosen at random). There are tons of places available under $200K. Are you even looking?

          • Coreidan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            2 months ago

            Syracuse NY is a shit hole. The reason prices are cheap there is because people are fleeing and no one wants to live there.

            So basically if you want an affordable house you have to move some where no one wants to live.

          • Asafum@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            I stopped looking about 4 months ago, but when I was looking I was trying to stay within a 4-5 hour range of where my family lives so places like that were too far. Thanks for the suggestion though, if I get that desperate then that’s an area to look into.

  • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Democrats and Republicans both pushing a bill that would make the world a little better?

    Okay, the Republicans will last minute vote all against this

    They won’t let Biden take a win, get your head out of your ass

  • ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yep, in Utah the legislators ARE the investors buying the housing. Guess how “good” the renter protection laws are there.

  • issastrayngewerldkbin@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    2 months ago

    “The Government of Canada has announced a two-year extension to an existing ban on foreign ownership of Canadian housing. The Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act (the Act) was set to expire at the end of 2024, it will now be extended to January 1, 2027.” Between foreign investment on U.S. housing ( who almost always pay cash so are less affected by borrowing costs) and corporate investing firms, the average American Family is pretty much hosed. Allowing unchecked investment practices in housing not only significantly drives up prices, but also property taxes. It also discourages investment in neighborhoods and local culture as investors are not forced or incentivized to maintain their investments (housing) so the houses then fall into disrepair or sit empty. For example, in my neighborhood, the local elementary school is struggling to stay open due to sharply declining enrollment as there are so few families that actually live here. Its full of investment houses that are overpriced and falling apart.

    • mPony@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      The Canadian law would have more teeth if it wasn’t so darn easy to set up a Canadian company to buy houses in the first place (please note: this is not from personal experience, I have not done this personally). The law we need progressively taxes corporate-owned houses to the point of making it unprofitable after they own X houses (pick your own value of X).

      Laws can protect people or they protect corporations. It should be both, but it never really looks like both, does it?

      • Dymonika@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        The law we need progressively taxes corporate-owned houses to the point of making it unprofitable after they own X houses (pick your own value of X).

        That would be awesome!

  • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    That article is light on the details. The most unbiased data I could find is from July 2023. Searching percent of REIT purchased or owned single-family residences yields countless results from non-credible websites.

    As a result, investors still purchased 27 percent of single-family homes in the first quarter of this year. [2023]

    In the fourth quarter of 2022, investors purchased nearly one-third of homes sold in the bottom third by metro area sales price compared to about one-quarter of homes that sold in the top third.

    https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/8-facts-about-investor-activity-single-family-rental-market

    It seems like it’s not the percent of all residences that is causing the constraint, but that REITs are specifically targeting the most affordable homes in metro and suburban areas.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Makes sense, affordable homes so their investment is less, affordable areas so they’re low income and will be dependent on your now rented house, and the markets are rigged thanks to those rent price websites so they’ll charge like 2x or more of what the mortgage price would have been as those are typical rent prices now…

      To steal a George Carlin transition: “and another group of people I’d love to drag into the woods and disembowel with a wooden cooking spoon…”

      Fucking wall street… They’re the reason I have to quit my job and leave the state my whole family lives in…

        • Asafum@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          I don’t want to be too far from family so possibly Connecticut, or if I can somehow find something within my state then possibly “upstate” NY but I can’t seem to find much here that also has decent work opportunities close by. At the moment I’m stuck on super overpriced long Island so I definitely need to leave.

          • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Westchester here. I feel your pain. Thinking about braving the cold in Buffalo. Rent and cost of living is insane by comparison.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      If they want to demolish them but they still have to sell the land, I’m okay with that. Cut up the lot to a sensible size and build a couple of affordable homes with decent yards in the McMansion’s footprint.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah, article is paywalled even when googling the title, so I couldn’t get any info.

      But I can’t imagine both parties are going to unite about something that hurts their donors.

      It’s probably a handful trying to get brownie points with voters before an election even tho they know they won’t ever try to follow thru.