No institutional investors to own single-family homes

#8
#8
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeMojo and volinbham
#9
#9
I question the disapproval here…

1. Makes homes cheaper and easier to buy
Big companies often pay cash and outbid regular families, pushing prices up in some areas. Stopping them means less competition, so home prices could drop a bit and more homes would be available for normal buyers.

2. Helps young people and first-time buyers own a home
Many younger Americans struggle to buy their first house because of high costs. This ban puts families first over corporations, making the “American Dream” of owning a home more possible for them.

3. Adds more homes to the market for sale
When companies can’t buy in bulk, more single-family homes stay available for people to live in. This could help neighborhoods feel more like real communities, not just rental properties.

4. Could lower rents and living costs
Fewer big investors might mean less pressure on rent prices in some places. It could also help renters save money to buy a home later.

5. Shows the government cares about regular people
This idea has support from both political parties. It fights back against big money in housing and focuses on helping families afford a place to live.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL_79
#10
#10
allstar34 said:
I question the disapproval here…

1. Makes homes cheaper and easier to buy
Big companies often pay cash and outbid regular families, pushing prices up in some areas. Stopping them means less competition, so home prices could drop a bit and more homes would be available for normal buyers.

2. Helps young people and first-time buyers own a home
Many younger Americans struggle to buy their first house because of high costs. This ban puts families first over corporations, making the “American Dream” of owning a home more possible for them.

3. Adds more homes to the market for sale
When companies can’t buy in bulk, more single-family homes stay available for people to live in. This could help neighborhoods feel more like real communities, not just rental properties.

4. Could lower rents and living costs
Fewer big investors might mean less pressure on rent prices in some places. It could also help renters save money to buy a home later.

5. Shows the government cares about regular people
This idea has support from both political parties. It fights back against big money in housing and focuses on helping families afford a place to live.
Click to expand...

government deciding who can and who cannot buy homes? what could go wrong?

fun fact, the # of homes owned by these investors has actually gone down over the last 5 year - it won't make a difference but it's one more example of using the government muddle in the market and pick "winners" and "losers"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Good Ol' Charlie Brown, GroverCleveland, volfanhill and 3 others
#12
#12
volinbham said:
can I get a refund on the new system I just put in? if not, then everyone has to suffer what I did
Click to expand...

I just put 3 in the new house. 4 if you want to include the office so I understand the pain.
 
#13
#13
JMSqb11 said:
It’s going to be hilarious watching Liz Warren have to agree with Trump.

And it’s going to be funny seeing conservative eat this ch!t up
Click to expand...

This is definitely something that seems like it should fall into the Democratic party.
 
#14
#14
allstar34 said:
I question the disapproval here…

1. Makes homes cheaper and easier to buy
Big companies often pay cash and outbid regular families, pushing prices up in some areas. Stopping them means less competition, so home prices could drop a bit and more homes would be available for normal buyers.

2. Helps young people and first-time buyers own a home
Many younger Americans struggle to buy their first house because of high costs. This ban puts families first over corporations, making the “American Dream” of owning a home more possible for them.

3. Adds more homes to the market for sale
When companies can’t buy in bulk, more single-family homes stay available for people to live in. This could help neighborhoods feel more like real communities, not just rental properties.

4. Could lower rents and living costs
Fewer big investors might mean less pressure on rent prices in some places. It could also help renters save money to buy a home later.

5. Shows the government cares about regular people
This idea has support from both political parties. It fights back against big money in housing and focuses on helping families afford a place to live.
Click to expand...

It’s easy to object to federal government overreach and this is 100% overreach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Good Ol' Charlie Brown, GroverCleveland, volfanhill and 2 others
#15
#15
allstar34 said:
I question the disapproval here…

1. Makes homes cheaper and easier to buy
Big companies often pay cash and outbid regular families, pushing prices up in some areas. Stopping them means less competition, so home prices could drop a bit and more homes would be available for normal buyers.

2. Helps young people and first-time buyers own a home
Many younger Americans struggle to buy their first house because of high costs. This ban puts families first over corporations, making the “American Dream” of owning a home more possible for them.

3. Adds more homes to the market for sale
When companies can’t buy in bulk, more single-family homes stay available for people to live in. This could help neighborhoods feel more like real communities, not just rental properties.

4. Could lower rents and living costs
Fewer big investors might mean less pressure on rent prices in some places. It could also help renters save money to buy a home later.

5. Shows the government cares about regular people
This idea has support from both political parties. It fights back against big money in housing and focuses on helping families afford a place to live.
Click to expand...

My issue with it is this is like putting a bandaid on bullet wound.

They want to make institutions the boogie men.

It’s government that’s causing the lack of supply.


1767925778667.png
 
#16
#16
allstar34 said:
I question the disapproval here…

1. Makes homes cheaper and easier to buy
Big companies often pay cash and outbid regular families, pushing prices up in some areas. Stopping them means less competition, so home prices could drop a bit and more homes would be available for normal buyers.

2. Helps young people and first-time buyers own a home
Many younger Americans struggle to buy their first house because of high costs. This ban puts families first over corporations, making the “American Dream” of owning a home more possible for them.

3. Adds more homes to the market for sale
When companies can’t buy in bulk, more single-family homes stay available for people to live in. This could help neighborhoods feel more like real communities, not just rental properties.

4. Could lower rents and living costs
Fewer big investors might mean less pressure on rent prices in some places. It could also help renters save money to buy a home later.

5. Shows the government cares about regular people
This idea has support from both political parties. It fights back against big money in housing and focuses on helping families afford a place to live.
Click to expand...

You are agreeing with an Elizabeth Warren proposal so you can slurp the big orange guy...

In short, everything the govt tries to fix only gets worse (medical care, higher ed, housing)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Good Ol' Charlie Brown, GroverCleveland, NorthDallas40 and 1 other person
#18
#18
volbound1700 said:
This is definitely something that seems like it should fall into the Democratic party.
Click to expand...

Pocohontas has been going after institutional housing investors for year. This is a Pocohontas Proposal..

Hilarious watching Trump supporters are slobbering all over themselves to defend a Pocohontas Policy Proposal...
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill
#19
#19
volinbham said:
government deciding who can and who cannot buy homes? what could go wrong?

fun fact, the # of homes owned by these investors has actually gone down over the last 5 year - it won't make a difference but it's one more example of using the government muddle in the market and pick "winners" and "losers"
Click to expand...

I understand, but you see Iran? That’s America in 15 years if we continue to allow Housing to be unaffordable and destroying even minimal chance to survive for the youth. They are cooked.

People think these Ice riots are bad 😂 wait until the people who are middle class are no longer able to make it in this Country.

The worst financial title you can have is Middle Class, you are to wealthy… to receive any help and too poor to have any peace of mind. It’s easy to hate this move when we both have Houses, Savings, and No Fear of losing everything day to day. I’m for this over some welfare handout to people that don’t work.
 
#21
#21
BigOrangeMojo said:
Pocohontas has been going after institutional housing investors for year. This is a Pocohontas Proposal..

Hilarious watching Trump supporters are slobbering all over themselves to defend a Pocohontas Policy Proposal...
Click to expand...
Not a Trump Supporter… I want him to be more radical. He’s a disappointment 60% of the time. He’s done some nice things outside the US; but I want his focus here, in America.
 
#22
#22
allstar34 said:
I question the disapproval here…

1. Makes homes cheaper and easier to buy
Big companies often pay cash and outbid regular families, pushing prices up in some areas. Stopping them means less competition, so home prices could drop a bit and more homes would be available for normal buyers.

2. Helps young people and first-time buyers own a home
Many younger Americans struggle to buy their first house because of high costs. This ban puts families first over corporations, making the “American Dream” of owning a home more possible for them.

3. Adds more homes to the market for sale
When companies can’t buy in bulk, more single-family homes stay available for people to live in. This could help neighborhoods feel more like real communities, not just rental properties.

4. Could lower rents and living costs
Fewer big investors might mean less pressure on rent prices in some places. It could also help renters save money to buy a home later.

5. Shows the government cares about regular people
This idea has support from both political parties. It fights back against big money in housing and focuses on helping families afford a place to live.
Click to expand...
Why not just skip all that work and give everyone a government home?
 
#23
#23
utvolpj said:
Why not just skip all that work and give everyone a government home?
Click to expand...
Says someone that didn’t grow up when an unreliable car would still cost you $15k. When a 1200sqft house wasn’t $325k. When people making $25 dollars an hour could live comfortably. It’s worse today, than ever in history and it’s going to get worse.

The Gov has deflated our dollar so much, to lessen the real cost of the US Debt. Most people have little to no chance of owning anything without living a “House Hacking” lifestyle. Our money isn’t worth anything and the only people who win are the ones that own assets…. Not the youth
 
#24
#24
volinbham said:
government deciding who can and who cannot buy homes? what could go wrong?

fun fact, the # of homes owned by these investors has actually gone down over the last 5 year - it won't make a difference but it's one more example of using the government muddle in the market and pick "winners" and "losers"
Click to expand...
Generally I'm against more fed govt regulation.

But one thing I would be open to further discussion is foreign based companies mass purchasing homes in the US. For example. Yamasa Co Ltd. Why do I know this company? They have purchased multiple homes in my subdivision over the past few years. Then they rent them out. Should a foreign based company in Japan be able to purchase residential homes in the US? They do multiple things but buying US homes in one of them.

山佐グループ

山佐グループのHPです。
www.yamasa.co.jp www.yamasa.co.jp


1767927036151.png
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top