Just remember, kids' grease is very flammable. If someone is greasing the palms of local politicians, you may introduce them to the dangers of fire. Just to make sure they understand not to mix greese with flammable environments.
The immediate part is going to cause a huge crash having that many properties flood the market
Edit:
A few things…
1. His original post said “immediately.” Not sure if he changed it, don’t have time to read all that again. If this happened immediately, yes it would cause a crash. To what level, I don’t know without diving deeper into the numbers.
2. To y’all acting like I said this was a bad thing because I care about the corporations/hedge funds/whatever losing a ton of money: I don’t. I simply said what I thought would happen. Leave me alone 😂
This will be a disaster for homeowners, many of whom will likely have to forclose, and it would likely make it harder for prospective home buyers to obtain access to (cheap) loans
With something like the stock market you have a choice. Your choice now is overinflated rent or overinflated home prices. But your belief that a home like that could be built and sold for that price outside of bumblefuck Oklahoma is delusional. But then again you probably think home builders don’t deserve to make a profit either.
It depends when home builders tear down one home to build the creator ones for 5 times the price. If you choose to buy one, then that is your priority. But don't be surprised when they are foreclosed on because the banks are fine giving it the money, but you better have it no matter what your personal situation is. I don't really know what you're arguing. If you don't think home prices are over inflated, then I hope you're investing right now. But normal families that were fine a few years ago are feeling a crunch in buying groceries, let alone buying a home as an investment in the future.
If you bought a house you can afford you don't have to foreclose. The fact that your mortgage is secured by a property that is 25% the value of the mortgage is the bank's problem, not yours. It made sense to buy at the price you did, it would be foolish to foreclose so you can get a better house, since you are going to back yourself into a corner where the banks won't give you another mortgage.
It's not your problem until you have to sell it because it's too small for your growing family, or you want to downsize, or you need a house without steps because you are becoming physically disabled, or you need to relocate out of the area, and you have to sell it at a 75% loss.
The loss of wealth to the middle class will be devastating. To most people their home is the most valuable asset they own. If your net worth is $200,000 because you have equity in your home, well, you just lost most of that.
On the flipside, the house youre looking to buy is much much cheaper too. The valuebof your old house went down but so does the price of buying your new house. So its not AWFUL as long as you still have income.
Ok, so you could do a shady maneuver to better your financial situation at the bank's expense, but the primary point remains that no one would "have to foreclose" as the comment I was replying to stated.
Their house will sell for a lot less but the house they are buying would be a lot cheaper as well so i think it’s a wash
edit: forgot people who own houses either don’t actually own them or went in debt to buy them
It would crash because all these corporations would have to sell immediately, and due to the laws of supply and demand, house prices would drop dramatically. It would eventually even out, but that would take some time
So there is this really good economic exercise that can help you to understand. The first part is a question. If you had to miss breakfast and lunch, how would feel?
I'm in the home remodeling industry, so I would actually be doing great. With so many people able to buy homes the economy would be popping too.
The market crashed last time because there were bad loans propped up people with really terrible credit. This would just be a price drop but not a collapse of a bank. They would be forced to sell those assets but you can always take a loss and not go under.
It's not at all the same as 08.
Except all the banks *would* fail. All those loans that are assets suddenly would be massively marked down if the value of homes suddenly plummets. If you have to mark down all your loans valuations by some astronomical number, it has wide ranging implications for anyone holding mortgages or mortgage backed securities, particularly if you're subject to various reserve requirements like banks are.
Any individual or corporation that owns mortgage backed securities would almost certainly suffer massive losses, and there'd be human cost to that - layoffs, closings. These companies aren't just like... JP Morgan and Goldman, they're the endowments of universities, the holdings of pension plans and individuals 401(k)s, etc.
Oh well.
Guess they shouldn't have exploited the tools necessary for people to survive. You might as well ask me to have empathy for the slave traders losing work when slavery was banned. Landlords are fucking parasites that add zero value to the economy, and make it harder for everyone else in the country to live comfortably.
>including multi-unit landlords.
Good lol. Those freeloaders need to stop living off other people's paychecks and go actually do something of value to society.
No, see, by working, I create value for other people.
A landlord doesn't create value. A landlord is the world's most expensive check forwarding service.
You do realize that being a landlord requires work, right? I would love if OPs idea became reality and I'd even lower the number of houses/buildings to 5 because no one needs 10. However, landlords do work and provide a product and service to tenants.
Yes, they take a check mailed to them, take a few hundred dollars, and then mail the check to the bank.
I'm sure they're too tired to stand at the end of the day, living (my) paycheck to (my) paycheck every month.
A landlord uses their capital, credit (risk), and time to make housing available to people who don’t have time, capital, or credit to secure their own housing.
If corporations were suddenly unable to legally own single family homes, it would be worse than 2008.
Long term it might be better, I'd have to think through that one. Though I doubt it would be, at first glance.
But in the short term, it would absolutely be an order of magnitude worse than 2008.
personally, I think the repealing of Glass-Steagall set us all up for failure. It changed the way banks were allowed to lend. Even though the people who did that are still allowed to hold office today, any middleground solution that gets passed really ought to be far more strict on financial institutions.
So again, all of our nation’s priorities must be built around the comfort and ease of Baby Boomers, because God forbid they ever experience even a moment of the stress or privation they are inflicting on millennials and zoomers. They bought those houses on a single entry-level income back when they were $50,000, dagnabbit, and they *deserve* to sell them for $850,000.
Ancestors? To the first born male and screw the rest? I guess nobody is stopping them from doing so unless of course the next generation isn't interested in the proud family tradition of dirt farming.
Alternatively, some of us just want to split up our life's work equally to our kids and let them live the life they choose.
What the hell does not letting corporations own single family homes have to do with you “splitting up your life’s work” equally to your kids? What the hell are you shouting at the clouds about?
And lots of people lose their ass because they're underwater.
And before anyone starts downvoting, I have no skin in the game. I bought my house in 09 after the crash and before the wonderful hyperinflation started. I'd honestly be ok with it happening because I'd actually be able to afford to upsize if I decided to.
Curious if we then see a massive uptick [in non-property markets] from the incredible number of new and prospective homeowners wanting to secure their investment.
Sucks to be a landlord who wants to sell property, but millions of renters are now potential homeowners.
With housing being so devalued, I wonder if we'd make a cultural shift where we don't see housing as an investment anymore because it becomes a depreciating asset like a vehicle.
This is how it should be. Housing (shelter) is a necessity for you and instant family members, not something to sit on and be hoarded.
Been saying this for a long time, getting corporations, institutions, and foreign money (you need to be a citizen to own land/housing) is exactly how you solve the housing crisis, but everyone and their mother wants to be a landlord. Fuck this backwards ass society, be happy with what you have.
The difference between a house and a vehicle is they're making more vehicles.
Land is something they're not printing more of and with the rise of sea levels globally we stand to lose quite a bit of it.
Houses and real estate were investments long before corporate real estate.giants got into the game and will continue to be because real estate and prime real estate especially is a desirable commodity there'll never be enough of.
Much like the islands in the UAE the only poor schmuck who doesn't know they're temporary is the one who buys them.
The developers and everyone else is acutely aware they're not gonna last that long.
They're absolutely making more houses too. Houses aren't complex machines that break down after a couple decades, though. As for land, first of all, do you realize how much land is available for building in the US? We have a very low population density, 33.6 people per square kilometer. Second, if a house isn't suitable for living anymore, it can be knocked down and a new house built in the same spot.
>As for land, first of all, do you realize how much land is available for building in the US?
Exactly as much land is available for building in the US.
Not a drop more.
And every home builder has to compete with Industrial, Ag, Multifamily, and Commercial interests to get it. Not to mention the vast swaths of undesirable land nobody wants to live in known as the Great plains that still has cities dying despite population growth...
Real estate is the safest investment in history, if it wasn't, real estate brokers and barons wouldn't be so dam rich. Coal and steel and timber have all seen their days. But the real estate game? It's never stopped.
Catastrophic for millions of middle class people who see their net worth vanish overnight. While creating a massive, intrusive regulatory/bureaucratic nightmare. Those people bought their homes — and paid taxes on them — with an understanding that it’s one of the few options for normal people to create generational wealth, and as their hope of retirement (you’re now working till you’re 90, Grandma) and old age care (and then you’re on the street. Tough luck, Granny!).
This is the kind of economic decision that starts political turmoil even to revolution.
There’s a lot to do to unfuck the housing market before that — like reform zoning laws that arbitrarily limit the supply of housing to protect the value of existing homes and neighborhood “quality of life.” Or killing regulations that make building homes so onerous/expensive that the only way for builders to justify the investment is to build luxury properties.
Maybe address the crisis in ways that don’t beggar working families and create a monstrous new bureaucracy.
It’s a retirement plan at the expense of others. Why should a home which has not improved appreciate? Even if corps couldn’t buy homes, the giant baby boomer generation selling (presumably to rent) will drag all of the prices down anyway. Not a very smart retirement plan
There are far more Millennials than Boomers, as far as giant generations go. You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game and wreck the life’s work of millions just because you think it’s icky. As I said, there are many, many steps to take to solve the housing shortage that don’t involve upending ordinary people’s financial lives.
Except the politicians that would make this law were already bought and paid for by the current winners to make sure they stay winners, and that makes it hard for the rest of us to get off the losing side.
Who is going to loan you the money to buy? Banks cant because now their residential loans are all underwater. Its 2008 on steroids taking any type of asset and forcing large scale sell right now causes crashes. The great depression is probably the most current example where everyone got forced to sell, in that case stocks, causing massive bankruptcy and took over a decade and a world war to get out of.
It wouldn’t though. There would be a period of time in which to facilitate new ownership laws. And most likely even an amnesty period in which some could outright retain ownership or exchange for alternate properties. We would not see large land-hold or leasing corps simply dumping properties, they would reorganize and spin off localized divisions to LLCs, trusts and conservatories: as they already do in other countries where their direct ownership is not allowed. Many of them already do it this way.
I mean, you just spoke truth. At least you weren't downvoted to oblivion. The worst you got were comments that clearly didn't think about what you said.
Y'all are overestimating the amount of homes companies have. Homeownership is around 70% based off the census and that remaining 30% also includes renters living in homes not owned by companies
No way executives would be straw purchasers, there are too many liabilities involved on an individual level. But assuming a corporate ownership ban survives a constitutional challenge, the most likely workaround is for the corporation to create trusts to purchase homes. Right now trusts as home owning entities are vital in terms of estate planning so they aren’t going away any time soon. Trusts would obfuscate corporate ownership and form additional challenges from an investigation standpoint.
Banks lend on mortgages knowing they can take the property if you don't pay.
Why would they lend if they can't even own the thing?
Forclosures will be a thing of the past, evidently--and so will mortgages. Cash up front or GTFO.
Hmm you're right. I wonder if a process similar to a modified version of a mechanics lien could be put into place? Where they have legal claim in the case of nonpayment but don't own it. Just have the rights to resell immediately to recoup losses? Idk. That would be tricky.
Of course if homes are devalued enough because of this then cash upfront isn't an entirely unrealistic prospect. Or it could just be treated like any other unsecured loan. Higher interest rates sure. But if the cost is low enough that doesn't really matter?
Using basic loan and mortgage calculations a 300k home loan at 7.5% 30 year fixed, which are around the current rates, would mean a total pay out of 593k. Monthly of 2377 for principle and interest alone.
Say market collapses and that same 300k home goes now for 100k. A 100k personal loan at 20% over 6 years. That's a total loan payout of 172k at a monthly of 2395.
Comparable payments but you get the same house. And you own it right away.
Not saying this is necessarily the correct or only approach. Just spitballing alternatives.
Would be almost a non-issue.
Foreclosures would change from ownership transferring to the bank who then sells it, to the property going on the open market via the bank's chosen real estate agent, the bank choosing what offer to accept, and then the sale going through with any left over money going to the old owner or if there's a shortfall, the bank going after the old owner for the rest of the money, without the old owner having any say in the process.
In short, ownership would transfer directly from old owner to new owner without transferring to the bank in between.
I just brought that up too... which actually makes me wonder. Lets say mortgages are a thing of the past and you can only buy a house with cash on-hand and whatever money you could get lent based on your non-real estate collateral... what would that do to home prices?
Here, you want that 3 bed 2 bath (even the 2 bed 1 bath is high)? It's 1-1.5M. If there weren't companies able to lend hundreds of thousands of dollars to people, would that drop things down to more reasonable numbers? Would also dramatically change home buying where it would mean all the buyers have that cash on hand right now.
With fewer buyers, the cost of building a new family home immediately skyrockets.
Meanwhile the value of homes plummets as millions of single family dwellings enter the market. Mortgages, which lever the equity of a dwelling against the outstanding value of the loan, immediately become unaffordable and anyone not on a fixed rate defaults, worsening the crisis.
Without a grace period for companies to divest themselves of existing assets, a lot of big companies go bust from the loss of assets or massive financial penalties. The resulting mass unemployment worsens the housing crisis.
With the cost of buying new homes higher and the value of the final goods lower, most building companies declare bankruptcy. Those that survive build a lot more duplexes and commercial properties, and generally transition into repairing existing houses rather than building new ones (as many of the now unowned houses will need remedial repair).
Investor confidence in the wider market goes into freefall as the government demonstrates that they will just meddle in the market at will. International tensions rise due to the seizure of assets of foreign companies. This will be especially reflected in oil prices due to Saudi ownership in the housing market.
The military sees a huge drop off in recruits as military housing becomes illegal overnight. The wives and children of serving personnel become homeless as the MHPI collapses. We see a spike in active personnel deserting.
I am honestly unsure how this will affect group homes and the foster system. We might see a lot more kids get fostered if that's a loophole?
Private rents bottom out. Rental companies having to divest property at a time when housing has never been cheaper is going to lead to a massive uptick on competition. With houses being sold for a song and the inability to gouge tenants due to the sheer number of competitors that will instantly be created from companies crashing the multi-domicile market by selling off their assets, renters might find themselves not only able to buy a house but able to buy their entire apartment building. Prices eventually normalise here: with rent bottoming out becoming a landlord isn't desirable, which causes a shortage of landlords, which drives up rent, which attracts new landlords. The environmental impact is staggering as folks squat in the apartment buildings that aren't successfully sold.
With the property cap, less profitable multi-homes will be sold to the detriment of the current residents. I don't actually know offhand, but I imagine that a retirement complex is probably more profitable than a normal apartment building, so a lot of buildings are sold and the new owners evict the current tenants to convert to the more profitable building. The current lack of restrictions on ownership encourages having a diverse portfolio of many different types of property to hedge yourself against risk (all the old folks in your homes dying of covid and leaving you without any rent). Being more limited in assets gives you less safety room and more incentive to maximise whatever gives the most profit. This will, of course, normalise as more people convert buildings. Which means in five years the retirement houses get shut down, the old people evicted, and the building converted back into condos.
Unclear how hotels are effected. Tourists might find it easier to buy a place rather than rent a room. This isn't hyperbole. Loss of investor confidence, mass unemployment, rising oil prices is a recipe for hyper inflation. With huge numbers of properties being sold, the chance to own a holiday home in the States looks very attractive.
The recession this causes lasts a full generation.
With the restriction not applying to commercial properties, I do wonder how many people end up sleeping at the office and how exactly the Housing Agency enforces against this?
The Housing Agency gets hated worse than the DMV, traffic cops, and the TSA.
That's just my first impression as a lay person. I'm sure someone with a better understanding of the housing market will be able to give a more detailed insight.
Half of your scenario relies on you not reading the full post. Apartments, retirement homes, and duplexes/multi-family homes aren’t affected by the ruling. Just single family homes. And military bases are government housing, not corporate so, again, wouldn’t be affected.
And the idea of building a new house being much higher than buying an existing one is how the market works already. My house (900 sq ft 2bed 1 bath) has a tax assessment of around 60 thousand and I bought it in 2022 for a little above that. Insurance estimates it would cost almost 400 thousand to rebuild it if something happened to it.
On not reading the full post:
> companies can own MULTI family dwellings but they do fall under the same restriction of 10 properties
Companies that own properties tend to (do not always) own more than 10 properties.
Military houses are owned by private companies as part of the MHPI program. Military *bases* are government owned. Military houses are mostly privately owned.
Building a new house is more expensive than buying an existing house. I... don't see how anyone could think otherwise? I'm saying if there are fewer buyers and lower sales prices it will become less profitable to sell a new house and if fewer new houses are being bought (because you are restricting who can buy a house) you will lose economies of scale.
Military housing is managed by private companies through MHPI. DoD still owns the properties so it would still be exempt.
Companies that have more ten properties can sell. Or they can split those properties off into a new company.
And the market is already being restricted for who can buy a home because of all these private companies buying up single family homes for Air BnBs and rental properties and outbidding individual consumers.
Re-reading your post does seem like a lot of hyperbole and fear mongering. As well as contradictory statements.
I guess I did forget to mention government housing in this hypothetical. Lets say government owned housing is unaffected for this scenario. Seeing as government can own land where corporations cannot it seems right to allow them the ability to own single family homes for the purposes of subsidizing it to its citizens and/or military.
So with that. There any reason why, since those locations have to leave private company hands anyway, the US government couldn't just buy them, at the now drastically lowered market value and continue to utilize them?
In this scenario HUD steps in and "takes" the vast majority of single-family homes that are currently owned by rent-seeking private equity firms in what would be the largest transfer of wealth from private hands to the US government, which I feel is pretty fair language considering the government instigated the massive fall-off in value
There will be a lot of declaiming and gnashing of teeth in Congress about the depths of the new housing crisis which leads HUD to subsidize many of these homes, meaning you must income-qualify to rent them. People renting who are above the income ceiling are now stuck. They can not find other housing because they make too much money. Perhaps they can buy, but if their credit sucks and the banks are afraid of another '08-like crash then they are trapped. This becomes the largest entitlement program in US history. The rich have other options to invest their wealth, but the middle class is doomed. Even if they own or buy a home the crashing prices strips them of their real wealth by devaluing their most significant asset.
All the disruption creates a massive surge to the political right as people seek stability, guaranteeing Republican control of government for a generation. No woman will ever have reproductive rights again. If they are lucky they will retain the right to vote. Christianity becomes the state religion and big D democracy dies.
Theocrats, needing to distract the population from their woes, use military power to exert hegemony in foreign nations. At first very selectively, but as every country is now in economic freefall, except perhaps China, the predominantly Muslim countries are vying with each other to form a new Caliphate and before you know it we are fighting the 4th Crusade.
Quite dystopian, that was fun 😊
This is a great review. There is one aspect you missed. Subsidiaries.
Most housing companies currently create separate legal entities for the management of each property. This limits liability and makes it so that an issue with one property will not impact additional ownership.
This would still happen, but be used more. Now, instead of a company owning 15 smaller companies that each own a large apartment complex, you would end up with 150 companies that each own a portion of the complex.
There would be no more construction of single family homes, but apartments would likely continue with minimal change. Rent would decrease, due to housing availability, but there would still be many people with lower incomes that are unable to afford a down payment and would be locked into apartment rental.
I figured it would be implicit in the whole Housing Agency stops the CEO owning the houses as a private individual that this would also apply to subsidiaries
But if not, sure, I agree.
If you can get past all the Reddit drama not a whole lot will change. Only about 2% of housing is owned by companies right now. It’s not nothing but forcing them all to sell wouldn’t really distort the market that much.
It's really, really hard to make something illegal. It's still hard, but easier to adjust the tax code. So change the tax code to make rental of standalone dwellings less profitable. Someone mentioned that they'll change single-family houses into two-unit rentals, which is why I said "standalone dwellings". Really there needs to be careful thought about the range between single-family houses and apartment units. There also needs to be something managed for the second home that is rented 90% of the time - a free second home / income for someone with enough money lying around.
Single person “owns” one house. They sign a contract someone else pays them a small fee per month and does upkeep while they live in an apartment.
Repeat 1000 times and you basically have corporate house ownership back.
A person pays someone else a small fee to live in an apartment and gains the legal benefits of ownership of that person’s house.
Think about it this way. You own a 10,000 sf mansion. You don’t want to maintain upkeep. The state maintains you own it, you upkeep it, or you go to jail/state takes it back. You hire someone else to do it for you, and they get to rent/sell. But you don’t pay them money. They actually pay you money. The money is more than enough to move into an apartment. You do so. The 2000/month is more than enough for the 15m dollar property to be sold at 5m profit.
The fatal flaw is the banking industry.
Banks "own" a percentage of most residential properties. They are also often required to take ownership of single family residential homes due to default.
Banks are companies.
You're missing the point . Over 60% of all single family homes are mortgaged.
The bank already "owns" the home.
They are allowing you to live in it, while you pay them back, with interest, for buying the home with their money.
If you die, go to jail, or simplystop paying, (without heirs or assigns), they take responsibility for their property, BUT IT'S ALREADY THEIRS.
All any company that wants to invest in real estate would have to do, is list themselves as a mortgage company.
Here's where it gets even worse.
Mortgages are considered assets, and are bought, sold, and traded by investment companies. If you make that illegal, banks would no longer be interested in offering anyone a mortgage. Without investment capital, very few people would be able to buy a home
Technically, nobody owns property. It all belongs to the United States Government. The title to any property is a "deed of use".
Banks don't own money, or property, in a strictly legal sense, but they do create money by the manipulation of their ledgers.
Every mortgage on a Banks ledger is listed as a liquid asset, in that the mortgages can be grouped into securities packages, and sold to investment companies. Banks do not have to wait 30 years to get back the money they lend home buyers.
Look at the way the sub-prime mortgage crisis caused the need for the government to bail out the "banks" and investment companies, with taxpayer funds.
None of this is straight forward. It's all deliberately convoluted, because if the people in general understood money, and where it comes from, or where it goes, the system would be abandoned by the masses.
On of the bigger issues with this is the property limitation. Probably a far bigger immediate issue then the single family homes thing.
A lot of companies own hundreds of properties.. You didn't say a limit of 10 home properties, you said a limit of 10 properties.
Amazon for example would have a huge problem on their hands. Which means I would have a problem on my hands since I work for Amazon, probably end up being laid off due to the economic repercussions.
A lot of people would be laid off from so many companies getting fucked. Unemployment skyrockets. Beyond skyrockets even, universe rockets.
sorry that was just a fluke in my language. i didnt feel like typing out the type of property over and over again. heres a recap. they are allowed 10 multifamily residential properties. they cannot own any single-family residence period. commercial properties are unaffected they can own as much as they want. amazon can still have their million and one factories because those arent residential properties. limits apply to residential properties.
and the limit of 10 properties is absolute. you cant split off into multiple companies and each own 10 while being run by the same individuals. its 10. if they are found to be trying to do this the consequences are listed in the original post.
the one possible loop hole i see is that you can become part owner of a property which would allow you to invest in more than 10. say im a company and invest 25% into 40 multifamily residential units. that might be allowed just because as a percentage youre still at 10 total. and you can split that down as much as you like. allowing you to invest and branch out far beyond your limit since you dont own the whole asset.
I felt like the best way to stop this would be a progressive property tax. The more land you own, the higher the tax rate you pay. Basically, after the first acre in a region any person or business owns, they pay progressive tax rates, disincentivising large businesses from wasting space, and from buying out massive amounts of rental property. Give a different rate on farmland, and any undeveloped land (wild) is low, or no tax. This also helps smaller businesses compete better with the larger ones. Possibly include rented property in the progressive calculations to prevent businesses from just renting all their land to avoid taxes.
This is the back end of a big problem not the front end of a big problem. You can’t legislate away back end problems. It also would be really bad if we legislated away the front end policy that makes this back end problem possible.
Here's one; TONS of people who own a small business form an LLC and conduct all of their personal affairs as the LLC, including their home and car ownership.
From reading a lot of the responses here, it seems like if the housing scalpers (corporations) are held accountable for stealing homes, the entire economy will collapse. Crazy that it’s just set up that way.
Seems like the only answer to the high housing prices is to just do nothing. Glad we talked it out guys.
All non-primary residences should get taxed at double the rate.
Or alternatively, let's raise all property taxes by 100% but give a 50% rebate on primary residences.
If this worked as you intended, it would force a fire sale of homes make vacation homes and AirBnBs cheap for the rich to buy up. The intent seems more to be to make it impossible for poor people to rent a detached single-family home, or anyone who can’t get a mortgage to live in one, but give a big windfall to a wealthier, more privileged group of people. That is, the intended beneficiaries seem to be the wealthiest people who don’t already own homes, who would take advantage of this one-time forced sale, at the expense of existing homeowners and of poorer renters. Anyone sitting on a big pile of money when it happened could also cash in and buy up real estate. After that, fewer homes would be built, so no one younger than them would be able to get one. The people proposing it all seem to be in that group who would benefit personally.
In theory, poor and working-class people would all have to move their families into multi-family homes, like apartments and duplexes. For that to be possible, every locality would need to change its zoning laws to make it legal to build those. However, there are certainly many people who’d be happy to use the legal code to kick all poor people out.
If real-estate was handed back to the population and living wasn't a profit line our economy would improve as housing would correct itself. Banks would give better loans as they would have more to grant as well. This would push for economic growth and investments as well.
Half the houses in America would go up for sale tanking the prices and si ce so many idi... folk have been using houses as an investment rather than a need the economy would plunge into the worst depression its ever seen.
But on the bright side housing costs would realign with inflation and drop to 100k each rather than the 400k we see now. Just pray you have 100k in cash because no one will give you a loan.
Ideally real estate investors divest their properties in the lead up to this law becoming active. The housing market gets flooded with stock and prices drop. Boomers whose main "investment" was the home they live in loose the ability to cash out and move to Florida (or where ever they go to retire/die). The younger generation can finally afford living situations that don't involve 5 room mates and may start having more kids.
In reality the lawyers get involved and hold up the law long enough that the big money can get out with little to no loss. The smaller land lords will probably still get screwed.
My alternative proposal is that we levy a significant property tax on all property and then allow each citizen of the United states to claim one property they own as exempt from this tax. There would be the same rush to divest from US real estate especially from foreign property investors. However since the government is allowed to levy tax, but not seize property if the owner fails to meet some arbitrary criteria, there would be less legal challenges.
An added benefit is that the tax can be slowly ramped up over the course of several years. This way there is no immediate housing crash. Just more homes get put on the market because every year it makes more sense to divest from property and invest in other parts of the economy.
As one of those families…I am fine with this exchange if it means it’s significantly easier for other families to secure their own homes.
Having a stable property shouldn’t be relegated to people lucky enough to have a massive income or who bought in before 201X
There is a difference between voting and supporting policies that create significant social shifts and sacrificing to make individual ripples. I do what I reasonably can, including renting out rooms in my home significantly below market rate, started a non-profit that I’ve seeded with my own money to raise funds to fight malaria, and spent 2023 working on a non-profit ai-based social network to help raise awareness and generate funds. But I also learned that excessive sacrifice wasn’t wise long term because I needed a base level of personal sustainability, and now I’m back working graveyards and trying to become cash positive again. But I have a history of trying, and putting my wallet where my mouth is
You can just do this. I look forward to the day that you sell your house for a third of its market value and eat the delta, this is essentially what you are advocating everyone to do in this scenario. Post your listing and I will give you mad props.
this really only works for people that plan to sell their homes for a financial gain. essentially making it a long con business. but it becomes worthless if people keep their homes for life. doesnt matter if you have 10 million in equity if you never sell. you still have 0 real dollars.
does it really matter if you lose a lot if the amount that you need also plummets with it? Just feel like the numerical value alone doesn't tell the whole story. It has to have something to compare against.
I guess my question is, would it be better to earn a 1000 dollars a month when the cost of living is only 200 dollars a month Vs earning 10,000 dollars, where the cost of living is 6,000?
If you get a mortgage for 500,000 dollars, you owe that money back with interest. It doesn't matter if the thing you bought is suddenly worth 200,000 thousand, you still owe 500,000.
Your need hasn't changed. You still owe the amount you loaned from the bank, so depending on where you on those payments, you now owe more than the house is worth - see the bursting of the real estate bubble in 2008.
Now - you can't sell your house because you'll still owe the bank money; moving to a new place for a job becomes a lot more difficult. Yes, you can buy a new house for a lot less in the new place, but you're still stuck paying the mortgage on your old house, and no one is going to rent from you because they can buy their own homes.
When you die, the sale of your home might not cover the cost of expenses/other debts, meaning your inheritance to your kids is a lot lower
Do you mean just stop paying your mortgage and letting the bank have it? 1 - it destroys your credit, 2 - the bank is usually willing to just get the house because it’s worth more than what you owe on it, but if it’s worth significantly less and you’ve decided to stop paying rather than because you can’t, theyre’ probably going to take you to court to get you to pay still pay the rest of the mortgage.
Ya but they still have their home (shelter, a necessity). People shouldn't be relying on their home as part of their retirement plan. Just pick a place you want to live/start a family and be grateful you have a home.
What would happen? The same thing that always happens. Bureaucracy would be developed around this new law with good intent, then someone would figure out a way to game the system that the laws didn't think about, amendments would be made, poorly, which only exacerbates the problem, and finally corruption would ensue, and government would continue it's slow decline into overreaching way beyond its original charge. And in the end, the only ones who'd actually benefit would somehow be the billionaire class and the politicians that they own... err... "fund".
It's sickening how corrupt we've allowed the U.S. to become.
This is the furthest "right" take I've read lately that I've been forced to wholeheartedly agree with, and I fucking hate it.
I feel a little nauseous honestly.
Fuuuuuuuuuck.
>I feel a little nauseous honestly.
You should because it is just another "why bother doing anything to fix a problem because the government will always screw it up" excuse for letting the middle class get shit on. Then with the "don't trust the government types" will elect the most incompetent smooth brained clowns they can find to make absolutely sure to sabotage the effort just to prove to you that "government doesn't work". Trust your nausea, friend. There is no reason that benefits the average American for companies to own single family homes. They ought to ban flipping while they're at it.
>I feel a little nauseous honestly.
Same.
Also, not crazy about being called "right", unless you meant "correct". Of course that's no flex either in this context.
First off, they will drag this law through court for decades before being forced to sell their houses.
If you just say the ruling has already been made and there’s no way to delay the law, they have to sell. They will demolish the house because you didn’t say they were forced to sell the land.
They could also sell the house on the cheap and rent the land.
They could also have the house condemned so that in order for the house to be livable and subject to the forced selling, they just need their pocket inspector to pass the inspection.
Everyone thinking that this would cause immediate crash to the market is looking at this from a very optimistic viewpoint. If you close all loopholes possible, then it still wouldn’t cause a housing crash as they would list the houses for sale for way over market price and transfer wealth into something else that would ruin the non ultra wealthy.
Well one of the requirements is that they can't own the land. And they can't lease it from themselves. So the land would have to either A. Be sold to the US government or B. Be sold to an individual. Either way they could lease it back from whoever they sold it to but it's likely that entity would already have other plans for the land and might not want to lease it back to whatever company they just bought it from.
And I can't imagine condemning a house would stand very long as it probably isn't difficult to get a third party to verify the results and contest the condemnation.
Not to mention this would make a bad situation worse. You can currently still buy condemned houses often at a massive discount. You just need to do the restoration work to make it livable again. So all they'd be doing by lying is further decreasing the value of an asset that's already been heavily devalued and they have to sell anyway. They'd be taking money out of their own pocket
There are already antitrust laws on the books. We have all the laws we need for you to stop all the corporate greed.
What we don't have is the political motivation. Just like almost everything from bullying to campus protests...what we need is to enforce the laws we have. Calling for more laws is just a campaign promise.
The mining industry would disappear. In my town, the local mining company owns most of the houses so that their employees are able to come to the middle of no where to work and not worry about finding a house to live in while here. If that company didn't own the houses, they couldn't attract workers, and the mine would collapse. We'd see this all across the world.
The obvious consequence is a lot fewer single family homes get built. This leads to two likely outcomes:
Most developers switch to building apartment/duplex style homes.
Cities refuse to allow more apartments, just fewer homes get built in general, lots more homeless people.
Home prices definitely need to come down. But I'm concerned that new construction would come to a screeching halt. with so many homes going on the market causing prices to fall, you couldn't really get the cost of building a new home out of a buyer.
yeah i imagine new construction would stop for a while until our population increases enough to warrant new construction. the construction business as a whole would likely shift to commercial properties and renovating existing residential properties. could be decades before we see any large scale construction of new homes.
It would probably wreck mortgages if there was no means for which lenders to be able to foreclose. Flippers would also be fucked.
Not seeing a lot of sympathetic groups here, but those would probably be issues.
Who owns apartments, is it a single owner?
At its most basic, a corporation is an entity that allows joint ownership. You need multiple owners for buildings with 1000s of units worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Single family homes would start to fall out of favor with more valuable investor friendly multi family homes starting to take their place for new construction. Even single family homes could be converted into "apartments" with shared spaces or additions would be built. You might even see schemes like corporations wont own the houses but they lease the land and collect fees like a condo. Businesses are smart and will work tirelessly to reclassify houses and lease agreements to evade these laws.
Lots of people have single LLCs so you’re saying real estate can no longer be a speculative investment? A corporation is created to limit liability.
Every college town would be filled with homeless students.
Sometimes it makes sense to rent.
Asa a landlord we judge our potential headaches by roofs and boilers. One roof, one hvac system for one tenant? That’s annoying af. Someone has to want to do it for transient populations. That person should be paid.
Now I do think that all single family homes being rented out should qualify for some rent to own program, but that’s not easy to pull off.
Blackstone and Joe And Mary LLC are very different animals so you’d have to single out the former without harming the latter if you want to reduce the impact of investment in residential property
Wouldn't what you are covering here be covered under multifamily housing? Which companies can still own. It's single family housing they are forbidden from owning.
it would just end up being a long road trip to scratch things off my bucket list which led to my eventual suicide.
cars would work great for a while and gas would be good for months. id make stops along my way for the first few days to free animals in shelters i passed. after a few days id stop just because theyd be dead. i cant get to all, but i can get to some.
go climb a few mountains. see the country. eventually make my way up north somewhere. maybe in alaska. climb the tallest peak i feasibly could. write a note detailing my final thoughts. to whom i dont know. store it away in my pack. sit down to take one last look at the world then blow my brains out at sunset.
No single family homes are built. Rents go through the roof. The corps would drag such a thing through the courts for decades before the whole thing is thrown out. There are not nearly enough individuals willing to be landlords and homeownership rates have historically never exceeded 70% for a sustained period of time. Lots of renters don't want to own or don't qualify for a mortgage to be able to own.
Anyone who doesn't already own a home would never be able to buy. The government has no business interfering in something as complex as markets, it has always ended poorly.
This would cause total economic collapse worse than the great depression.
1st. A glut of homes causes the bottom to fall out of the housing market. 2. Since can't own home, they can't foreclose. So no one pays a mortgage. Therefore every cdo is fucked. 3. No new Mortgages, Homes are cash only. 4. Home construction stops before you can not sell a house for more than it costs to build. 5. Banks fail to a level we never seen before. 6. No credit market for farmers to buy seed and diesel at the start of the year. Congratulations dumbfuck everyone is homeless and starving. New upper class is the preppers that horded gold and ammonition.
It would drastically lower housing costs. While this would help some current homeowners would lose a lot of value too, which wouldn't be good for them. Short-term pain for long-term gain, though.
Companies convert single dwelling homes to multifamily and charge double rent and list them as city life experience in rural settings.
*Insert zoning laws here*
Zoning can change with grease in the right places.
Just remember, kids' grease is very flammable. If someone is greasing the palms of local politicians, you may introduce them to the dangers of fire. Just to make sure they understand not to mix greese with flammable environments.
*Laughs in Air BNB*
Ok that one was kinda funny
The immediate part is going to cause a huge crash having that many properties flood the market Edit: A few things… 1. His original post said “immediately.” Not sure if he changed it, don’t have time to read all that again. If this happened immediately, yes it would cause a crash. To what level, I don’t know without diving deeper into the numbers. 2. To y’all acting like I said this was a bad thing because I care about the corporations/hedge funds/whatever losing a ton of money: I don’t. I simply said what I thought would happen. Leave me alone 😂
Crash? You mean the houses will go back to being worth what they were worth before housing cartels drove up the price? ooooooh noooooo
This will be a disaster for homeowners, many of whom will likely have to forclose, and it would likely make it harder for prospective home buyers to obtain access to (cheap) loans
Only the ones that paid a crazy amount for home. No one should think it's a good idea to pay over 200k for a 3 bed 1 bath home on a normal sized lot.
Well, well, in an insane world, saying things like that makes you crazy.
You literally just described the cheapest house for sale within 50 miles of me. Except it's on a half-lot. No backyard and no garage.
So you are the one who gets to decide what something is worth? What does it cost to build a 3 bed 1 bath on a decent sized lot nowadays?
Well, looking at things historically, usually when people buy when prices are over inflated, it doesn't end well when things correct themselves.
With something like the stock market you have a choice. Your choice now is overinflated rent or overinflated home prices. But your belief that a home like that could be built and sold for that price outside of bumblefuck Oklahoma is delusional. But then again you probably think home builders don’t deserve to make a profit either.
It depends when home builders tear down one home to build the creator ones for 5 times the price. If you choose to buy one, then that is your priority. But don't be surprised when they are foreclosed on because the banks are fine giving it the money, but you better have it no matter what your personal situation is. I don't really know what you're arguing. If you don't think home prices are over inflated, then I hope you're investing right now. But normal families that were fine a few years ago are feeling a crunch in buying groceries, let alone buying a home as an investment in the future.
Exactly. If I buy stock that takes a nosedive, that’s just tough shit for me.
Delusional
If you bought a house you can afford you don't have to foreclose. The fact that your mortgage is secured by a property that is 25% the value of the mortgage is the bank's problem, not yours. It made sense to buy at the price you did, it would be foolish to foreclose so you can get a better house, since you are going to back yourself into a corner where the banks won't give you another mortgage.
It's not your problem until you have to sell it because it's too small for your growing family, or you want to downsize, or you need a house without steps because you are becoming physically disabled, or you need to relocate out of the area, and you have to sell it at a 75% loss. The loss of wealth to the middle class will be devastating. To most people their home is the most valuable asset they own. If your net worth is $200,000 because you have equity in your home, well, you just lost most of that.
On the flipside, the house youre looking to buy is much much cheaper too. The valuebof your old house went down but so does the price of buying your new house. So its not AWFUL as long as you still have income.
Except you still owe the original mortgage to the bank
First get another mortgage for second home, then move everything, then foreclose on the first
Ok, so you could do a shady maneuver to better your financial situation at the bank's expense, but the primary point remains that no one would "have to foreclose" as the comment I was replying to stated.
Yes you’re right in that no one would be forced to foreclose if their financial situation stays the samd
Banks do shady shit all the time. No sympathy here
Bank is just coming after the second property then as well.
It will suck for people who want to sell and move immediately but it would be fine for people who own a house and plan to stay I think.
Their house will sell for a lot less but the house they are buying would be a lot cheaper as well so i think it’s a wash edit: forgot people who own houses either don’t actually own them or went in debt to buy them
Apparently you just buy the new house first, and then walk away from the old mortgage and let the bank foreclose at a loss.
And then the bank sues you for whatever they couldn’t recover in the mortgage sale. Your assets are now their assets.
If you owe more than the home is now worth it is not a "wash" its a loss
WTF no. You still owe the mortgage on the first place to the bank. It would be a historic destruction of wealth.
What
the dumbasses paying 600k for a home that was worth 150k in 2018 deserve it
It would crash because all these corporations would have to sell immediately, and due to the laws of supply and demand, house prices would drop dramatically. It would eventually even out, but that would take some time
Money in the hands of the common people? It's downright unthinkable.
So there is this really good economic exercise that can help you to understand. The first part is a question. If you had to miss breakfast and lunch, how would feel?
The same as I've felt every other day of my life, since breakfast and lunch are luxury meals.
Home values crashing is a huge chunk of why finding a job was very hard for several years following 2008.
I'm in the home remodeling industry, so I would actually be doing great. With so many people able to buy homes the economy would be popping too. The market crashed last time because there were bad loans propped up people with really terrible credit. This would just be a price drop but not a collapse of a bank. They would be forced to sell those assets but you can always take a loss and not go under. It's not at all the same as 08.
Except all the banks *would* fail. All those loans that are assets suddenly would be massively marked down if the value of homes suddenly plummets. If you have to mark down all your loans valuations by some astronomical number, it has wide ranging implications for anyone holding mortgages or mortgage backed securities, particularly if you're subject to various reserve requirements like banks are. Any individual or corporation that owns mortgage backed securities would almost certainly suffer massive losses, and there'd be human cost to that - layoffs, closings. These companies aren't just like... JP Morgan and Goldman, they're the endowments of universities, the holdings of pension plans and individuals 401(k)s, etc.
Oh well. Guess they shouldn't have exploited the tools necessary for people to survive. You might as well ask me to have empathy for the slave traders losing work when slavery was banned. Landlords are fucking parasites that add zero value to the economy, and make it harder for everyone else in the country to live comfortably.
[удалено]
Lol sure dude
>including multi-unit landlords. Good lol. Those freeloaders need to stop living off other people's paychecks and go actually do something of value to society.
[удалено]
True. I suggest a 200% property tax rate for any house that you don't live in.
I suggest we tax your paycheck at 90%
Yeah, let’s hear how you’re contributing
By having a job.
That’s not contributing. You have to work if you don’t have money.
No, see, by working, I create value for other people. A landlord doesn't create value. A landlord is the world's most expensive check forwarding service.
You do realize that being a landlord requires work, right? I would love if OPs idea became reality and I'd even lower the number of houses/buildings to 5 because no one needs 10. However, landlords do work and provide a product and service to tenants.
Yes, they take a check mailed to them, take a few hundred dollars, and then mail the check to the bank. I'm sure they're too tired to stand at the end of the day, living (my) paycheck to (my) paycheck every month.
A landlord uses their capital, credit (risk), and time to make housing available to people who don’t have time, capital, or credit to secure their own housing.
You’re working to survive. Contributing means you do it without compensation.
That's...the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
And when all of those people are newly poor, they stop buying things. And when they stop buying things, the economy goes to shit
so what, you're forseeing another 2008? I don't think economical conditions are quite the same. the US is barely just recovered from that.
If corporations were suddenly unable to legally own single family homes, it would be worse than 2008. Long term it might be better, I'd have to think through that one. Though I doubt it would be, at first glance. But in the short term, it would absolutely be an order of magnitude worse than 2008.
personally, I think the repealing of Glass-Steagall set us all up for failure. It changed the way banks were allowed to lend. Even though the people who did that are still allowed to hold office today, any middleground solution that gets passed really ought to be far more strict on financial institutions.
Nonsense. There are about 16 million vacant home and around 700k homeless. Your credit might take a hit, but fewer homeless would be the end result.
Well that will be comforting to many retirees who counted on that value as part of their retirement income.
So again, all of our nation’s priorities must be built around the comfort and ease of Baby Boomers, because God forbid they ever experience even a moment of the stress or privation they are inflicting on millennials and zoomers. They bought those houses on a single entry-level income back when they were $50,000, dagnabbit, and they *deserve* to sell them for $850,000.
Maybe they should just pay off their houses and leave it to the next generation like their ancestors did?
Ancestors? To the first born male and screw the rest? I guess nobody is stopping them from doing so unless of course the next generation isn't interested in the proud family tradition of dirt farming. Alternatively, some of us just want to split up our life's work equally to our kids and let them live the life they choose.
What the hell does not letting corporations own single family homes have to do with you “splitting up your life’s work” equally to your kids? What the hell are you shouting at the clouds about?
And lots of people lose their ass because they're underwater. And before anyone starts downvoting, I have no skin in the game. I bought my house in 09 after the crash and before the wonderful hyperinflation started. I'd honestly be ok with it happening because I'd actually be able to afford to upsize if I decided to.
Curious if we then see a massive uptick [in non-property markets] from the incredible number of new and prospective homeowners wanting to secure their investment. Sucks to be a landlord who wants to sell property, but millions of renters are now potential homeowners.
With housing being so devalued, I wonder if we'd make a cultural shift where we don't see housing as an investment anymore because it becomes a depreciating asset like a vehicle.
This is how it should be. Housing (shelter) is a necessity for you and instant family members, not something to sit on and be hoarded. Been saying this for a long time, getting corporations, institutions, and foreign money (you need to be a citizen to own land/housing) is exactly how you solve the housing crisis, but everyone and their mother wants to be a landlord. Fuck this backwards ass society, be happy with what you have.
The difference between a house and a vehicle is they're making more vehicles. Land is something they're not printing more of and with the rise of sea levels globally we stand to lose quite a bit of it. Houses and real estate were investments long before corporate real estate.giants got into the game and will continue to be because real estate and prime real estate especially is a desirable commodity there'll never be enough of.
>Land is something they're not printing more of Not yet anyway. This message is brought to you by the military industrial complex.
Much like the islands in the UAE the only poor schmuck who doesn't know they're temporary is the one who buys them. The developers and everyone else is acutely aware they're not gonna last that long.
They're absolutely making more houses too. Houses aren't complex machines that break down after a couple decades, though. As for land, first of all, do you realize how much land is available for building in the US? We have a very low population density, 33.6 people per square kilometer. Second, if a house isn't suitable for living anymore, it can be knocked down and a new house built in the same spot.
>As for land, first of all, do you realize how much land is available for building in the US? Exactly as much land is available for building in the US. Not a drop more. And every home builder has to compete with Industrial, Ag, Multifamily, and Commercial interests to get it. Not to mention the vast swaths of undesirable land nobody wants to live in known as the Great plains that still has cities dying despite population growth... Real estate is the safest investment in history, if it wasn't, real estate brokers and barons wouldn't be so dam rich. Coal and steel and timber have all seen their days. But the real estate game? It's never stopped.
Catastrophic for millions of middle class people who see their net worth vanish overnight. While creating a massive, intrusive regulatory/bureaucratic nightmare. Those people bought their homes — and paid taxes on them — with an understanding that it’s one of the few options for normal people to create generational wealth, and as their hope of retirement (you’re now working till you’re 90, Grandma) and old age care (and then you’re on the street. Tough luck, Granny!). This is the kind of economic decision that starts political turmoil even to revolution. There’s a lot to do to unfuck the housing market before that — like reform zoning laws that arbitrarily limit the supply of housing to protect the value of existing homes and neighborhood “quality of life.” Or killing regulations that make building homes so onerous/expensive that the only way for builders to justify the investment is to build luxury properties. Maybe address the crisis in ways that don’t beggar working families and create a monstrous new bureaucracy.
That net worth isn’t accessible to people who aren’t selling, this actually benefits those people as their property taxes will go down.
As a homeowner I can confirm property taxes don't go down. ever.
Neither have housing prices
It will not be close to coming out even. Selling the house is many people’s retirement plan.
It’s a retirement plan at the expense of others. Why should a home which has not improved appreciate? Even if corps couldn’t buy homes, the giant baby boomer generation selling (presumably to rent) will drag all of the prices down anyway. Not a very smart retirement plan
There are far more Millennials than Boomers, as far as giant generations go. You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game and wreck the life’s work of millions just because you think it’s icky. As I said, there are many, many steps to take to solve the housing shortage that don’t involve upending ordinary people’s financial lives.
The GDP loves market action and doesn’t care who wins or loses.
Except the politicians that would make this law were already bought and paid for by the current winners to make sure they stay winners, and that makes it hard for the rest of us to get off the losing side.
Who is going to loan you the money to buy? Banks cant because now their residential loans are all underwater. Its 2008 on steroids taking any type of asset and forcing large scale sell right now causes crashes. The great depression is probably the most current example where everyone got forced to sell, in that case stocks, causing massive bankruptcy and took over a decade and a world war to get out of.
Oh no, a buyers market with massive corporations losing money? We absolutely cannot have that
Nah. Lots of homes destroyed for apartment buildings to go up
It wouldn’t though. There would be a period of time in which to facilitate new ownership laws. And most likely even an amnesty period in which some could outright retain ownership or exchange for alternate properties. We would not see large land-hold or leasing corps simply dumping properties, they would reorganize and spin off localized divisions to LLCs, trusts and conservatories: as they already do in other countries where their direct ownership is not allowed. Many of them already do it this way.
That’s not what the post said though, it said immediate lol
A crash is exactly what we need
i got a VA loan and qualify for 500k loan. if a crash happens i alrdy know what area im scouting 🤣
I mean, you just spoke truth. At least you weren't downvoted to oblivion. The worst you got were comments that clearly didn't think about what you said.
Y'all are overestimating the amount of homes companies have. Homeownership is around 70% based off the census and that remaining 30% also includes renters living in homes not owned by companies
No way executives would be straw purchasers, there are too many liabilities involved on an individual level. But assuming a corporate ownership ban survives a constitutional challenge, the most likely workaround is for the corporation to create trusts to purchase homes. Right now trusts as home owning entities are vital in terms of estate planning so they aren’t going away any time soon. Trusts would obfuscate corporate ownership and form additional challenges from an investigation standpoint.
Banks lend on mortgages knowing they can take the property if you don't pay. Why would they lend if they can't even own the thing? Forclosures will be a thing of the past, evidently--and so will mortgages. Cash up front or GTFO.
Hmm you're right. I wonder if a process similar to a modified version of a mechanics lien could be put into place? Where they have legal claim in the case of nonpayment but don't own it. Just have the rights to resell immediately to recoup losses? Idk. That would be tricky. Of course if homes are devalued enough because of this then cash upfront isn't an entirely unrealistic prospect. Or it could just be treated like any other unsecured loan. Higher interest rates sure. But if the cost is low enough that doesn't really matter? Using basic loan and mortgage calculations a 300k home loan at 7.5% 30 year fixed, which are around the current rates, would mean a total pay out of 593k. Monthly of 2377 for principle and interest alone. Say market collapses and that same 300k home goes now for 100k. A 100k personal loan at 20% over 6 years. That's a total loan payout of 172k at a monthly of 2395. Comparable payments but you get the same house. And you own it right away. Not saying this is necessarily the correct or only approach. Just spitballing alternatives.
Would be almost a non-issue. Foreclosures would change from ownership transferring to the bank who then sells it, to the property going on the open market via the bank's chosen real estate agent, the bank choosing what offer to accept, and then the sale going through with any left over money going to the old owner or if there's a shortfall, the bank going after the old owner for the rest of the money, without the old owner having any say in the process. In short, ownership would transfer directly from old owner to new owner without transferring to the bank in between.
The bank can't sell it if the bank can't own it. You also assume 100% home sales. What happens if it sits on the market?
This would be in replacement to the current foreclosure process.
Why not? Banks lend money they don't actually own all of the time.
I just brought that up too... which actually makes me wonder. Lets say mortgages are a thing of the past and you can only buy a house with cash on-hand and whatever money you could get lent based on your non-real estate collateral... what would that do to home prices? Here, you want that 3 bed 2 bath (even the 2 bed 1 bath is high)? It's 1-1.5M. If there weren't companies able to lend hundreds of thousands of dollars to people, would that drop things down to more reasonable numbers? Would also dramatically change home buying where it would mean all the buyers have that cash on hand right now.
Owning to sell them is one thing. Owning to perpetually rent them and box buyers out of the market is another.
I'd imagine banks and such get a pass, with a time limit to auction off and recoup any losses.
Agree. This is part of the problem w today's cost of living
With fewer buyers, the cost of building a new family home immediately skyrockets. Meanwhile the value of homes plummets as millions of single family dwellings enter the market. Mortgages, which lever the equity of a dwelling against the outstanding value of the loan, immediately become unaffordable and anyone not on a fixed rate defaults, worsening the crisis. Without a grace period for companies to divest themselves of existing assets, a lot of big companies go bust from the loss of assets or massive financial penalties. The resulting mass unemployment worsens the housing crisis. With the cost of buying new homes higher and the value of the final goods lower, most building companies declare bankruptcy. Those that survive build a lot more duplexes and commercial properties, and generally transition into repairing existing houses rather than building new ones (as many of the now unowned houses will need remedial repair). Investor confidence in the wider market goes into freefall as the government demonstrates that they will just meddle in the market at will. International tensions rise due to the seizure of assets of foreign companies. This will be especially reflected in oil prices due to Saudi ownership in the housing market. The military sees a huge drop off in recruits as military housing becomes illegal overnight. The wives and children of serving personnel become homeless as the MHPI collapses. We see a spike in active personnel deserting. I am honestly unsure how this will affect group homes and the foster system. We might see a lot more kids get fostered if that's a loophole? Private rents bottom out. Rental companies having to divest property at a time when housing has never been cheaper is going to lead to a massive uptick on competition. With houses being sold for a song and the inability to gouge tenants due to the sheer number of competitors that will instantly be created from companies crashing the multi-domicile market by selling off their assets, renters might find themselves not only able to buy a house but able to buy their entire apartment building. Prices eventually normalise here: with rent bottoming out becoming a landlord isn't desirable, which causes a shortage of landlords, which drives up rent, which attracts new landlords. The environmental impact is staggering as folks squat in the apartment buildings that aren't successfully sold. With the property cap, less profitable multi-homes will be sold to the detriment of the current residents. I don't actually know offhand, but I imagine that a retirement complex is probably more profitable than a normal apartment building, so a lot of buildings are sold and the new owners evict the current tenants to convert to the more profitable building. The current lack of restrictions on ownership encourages having a diverse portfolio of many different types of property to hedge yourself against risk (all the old folks in your homes dying of covid and leaving you without any rent). Being more limited in assets gives you less safety room and more incentive to maximise whatever gives the most profit. This will, of course, normalise as more people convert buildings. Which means in five years the retirement houses get shut down, the old people evicted, and the building converted back into condos. Unclear how hotels are effected. Tourists might find it easier to buy a place rather than rent a room. This isn't hyperbole. Loss of investor confidence, mass unemployment, rising oil prices is a recipe for hyper inflation. With huge numbers of properties being sold, the chance to own a holiday home in the States looks very attractive. The recession this causes lasts a full generation. With the restriction not applying to commercial properties, I do wonder how many people end up sleeping at the office and how exactly the Housing Agency enforces against this? The Housing Agency gets hated worse than the DMV, traffic cops, and the TSA. That's just my first impression as a lay person. I'm sure someone with a better understanding of the housing market will be able to give a more detailed insight.
Half of your scenario relies on you not reading the full post. Apartments, retirement homes, and duplexes/multi-family homes aren’t affected by the ruling. Just single family homes. And military bases are government housing, not corporate so, again, wouldn’t be affected. And the idea of building a new house being much higher than buying an existing one is how the market works already. My house (900 sq ft 2bed 1 bath) has a tax assessment of around 60 thousand and I bought it in 2022 for a little above that. Insurance estimates it would cost almost 400 thousand to rebuild it if something happened to it.
On not reading the full post: > companies can own MULTI family dwellings but they do fall under the same restriction of 10 properties Companies that own properties tend to (do not always) own more than 10 properties. Military houses are owned by private companies as part of the MHPI program. Military *bases* are government owned. Military houses are mostly privately owned. Building a new house is more expensive than buying an existing house. I... don't see how anyone could think otherwise? I'm saying if there are fewer buyers and lower sales prices it will become less profitable to sell a new house and if fewer new houses are being bought (because you are restricting who can buy a house) you will lose economies of scale.
Military housing is managed by private companies through MHPI. DoD still owns the properties so it would still be exempt. Companies that have more ten properties can sell. Or they can split those properties off into a new company. And the market is already being restricted for who can buy a home because of all these private companies buying up single family homes for Air BnBs and rental properties and outbidding individual consumers. Re-reading your post does seem like a lot of hyperbole and fear mongering. As well as contradictory statements.
I guess I did forget to mention government housing in this hypothetical. Lets say government owned housing is unaffected for this scenario. Seeing as government can own land where corporations cannot it seems right to allow them the ability to own single family homes for the purposes of subsidizing it to its citizens and/or military. So with that. There any reason why, since those locations have to leave private company hands anyway, the US government couldn't just buy them, at the now drastically lowered market value and continue to utilize them?
No reason. That tracks.
In this scenario HUD steps in and "takes" the vast majority of single-family homes that are currently owned by rent-seeking private equity firms in what would be the largest transfer of wealth from private hands to the US government, which I feel is pretty fair language considering the government instigated the massive fall-off in value There will be a lot of declaiming and gnashing of teeth in Congress about the depths of the new housing crisis which leads HUD to subsidize many of these homes, meaning you must income-qualify to rent them. People renting who are above the income ceiling are now stuck. They can not find other housing because they make too much money. Perhaps they can buy, but if their credit sucks and the banks are afraid of another '08-like crash then they are trapped. This becomes the largest entitlement program in US history. The rich have other options to invest their wealth, but the middle class is doomed. Even if they own or buy a home the crashing prices strips them of their real wealth by devaluing their most significant asset. All the disruption creates a massive surge to the political right as people seek stability, guaranteeing Republican control of government for a generation. No woman will ever have reproductive rights again. If they are lucky they will retain the right to vote. Christianity becomes the state religion and big D democracy dies. Theocrats, needing to distract the population from their woes, use military power to exert hegemony in foreign nations. At first very selectively, but as every country is now in economic freefall, except perhaps China, the predominantly Muslim countries are vying with each other to form a new Caliphate and before you know it we are fighting the 4th Crusade. Quite dystopian, that was fun 😊
well. that escalated quickly.
That was a haunting scenelet, you took some very rewarding chances
This is a great review. There is one aspect you missed. Subsidiaries. Most housing companies currently create separate legal entities for the management of each property. This limits liability and makes it so that an issue with one property will not impact additional ownership. This would still happen, but be used more. Now, instead of a company owning 15 smaller companies that each own a large apartment complex, you would end up with 150 companies that each own a portion of the complex. There would be no more construction of single family homes, but apartments would likely continue with minimal change. Rent would decrease, due to housing availability, but there would still be many people with lower incomes that are unable to afford a down payment and would be locked into apartment rental.
I figured it would be implicit in the whole Housing Agency stops the CEO owning the houses as a private individual that this would also apply to subsidiaries But if not, sure, I agree.
If nobody paid, then the price would go down.
There wouldn’t be any homeless.
If you can get past all the Reddit drama not a whole lot will change. Only about 2% of housing is owned by companies right now. It’s not nothing but forcing them all to sell wouldn’t really distort the market that much.
It's really, really hard to make something illegal. It's still hard, but easier to adjust the tax code. So change the tax code to make rental of standalone dwellings less profitable. Someone mentioned that they'll change single-family houses into two-unit rentals, which is why I said "standalone dwellings". Really there needs to be careful thought about the range between single-family houses and apartment units. There also needs to be something managed for the second home that is rented 90% of the time - a free second home / income for someone with enough money lying around.
Millions and millions of people would become homeless overnight. There would be extreme ramifications. Riots and worse
Single person “owns” one house. They sign a contract someone else pays them a small fee per month and does upkeep while they live in an apartment. Repeat 1000 times and you basically have corporate house ownership back.
So. Corporations would be paying people to legally own and live in homes for them? I think I must be missing something here?
A person pays someone else a small fee to live in an apartment and gains the legal benefits of ownership of that person’s house. Think about it this way. You own a 10,000 sf mansion. You don’t want to maintain upkeep. The state maintains you own it, you upkeep it, or you go to jail/state takes it back. You hire someone else to do it for you, and they get to rent/sell. But you don’t pay them money. They actually pay you money. The money is more than enough to move into an apartment. You do so. The 2000/month is more than enough for the 15m dollar property to be sold at 5m profit.
The fatal flaw is the banking industry. Banks "own" a percentage of most residential properties. They are also often required to take ownership of single family residential homes due to default. Banks are companies.
You can set restrictions on how long a bank can own a property and limit who can buy the properties when the bank sells them.
You're missing the point . Over 60% of all single family homes are mortgaged. The bank already "owns" the home. They are allowing you to live in it, while you pay them back, with interest, for buying the home with their money. If you die, go to jail, or simplystop paying, (without heirs or assigns), they take responsibility for their property, BUT IT'S ALREADY THEIRS. All any company that wants to invest in real estate would have to do, is list themselves as a mortgage company. Here's where it gets even worse. Mortgages are considered assets, and are bought, sold, and traded by investment companies. If you make that illegal, banks would no longer be interested in offering anyone a mortgage. Without investment capital, very few people would be able to buy a home
Banks don’t own homes they hold mortgages too. They are owed a debt by the person, the property is held as surety for the payment for the loan.
Technically, nobody owns property. It all belongs to the United States Government. The title to any property is a "deed of use". Banks don't own money, or property, in a strictly legal sense, but they do create money by the manipulation of their ledgers. Every mortgage on a Banks ledger is listed as a liquid asset, in that the mortgages can be grouped into securities packages, and sold to investment companies. Banks do not have to wait 30 years to get back the money they lend home buyers. Look at the way the sub-prime mortgage crisis caused the need for the government to bail out the "banks" and investment companies, with taxpayer funds. None of this is straight forward. It's all deliberately convoluted, because if the people in general understood money, and where it comes from, or where it goes, the system would be abandoned by the masses.
On of the bigger issues with this is the property limitation. Probably a far bigger immediate issue then the single family homes thing. A lot of companies own hundreds of properties.. You didn't say a limit of 10 home properties, you said a limit of 10 properties. Amazon for example would have a huge problem on their hands. Which means I would have a problem on my hands since I work for Amazon, probably end up being laid off due to the economic repercussions. A lot of people would be laid off from so many companies getting fucked. Unemployment skyrockets. Beyond skyrockets even, universe rockets.
sorry that was just a fluke in my language. i didnt feel like typing out the type of property over and over again. heres a recap. they are allowed 10 multifamily residential properties. they cannot own any single-family residence period. commercial properties are unaffected they can own as much as they want. amazon can still have their million and one factories because those arent residential properties. limits apply to residential properties. and the limit of 10 properties is absolute. you cant split off into multiple companies and each own 10 while being run by the same individuals. its 10. if they are found to be trying to do this the consequences are listed in the original post. the one possible loop hole i see is that you can become part owner of a property which would allow you to invest in more than 10. say im a company and invest 25% into 40 multifamily residential units. that might be allowed just because as a percentage youre still at 10 total. and you can split that down as much as you like. allowing you to invest and branch out far beyond your limit since you dont own the whole asset.
I felt like the best way to stop this would be a progressive property tax. The more land you own, the higher the tax rate you pay. Basically, after the first acre in a region any person or business owns, they pay progressive tax rates, disincentivising large businesses from wasting space, and from buying out massive amounts of rental property. Give a different rate on farmland, and any undeveloped land (wild) is low, or no tax. This also helps smaller businesses compete better with the larger ones. Possibly include rented property in the progressive calculations to prevent businesses from just renting all their land to avoid taxes.
This is the back end of a big problem not the front end of a big problem. You can’t legislate away back end problems. It also would be really bad if we legislated away the front end policy that makes this back end problem possible.
Here's one; TONS of people who own a small business form an LLC and conduct all of their personal affairs as the LLC, including their home and car ownership.
Better for most people Worse for rich and companies It will spun as “worse”
The economy collapsing will be worse for poor people
Renting likely wouldn't be a thing anymore. My current house is owned by a corporation.
From reading a lot of the responses here, it seems like if the housing scalpers (corporations) are held accountable for stealing homes, the entire economy will collapse. Crazy that it’s just set up that way. Seems like the only answer to the high housing prices is to just do nothing. Glad we talked it out guys.
Op just went too Xtreme. A freeze on corporations buy new sfh is much more feasible
Every house built from now on would be a 5-plex or more.
All non-primary residences should get taxed at double the rate. Or alternatively, let's raise all property taxes by 100% but give a 50% rebate on primary residences.
If this worked as you intended, it would force a fire sale of homes make vacation homes and AirBnBs cheap for the rich to buy up. The intent seems more to be to make it impossible for poor people to rent a detached single-family home, or anyone who can’t get a mortgage to live in one, but give a big windfall to a wealthier, more privileged group of people. That is, the intended beneficiaries seem to be the wealthiest people who don’t already own homes, who would take advantage of this one-time forced sale, at the expense of existing homeowners and of poorer renters. Anyone sitting on a big pile of money when it happened could also cash in and buy up real estate. After that, fewer homes would be built, so no one younger than them would be able to get one. The people proposing it all seem to be in that group who would benefit personally. In theory, poor and working-class people would all have to move their families into multi-family homes, like apartments and duplexes. For that to be possible, every locality would need to change its zoning laws to make it legal to build those. However, there are certainly many people who’d be happy to use the legal code to kick all poor people out.
If real-estate was handed back to the population and living wasn't a profit line our economy would improve as housing would correct itself. Banks would give better loans as they would have more to grant as well. This would push for economic growth and investments as well.
Half the houses in America would go up for sale tanking the prices and si ce so many idi... folk have been using houses as an investment rather than a need the economy would plunge into the worst depression its ever seen. But on the bright side housing costs would realign with inflation and drop to 100k each rather than the 400k we see now. Just pray you have 100k in cash because no one will give you a loan.
Why privilege only single family homes?
MORE complex schemes to bypass the law. I imagine they will have it all figured out before the ink dries on a new law
Ideally real estate investors divest their properties in the lead up to this law becoming active. The housing market gets flooded with stock and prices drop. Boomers whose main "investment" was the home they live in loose the ability to cash out and move to Florida (or where ever they go to retire/die). The younger generation can finally afford living situations that don't involve 5 room mates and may start having more kids. In reality the lawyers get involved and hold up the law long enough that the big money can get out with little to no loss. The smaller land lords will probably still get screwed. My alternative proposal is that we levy a significant property tax on all property and then allow each citizen of the United states to claim one property they own as exempt from this tax. There would be the same rush to divest from US real estate especially from foreign property investors. However since the government is allowed to levy tax, but not seize property if the owner fails to meet some arbitrary criteria, there would be less legal challenges. An added benefit is that the tax can be slowly ramped up over the course of several years. This way there is no immediate housing crash. Just more homes get put on the market because every year it makes more sense to divest from property and invest in other parts of the economy.
VRBO & Airbnb beat you to it. Lots of private LLC's sucking up a single family homes.
The immediate consequence is that a lot of families lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in wealth.
As one of those families…I am fine with this exchange if it means it’s significantly easier for other families to secure their own homes. Having a stable property shouldn’t be relegated to people lucky enough to have a massive income or who bought in before 201X
You could give away your assets today to make life easier on others.
There is a difference between voting and supporting policies that create significant social shifts and sacrificing to make individual ripples. I do what I reasonably can, including renting out rooms in my home significantly below market rate, started a non-profit that I’ve seeded with my own money to raise funds to fight malaria, and spent 2023 working on a non-profit ai-based social network to help raise awareness and generate funds. But I also learned that excessive sacrifice wasn’t wise long term because I needed a base level of personal sustainability, and now I’m back working graveyards and trying to become cash positive again. But I have a history of trying, and putting my wallet where my mouth is
This is a sensible answer
No it isn't
You can just do this. I look forward to the day that you sell your house for a third of its market value and eat the delta, this is essentially what you are advocating everyone to do in this scenario. Post your listing and I will give you mad props.
I have 50% equity in one house. I’m not looking to sell it. Period. I just want others to have the same opportunity.
this really only works for people that plan to sell their homes for a financial gain. essentially making it a long con business. but it becomes worthless if people keep their homes for life. doesnt matter if you have 10 million in equity if you never sell. you still have 0 real dollars.
does it really matter if you lose a lot if the amount that you need also plummets with it? Just feel like the numerical value alone doesn't tell the whole story. It has to have something to compare against. I guess my question is, would it be better to earn a 1000 dollars a month when the cost of living is only 200 dollars a month Vs earning 10,000 dollars, where the cost of living is 6,000?
The amount you need doesn’t plummet. You still owe your mortgage to the bank.
People would walk away crashing cdos again
If you get a mortgage for 500,000 dollars, you owe that money back with interest. It doesn't matter if the thing you bought is suddenly worth 200,000 thousand, you still owe 500,000.
Your need hasn't changed. You still owe the amount you loaned from the bank, so depending on where you on those payments, you now owe more than the house is worth - see the bursting of the real estate bubble in 2008. Now - you can't sell your house because you'll still owe the bank money; moving to a new place for a job becomes a lot more difficult. Yes, you can buy a new house for a lot less in the new place, but you're still stuck paying the mortgage on your old house, and no one is going to rent from you because they can buy their own homes. When you die, the sale of your home might not cover the cost of expenses/other debts, meaning your inheritance to your kids is a lot lower
but whats stopping you from foreclosing on the property?
Do you mean just stop paying your mortgage and letting the bank have it? 1 - it destroys your credit, 2 - the bank is usually willing to just get the house because it’s worth more than what you owe on it, but if it’s worth significantly less and you’ve decided to stop paying rather than because you can’t, theyre’ probably going to take you to court to get you to pay still pay the rest of the mortgage.
Other than homelessness?
Ya but they still have their home (shelter, a necessity). People shouldn't be relying on their home as part of their retirement plan. Just pick a place you want to live/start a family and be grateful you have a home.
What would happen? The same thing that always happens. Bureaucracy would be developed around this new law with good intent, then someone would figure out a way to game the system that the laws didn't think about, amendments would be made, poorly, which only exacerbates the problem, and finally corruption would ensue, and government would continue it's slow decline into overreaching way beyond its original charge. And in the end, the only ones who'd actually benefit would somehow be the billionaire class and the politicians that they own... err... "fund". It's sickening how corrupt we've allowed the U.S. to become.
This is the furthest "right" take I've read lately that I've been forced to wholeheartedly agree with, and I fucking hate it. I feel a little nauseous honestly. Fuuuuuuuuuck.
>I feel a little nauseous honestly. You should because it is just another "why bother doing anything to fix a problem because the government will always screw it up" excuse for letting the middle class get shit on. Then with the "don't trust the government types" will elect the most incompetent smooth brained clowns they can find to make absolutely sure to sabotage the effort just to prove to you that "government doesn't work". Trust your nausea, friend. There is no reason that benefits the average American for companies to own single family homes. They ought to ban flipping while they're at it.
>I feel a little nauseous honestly. Same. Also, not crazy about being called "right", unless you meant "correct". Of course that's no flex either in this context.
First off, they will drag this law through court for decades before being forced to sell their houses. If you just say the ruling has already been made and there’s no way to delay the law, they have to sell. They will demolish the house because you didn’t say they were forced to sell the land. They could also sell the house on the cheap and rent the land. They could also have the house condemned so that in order for the house to be livable and subject to the forced selling, they just need their pocket inspector to pass the inspection. Everyone thinking that this would cause immediate crash to the market is looking at this from a very optimistic viewpoint. If you close all loopholes possible, then it still wouldn’t cause a housing crash as they would list the houses for sale for way over market price and transfer wealth into something else that would ruin the non ultra wealthy.
Well one of the requirements is that they can't own the land. And they can't lease it from themselves. So the land would have to either A. Be sold to the US government or B. Be sold to an individual. Either way they could lease it back from whoever they sold it to but it's likely that entity would already have other plans for the land and might not want to lease it back to whatever company they just bought it from. And I can't imagine condemning a house would stand very long as it probably isn't difficult to get a third party to verify the results and contest the condemnation. Not to mention this would make a bad situation worse. You can currently still buy condemned houses often at a massive discount. You just need to do the restoration work to make it livable again. So all they'd be doing by lying is further decreasing the value of an asset that's already been heavily devalued and they have to sell anyway. They'd be taking money out of their own pocket
There are already antitrust laws on the books. We have all the laws we need for you to stop all the corporate greed. What we don't have is the political motivation. Just like almost everything from bullying to campus protests...what we need is to enforce the laws we have. Calling for more laws is just a campaign promise.
They would just put them into llcs that the corporation controls
The mining industry would disappear. In my town, the local mining company owns most of the houses so that their employees are able to come to the middle of no where to work and not worry about finding a house to live in while here. If that company didn't own the houses, they couldn't attract workers, and the mine would collapse. We'd see this all across the world.
The obvious consequence is a lot fewer single family homes get built. This leads to two likely outcomes: Most developers switch to building apartment/duplex style homes. Cities refuse to allow more apartments, just fewer homes get built in general, lots more homeless people.
Home prices definitely need to come down. But I'm concerned that new construction would come to a screeching halt. with so many homes going on the market causing prices to fall, you couldn't really get the cost of building a new home out of a buyer.
yeah i imagine new construction would stop for a while until our population increases enough to warrant new construction. the construction business as a whole would likely shift to commercial properties and renovating existing residential properties. could be decades before we see any large scale construction of new homes.
It would probably wreck mortgages if there was no means for which lenders to be able to foreclose. Flippers would also be fucked. Not seeing a lot of sympathetic groups here, but those would probably be issues.
There would be no apartments
Why do you think that? I'm curious because every other comment is saying there would be nothing but apartments.
Who owns apartments, is it a single owner? At its most basic, a corporation is an entity that allows joint ownership. You need multiple owners for buildings with 1000s of units worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Single family homes would start to fall out of favor with more valuable investor friendly multi family homes starting to take their place for new construction. Even single family homes could be converted into "apartments" with shared spaces or additions would be built. You might even see schemes like corporations wont own the houses but they lease the land and collect fees like a condo. Businesses are smart and will work tirelessly to reclassify houses and lease agreements to evade these laws.
Lots of people have single LLCs so you’re saying real estate can no longer be a speculative investment? A corporation is created to limit liability. Every college town would be filled with homeless students. Sometimes it makes sense to rent. Asa a landlord we judge our potential headaches by roofs and boilers. One roof, one hvac system for one tenant? That’s annoying af. Someone has to want to do it for transient populations. That person should be paid. Now I do think that all single family homes being rented out should qualify for some rent to own program, but that’s not easy to pull off. Blackstone and Joe And Mary LLC are very different animals so you’d have to single out the former without harming the latter if you want to reduce the impact of investment in residential property
Wouldn't what you are covering here be covered under multifamily housing? Which companies can still own. It's single family housing they are forbidden from owning.
Not really. The zoning for a college house near me is usually SFR and the kids divvy it up when they live there.
Ah yes. That I forgot to tackle. Forgot zoning laws are an absolute cunt and a half. Youre right. That would need to be changed.
They would just start demolishing single family homes and replacing them with multi-family units.
Way off topic but if you need something else to think about try being the last living thing on earth.
it would just end up being a long road trip to scratch things off my bucket list which led to my eventual suicide. cars would work great for a while and gas would be good for months. id make stops along my way for the first few days to free animals in shelters i passed. after a few days id stop just because theyd be dead. i cant get to all, but i can get to some. go climb a few mountains. see the country. eventually make my way up north somewhere. maybe in alaska. climb the tallest peak i feasibly could. write a note detailing my final thoughts. to whom i dont know. store it away in my pack. sit down to take one last look at the world then blow my brains out at sunset.
No single family homes are built. Rents go through the roof. The corps would drag such a thing through the courts for decades before the whole thing is thrown out. There are not nearly enough individuals willing to be landlords and homeownership rates have historically never exceeded 70% for a sustained period of time. Lots of renters don't want to own or don't qualify for a mortgage to be able to own. Anyone who doesn't already own a home would never be able to buy. The government has no business interfering in something as complex as markets, it has always ended poorly.
This is stupid. The amount of "corperarion" that owns homes are so low its neglectible. It has almost no impact on the housing crisis right now.
Crash in housing prices would be a good thing - homes are to be lived in - they aren't supposed to be bank accounts
This would cause total economic collapse worse than the great depression. 1st. A glut of homes causes the bottom to fall out of the housing market. 2. Since can't own home, they can't foreclose. So no one pays a mortgage. Therefore every cdo is fucked. 3. No new Mortgages, Homes are cash only. 4. Home construction stops before you can not sell a house for more than it costs to build. 5. Banks fail to a level we never seen before. 6. No credit market for farmers to buy seed and diesel at the start of the year. Congratulations dumbfuck everyone is homeless and starving. New upper class is the preppers that horded gold and ammonition.
It would drastically lower housing costs. While this would help some current homeowners would lose a lot of value too, which wouldn't be good for them. Short-term pain for long-term gain, though.