As CBS News Atlanta previously reported, more than one in four single-family rental homes in metro Atlanta are owned by large corporate investors — more than 72,000 homes — giving the region one of the highest concentrations of institutional ownership anywhere in the United States.
Housing advocates have argued that those companies can outbid families with cash offers, reducing the number of homes available to first-time buyers while contributing to higher home prices and rents.
Warnock has repeatedly cited those trends in pushing the legislation, saying corporate investors have increasingly treated homes as financial assets instead of places for families to live.
That’s genuinely fantastic news.
The skeptic, pessimistic part of me now wants to know how BlackRock et al will get around this with creative corporate and financial shell games, because I’m absolutely sure they will try to do just that.
They’ll buy up property management companies who will then buy the houses to rent out.
Blackrock splits into redrock, orangerock, yellowrock, etc.
All owned by rainbowrock (a blackrock® company).
Because it’s not a ban on private equity purchasing homes, it’s a limit of 350 going forward. Because as if that limit isn’t absurdly high (it should be more like 3) it’s also unlikely to hold up in court. They should have levied increasing taxes.
Frankly the limit should be 0 for private equity. The only exception should be for mortgage lenders (for obvious reasons) who should also not be ownable by PE or VC.
It should not be legal for corporations to own a residential property outside of the context of a mortgage. Any corporation (here, including banks) owning a residence for the purpose of rental income should be flat out illegal as well.
If it were me, I would have just passed a federal tax on property where whatever the local city, state, and county taxes are, there’s also a federal levy of property taxes of the exact same amount multiplied by the number of properties each taxpaying owner owns - 1.
So if you own one home, you pay no additional taxes.
If you and your spouse own two homes, you pay no additional taxes.
But if you own five 1 million dollar properties as a single person and the property taxes on each of those properties is $5,000, then instead of paying a total of $25,000 in property taxes as a single homeowner, you would pay
$5,000 * 4 * 4 + $5,000, or $85,000/yr.
That $60,000 a year difference for being a multiple homeowner would go into a fund specifically to provide grants and assistance for low-income renters and first-time homebuyers.
This would make it so that owning multiple homes becomes a sign of affluence.
And it would put a steep price curve on going over the limit of even moderately reasonable amounts of homes to own as a person.
Adding one additional $1 million home with a $5,000 property tax annual on it would actually add another $45,000/yr to the taxes that you would pay compared to someone who only owns that single home, and doing it this way, make sure that the scale of increasing taxes that you would pay on home ownership would become exponentially prohibitive.
It would also ensure that at a very reasonable point, no matter how much you charged for rent, for any property you own, once you own more than four, it becomes impossible to actually profit off of multiple home ownership, because very quickly, no renter in the universe would pay what you need to earn in order to cover the taxes off of owning that property.
This is part of my pitch to become president in 2032 when I become eligible.
Oh, slight correction. Add the original taxes to the numbers I generated because the federal taxes are separate from the city, state, and local taxes.
So in the first example, $85,000 plus $25,000 equals $110,000 a year to own five $1 million properties at $5,000 a year property taxes.
And in the second example, $130,000 plus $30,000 equals $160,000 a year to own the sixth one.
A starter home where I live is almost 1 mil. The prices would go down if any real legislation passed but a 1 mil home isn’t the end all be all.
How do you differentiate between private equity and regular corporate ownership though? Because building and operating apartment buildings takes a lot more money than the average individual has.
Yeah, so to me, that sounds like a great argument for public funding of housing. We don’t have to make them like old Soviet-bloc mega apartment complexes (I admit I am fond of some of the exterior aesthetics and building arrangements the Soviets tended to do, but the insides were more or less concrete shoeboxes (“to each according to their needs”, ostensibly, but imo in practice it was often far too minimal, and often not even truly meeting a given family’s needs)). And we don’t need and shouldn’t expect them to be massive profit generators (much like we don’t need and shouldn’t expect mass transit to be a massive profit generator). We could build quite comfortable public housing, pair it with substantially improved public physical and mental healthcare, and not only effectively solve homelessness overnight, but simultaneously make a long-term investment in the viability of American society (including but not limited to birth rates, happiness indices, GDP (more people doing well = more people able to contribute to the pool = gdp go up), education, residential ownership, diminishing crime… we can go on).
Oops, I slipped into “we should be more socialist” mode lol
Oops, I slipped into “we should be more socialist” mode lol
I dunno this plan sounds like it opens up a whole lot more Individual Freedoms ©️™️ 🦅 🇺🇸 for more individual people!. . . As a group demographic comprised of individuals, of course. 😉
(Y’know, for your upcoming campaign. Rooting for you!)
You mean it’s legal for mortgagerock?
Change in the definition of what a single family home is in 3, 2, 1…
If there is no enforcement then why bother to write laws down?
I see an awful lot of non-enforcement of laws that are already on the books.
Yeah, what’s the gaping truck-sized loophole no one’s reporting on yet?
Probably simply that affiliated companies don’t count towards that total number. So they can make an infinite number of subsidiaries as long as they’re individually under 350 properties each.
Apparently PE was already getting out of the market? A how money works video said that they represented ~25% of recent home sales despite having ~7% of homes.
It’s actually not bad, prevents shell games, but still allows them to keep properties they already own and allows up to 350 new properties larger than single family.
A potential hack would be offering loans to businesses to buy 350, and if theyvreally want to push the limits they can try to buy the smaller companies which just so happens to transfer their properties.
An important distinction here is that BlackRock is not a PE firm. They are an asset management company. Now, that’s not to say they’re not in the business of buying up homes, just that they’re not PE. Blackstone is the PE firm which has been buying up single family homes. They’re different companies. Both evil though.
I’ve become so jaded that I’m sitting here thinking, “if this was actually going to work the private equity firms would’ve never let it pass.
My first thought was “what is a private equity firm” really and does the law have provisions for firms that are owned by private equity.
If some numbered corporation in Delaware owns a house and private equity owns a controlling stake in that firm can it still own housing.
What I’m asking is what is the blood quantum of a cooperation.
Thank goodness, this just prevents them from acquiring additional housing.
Be exceptionally cautious of legislation like this, the housing market is becoming a more and more obvious bubble, companies like BlackRock are going to try to twist every legislation like this into a bailout. They’ll want government to take the houses from them, by buying them all “at market rate”, despite the reality that these firms would never be able to offload all those houses into the market without cratering the market rate.
Now make it retroactive.
Under the Constitution, legislation passed by Congress can become law if the president neither signs nor vetoes it within the required 10-day window while Congress remains in session.
I wonder if Trump simply misunderstood the execution of a Pocket Veto when he refused to explicitly sign or veto the law.
Also, a little nervous at the prospect of the SCOTUS deciding to rewrite the rules on the pocket veto. Or whether they’ll just find some other bullshit reason to overturn this law.
Good on Warnock for getting this language through a minefield of a legislature. If there’s a bright spot on the horizon for 2027, its guys like this in high office. But I’m not pinning my hopes given how absurd the deck has been stacked against the working class of late.
ok, so this Bill was passed by a Supermajority (2/3+ majority) in Congress, which means that it doesn’t require the President’s approval to become law. While his signature would be nice and expedient, it’s it’s required. So…
After a prescribed period of time (which has now passed) it becomes law automatically (which has now happened). Yay!
Under normal circumstances, a law in Congress gets passed by a simple majority (51%). That requires the President to sign off (or they can veto). A lack of signature can act as a “pocket veto” during which the Bill will expire and require a new House/Senate vote to resubmit. But that didn’t happen this time.
Trump got handed a slam-dunk Supermajoority-approved Bill that he decided not to sign and hold hostage for his crybaby shitty-diaper election cheating bill. He lost that fight, and this Supermajority-approved housing bill has now been approved anyway. He could have vetoed it, but it just would have gone back to Congress who would have, again, Supermajority voted to approve it, overriding his veto, and embarrassing him further when it passed anyway.
So fuck Trump and his Election Cheating Act, and we get this (weak-ass) bipartisan housing bill anyway.
this Bill was passed by a Supermajority (2/3+ majority) in Congress, which means that it doesn’t require the President’s approval to become law
The President can manually veto it. But with that much support, the legislature would presumably override.
A pocket veto would let the president deny the bill from becoming law by refusing to give the legislature an opportunity to override it. But with Congress in session, that shouldn’t work.
So fuck Trump and his Election Cheating Act
I mean, it looks like he’s finding other ways to cheat. This election will likely go down as one of the gnarliest since Kennedy beat Nixon.
The President can manually veto it. But with that much support, the legislature would presumably override.
yeah, I literally just explained that
A pocket veto would let the president deny the bill from becoming law by refusing to give the legislature an opportunity to override it. But with Congress in session, that shouldn’t work.
I just explained that, too
I mean, it looks like he’s finding other ways to cheat. This election will likely go down as one of the gnarliest since Kennedy beat Nixon.
no argument there, but he’s been been pulling this crap for a decade now. lest your forget Jan 6, 2021. at this point, anyone who doesn’t get this (in the USA) is actively participating as part of the opposition.
he’s been been pulling this crap for a decade now
He’s been trying. I don’t think he’s ever been in such a strong position to outright steal elections. Even Bush Jr didn’t have it this good.
He’s been trying and failing for over a decade now, and he has an entire circus tent full of incompetent ass clowns. Even Bush Junior at least had competent people by his side. Even Bush Junior was capable of winning two consecutive terms. Bush W never tried to overthrow the government.
What on earth makes you think that Trump could ever do better than W? shit, even George W. Bush at least served in the Texas National Guard. (how dare you make me defend that turd). W had it way better because he never earned the amount of disapproval and hate that Trump has earned. No president has ever been hated as much as Trump.
You’ve been drinking too much Kool-Aid, or you are just so young, that you don’t remember being alive when George W. Bush was still president you didn’t live through all of that. But don’t speak as if you’re knowledgeable about the facts, because you’re very obviously are not.
Trump never got anything that someone didn’t give him. Even most of the GOP has turned against him at this point. You haven’t been paying attention.
Stop spreading the lies of the fascists, stop being their tool
Quick! Someone dangle something shiny in front of him before the window closes!
Maybe hold an award ceremony from “FIFÔ. They are award him the FIFÅ Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence. That might distract him long enough…
Why are we still linking to CBS news? Can’t trust that shit.
Alternative to CBS.
I’m out of the loop, what’s wrong with CBS news?
Hoo boi, I’ve got some bad news.
Basically after a bunch of sales and crap, CBS is now also owned by the Ellisons, and also walking fascist self-contradiction Barri Weiss is heading CBS News.
Trump stooges, billionaires, accelerationist, anti-everyone, zionist types. . . And they’re buying up every major media outlet without being stopped. It’s pretty disgusting.
https://www.npr.org/2025/09/12/nx-s1-5537152/cbs-news-ellison-steps-appease-trump
Thanks, I had not heard about it.
Canada needs to do this.
Its interesting the way legislation gets copied around the world - watching the cannabis reform was a great example.
Mamdani might also lead the way in a similar sense I’m hoping.
Hopefully both of these blaze some trails for the majority of us…
Great, now do apartments.
Does this not apply to at least some apartments? And a lot more now that it just became federal law?
The headline says it applies to single family homes.
Homes, not houses. An apartment can be a home.
I was more focused on the “single-family” part. But I have no idea what it really covers. I don’t think apartments are considered single-family homes since there are usually more than one unit.
No, I get that. People hear “single-family” and think that would only apply to a house, when single families often live in single, unit apartments. Just be glad you’ve never been so poor that you had to know about this. But tens of millions of families have never known anything other than this.
This bill is huge and convoluted, and covers rather a lot and a lot of different places
how bout ban them in general, since they are ruining alot of companies.
It’s a long bill, but the details for this ban can be found in Title X almost at the bottom:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/6644/text#d10163e18706-intro-1
Now pair with legislation that says all existing corporate owned properties are taxed at 100% of any revenue derived from ownership of those properties
I’ll note that this is happening as corporate owners are net sellers, not buyers. There are better uses for their money (they think) than holding onto houses now. This is good for the future, and nice in certain areas that were getting choked to death. But… corporate owners only have ~3-9% of the single-family home market (source). Every little bit helps, though we need cities to fix up zoning and increase density. (There’s incentives for them to do that now iirc, so push for density on the ballot this fall!)
They need to be forced to sell en mass and the limit needs to be was lower like 5 not 350
