this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
1371 points (99.3% liked)

News

31103 readers
2985 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Coldgoron@lemmy.world 229 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Fucking do it you cowards.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 62 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think you're forgetting about Republicans.

[–] jonne 79 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Or more than half of the democrats that do Wall Street's bidding too.

[–] crypticthree@lemmy.world 43 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Or the courts that would throw the law out as soon as it gets challenged the first time

[–] Coasting0942@reddthat.com 11 points 2 years ago

Or wallstreet for just switching to hiring people to hold the land for them as third party agents.

Impossible before the age of computers, but now it’s just a spreadsheet.

[–] Drusas@kbin.social 147 points 2 years ago (10 children)

And this is the sort of legislation that should be passed by direct referendum, will of the people, and not by representatives who have been bought out by special interest groups. Desperately needed but unlikely to happen.

[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 44 points 2 years ago (7 children)

the country would function so much better if we just sent out ballots to everyone to vote on every bill if they want to

[–] jettrscga@lemmy.world 74 points 2 years ago (5 children)

That's how Brexit happened in the UK.

I agree about not trusting the politicians, but not sure I trust the general public much more unfortunately.

[–] scaredoftrumpwinning@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The founding fathers didn't either that's why they put a buffer in in case there was a nuance not under stood by the general public. The only problem is I don't think they envisioned a party hell bent on the country's destruction.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 58 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I non-sarcastically love your optimism. But part of me really believes that 50% of the country votes however their church tells them to. So I'm not sure it'd be better.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] kpw@kbin.social 17 points 2 years ago

I would be very careful with that. US should try having a more representative government first.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Sabata11792@kbin.social 138 points 2 years ago (36 children)

This will pass at the same time as the healthcare, world peace, and word hunger bills.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 57 points 2 years ago (7 children)

From the article:

With a divided Congress, the bills are unlikely to pass into law this session. But Mr. Smith said legislators needed to start a conversation.

Solid odds this will be a campaign issue, which is a great thing.

[–] Altofaltception@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It will be a campaign issue and then nothing will be done about it. Fingers will be pointed.

[–] Shadywack@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (3 children)

This 1000%. A bunch of bullshit from all sides, all these "ought to's" and a bunch of malarkey will get tossed around. The election will get won by Biden or Trump, and all this will just turn into the same thing it always does.....empty promises and a shit ton of money getting made at the top while we're all fucked.

Real change won't happen by voting for it, it's when billionaires find their heads in baskets staring up at the axe/guillotine/whatever that just cut their fucking heads off. Eat the rich.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (35 replies)
[–] NutWrench@lemmy.ml 79 points 2 years ago (20 children)

Looking at companies like Blackstone, who buy up houses at auction, lightly flip them and put them back on the market as high-priced rentals. THEY'RE the big reason for the lack of affordable housing.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] Mobiuthuselah@lemm.ee 43 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How does this limit a corporation from doing the same thing?

So a hedge fund doesn't do it, but a specific company does the same thing and that's fine. What am I missing?

[–] vitamin 43 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The bill would require hedge funds, defined as corporations, partnerships or real estate investment trusts that manage funds pooled from investors, to sell off all the single-family homes they own over a 10-year period, and eventually prohibit such companies from owning any single-family homes at all.

It does include corporations. For instance the Bezos thing we've been hearing about the past couple days would be covered:

Arrived, a young real estate company backed by Amazon.com Inc. founder Jeff Bezos, has just announced its entry into the single-family rental fund space. Arrived currently operates a fractional real estate investing platform that has attracted nearly half a million retail investors since its launch in 2021. The platform allows these investors to purchase shares of single-family rental properties with as little as $100.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jeff-bezos-backed-real-estate-151102586.html

[–] vitamin 15 points 2 years ago

Just so it's clear, they want to turn our homes into a mini stock market.

This bill won't pass.

We already live in a completely fucked up dystopia, most people just haven't realized it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mojo@lemm.ee 33 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If we actually had a democracy, there would be a total of 0 people against this. It's so incredibly unfavorable to want corporations to buy houses for profit.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wetnoodle@sopuli.xyz 32 points 2 years ago

Inb4 the Republicans vote it down

[–] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 30 points 2 years ago

Please do. I'd love to see more supply.

[–] Talaraine@kbin.social 29 points 2 years ago

Home Ownership and protecting the middle class used to be phrases so often uttered by the Republicans 40 years ago that I yawned.

I'm glad to see someone pick up the gauntlet. Boggles the mind that this hasn't become a huge political issue yet.

[–] StevenWithaPH@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Now what’s the chance of this actually passing?

[–] cryptosporidium140@lemmy.world 42 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Via referendum? I say 80% chance of a majority.

Congress? 5% is generous

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 years ago (3 children)

With a divided Congress, the bills are unlikely to pass into law this session. But Mr. Smith said legislators needed to start a conversation.

:|

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago

why were they ever allowed to do this? why should the system allow you to gamble on houses?

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 22 points 2 years ago

Please make it happen, it's an important first step

[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago

it’s cool they had the idea. hopefully they act on it

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Wall Street is not the problem, a lack of new housing is, according to David Howard, the chief executive of the National Rental Home Council, a trade association. The country needs anywhere from 2 million to 6.5 million units of new housing, according to various estimates.

“Policies really need to be shaped and crafted so that they support the production, investment and development of new housing,” Mr. Howard said. “I think bills that work against that ultimately are just going to perpetuate the challenges we’re already facing.”

While I certainly disagree with this person on some of their specifics, and don't necessarily agree with the "teeth" of this bill (10k per home owned isn't that much in the grand scheme of things, and can just be priced in to an already out-of-control market), seeing a trade organization argue for the actual long-term solution bodes really well for the future of solving the housing crisis.

[–] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (7 children)

That's crazy that they say we need more housing when there are so many empty houses sitting on the market from corporate real estate investing and other house flippers. "Wall Street is not the problem, a lack of new housing is" really sounds like the guy with gasoline and matches in hand saying "it wasn't me" at the scene of an arson fire.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

A lack of housing is very explicitly our problem. Houses that are empty are not unowned.

Until housing is no longer seen as an investment, which can only happen if we are allowed to build sufficient housing, housing will continue to go up in value, and thus more people will invest

Anyone who sees their home as their "nest egg" is part of the problem.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (7 children)

The head of an organization that represents landlords is advocating for building more houses. Now why do you think that is?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The trade organization is arguing for investment into their market rather than regulations that would improve the efficiency of their market. The bill is likely a negative for them, and they want something that would be a positive.

The situation is not caused by a lack of number of houses. It's caused by the lack of efficiency in housing. It's more beneficial to leave units empty than to fill them because there's little penelty (and sometime incentives) to do so. There should be something like a land value tax that pushes for more efficient use of land, not investments that push for less efficient use.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheTimeKnife@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Step in the right direction, hope some version of it gets passed.

[–] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The Republicans won't let it happen.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 1luv8008135@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago

What about private equity?

[–] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 2 years ago
[–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today 15 points 2 years ago

DNC really driving it home what their platform is with actions instead of words, lately.

[–] ohlaph@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

I do like this.

[–] SheeEttin@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Can we expand this to multi-family houses? I don't think we need it for apartment buildings too, but triple-deckers, for example, are not that different.

load more comments
view more: next ›