this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2026
382 points (99.7% liked)

politics

30163 readers
2448 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The bipartisan legislation was crafted in both chambers and must now pass the House. It seeks to build more homes and prevent large investors from out-bidding families.

The Senate voted overwhelmingly on Monday to pass a sweeping housing affordability bill aimed at lowering costs, putting Congress on the brink of a rare bipartisan victory in Donald Trump’s second term.

The vote was 85-5.

The legislation, which makes it easier to build homes and slaps limits on Wall Street investors from buying up houses, now goes to the House, which hopes to vote on it in the next few days. Then, it would go to Trump’s desk to be signed into law.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 46 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

Last I heard the limit on ownership was 100 units, but it may not have been very aggressive at avoiding companies from splitting off into 1000 LLCs or other such nonsense.

[–] aramis87@fedia.io 26 points 23 hours ago

That's what I'm guessing, that each LLC is only allowed a certain number of units, or there's a limit on the number of different types of units which will only lead them to re-name each type of unit to something else. It's no longer "single family homes" but "one unit housing with land". Or it limits the amount of "affordable housing" they can buy, but then they just change what's affordable, or only build luxury houses - like everyone wants affordable, economical cars these days, but all you can buy are expensive, gas-guzzling SUVs.

[–] ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 6 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

This does not appear in the HR bill. Corporations are not allowed to purchase any new single family residences (which can have up to 2 units) at all. They're not forced to sell what they currently own, but can't buy up more.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

single family residences [SFRs] (which can have up to 2 units)

so i'm going to admit i have shit understanding of the residential real estate market. kind of like congress, because how many congresspeople worked in residential real estate. so i picture they went and said "hey, let's keep duplexes as SFRs" (i don't know why, probably because they think they have more in common with SFRs that are one unit and less with condos, which kind of makes sense to me.) someone who can afford to go into the bank and ask for a loan with a straight face is probably a better bet to explain the residential real estate market though.

edit: shit, posted and forgot to take all the [oh my gods the government is insane you have to go insane to understand the government] ranting out. edited.

[–] ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

I think a bunch of homes have what's often called a Mother-In-Law suite. Effectively a separated section or the house, or sometimes even a separate building in the same land parcel, where an older relative, or grown up child might live, but with a touch more privacy. Nothing to stop those being rented out, either.

So this would prevent those getting bought up. I believe you can get up to a 4 unit with certain types of government backed home loans.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

yeah, those MiL suites are called ADUs (i think Accessory Dwelling Unit, essentially an Accessory Unit that is also a Dwelling. I'm making up the name for the acronym but i'm sure i've got it) when they're not attached. Laws have gotten a lot less stringent about building those. i'm going to go dream of tiny homes for a bit now.

i used to live in utah and those MiL suites were called "we finished our basement"

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 5 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

How does it affect multi-family housing (e.g. apartment buildings)? And is this considered a problem, or is it only buying SFH that is the issue?

[–] ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 7 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Doesn't. This only refers to 1-2 unit structures.

[–] nanometer1625@thelemmy.club 4 points 20 hours ago (2 children)
[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

hey, so it might help to take a dive into residential zoning law. figure out what you need to do to legally build an ADU without a permit in your locale and you should have figured out enough

[–] ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 3 points 12 hours ago

Not sure why you expected apartments to be covered by a bill addressing home ownership.