360
Senate passes bill to lower housing costs and restrict Wall Street from buying homes
(www.nbcnews.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2026
360 points (99.7% liked)
politics
30153 readers
2424 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
if both parties voted for this, I’m curious to hear what the loopholes are for the rich to get richer off of it.
According to the article, (which is very light on details and rambles on about the political implications instead - thanks corporate media) the restrictions are just for single family homes. So this will help stabilize housing prices for people who are already well off, and instead push these equity firms to focus on cheaper housing like apartments, so that the working class can be squeezed even more.
Biggest one seems to be: this does nothing to force companies to divest their current ownership of single family homes.
They can just continue to sit on them indefinitely.
And since each company can own 350 homes, they'll just spin up a new subsidiary that "outsources" property management to the original company and keep buying.
The bill mentions nothing of a 350 limit, where are you pulling that number?
And companies can't buy more single family homes at all. So, no, they couldn't do that. Only way to get more is by building them themselves and not selling - which is not the business model that builders use.
Edit: 350 is the number that could be used to define a large institutional investor, but the number is in aggregate, so spinning up a subsidiary doesn't change the number it would own.
Does the bill mention ownership or beneficial ownership? Because the difference in terms might rule out subsidiaries.
Short version: if congress makes a law and you set up a structure to avoid whatever reporting requirement or income limitation or ownership limitation the law put in, you've only got a few years before you're getting screwed by the feds.
Not a lawyer but I've seen this in titles 18 and 26 a bit too often.
It does mention aggregate, if Gemini Pro is to be trusted.
Thanks. Gemini pro 2 is not to be trusted though.