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.

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

I'm lazy so I asked an llm to analyze the text of the bill. I am Jack's complete lack of surprise:

Short answer: Based on all available full‑text versions of H.R. 6644 (the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act), the bill does not contain any language that prevents institutional investors from using shell companies, LLC chains, or affiliated entities to evade the 350‑home ownership cap. There is no beneficial‑ownership look‑through, no aggregation rule, and no anti‑evasion clause anywhere in the statutory text.

Yeah the non-cynic in me agrees with you, but I shoved him in a box for that comment, and for this one. The thing that doesn't sit well with me is that this bill is coming 6 years after the problem really became an issue. With that and the close proximity of midterms, it just seems like some corporate daddy with enough swing has gotten their fill of single family housing and has decided to let a bill be passed that doesn't affect their current enormous backlog of "investments". There's also a crazy man that lives in my crawlspace that believes that this is all because community credit unions started bidding on homes in low income neighborhoods and selling them back fo people who lived there /have lived in that neghboor hood. He's bad with specifics (radon and rats it from the crawlspace accommodations) but I think it was in Detroit or Chicago?

At anyrate, I would sure love a solid passenger train system that wasn't getting fingerbanged by the elephant hand that is the US freight system.

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.

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.

Perhaps some people want to know what their legislator in particular is saying and that is valuable news to them.

You can verify the text of the bill yourself, but you can't get that quote yourself.

Anything that verifies the claims the senators are making.

The claim they cited from Republicans is just that it pushes back regulations, which is, like... Are you seriously asking for proof of that from a 381-page bill voted on 85–5 by a Republican-majority Senate? Is that some kind of specific, deeply controversial claim that needs interrogating in an article for a general audience? And the claims from Warren and Trump (for which their own agreement itself can be used as evidence) are that it pushes back on corporate ownership of houses:

The legislation would approve a series of funding and grant programs for constructing new homes. It would slash red tape and empower local governments to expedite reviews to build more housing. And a key section titled “Homes Are For People, Not Corporations” would restrict any “large institutional investor” from buying single-family homes.

At which point, you, a functioning, literate adult, can go to the bill's table of contents, find that it's Sec. 1001 (pp. 360–379), and read through it. If you're looking for an in-depth legal analysis: congratulations. That's cool. I hope somebody like LegalEagle makes one for you. Here's a summary of the bill's sections from the US House Financial Services Committee if that helps you at all.

That again doesn't make this article "trash"; it means you're looking for something deeper than what most people are.

Since you're on a whinge: look up Steve Vladek. Personal friend, great legal analyst. If he hasn't written about this yet, it'll be up tomorrow or the next day.

What the fuck kind of response is this? "The news" (at least general audience news outlets like NBC) exists so that people can have a summary-level understanding of current events without having to research everything. This article provides a summary-level understanding of current events. If you want more than that, to actually go in and interrogate the exact text of the bill, what if I told you that legal analyses exist for that?

I don't bitch and moan every time a newspaper article talks about a scientific discovery and doesn't get deep into the weeds of the methodology and shit. That's just how newspapers and news outlets work.